Mr. MONK.

I rise to a point of order. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not competent for my right hon. friend to discuss a subject referred to in a speech from the Throne and in that connection to refer to documents which are to be produced unless those documents are laid upon the table of the House.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I am not discussing any question which is not properly before the House; I am discussing a resolution passed by parliament last session and an attack made upon that resolution by my hon. friend eight days ago to-day.

Mr. MONK.

I would like to have your ruling on the point, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER.

It is the well-known practice that if reference is made to documents, those documents must be produced.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

What reference have I made to documents? I would have much preferred that my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) should not discuss this question until the papers are before the House, but when he chooses to attack the policy of a resolution passed in this House, speaking in the province of Quebec and attempting to arouse prejudice there, I have the right to refer to it here. The speech which he delivered

Mr. MONK.

I do not think that such an imputation should be made by my right hon. friend unless he is prepared to point out what language of mine was designed to arouse prejudice.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I will tell the hon. gentleman at once. The hon. gentleman told the audience which he addressed eight days ago to-day that our project of building a navy would cost annually $20,000,000. I say that that is an appeal to prejudice. If it was not, what was it? My hon. friend will be glad to know, I am sure, when those papers are brought down, that he was altogether astray. My hon. friend will be glad to know that his assertion was not only astray, but was three or four times astray, and I presume that when he sees the papers they will cause him no little surprise. Then, to undeceive the good electors of Jacques Cartier who, since his speech have been unable to sleep

on account of the nightmare which it caused them, he will be glad to tell them that these tall figures are altogether wrong, that they are merely the imaginings, the dreamings, the vapourings, the vagaries of the hon. member whom they have unwisely entrusted with their confidence. But that was not the only thing he said. My hon. friend also said that if we were to build a navy we would be drawn thereby into European wars-. Need I say to my hon. friend that whether we have such a navy or not, we do not lose our right to self-government; that if we do have a navy, that navy will go to no war unless the parliament of Canada, including the hon. gentleman, choose to send it.

My hon. friend also blamed the government for proposing to begin the organization of a naval force. What is the object of that force, what is the occasion? We never had one before, and. why should we have one now? he says. It is true, we never had a naval force before. I remember a time when we had no railways, when we had no public school system But at the present time we have railways and we have school systems. And if now we have to organize a naval force it is because we are growing as a nation; it is the penalty of being a nation that we have to bear. Sir, I know of no nation having a sea coast of its own which has not thought it advisable to have a navy of its own. I know no nation which has a large sea coast but no navy. I speak under correction-there is one, I think Norway, and even that country has some naval defence. But Norway will never tempt the invader; there is nothing in Norway to tempt an invader. But Canada has its coal mines, its gold mines, its wheat fields, and its vast wealth may offer a temptation to the invader; and that is the reason, as was stated last year by the hon. member for North Toronto, that the time has come when we should move on. It was proposed that we should either make a money contribution or that we should do what would organize a naval force of our own. We have proposed to adopt the latter course.

There is one thing, however, on which I can agree with my hon. friend-perhaps he will permit me to agree with him. I am always glad to agree with him when I can do so. He told his electors of Jacques Cartier:

This is a Canadian question, we must view it from a Canadian standpoint primarily.

In this I quite agree with my hon. friend, it is a Canadian question, and we should deal with it as a Canadian question primarily. But there is something more than that. My hon. friend was right in saying this, but he did not go far enough, there is something else. We are Canadians, but we are something else also, we are British subjects. We have to consider this

subject, not only from the standpoint of our status as Canadians, but we have to approach it from the standpoint of our status as British subjects. It is conceivable that the interests of Canada and the interests of the mother country may vary upon some questions. That has happened in the past, and it may happen again. When that happened in the past it was the part of statesmanship to reconcile the conflicting interests, and if they happen to clash again it will be the part of statesmanship to reconcile them again on broad lines. But I am happy to say that, in so far as I can see, at all events-and in this matter I express my own opinion-in the present instance there is no clashing of interests between Canada and the mother country. Whatever is done for Canada will benefit the mother country; whatever is done for the mother country, will benefit Canada. Let me say also to my hon. friend that if we have duties to perform as Canadians, we have also duties to perform as British subjects. If we have rights, privileges, and responsibilities as Canadians, we also have rights, privileges and responsibilities as British subjects. But my hon. friend, in discussing this question, ignored altogether that side of it, he discussed it from the Canadian point of view alone. He should have gone further and should have discussed it from the point of view of our status as British subjects. We have to recognize our duties and responsibilities in that double capacity. When we approached this question and declared to the British authorities, as we did in 1902, that we would relieve them from the necessity of looking after the defences of our coasts which they had hitherto done, we were performing our duty as British subjects, and when we declared that we would undertake that task ourselves and keep it under our control, we were performing our duty as Canadian citizens.

I have to say to my hon. friend that I hold in my hand at the present moment a letter which I received a few days ago from a friend who was a visitor in the city of Rome, wherein is narrated an incident which throws a striking light upon the rights and privileges connected with our British citizenship. My hon. friend knows that there is in the city of Rome a Canadian college built a few years ago by priests of the Society of St. Sulpice of Montreal, and maintained by them for the education of young Roman Catholic students in theology. At the date of my friend's letter, on the 16th of October, the city of Rome, like many other cities in continental Europe, was in the throes of a violent commotion, occasioned by the execution of Professor Ferrer, in Barcelona. Riots were imminent at different points of the city. The Spanish embassy at the Quir-

inal, the Spanish embassy at the Vatican, and the Austrian embassy had to be guarded by strong detachments of the Italian army. Streets and public squares were filled by an infuriated mob swearing vengeance, yelling and hurling threats at convents and religious communities of all descriptions. My friend asked the reverend father superior of the college if he was not apprehensive of danger for the Canadian college. Mark the answer. I commend it especially to my hon. friend from J acques Cartier.

' Non, j'arborerai le drapeau britannique, si nous sommes attaques. Le drapeau britannique est notre talisman ici.'

' No,' said the reverend father superior,

' I will hoist the British flag if we are attacked. The British flag is our talisman here.'

Sir, it is impossible not to be struck by the similitude of events which occurred something like 1900 years ago and which occurred again almost identically in our own day. Nineteen hundred years ago, at the time when the empire of Rome had reached the summit of its power, Paul of Tarsus, in the course of his labours as an apostle of Christ, was attacked by a mob; his life was in imminent peril. He bethought himself of His Roman citizenship; he had only to utter the words ' I am a Roman citizen.' This was his talisman, and at once he was safe from the mob. Now in our days, only'last week, in the city of Rome, once the mistress of the world, whose name alone carried such prestige, a disciple of Paul of Tarsus labouring also in the cause of Christ, is also attacked by a mob. He bethinks himself that he is a British subject. He bethinks himself that he belongs to an empire which, for power, maiesty and prestige can rival the empire of Rome in its palmiest days. And, as his talisman, he unfurls the British flag, the moment the noble colours are spread to the breeze over the famous city the mob is awed, all danger is past. I have to make this remark to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. Wherever there are rights, wherever there are privileges, there are likewise duties and responsibilities and, so long as we enjoy the rights and privileges of British citizenship, so long we must, we shall,'we will assume and accept all the responsibilities that appertain to British citizenship. These are the sentiments with which we should approach this question. I say ' we.' What do I mean? I mean Canadians of all origins, of all races, of all nationalities. I mean Canadians from the east and from the west. I mean Canadians of all the provinces, and above all-Canadians of the province of Quebec who claim the honour of being descended from a race which has Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

always stood foremost in chivalry, in enthusiasm and in idealism.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).

