and the cases are of the utmost importance. From the data which I have given to the House I think we, in the city of Montreal, who contribute very largely to the taxation, ought to be better provided in regard to the administration of justice. I hope that the government will take the matter up because it affects the interests of the bar and of the public in the highest degree. Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of the resolution Justice). Mr. Speaker, which the hon. member (Mr. Monk) has moved is for a return giving certain information as to the number of cases standing for judgment before the Superior Court in Montreal. There would be no objection to the laying of any such information in the possession of the government before the House, but the hon. gentleman must be perfectly aware that no information of this nature is possessed by the government. No returns are made by any of the provincial courts to the Department of Justice or to any other department of the Dominion government in regard to the position of the business that may be standing for consideration. Mr. MONK. I was told by the officials there that information of that kind had already been given here, but inasmuch as more instructive data have been cited by me to the House I do not insist upon that part of the motion. I can with regard to the circuit court. The cir- No matter how much we might Mr. AYLESWORTH. assure my hon. friend that there are no returns made by any of the judges, or by any of the of-perior Court of Montreal or of the province ficials of the courts to the Department of of Quebec stands of course in a different Justice, or to any other department of the position. The legislature of the province Dominion government, except certain very has provided for the appointment of an adgeneral information for statistical purposes ditional number of judges to that court. which comes, I understand, ordinarily, and As yet this parliament has taken no action regularly, to the Department of Agriculture. in that regard and for the propriety of the I Therefore, if this motion were adopted by course which we have adopted in that rethe House it would be quite impossible to spect there is the very best of reason. afford, by way of a return or answer, any think I could convince my hon. friend himsuch information as is asked in any other self that that reason exists, but as it is six way than by making a special application o'clock it would be impossible to finish the to the judges themselves for the information discussion and I shall have to reserve what that is desired. I hope, therefore, that my I wish to say until it can be resumed. hon. friend will see his way to withdrawing the resolution after it has been discussed, because I have no doubt that discussion and to call public attention to the situation was that which my hon. friend especially desired. Now, the hon. gentleman has addressed himself not only to the position of the judicial business in the superior courts in the city of Montreal but he has also spoken in regard to the circuit court and as the two stand in an entirely different position let me first say what I wish to say 571 On the motion of Mr. Aylesworth the debate was adjourned. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. What business will be taken up to-morrow? Sir WILFRID LAURIER. We intend to take up some of the Bills and go on with the budget debate. At six o'clock, the House adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. THURSDAY, January 13, 1910. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock. PROCEDURE-WITHDRAWING OF Mr. SPEAKER. In regard to Question No. 4 (which appeared in the orders of the day yesterday as Question No. 24), in the name of Mr. Barnard, I desire to make the following observations: In my opinion, there are only two ways in which a question can be properly withdrawn when once it has been presented for answer in the House, that is, first by written notice by the member, putting the question, to the Clerk of the House stating that the question is withdrawn, or by the member, in his place in the House, informing the Speaker that he desired the question to be dropped or withdrawn. In the British House of Commons the practice is that no member can ask a question in the name of another member unless upon the request of the member in whose name the question stands. (May 11th edit. p. 251.) The practice, however, in this House has hitherto not been so rigid as this, inasmuch as members have asked questions for other members under the assumption of an implied request, at least, and, in my opinion, it is not desirable that this practice should be changed. On the subject of answers to questions the following is the practice of the British House. (See May, 251): A minister may, if he thinks fit, on the ground of public interest, answer a question appearing on the notice paper, although it is not asked. A minister may also, on the ground of public interest, or some other ground, decline to answer a question. Having this practice in view, I think the hon. minister would be at liberty to answer the question of the hon. member even although the member did not call the same. GARRISON ARTILLERY. Mr. BARNARD. It was my intention to reframe this question, but if the hon. minister wishes to answer, I have no particular objection. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia). I thought it would be in the public interest to read a statement prepared for me by Sir Percy Lake, chief military adviser of the government, and inspector general, as there seems to be some misapprehension in the mind of the hon. gentleman and that of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington), the latter of whom put the same question the other day. Therefore, on the ruling of Mr. Speaker, I shall proceed to read the statement prepared in answer to this question: Mr. BARNARD asked: 1. In how many instances have 12 pr. B. L. guns been supplied to regiments or units of garrison artillery? 2. What regiments of garrison artillery is it the intention of the department to supply with these guns? 3. Are 12 pr. B. L. guns known as field artillery guns, and are they used for purposes of field artillery regiments? 4. Is it the policy of the department to require regiments or units of garrison artillery to train on 12 pr. B. L. guns? 5. Is it the policy of the department to arm for training or other purposes regiments of garrison artillery with field artillery guns? 6. Is any useful purpose to be served by requiring No. 1 company of the 5th regiment of Canadian artillery to train upon 12 pr. B. L. guns? said regiment to train upon these guns? 7. Why was this company selected out of 8. Is it the intention of the department to supply the 5th regiment of Canadian artillery with horses in order to enable them to train as a cavalry regiment? Sir FREDERICK BORDEN: Instead of answering the question categorically I beg to read a statement on the subject prepared for me by Major-General Sir Percy Lake, chief military adviser of the government and inspector general: In every fortress guns of various natures and power are permanently mounted in the batteries designed to protect the place, from guns of the largest calibre down to 12 pr. and 6 pr. quick-firing guns, and even machine guns. These are called its fixed armament,' and are mainly for use against ships and smaller vessels. Again, a certain number of guns are allotted to every fortress, as what is called 'movable armament,' i.e., mobile light guns capable of being moved about from place to place to meet attack in localities upon which the fixed armament of the fortress could not be brought to bear. The guns to which, it is presumed, the questions refer, belong to this latter description of armament. When Esquimalt was taken over from the British government, the movable armament which had been allotted to it was found to be one battery (6 guns) of 13-pr. muzzle loading guns. In other words, 13-pr. M. L. guns were included in its armament for use in repelling either a landing attack made outside the range of the fixed guns, or an attack from the land side of the fortress, upon which the guns of the 'fixed' armament could not be brought to hear. For a few years after the departure of the British troops, these 13-pr. guns were retained as part of the movable armament of the fortress, but, in view of the difficulties experienced in maintaining their ammunition (which was rapidly becoming obsolete) in an efficient condition, and the drawback that this smokeless, it was always intended to replace gun used ordinary gunpowder, and not them by 12-pr. B. L. guns firing smokeless powder, as soon as these latter should become available in consequence of the rearmament of the field artillery generally with the new 18-pr. guns. experience and were necessarily as changing as the circumstances on which all experience is founded.' Such has been the Liberal party's line of conduct since 1896: to adapt the principles of governmental science, which science is essentially experimental, according to the conditions of a new country, which is in a state of economic and national transition. It was by adhering faithfully to these two political truths-progress in liberty and the wise application of ideas-that the Liberal party was enabled to draw order from chaos, reform from inertia, prosperity from stagnation. Beaten again on this latter issue, still our opponents will not lower their arms. With a zeal worthy of a better cause, and in default of better resources, they will try to view the government's administrative record, in order to point out, from time to time, in the glass of their imagination, the few specks that are to be seen on the bright sun of the Liberal policy. Such were the tactics whereby they sought to regain that power that they certainly did not lose through any too pronounced administrative honesty. The success that has accompanied those tactics is far from causing us to regret it, but, it seems to me, that it should cause our friends opposite to open their eyes. Our opponents should prove that in the traditions of their party, in their programme and in their political ideas, they present the country with a more enlightened, more honest and more progressive administration. Unhappily, for them, they have not and they cannot present such a certificate of capability. So far they have confined themselves to a purely negative role, and they have not revealed any of the characteristics required in the government such as a programme of positive reform, and a dominant and uniform political conception of the great problems of national interest. The programme formulated by their chief at Halifax, disregarded by some, repudiated by others, was soon wrecked and, I doubt, if one could even find some of its debris at the convention announced for next autumn. Now I do not propose to dwell upon the hopeless division that prevails to-day in the councils of our good friends opposite. The leader of the opposition was eloquent yesterday when he propounded a policy of assistance to the mother country and of defence to Canada. Immediately after he sat down his lieutenant for the province