Mr. Speaker, I do intend, notwithstanding the invitation of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), to discuss this naval question on this occasion, but just before I come to that, in view of what the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and the Prime Minister said, and as something in the way of a just appreciation of the late member for Strath-cona (Mr. McIntyre), I wish to pay him one great and substantial tribute in regard to his public conduct last session in this parliament. I raised a question on that occasion as to the capitalization of the Canadian Pacific railway. I thought that a great injustice was being done to the country. I pointed that out, and the hon. member for Strathcona, and the hon. member for Assiniboia supported me in that position. I think I can make the fact clear to the House by reading a very short quotation from a prominent English paper, London ' Truth.' London ' Truth ' is noted for its financial articles, which are always written in the first person. In the issue of the 13th October this appears;

A week ago I referred to the likelihood of an early issue of shares by the Canadian Pacific. The official announcement has been made, Sir Thomas Shaughnessy intimating at the meeting held last week that the company would issue $30,000,000 of new shares to those registered on November 15th in the proportion of one new share for every five held. It is officially stated that the price of issue will be $125. There was a little disappointment in places at the company's departure from its former practice of making new issues at par, but the market was prepared for the board's change of policy in view of the opposition to issue at par lately encountered by the company in the Canadian parliament a matter with which I dealt at the time. It seems to me that the company's action achieves the object not often obtained of pleasing both sides. By issuing the shares at $125, instead of par, the board gains $7,500,000 of capital, and conciliates the Canadian trading community, while it is still able to offer the shareholders a handsome bonus.

The member for Strathcona has put this to his monument-and the people of the Northwest will appreciate it

that a year ago he raised his voice in this country against a capitalization in connection with the Canadian Pacific railway that was against the public interest, he stated his view in this House, he was supported by the hon. member for Assiniboia and myself, and the result is that the Canadian Pacific railway, in spite of itself and its intentions, has to-day $7,500,000 in its treasury for the building of branch lines in the Canadian west if it chooses to so employ that money. If there were more

men from the west who would stand up in this House as that hon. gentleman did on that occasion there would be better treatment for the farmers of the west in regard to the transportation question.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to come to this question of naval defence. While I may not add anything new to the question, or throw any great light upon it, still I do want to get the House down to the actual situation, whatever it may be, in discussing it, especially in view of statements that have been made on recent occasions by members of this House and statements that are now being made in the press by correspondents who, in some way, seemed to think that Canada has no duty to perform in this matter. If I deal for a few minutes with some things that we all know, I intend to deal with them largely for the information of the country, and, I think also, for the information of some hon. gentlemen who are to-day members of this House. While I say this I wish to put in a plea now for the very fullest discussion of this question. There must be freedom of discussion upon this question. Every side must be heard, every province must be heard, every citizen of Canada must be heard on so important a matter. But I do trust, and I* am confident that out of this discussion there will come a policy upon which the whole of the Canadian nation can be united. I believe that when we come to our final action it will be the action of a united nation and assist that desirable result'. I wish to try and make clear what I conceive to be a few of the basic principles of the situation. The first thing I wish to establish-and it reciuires sometimes to be established, although the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition have admitted it to-day-is that Canada is an integral portjon of the British empire. The Prime Minister alluded to it to-day, but - you often hear people discussing this question who seem to evade that issue. One way in which I wish to establish that, and I think I can establish it, is to take this little book, the British North America Act, and see what it says in reference to this subject. In its opening paragraph, or preamble, it says:

Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that, of the United Kingdom. . . .

Be it therefore enacted and declared by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled.

Then the Act follows. What does that mean? It means that to-day this country is

under the British Crown and that the House of Commons of this Dominion of Canada was organized and created by the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. When you read some of these discussions that take place in the country you discover that they evade the whole fact that we are a creation of the parliament of the United Kingdom and that we are under the British Crown. If you go on in the Act for two or three sentences more you will read the following:

Provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the heirs and successors of Her Majesty, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Article 9:

The executive government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

Clause 15 reads as follows:

The commander in chief of the land and naval militia, and of all naval and military forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

Article 17:

There shall be one parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.

Therefore, in this constitutional Act which creates the Dominion of Canada it is most clearly set out that Canada is a part of the British empire, and that this parliament is the creature of the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Let me read the oath that every soldier who joins the Canadian militia takes; and I suppose the same oath will be taken by the members of our naval force now:

I, A B, do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty.

And every member of this parliament takes this oath:

I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Edward.

The royal titles-and now I come to a point which is very significant-the royal titles as used in all our official documents read:

Edward VII, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the seas, King, defender of the faith, Emperor of India.

And to-morrow were a declaration of war made against our King it would be against Edward the Seventh of Great Britain and Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the seas, which of course would include Canada. War against Great Britain means war against Canada. Were the German Emperor to declare war against Great Brit-

ain to-morrow, even before the declaration were made public it might be the policy of , the German empire to have her ships in front of Halifax and on the way up the St. Lawrence to Quebec, just as the Japanese fleet has destroyed the Russian fleet before any overt declaration of war was made. Canada is an integral part of the British empire, Canada belongs to the King of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the seas. Canada is subject to any attack that England herself may be subject to, and the people of this country should understand that,they are of the empire, that they are with it; that they are exposed to the same hostility as any other part of the empire may be subject to, and that it is their duty to be prepared to defend that empire and in defending it to defend ourselves. But there is still more striking language in a document which is not set out in any of the statutes but which was prepared by a committee of this House some years ago and the form of which w'as agreed to with unanimity. The people of this country do not know so much of that document as we who are members of this House because it is the form of prayer used daily at the opening of our proceedings here and it contains the political and religious creed of the great bulk of our people. There are two or three petitions in it that I wish to bring before the House and before the people of the country and I read them with the utmost reverence. The prayer reads:

Most lieartly we beseech Thee with Thy favour to behold Ilis Most Gracious Majesty King Edward, and so replenish him with the grace of Thy Holy spirit ths; he may always incline to Thy will and walk in Thy way, endue him plenteously with heavenly gifts; grant him in health and wealth long to live; strengthen him that he may vanquish and overcome all his enemies;

Most gracious God we humbly beseech Thee as for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and His Majesty's other Dominions in general so especially for this Dominion that Thou would'st be pleased to direct and prosper, to the advancement of Thy glory, the safety, honour, and welfare of Our Sovereign and his Dominions.

So in this daily prayer this House recognizes that Canada is a part of the empire; we pray for its prosperity; we pray that peace may prevail in it, and that His Gracious Majesty Ishoujd vanquish and overcome his enemies. And, not withstanding that, there are men writing in the press of this country who say that in some way Canada can be of the British empire and yet not recognize the responsibilities that are set out in the oath of office in the British North America Act and in other official documents. It surprises me that any one who professes to be a Canadian can say that Canadians are not responsible for the defence of the empire. And what is Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.

there about the British empire that in. terests us? First of all the British North America Act confers upon us the British system of government as the system which is best suited to us, and which we believe is best suited for government generally. It is better than the autocratic system of Germany, it is superior to the system of the United States; and as England is the mother of free parliaments, and' as we are the beneficiaries of this grand system of government, why should we not defend it? But more than that, the British empire stands to-day the hope of humanity and the greatest factor in the progress of thj world that history has ever known. The British empire is to-day the hope of the oppressed people of all continents; it is the hope of the struggling people in Europe, in South America, in all countries on the globe where the aspirations of the people are for higher things. The greatest calamity that could befall the world-worse than the decay of the Roman empire, which fell because it probably deserved it-would be that the British system of government should be in any way confined in its scope for good and its mission to promote the welfare of the human race. Another thing, under the British system has developed that blessing of freedom to express public opinion which really governs the world to-day and which flourishes throughout the British empire as in no other. We as Canadians, in our own interest, and in the interest of-humanity as well, are bound to recognize our duty as subjects of the empire and to assume our responsibilities, whatever they may be, for its defence.

Now, Sir, in view of the fact that the mother country has called our attention to the state of her defences and of our own, we are just now at the parting of the way3. We must choose whether we are to be of the British empire or not. There may be four courses open to us, but there are only two of any great concern. In the first place, we may say that Canada shall remain one of the partnership of free selfgoverning British states working together for common purpose and mutual defence. I believe that is what we will say. Or we may cut ourselves adrift and become a separate nation and pursue our own policy irrespective of all external conditions. Or we may sink our individuality and become a portion of the United States. Or, as a fourth possibility, we may remain within the empire while refusing co-operation, which to me is unthinkable because unpatriotic and repulsive to the people of this country. We must do one of two things; we are at the parting of the ways, and we have before us only the choice of Heracles, to choose the course that is with virtue, with honour, and with duty, or the contrary. Our choice must be whether we are to be with the empire or to separate from

the empire. There are people in this country who support both of these ideals, and neither is repulsive to any one, as they are on the line of progress. Some day this country may drift into complete independence, which would not be contrary to the rights of the people; hut as long as this country is a part of the empire, and as long as that relation is what is set out in ' all these constitutional documents, and as long as we swear these oaths of fealty and loyalty and devotion to the crown of Great Britain, we must choose one of two courses, eilher to be of the empire or to be not of the empire. Then, if we choose to be of the empire, we must assume our responsibilities, and assume them in a generous way. There are certain incongruities that attend on a declaration of this kind. Some of them have been stated in the press and in debate in the country, and there is something to be said for them. One of these incongruities is this, that if the mother country chose to pursue a policy that brought her into wars or made her less competent to defend herself, we might be dragged into wars due to the neglect or the bad judgment of the mother country. The very German scare of the present time is based on the fact that England, by pursuing a certain fiscal policy, has given her markets to Germany and her work to the work-people of Germany. While the British people are told that it is cheap bread they want, it is really work that they want, and they would have that work and that bread if England changed her fiscal policy. I w'ish to say, as a citizen of this country and a member of this House, that inasmuch as Great Britain has intimated to us that she desires our assistance, I claim the right to discuss and criticise the present policy of the British government. My sympathy is entirely with the present government in their desire to bring about social reform, which is badly needed in Great Britain; but there is also needed a substantial tariff reform in the direction of keeping the British market for the British people and keeping the work of England for the working people of England instead of sending it abroad; and the one man that England and the empire needs to-day is the man who has force enough to tell the British people that their duty is to go on both in the work of social reform and in the work of tariff reform, and that with these two things they will get right at home that revenue which will make them strong and competent to resist any invasion that might threaten.

In view of the propositions which I have laid down, it is the duty of Canada to-day to come to the assistance of the empire; because this day of freedom which dawns so slowly and which we all speak so well of may be suddenly eclipsed, and the day

of conscript nations, the day of feudalism, the dajr of warlordism may be revived, and humanity and human progress may be thrown back for centuries. In the face of these things it is our duty to find out what our responsibilities are and to live up to them. England has given free parliaments and free institutions to the world. Our system is modelled on the British system and we are proud of it; and if we intend to work it out to better results, we must assume our responsibilities. The imperishable glory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is the monument she has erected on this North American continent, and in that I include with Canada the great republic to the south of us. That is a monument unequalled in the history of the wotM. The most wonderful democracy this world has ever seen is on this North American continent, and it is the creation of the people of England. The English people having erected such a monument, can any man say, even a citizen of the United States, much less a Canadian citizen, that he would for one moment fail in his duty to uphold that monument and maintain that democracy? Those who would attack the British empire would attack that democracy of this continent of America if they could, and dominate it with warlordism and feudalism. So that the issue at stake is not a small one, but a vital one-the greatest issue that has ever come before the Canadian people. We are at the parting of the ways; we must choose one thing or another, and I know that we will choose a policy which will be a policy of honour and will be in support of the mother country; and when this nation, a3 a united nation, works out that policy and settles what it will be, it will receive the support of every province of Canada, notably that of the province of Quebec.

Now, I want to come to the question ot what our policy should be. Should it be one of building a navy or should it be a contribution to the old country in helping it to carry on its navy. It could possibly be both. If war should break out to-morrow, our policy would have to be the first, and we should give a generous grant, because we could not possibly, in that event, hope to build a navy in time to help the empire in its day of stress. I recall now a proposition to establish shipyards in this country. Some years ago I happened to say on the floor of this House-I do not know that I got a great deal of support-that what Canada required to do in the development of a national policy was to establish a great naval industry in the maritime provinces, and in the basin of the St. Lawrence, and that we could not start too soon. Canada is growing into one of the great commercial naval countries of the world. It lies between the two great continents of Asia and Europe, so that all the traffic be-

tween these countries must pass through it. Therefore, Canada is bound to have a great mercantile marine. An evidence of that is the way in which our great railway companies are developing mercantile marines. The Canadian Pacific railway has become the owner of an enormous fleet, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern propose to go into the same business, we have the Allan steamship line and other great lines which centre in the old country and we shall require an immense Canadian marine on the Pacific. This will involve an enormous amount of shipbuilding in this country. There are to-day enough ships required foT the trade of this Dominion to occupy a half dozen shipyards. Let us establish these in the basin of the St. Lawrence, in the maritime provinces and British Columbia as well. On that ground alone we should have these great shipbuilding yards in this country. There is only one way in which to get them quickly, and that is to offer inducements to the great firms of England, Ireland and Scotland to come over and establish shipyards for the building of a British Canadian mercantile marine. They could then be used for the building of Canadian ships of war should that be required. I am not afraid to assume the responsibility of creating a Canadian navy for the defence of Canada or for the assistance of the empire, or even of giving a contribution to aid the empire should the day of peril come. No Canadian will object to that. We hear it said that if we give a contribution we should control the distribution of it. I do not quite agree in that doctrine. We are free to give it if we choose. We are free to give the mother country $10,000,000 or $20,000,000 forthwith for the maintenance of the integrity of the empire and are thereby not departing from the principle of controlling our own expenditure. In hundreds of ways we give grants of money, the expenditure of which we never control. That is altogether different from our paying taxes and having no control over the expenditure of these taxes. When w*e imposed taxes on our own people, the people have control over the expenditure through their representation in parliament. But if a tax should be imposed on us by a British parliament-which it is perfectly free to do-we should be justmed in refusing to pay unless we had our say in the disposal of the money. But theTe is nothing unpatriotic or unconstitutional or humiliating to Canadians if they choose to give a substantial contribution to the British parliament for the purpose of defending the empire. That might be the quickest and easiest way to settle the difficulty, and it might make any nation, who might contemplate an attack on the British empire, think twice before doing so. To my mind, and I think I express the opinion of the Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.

bulk of Canadian people, there would be nothing wrong in this government giving immediately a grant of money to

help the mother country and in establishing a navy, if necessary. But the fundamental requisite of a navy is that it must be efficient and removed absolutely from politics in so far as

that can be done. I Efficiency in their navy is the one thing which the people of the empire think they have. There have been scandals in that navy, but these have been removed, and the finest service in Eng. land, in fact in the world to-day is the British navy.