of Quebec (Mr. Monk) rose and expressed his indignation because he had not been consulted on the policy to be adopted in this regard. Driven about by winds that blow now from east, now from west, with a crew divided as to the course to follow, and in regard to command, very like a dismantled ship, without a compass, running aimlessly through a fog, the Conservative party is surely not sea-worthy, nor would it be safe to trust the destinies of our country to such a wreck. Now, Sir, I do not wish to pose as a prophet, but I can see what is coming. I have good reason to fear that the opposition are preparing to raise prejudices in the province of Quebec against this government, and more particularly against its leader, in the coming election, on this very question of naval defence. The Liberal administration and its faithful supporters will be charged with having been traitors to the interests of Canada at large, and particularly with having betrayed the interests of the French Canadians of the province of Quebec by juggling this country into the vortex of militarism. On the other hand, I perceive the argument they will use in some of the other provinces. They will contend that the present government have not gone far enough in their policy of naval defence, and it should be driven out of power as unworthy of the confidence of the Canadian electorate. Under such circumstances, it is wise for the Canadian people to cling to their true friends, to support the men who have exercised their power with patriotism and devotedness, and whose ability and character are on a level with the grand and difficult task they so splendidly accomplish. To-day, as yesterday, problems, affecting the future of the nation are set for the consideration of the government. The solution of such problems requires unity in direction, regularity in administration, courage and devotedness in execution. Where are we to find these essential conditions if not in the government that has tested them for thirteen years, and that, in the face of an opposition divided beyond repair, is now prepared to settle, in a spirit of union and patriotism, one of the most vital questions that can possibly affect the Canadian nation? Mr. THOMAS CHISHOLM (East Huron). We have listened to-day to two very well prepared and eloquent addresses from the government side of the House. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Rivet) who has just sat down has certainly made some very severe charges against the old Conservative party. I think, however, we can discern a certain weakness in the foundation of his arguments. He seems to have directed the greatest part of his energies against men who have ceased to be members of this House, men who are dead and gone, men who were in this House at one time but who can never return to it. Now I think we should always speak well of the dead. I would just say in regard to the Conservatives who have been so roundly abused here REVISED EDITION. without a staff capable of maintaining in good condition the expensive machinery left in the work shops, and in the buildings. The stores had been disposed of locally at ridiculously low prices and the naval base had been virtually abandoned and was rapidly deteriorating. From information received he had reason to believe that the naval base at Hali fax was in a similar condition. Facts of this nature made clear the importance attaching to the new agreement under which these naval bases were to be maintained by the Dominion government. It was to be hoped that before long all foreign naval stations would be restored to a condition of efficiency. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN. I misunderstood my hon. friend regarding the question. I have no information on that matter, but will make inquiries and be able to give report if there is anything in the department. 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.' Mr. M. S. SCHELL (South Oxford). In resuming the debate on the budget, I desire to join the felicitations of those who have already addressed the House on the character of the budget, and to extend to the hon. the Finance Minister my congratulations on the splendid statement which he has again presented to this House and to the country. The position which he occupies is certainly unique and unparalleled in the history of this country, and I think in the history of any country. Occupying, as he has, for the long period of thirteen years, uninterruptedly, the position of Finance Minister, he has been able to present to this House a succession of budgets that have at once given an indication of a Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the sec-growth, a prosperity and a development ond reading of Bill (No. 17) to authorize on national lines that has perhaps been the government of Canada to acquire, by unequalled in the history of any country. lease, lines of railways connected with the government railways. INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY BRANCH LINES. It is all the more gratifying to us to listen to such a statement in view of the recent world-wide depression that prevailed Mr. SPEAKER. Is the House ready for throughout the United States as well as the question? Carried. Sir WILFRID LAURIER. My hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) desires to speak. Stand. Mr. SPEAKER. I have declared the motion carried, and I am now putting the question, shall the Bill be now passed. I suppose this latter motion might stand. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. When any motion is passed under some misapprehension on the part of members, it has always been usual to regard it as not passed for the time being. Sir WILFRID LAURIER. My hon. friend can speak on another like motion which will come up. European countries, and which was in a measure reflected in our own country, and which resulted in a certain recession of our trade, so that our revenue was somewhat less than it had been the year before. Last year the revenue was in the neighbourhood of $11,000,000 less than in the previous year. But we all rejoice that now there is every evidence of an increased revenue, and of a return of prosperity that will even surpass that of the record year of 1907-8. I have here a return for the month of December, from which I find that the optimistic forecast of which the Finance Minister gave on the introduction of his budget, is more than likely to be fulfilled. For instance, we see that the total revenue for the month of December was $8,733,571, an increase of $1,550,216 or over 20 per cent compared with December of 1908. For Mr. SPEAKER. The motion is that the the nine months, the revenue has been Bill be now passed. Mr. EMMERSON. By arrangement with the Minister of Railways, I was to have an opportunity to make a few observations with respect to the Bill. Unfortunately I was not here at the second reading, it was not possible for me to be here, and I have just now arrived. I would like the matter to stand until to-mororw. $73,390,008, an increase of $11,091,497. The increase in the customs revenue has been $9,361,421. If this increase for the month of December continues during the next three months of this fiscal year, there is no doubt that our revenue will exceed the $97,500,000 which the Minister of Finance estimated, and may possibly touch the $100,000,000 mark at the end of this current year. But there is also another pleasThe expendi Mr. SPEAKER. The matter stands until ing fact about the returns. to-morrow. WAYS AND MEANS THE BUDGET. House resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding; ture, on the other hand, shows a decrease for the nine months of $3,034,492 on consolidated fund account, and of $2,290,206 on capital account. The total expenditure on consolidated fund account was $47, 1805 JANUARY 13, 1910 was on 398,129, and on capital $24,026,137, of which Now, Sir, I do not propose to answer at difference occurs. There is that difference, I presume. I have not looked up the Year-book but have simply taken the trade and navigation returns, from which it is easy to see how that For instance, the hon. gentleman has quoted the two years 1896 and 1900 in making these comparisons of exports. For 1896 there was an estimated amount short reported, as it appears in the Trade and Navigation report, of $3,329,053, which, if added to the figure given in the Statistical Year-book would correspond exactly with the total amount that is given in the trade and navigation returns. It will be observed that these two figures are given on the same page of our trade and navigation returns, no attempt is made to mislead or to falsify the accounts. The Statistical Year-book does not profess to give as complete a record as the returns published in the Trade and Navigation report. In the year 1900 there is an item'estimated short reported $5,461,411.' That added to what appears in the Year-book would make exactly the amount which he has quoted as appearing in the trade and navigation returns. The circumstances in the other two years he has quoted are exactly the same, his figures are the same simply because there were no figures in that columnestimated short reported.' Take the columns for imports. He says that the Statistical Year-book for 1896 gives $110,587,480, and that in the trade and navigation return the figure is $118,011,508. If he had given as much attention to the task of ascertaining guage as this: But when we find a discrepancy of millions of dollars in corresponding statements given in these blue-books what must we expect to find in the other accounts? Is it a fact that Very strong language indeed, I think rather unbecoming language to be employed by a member without having made a very careful study of the accounts he proposes to criticise. I have been in the House a single member question the correctness five years and I do not think I have heard of the statements in the blue-books. The an impression in this country that there is hon. member is apparently trying to create at least carelessness in the manner of computing the statistics published in our blue books. Mr. J. A. CURRIE. What authority is there for these estimated shortages, except official? a fancied authority in the mind of some Mr. SCHELL. I presume it was impossible to get the exact returns when the statements were published, but I would call attention to the fact that from 1868 to 1900 that column appears in the trade and navigation returns. Since 1900 it has been dispensed with. The hon. member has taken exception to the methods that have been adopted in regard to the expenditure of the public funds of the country and he objects to the maintenance of the two funds, the consolidated account. fund account and the capital expenditure If he had his way he would unite these two accounts and have but one account in which all the moneys would be written up so that if there was any surplus whatever it would appear in excess over the total expenditure of the year. Personally, I prefer to take the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) as a better critic in the matter of book-keeping. The system that has been followed by the present govern |