On my own behalf and on behalf of the people I represent, and I think largely on behalf of the people of Canada, I am prepared to say that we are British as well as Canadians. We are part of the British empire and are prepared to assume all our responsibilities as such, whatever they may be, for the purpose of maintaining the integrity and the honour of the empire and the integrity and honour of the Canadian people.

Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).

There are one or two points on which I wish to say a few words in connection with the address in reply to the speech from the Throne. There is one omission-an omission which I did not look for especially this year. Neither in 'the speech from the Throne or the address in reply is there any allusion to the bountiful crops with which we have been favoured. Up to the present the government has rather prided itself on being in a sort of partnership- silent though it may be-with Providence, and on previous occasions they have acknowledged that partnership and been rather proud of it. What has happened iii the meantime I do not know,, but I do know that in this particular year, if you take quantity, quality and value, there has been a record crop throughout the Dominion and certainly there never was a year in which bounteous crops and good prices were so essential to the prosperity of the country. But strange to say, the government-for what reason I do not know-have omitted any mention of that fact and have tried to produce the impression that it is all owing to a prospective Hudson Bay railway, a present and much enduring Grand Trunk Pacific railway, immigration and other things, combined with that virtue which is always present with the government and for which my hon. friend took credit to himself this afternoon; these have been the causes, and these alone, which have produced this great prosperity of the country according to the right hon. gentleman. Let us ask ourselves what the prosperity of this country would have been if, instead of having a bounteous crop

of good quality and with good prices ruling, we had had a very poor or indifferent crop? Why is it that my right hon. friend has thrown Providence overboard and now, takes all the credit to himself and his government for the prosperity of the present year? Hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken have talked-very guardedly I must say-of the finances of the country. They have referred to the fact that the times of depression seem to have passed and that the revenue seems to be increasing. And they have also dwelt-though lightly-upon the fact that there was a surplus for the year, of, I think, a million dollars. Now, we have a piece of business machinery of great extent, 'of immense cost and of diversified powers, to wit the Intercolonial railway. When I look at the accounts of the Minister of Railways, I find that in the year 1908 there was a deficit in the operation of the Intercolonial railway of a little over $800,000. And I find that, in order to have no more of a deficit, some $3,800,000 of money borrowed in the market or taken from the taxpayers has been expended on the Intercolonial railway and charged to capital account. Now I call the special attention of the Minister of Finance to this because it illustrates the vicious system of book-keeping under which he gets surpluses from current revenue-even though small surpluses. At the end of the last' fiscal year, the Intercolonial had sixty express and baggage cars, 140 refrigerator cars, 7,096 box cars, 1,199 hoppers, 414 locomotives and other kinds of rolling stock amounting in all to 12,539. An almost infinitesimal appropriation has been made for the purchase of new cars out of revenue account, the vast majority of the purchases of cars having been charged to capual. The life of a car is given by some authorities as ten years, while some say fifteen and others try to stretch it out to twenty. Take whichever you please. According to the canons of railway administration, and according to ail honest methods of railway book-keeping, the current wear should be paid for out of current account. But instead of ten or fifteen per cent of this immense number of cars having been replaced out of current account, no less than 619 have been replaced out of capital with a very small number indeed replaced out of current account. For instance, there were 414 locomotives at the end of the fiscal year 1908. Not a single locomotive bought last year was charged to current account, while twenty-nine have been bought out of borrowed money and charged to capital. Only an infinitesimal amount of the whole replacement has been charged to current account.

Now, Sir, I say that a charge of $1,300,000 to capital account for rolling stock for the Intercolonial last year is a charge that ought not to have been made, but the current year's wear should have been replaced out of current account. That it was not so replaced is an illustration of the way in which surpluses are made for the Minister of Finance and of the tremendous evils which are allowed by the Minister of Railways. In thirteen years during which these gentlemen, business men they have called themselves, have been running a railway, a proposition that we are all familiar with, they have had deficits, acknowledged by in that time of $3,500,000 net, besides they have spent a little over $2,500,000 a year on capital account for the railway. And this period of thirteen years, be it noted, is the prime period of Canada's growth, development and business enlargement. Suppose that the directors of any other railway of equal size in this Dominion or anywhere else, after thirteen years during which railways generally were prosperous, had to acknowledge to their shareholders that they had made a deficit within that time of $3,500,000 net, besides spending $33,000,000 of borrowed capital in an attempt to bridge the chasm between expenditures and earnings, what would those shareholders think? And what should the Dominion of Canada think of men who make such a record in running a railway, which, if run on business principles, would pay every dollar of its expense and yield a profit for every mile of its operation? In the past thirteen years every great railway system in the world almost has added to its dividends, and many of them have added largely. And this so-called business government, in its management of the Intercolonial, has suc-ceded in running up a bill agai.ist the people od $3,000,000 of borrowed capital besides mulcting them in a deficit of $3,500,000. What is the reason' The right hon. gentleman gave the reason hi Toronto many years ago. He says it is not because the ministers are to blame, it is the vicious system which prevails in the administration. Why, in thirteen years, has my right hon. friend not changed the vicious system? Is it because he does not believe in changing vicious systems? Is it because from his knowledge of humanity he thinks there is some gain on the other side by having the vicious system, some gain in power or otherwise? But whatever it may be, it stands, not to the credit, but to the discredit of this government, that when other roads of equal, and many of them of lesser, opportunities have shown good profits and increased dividends and have paid interest on their borrowings, this road is in the position I have shown. So much with reference to that.

I want now to call the attention of the Finance Minister to the position as regards the United States tariff and the French treaty. I would not do this so strongly as I propose to do, were it not that the speech from the Throne intimates that

the French treaty is to be ratified. Then if the French treaty is to^ be ratified, I imagine that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs have made up their minds as to the probable incidence of the United States tariff upon Canada. Have they made up their minds? Do they know how that will affect the commerce of Canada? My right hon. friend, in his happy go lucky way, stated that he had read it and he could not see any discrimination in it. Will my right hon. friend say that he has that from conversation with people in authority in the United States who had given him to understand that it is not meant to discriminate against Canada provided that Canada's operations go on as they are now, plus the addition of the French treaty? I do not think he will. In fact, it is impossible to tell.

But when you look at the spirit of that legislation in so far as it has been actually declared, what do we find? You take printing paper, you take pulp wood, and what is the design as actually carried out in the enactments of that treaty in force to-day? The design was that that it would discriminate against Canada with reference to chemical pulp and mechanically ground pulp and printing paper. And so you have the enactment, and you must read the spirit and intent therein; you have the enactment that on print paper, in the first place, there is a duty according to value of so much per pound. When it is worth 21 cents and less,. the duty is 3 and l-16th cents per pound; when it is 21 to 2J cents, the duty is 3 and l-10th cents per pound, and so on graded up. That is the minimum duty with reference to any country which puts a restriction of any kind on the exportation of wood out of which the pulp for paper is made. And what country is aimed at, and what country is meant? Canada, and Canada alone. The discrimination is that l-10th of a cent per pound is added in the case of that country, and to that is also added the amount of the export duty, if any export duty is put upon pulpwood. Now that reads the intention of Congress into the actual item in the tariff.

There is no contingency about it. And how about wood pulp? Wood pulp in the general tariff is free, wood pulp against a country which has any restriction on the exportation of pulp wood into the United States is placed at l-12th of a cent per pound. To what country is that directed? To the Dominion of Canada. But in addition to that, there is to be added the export duty on the pulp wood, or the equivalent of that export duty, whatever it may be. So here are two actually finished sections of the United States tariff, and their plain intent is to influence if possible Canadian legislation,

Mr. FOSTER.

if the House will allow me. No, I do not think I can take up any other subject, but I want to have one word with the right hon-the Prime Minister on the way in which he tried to do two things. The spirit of mischief was in him when he tried to raise ructions on this side of the House in reference to the subject of naval service-the spirit of arch-mischief which befitted the politician rather than the statesman. There was also present another spirit, which would have done credit to Saul of Tarsus when he became Paul the Apostle and which animated him when he made his argument to the men on his own side to stand by his policy.

At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. ALEXANDER HAGGART (Winnipeg).

Mr. Speaker, I have not in the past trespassed very much on the time and patience of the House nor shall I to-night. Members from a small and distant province, are no doubt inclined to be influenced by their environment and are likely to become provincial or perhaps parochial, and when such an important document as His Excellency's speech is presented to them it may be that they read it for something which more particularly affects the part of the country whence they come. In the speech of His Excellency I find one short paragraph which refers to the Northwest country and to the province of Manitoba, and in that paragraph the Hudson Bay railway is spoken of as follows:

The exploratory surveys for a railway from the western wheat fields to Hudson bay were pushed energetically during the whole of last summer. It is hoped that a report of the operations will be placed before you at an early date.

Here we are apprised that an exploratory survey, whatever that may mean, is in preparation and there is an expression of hope that we may see the report before long. To the older members of this House the name ' Hudson Bay Railway ' is no doubt a chestnut, because it bobs up regularly from time to time and in the west it enters into our municipal and political life. Many years ago when the Conservatives were in power a railway to the Hudson bay was projected by two or three different companies, and at one time it got so far that forty miles of rails were laid in a northwesterly direction towards Lake Manitoba, but eventually these rails became streaks of rust The Liberals of that day, perhaps very properly so, poked fun at the Conservatives and they said: Give us a chance; we will not simply talk about the Hudson Bay railway we will build it. The year 1896 came and with it the Liberal government. At the first by-election in Winnipeg after the I.ib-

Mr. FOSTER.

,

erals came to power the late Mr. Jameson was a candidate in 1897. The slogan at that election was: Vote for Jameson, for progress, for the Laurier government and the Hudson Bay railway. After the death of the late Mr. Jameson the late Mr. McCreary was a candidate and the cry was the same. The people accepted his assurance and they elected him, but no Hudson Bay railway came. Then we had Mr. Puttee. True he was a labour candidate but he had the united support of the Liberals of Winnipeg and whether or not he had authority he also promised the Hudson Bay railway. Then, Mr. Bole, the member for Winnipeg in the late parliament made the Hudson Bay Railway a plank in his platform and when he was elected we thought that perhaps the whole project would die a natural death and that we would never hear of it again. From 1896 until the last election we have had a succession of Liberal candidates in Winnipeg and with them the Hudson Bay railway was a name to conjure with. It was determined apparently that the Hudson Bay railway should be one of the planks in the platform of the Liberal government at the late election. Let us see what the man who builds the railways, the Minister of Railways, says about it. Of course, when he spoke the dissolution of parliament was pending, and for the announcement of his policy he chose a public meeting in the town of Galt, Ontario. There the people could have very little interest in the project because it was calculated to take the traffic away from Ontario around by the northern seas. Although the Minister of Railways spoke in Ontario he was in reality speaking to the people of Manitoba and the Northwest over the wires and through the press. He said:

It is going to be built and built right away.

That is very positive language. Last year I heard the hon. gentleman deliver an address on another great public undertaking, the Newmarket canal, and as I had the opportunity of seeing him and listening to his voice I was not able to come to the conclusion to whether he was serious or joking. Not having the good fortune to hear him at Galt I cannot say whether he really meant what he said when he told the people that the Hudson Bay railway would be built and built right away. But that assurance to the people of the Northwest was not sufficient, and so another little blast came to us from away in the further west. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) was in Alberta or Saskatchewan doing service for his party and addressing a meeting he said:

I call attention to the robustness of the statement:

If you want the Husdon Bay railway you must support the Liberals. If you don't want it the Conservatives are good enough for vou.

And if that were not sufficient to insure the support of the people of the west, no less a person than the right, hon. the Prime Minister was called upon to say something about the Hudson Bay railwav. He was speaking to the people who reside on the banks of the Niagara river and the Welland canal; people who have no interest in the Hudson Bay railway because it would take traffic away from the St. Lawrence route. But, he also desired to reach the ears of the people in the Northwest over the wires and through the newspapers. And the right hon. gentleman, after telling the people of Wellington, that the Hudson Bay railway was not much use to them as it was an alternative route, he urged them to be broad minded and he told them that whatever is good for any part of the Dominion is good for the whole Dominion, and he says:

We have undertaken the construction on another railway-the Hudson Bay railway. The Hudson Bay railway I am sure does not appeal very much to the people of Welland county. It concerns more the people of the west. But I say to you, gentlemen of Ontario, and you will agree with me, that what concerns one portion of the community concerns every part of the community. Now, we have come to the conclusion that this railway is a necessity owing to the condition in which our fellow citizens in the west are placed. This railway will give an alternative or optional route. At the present time all the wheat as soon as it is tracked is sent out to Lake Superior. We want to provide another railway by Hudson bay. There will then be the present route and the Hudson bay route and the man who raises wheat and cattle will have two outlets for his production. We have been asked: ' Are you not going to hurt the trade of the St. Lawrence if you do that? * Oh ye of little faith! the trade of Canada is too great even for these two outlets. What we see coming will be more than sufficient for both of St. Lawrence and the Hudson bay routes. We have come to the conclusion that the time to build this railway is now; not to-morrow, but now; and we have surveyors in the field.

Of course, at the time the statement was made by the Prime Minister there was a red hot election pending in the west. The ' Manitoba Free Press '-you have no doubt heard of that paper; it has an annex to its building in the shape of a splendid post office-the ' Manitoba Free Press ' a journal which expresses the sentiments of the Liberals of the west and is supposed to be the personal organ of the ex-Minister of the Interior, commenting on this statement of the Prime Minister, said:

This is one of the most important announcements to the west that has ever been made by the Canadian government and it will be received with acclamation by the people of the prairie provinces.

But, even the declaration of the Minister of Railways and of the Prime Minister was not considered sufficient and so the ex-Min-3}

ister of the Interior in accepting the nomination of the convention at Brandon which was then the centre of an exciting electoral contest, declared that the Hudson Bay railway was a paramount issue in that election and he closed his speach with these words:

The Prime Minister proposes to build for these provinces the Hudson Bay railway. It is a fitting culmination to the policy of process and development which the government as followed during these years. That pronouncement was a very material factor in inducing me to become a candidate for this constituency in this election, because I felt and feel now that the time has come when we men from the west have succeeded in proving that the Hudson Bay railway is no chimera, no foolish project, but one which the people of the west are bound to see carried into effect, and the time to do it is now. So, therefore, if the people of the Northwest give Sir Wilfrid Laurier their endorsement at this election, then in three or four years we may expect to see trains running to Hudson bay.

Mr. SPROULE.

What was the date of that?

Mr. ALEX. HAGGART.

That was delivered on the 22nd day of September, over a month prior to the election on the 26th of October. We did not expect, that the government would last session be able to fulfil all the promises and make good all the assurances they had given to us in the last election; but we expected that we would be given a little more this session than the expression of the hope that in a short time we would get the report of the exploratory survey.

That leads me by an easy stage to the consideration of another question which is very closely associated with that of the Hudson Bay railway. That railway will we hope, sometime run through a territory which is appurtenant to the province of: Manitoba, and which we have long hoped would become a part of that province. For the benefit of the new members who are not, conversant with the history of Manitoba-let me say that that province was created in the year 1870. It was a very small province, extending for about a hundred miles from north to south and about as many miles from east to west, with Winnipeg in the centre with about 17,000 people. We had a constitution which was sufficient for the government of almost half a continent. We had a Lieutenant-Governor, a senate and a legislature. We got rid of the senate, and I will state, for the benefit of the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster! how we did so, with promptness, neatness and despatch. The senate consisted of seven members, four constituting a majority. Jobs were created for those four at salaries a little better than the indemnity of a senator, and those four, very much to the disgust of the minority, voted the sen-

ate out of existence. It was evident, at the time of the formation of Manitoba, that its boundaries were only temporary. It was felt that it would never do to make a checkerboard of those Northwest territories and multiply provincial governments; and during the first legislature of Manitoba application was made to this parliament for the extension of the boundaries of the province and for further financial assistance. Mr. Alexander Mackenzie turned this application down, for the reason that the northwestern boundary of the province of Ontario had not been defined. In 1881, however, the boundaries of Manitoba were extended. It was known at that time that the boundaries had not been defined, but it was believed and expected by nearly every one that the northwestern boundary of the province of Ontario was the meridian which cuts the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers which, if produced northward, would cut the northern shore of Lake Superior to the east of Fort William and Port Arthur. At once there was a conflict of authority. Both Ontario and Manitoba claimed jurisdiction over the disputed territory. A reference of the dispute was made to the Privy Council. Manitoba had hoped she would have all the Lake of the Woods, Thunder Bay and Eainy Eiver country from which the province of Ontario has reaped rich revenues in timber dues and mining licenses. But the decision of the Privy Council was against Manitoba, the boundary between the two provinces was declared to be the line running north from the northwest angle of the Lake of the Woods, making the territory of Manitoba 73,000 square miles, which is not [DOT]one-third of the size of either Saskatchewan [DOT]or Alberta. It was thought, at the time of the formation of those new provinces, that it would be an opportune time to increase the boundaries of Manitoba and settle for all time the whole question, by making the three provinces as nearly equal in size and importance as possible. Manitoba was turned down. The provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were created and were given a reasonable financial assistance for their development, and I have no doubt it is being wisely expended. But there is no reason why the province of Manitoba should not have received the same treatment. Manitoba did the pioneer work in the early days when it was a question whether or not agriculture was a profitable occupation in that country. Manitobans were living in the Northwest and Manitoba was there as a province when it took the price of two bushels of grain to transport the third bushel to market. Manitoba solved the transportation problem. She mortgaged her future for the purpose of getting reasonable rates and running lines of railways all over the province. She Mr. ALEX. HAGGART.

could not help herself without incidentally benefiting the other provinces to the west. Manitoba should be treated as she has been. We all at this distance of time appreciate the efforts made by the late Sir John A. Macdonald in bridging over the great commercial and geographical weakness of this Dominion; I refer to the vast expense of wilderness between the towns and villages of Ontario and Quebec and the fertile plains of the west. A belt of iron was thrown across that wilderness, which was the first link that was forged. We appreciate too the policy of Sir John A. Macdonald in ruthlessly disallowing railway charters for lines running from Manitoba in the direction of Duluth and Chicago. He was determined that the channels of commerce should be worn wide and deep before our railways should be subject to competition and our trade directed towards American cities. We realize the wisdom of that policy now. There was fierce opposition to the disallowance of those charters at the time, but we now appreciate that it was for the benefit of the province and the whole Dominion. But, Sir, there are other bonds which bind together the provinces of this Dominion more firmly perhaps that the steel bands of a railway, and that is the knowledge experience and the satisfaction that every province has been fairly treated by this Dominion, and that there has been no discrimination, no penalizing, no suspicion even of anything of the kind, because that would bode no good for the Dominion. That seems to have been fully recognized at the close of the last parliament, for we find that on the 13th day of July, 1908, the right hon. the Prime Minister moved a series of resolutions with reference to the Manitoba boundary, which resolutions conceded the right of the province of Manitoba to the extension, and the right hon. gentleman, in support of those resolutions, spoke in these words:

The case of Manitoba seems to be particularly pressing. Manitoba has the smallest territory of all the western provinces, and it is a matter of public notoriety that there is in Manitoba a sentiment of disappointment, almost akin to irritation, that the province has not been as liberally endowed as the adjoining provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, which were carved out of territory of which the boundaries of the province of Manitoba could have been increased. We all sympathize with this sentiment and there is no reason that I can see why this desire for increased territory should not be gratified.

The right hon. the prime minister there admits that there is cause for irritation, and that that cause has not been removed. Well, if it be not removed the * irritation may develop into a chronic sore, into positive, absolute hostility, and if there be any reason for it, must there not be delin-

quency in some quarter in connection with this business?

At the opening of the first session of this parliament, the greeting of the hon. the first minister to the members from Manitoba was certainly not a pleasant one. I do not think that the right hon. gentleman would have greeted us in that way if he had known the real facts. He told us that we are here by virtue of stuffed lists, Sir, the reverse is the fact. We are here by virtue of honest lists, but when we learned the source of the right hon. gentleman's information, we were not surprised. I shall not say a word about the ex-Minister of the Interior, as it would be contrary to the rules to say anything that might be offensive to a member of this House, but I will say that in Manitoba he had a lot of the rankest registration scamps to be found anywhere at work in any province. And when he resigned as attorney general and left Manitoba, he left us as a legacy his election law, and that law was a beauty and was beautifully administered. The lists for Manitoba were a disgrace. At great expense of time and trouble we had those lists revised before a judge, and the result of that revision, which occupied about three weeks, was to strike off about 3,000 names of bogus voters. There were about 900 names of men put on the list by the revising judge who had been improperly left off. After we had cleaned the lists, we were not very long in cleaning out those who were responsible for them. We are not here by virtue of stuffed lists. The people had before them these matters I have spoken of and the result was they elected members to sit on this side. The people had, right under their very eyes, the maladministration of the Department of the Interior, and if the hon. gentleman had been out there during the election, he would have had ample evidence to satisfy him that it was not stuffed lists but a strong political club in the hands of an honest, intelligent and indignant electorate which returned the Conservative party in that province.

Mr. THOMAS S. SPROULE (East Grey).

In offering a few observations on the address, I wish in the first place to congratulate the mover and seconder on the very creditable way in which they discharged the important duty assigned them. Few could take exception to the manner in which they presented the case from their standpoint. Certainly if brevity is the soul of wit, they set a good example to members of this House. The right hon. the Prime Minister told us that he cherished the hope that this would be a short session, and in that opinion he was strengthened bv the first speech of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.

Let me tell the right hon. gentleman that the length or brevity of a session depends very much more on the government than on the opposition. If the government, when parliament meets, have their work well in hand, if they bring down promptly the returns to which the House is entitled, if they lay on the table without delay the departmental reports and other information which the House requires in order to intelligently perform its work, then the opposition will assist the government to the best of its ability to shorten the session. But on the other hand, if the government bring down their measures only half digested and are unable to reach a conclusion regarding them for weeks, if they allow them to remain day after day on the Order Paper without doing anything, they have no right to blame the opposition for extending the session. That, however, is a state of things to which we have become accustomed under the present government.

We can all express our congratulations and gratitude to his Excellency the Governor General for the information he has given us in the speech from the Throne. We are grateful to him for the assurance that the country is prosperous. Of course, we may know more or less about the condition of the country ourselves, but such information is always pleasant coming from the high source it does, having been put into the mouth of his Excellency by his constitutional advisers, who of course have at their disposal the means of ascertaining the country's condition. But will the government tell us to what extent that prosperity is due to any act of theirs ? What have they done during the year to account for that prosperity? It may be reasonable to assume that they desire to impress the people in some way or other with the conviction that that prosperity is due to something the government has done. At any rate they have not given Divine Providence any consideration for that prosperity at all; and since the government has not given any credit to Providence, we must presume that it wishes to have all the credit itself.

We are assured that immigration is pouring into the country in a well directed stream from the best elements of the British Isles, the continent of Europe and the United States. But the government forgot to put into the speech from the Throne the fact that the North Atlantic Trading Company has gone out of existence. During many years it was claimed that the influx of immigration was due to the efforts of that company, but we have now the assurance from the highest source thak even since that company has ceased to exist, immigration has been pouring into Canada in a well directed stream, composed of some of the

best elements of the British Isles, continental Europe and the United States. I am pleased to believe that we are getting a fair share of immigrants, and more care is being taken with regard to the quality of those who come to this country. Year after year, when we pointed out that in immigration quality was to be considered rather than quantity, and when we raised objection to the character of many of the immigrants coming to Canada, we were assured that none but the very best were coming to this country, farmers and farm labourers-not artisans or mechanics-the very cream of the British Islands and of continental Europe. And this notwithstanding that the Doukhobor3 were coming, the Galicians, the Finlanders and the people of almost every benighted country in the world. At last the government themselves were obliged to take note of the complaints concerning their immigrants that were being complained of in every part of the country. They were even obliged to deport many of them, and the reports laid before the House disclosed the fact that they have sent back thousands of these immigrants within the last few years. We have been endeavouring for the past ten years to convince them that there was urgent need for the improvement in the selection of immigrants, and it was said over and over again that the class who were coming were of the very best-that we could not expect or hope for better. But, after a time there was the admission on the part of the government that this was not correct, and now they boast of how many of these immigrants they have sent back.

We feel grateful to His Excellency for the assurance he has given us that trade and commerce have made rapid strides during the year and that in every direction the commerce of the country is expanding. One would have thought that commerce would almost have come to a standstill when Mr. W. T. R. Preston decided to leave Japan, packed his gripsack and commenced to hunt another job. He seemed to be the one man depended on by the government to regulate everything wherever he went and in whatever line he happened to be engaged. He endeavoured to do that with regard to immigration in the old country, and when he went to Japan he had not been there very long before he was in trouble with the officials in regard to trade with that country. We were told that he had revolutionized commerce so that Canada would develop immensely by reason of her Increased trade with these great oriental peoples numbering 450,000,000. In a short time, he was obliged to leave, and he is now away hunting a new field. Notwithstanding this, we are told that hade is Tapidly developing. and for this we certainly should be grateful.

We are told that the construction of the MR. SPROULE.

Transcontinental Railway has made substantial advance during the year. And very reasonably might have been added, so has the debt. For one of the greatest increases in the debt of this country for the last forty years has been made in the last year or year and a half. The government have been pushing on the Transcontinental railway and expending money right and left. We know that the statement has been made, and, I think, established to the satisfaction of almost every business man in this House that a great deal of that money was improperly expended, that there was overcharging, that there was wrong 1 classification, extravagance, improper making of contracts and graft in connection with almost every part of this business. This was emphatically denied two years ago. Complaint was made by Mr. Hodgins, the engineer, and there was an inquiry, and a whitewashing report handed to this House by the majority of the committee engaged in the work. Notwithstanding that, we have the undeniable fact that the very parties who above all others interested in this matter, the railway company themselves, declare that there was over-classification, that there was improper expenditure, and I understand they intend to go into the courts in order to establish the fact. This is exactly what was brought out by the evidence in the committee, notwithstanding the whitewashing of the commissioners by the report. But that is not all.

I have here the report of the Auditor General, and I notice that that officer raises objections. There is correspondence between the Transcontinental Commission and Mr. Fraser, the Auditor General, on the subject. One of the letters of the Auditor General reads as follows:

Audit Office, Ottawa, Jan. 25, 1909.

Sir,-I have not received a reply to my letter of Jan. 5, re payments to M. P. & J. T. Davis and Macdonell & O'Brien on the Hogan & Macdonell contract for ' excavation of foundations, solid rock,' at three times the schedule rate for solid rock.

' Three times the rate.' That was practically the contention of Mr. Hodgins, viz., that by the improper classification of the material, the contractor was being paid three times as much as he was entitled to. But the government contended, and established to the satisfaction of the majority of this House, that there was nothing wrong about it. In another letter, the Auditor General says that not only three times the schedule rate was paid, but that three times the amount done was charged up in progress estimates given. That is another device for paying out to their favourite friends more money than the country ought to pay for this work. And that is going on to-day.

And what did the commission do when the Auditor General asked for information? They practically told him that it was impertinent on his part to ask such questions, and they passed a resolution refusing to give him the information. This is the beautiful commission that is spending so much money. And the Auditor General was obliged to go to the Justice Department, and he is sustained by that department after being turned down by the Transcontinental Railway Commission. So, if the Toad is being built rapidly, the money is being spent rapidly. There is nothing about this in the speech from the Throne. Nor have we further information concerning this correspondence of the Auditor General, yet it is something concerning which we should be well informed in order to deal with this question.

We often hear this government boast that they are a business government. I think one of the speakers to-day referred to that. In the speech from the Throne we are kindly told that the engineers of the Quebec bridge have sufficiently advanced this work to permit of tenders being invited for the substructure. Now, this business government started to build that Quebec bridge many years ago, and when the matter was first broached in this House they told us that they were prepared not only to do a great work but to do it wisely and expeditiously. They got a corporation of their own to commence the building of it-a corporation that put up $63,000 in all to build a bridge that Will cost over $9,000,000 and then took out $64,000 in salaries, and finally handed over to the country for several millions a bridge that had fallen and was lying at the bottom of the river. We are now told that the engineers are prepared to invite tenders for the substructure.

The government expressed the hope that this session would be a short one, but they have not given this House a word of information with regard to these plans, what kind of a bridge is going to be built, where it is to be put, whether they can use the substructure of the old bridge or not, whether it is to be a cantilever bridge, a swing bridge, or what not. And we are going on to commence the construction of another bridge which will cost in all probabfiity $8,000,000 or $9,000,000, without any of this information.

But we are told this is a business government. This business government started in with a great undertaking which was going to be a valuable outlet of the Transcontinental Railway, which was to be ready in 1910 or 1911. But there is not a single stroke of that -work done yet. This business government has spent $6,500,000 of the country's money, and there is nothing in the world to show for it except the twisted iron in the bottom of the river. I say there

has been more money squandered, sunk in that undertaking by this business government than was spent on all the parliament buildings at Ottawa up to the last few years-on the three great blocks, and the Langevin block-all these cost less than $7,000,000, and no more than was squandered in that undertaking by this government on that Quebec bridge. Let the people of Canada know these things, and ask themselves where this business government has justified its name. Where is their intelligence with respect to economy? What wisdom and prudence have they shown, when all this money has gone, and Canada has nothing to show for it to-day but the wreck of the bridge that is lying in the bottom of the river?

His Excellency thought we ought to feel grateful because we are starting out in another undertaking of the same kind. Well, we are obliged to thank His Excellency for the information that exploratory surveys for a Hudson Bay railway have been pushed expeditiously during the summer. As my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Hag-gart) says, that is an old question which has been running on like the famous lawsuit of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce, ever since this government came in. I remember when it was first started and we were told that there was going to be a fine outlet for the grain of the west, and -what a wonderful change it was going to work when this government built the Hudson Bay railway. Every year they were going to commence . it, especially when an election was coming on in the west, then the^ were ready to commence operations. They were not going to be like their predecessors, they were in earnest. Well, now, after being in power fourteen years they tell us through the mouth of His Excellency that exploratory survevs have been pushed energetically during the whole of last year and he expresses the hope that they will be able to lay a report on the table during the present session. I suppose that will be all, and next year we will have something more in the speech from the Throne about it. Well, we all feel very grateful for the assurance that we wili get the papers, because there are many lines in which papers are very useful, and give us information which we might otherwise have to make a long fight to obtain.

Now we have another piece of valuable information, and that is that the government intend to introduce a Bill to give them power to lease or purchase branch lines connected with the Intercolonial railway, that road in the operation of which they have had such large deficits every year, notwithstanding the fact that all that goes into the building of that road, nearly all of it, is charged to capital account instead of to the earnings of the road every

year. It is not a paying concern. But the leasing of these branch lines, we are told, is going to make it very profitable to the people living in the vicinity, and in the interest of the whole country as well. Now if they manage the branch lines as well as they have managed the road since they have come into power, I do not think the country will have much cause to congratulate itself. Yet we are told from time to time that these branch lines have never paid, that they are a bill of expense to the owners, that they are in a dilapidated condition, and that many of them can never pay. It must therefore be a consoling piece of information to the House and the country to be told that we will lease these branch lines from the owners and give them a substantial amount of money for them and add them to a road that has never yet paid, and will be still less likely to pay with these additional burdens tacked on.

We have another piece of information which is valuable, and that is that the government propose to introduce a Bill with regard to combinations in restraint of trade. We heard a great deal about that many years ago. The government, through the mouth of their Finance Minister, told this House, I think in 1897, that the only effective way to deal with combinations in restraint of trade was through free trade, and the government took power in a Bill to take off the duty from any article when it was the subject of a combination formed in restraint of trade; that article was then to come in free. I remember bringing this subject up in two successive sessions. I remember the arguments that were addressed to this House by Mr. Garrow; who is now a judge on the bench. He tried hard to induce the government to punish those parties who were engaged in combination in restraint of trade to the detriment of the consumer and to the detriment of all interested parties. But the government said it could not be done, that the only proper way to control them was by ascertaining where there was a combination in restraint of trade, and to take the duty off the articles so effected, and allow them to come into the country free. Now application was made to the government to do that in the leather combine. Mr. Garrow brought that up. I brought it up two sessions afterwards, but the government refused to do anything. They let that combine continue its operations to the detriment of Canada, to the detriment of the consumer, and they did nothing to prevent it. But I will tell you what they did do. There was a law put upon the statute-book many years ago by the late member for West York, the Hon. N. Clarke Wallace to punish those who were combining in restraint of trade. The government so amended that Bill that they made it useless. It provided that wherever people com-MR. SPEOULE.

bined to enhance values or raise prices, they became amenable to the Criminal Code and could be punished. But the government amended that Bill by providing that wherever it was proven that a combination unduly enhanced values or increased prices, they should be punished, but they threw the onus of proof upon the complainant. We were told by the high authority of the late Sir Oliver Mowat himself that the Bill was practically no good, because you could not go into court and prove what was unduly enhanced value. I made an effort two years in succession to get that Bill amended and leave it as it was at first, so that it might be of some value and that you might start a prosecution under it. I succeeded at last; for some reason the government were kind enough to allow me to get this amendment through the House, anil shortly afterwards these combines were attacked, and parties went into court to punish them, and what was the result? The government took up that Bill, amended the law again, put it back where it was before, these prosecutions stopped and they have never gone on from that day to this. That from a business gov-vernment that was going to do something to prevent combinations in restraint of trade! Did they ever step in that direction except with reference to paper? Did they ever undertake an inquiry in regard to that subject although the allegations were made to them by their own friends over and over again that in various lines combines were detrimentally raising prices to the consumers of this country ? Did_ they take any interest in it ? - none whatever except in that one case. In that I believe they did in a partial way and they are entitled to commendation for what they have done. I would suggest though, that, what-every that Bill may be, it should be something that will be effective rather than something to be paraded before the public and telling the people what wonderful things they are going to do, but which the experience of future time will prove they never will do. They have had it in their power to restrain these combinations and they have made no effert to do it except in the one instance I have cited; therefore, we have the right to reach the conclusion that they are no more likely to do it in the future than in the past. But, they parade this before the country to-day as something they are going to do for the benefit of the country and for which the country ought to be devoutedly thankful.

I would like to say one word in regard to a report I see of the speech of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) in Montreal on Saturday. I shall read his own words. Speaking of Canada he says:

They could and did legislate for themselves and make their own treaties with other nations, and it was probable that in the near

future Britain would discontinue the practice of sending a representative of the Crown to them.

I presume a Governor General. I think the people of Canada will be greatly startled

Mr. GRAHAM.

Will my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) allow me? Having been a newspaper man myself, I very seldom rise to a point of order or ask for any correction. As a matter of fact, I never made such a statement or referred directly or indirectly to anything that could be construed into such a statement.

Mr. SPROULE.

Then I think the Minister will thank me for giving him this early opportunity to make that denial which I accept with all pleasure. I was going to go on and read another portion in reference to naval defence, but if he denies that in advance, I will not read it.

Oh, oh.

Mr. SPROULE.

The same speech. His memory cannot be so bad but that he must remember what he did say or some of the subjects that he spoke about. If he will be good enough to tell us what he did say, we would like to hear from him. Well, he does not take the opportunity of denying it.

Mr. GRAHAM.

I have not heard it yet.