properly increased by $6,000,000 will be held up to the public by some future Liberal historian (or perhaps expert accountant) as one of the assets owned by the Canadian people. Again, there is a collision between two tugs and $7,000 damages were paid by the government as a result of that collision, and the government charged that amount up to capital account and paid it out of moneys borrowed for permanent improvements, and I suppose that after a while they will be able to make out that $7,000 as an asset of the Dominion. Then again, there is an accident on the Intercolonial railway, the track is damaged, the rails are broken, the engines and cars are knocked to pieces, new equipment has to be bought to replace that which was damaged, and do you think the government charges that up to running expenses? Not a bit of it. Although the train was injured while it was running I suppose, they charged the damage up to capital account and they add that sum to the original cost of the Intercolonial railway. As I told you in the beginning of my little speech, up to the time the Liberals came into power the Intercolonial had cost $50,000,000, but to-day it has cost the country $81,000,000 or an addition of $31,000,000 to the cost in 13 years. Now, suppose a farmer had a farm and stock and implements valued at $6,000, and he employed a manager to run his farm for him and to keep his books. At the end of the year the farm manager may find he has $200 of a surplus; he may find that after paying all expenses his books not only balance but he has $200 cash on hand. He can honestly report to the farmer that he has a surplus of $200 and if he should invest that $200 in a horse that was worth $200 he could still honestly report that he had a surplus of $200. But, the next year when he would come to balance his accounts he might find no surplus. He would not like to report that to the farmer and he might call in a New York expert accountant and the New York expert accountant would say to him: take this horse valued at $200 and to the $200 add $5 for shoeing out of the current running expense and add it to the value of the horse, and in that way you can increase the value of the horse and decrease the current expenses. Then add again to that $60 for the veterinary surgeon who had to be called in to attend the horse, when he had run away and injured himself; deduct that from your running expenses also and add it to the price of the horse. Then, add to the value of the horse $30 for attendance and $70 for his feed and take that out of current expenses and you will add further to the value of the horse and lessen your current expenses. Then, take $100 for the new buggy that had to be purchased for the one which was destroyed when the horse ran away, and instead of charging that to current expenses put it on the price of the horse and you will be able to show by your books to your employer that you have a horse valued at $465, that you have lessened your current account by $265, and that you have a surplus of $530 for the year. That would be all right perhaps the first year, but after it had gone on for about twenty years and the old horse had come to be valued at $4,000 or $5,000 in the manager's books, the farmer might come to examine into this matter and he would say: It is very strange that the older this horse becomes, the oftener he runs away, the more he eats, the oftener you have to call in the veterinary surgeon to attend him and the more buggies he destroys when he runs away the more valuable he becomes. He would say: There is something wrong here. I think that is just about the kind of bookkeeping we have in the departments at Ottawa and that our surpluses have just about as much basis as the old horse surplus would have. Mr. THOMAS A. LOW (South Rrenfrew). Mr. Speaker, like hon. members who have preceded me on this side of the House, my first word must be one of congratulation to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) for the magnificent statement he has presented to the House this year. Seldom, if ever, in the history of any country, has it been the good fortune of a Finance Minister to present so favourable sions. Mr. Speaker, when I listened to my a report upon fourteen successive occahon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) I was rather pleased when he compared the ministers of the Crown to a board of directors. As I listened to several hon. gentlemen speaking on the floor of the House I asked myself the question: Have these hon. gentlemen opposite offered any good reason why these gentlemen should not retain their seats on the board of directors? Is it because the Finance Minister, for fourteen years, has presented a report showing a balance on the right side of the loss and gain account, or is it because the trade of this country has increased from $239,000,000 in 1896 to the enormous sum of $650,000,000 in 1909? Is it because the people of Canada have deposited in the banks to-day $3 for every $1 they had in 1896, or the enormous sum of $771,000,000 as against $245,000,000 in 1896? Or, is it that a few disgruntled shareholders, like the hon. member for North Toronto, feel disappointed because they have not been elected to the board of directors? I think the best answer to my hon. friend from North Toronto is the verdict of 1908. From every hon. member on the other side of the House we hear the same complaint, that expenditures have increased, that in place of an transportation highways bears the mark of a solicitude and remarkable spirit of progress. I do not pretend that the Conservative government misunderstood its duty in this connection, but I fear not to say that the Liberal policy, in this regard, is more methodical, more enlightened and more daring than that of its predecessors. From 1896 to 1908 statistics show that the sum of $121,215,115 was used in the improvement of transportation facilities. That sum was principally divided between the canals, the St. Lawrence channel, the Canadian defence harbours, the subsidies to railways and the cost of the Transcontinental. Which means that such expenditure was not made at hap-hazard for local works, more or less justifiable, but in accordance with a general plan of improvement confirmed by the recommendations of a special commission and in a manner to derive the most profit possible from the geographic conditions of Canada, in view of the traffic between the east and west and between the St. Lawrence ports and those of Europe. Such is an essentially national policy that our opponents may have sometimes criticised in details but of which they can neither blame the directing spirit, nor disallow the beneficent results. Moreover the construction of a second transcontinental line and the henceforth assured supremacy of the St. Lawrence route, which have heretofore been two points of resistence in the government's transportation policy, exempt me from all necessity of comment ing upon the effects of that policy on the destinies of the country. to the general progress of Canada. In Canada, as elsewhere, two great forces co-operate in all industrial production-capital and labour. On the organization and functioning of these two forces, and their reciprocal harmonious relations, to a great extent, depends the success, as well as the industrial prosperity of the country. The Conservative party, during its long tenure of office, seems to have misunderstood the part taken by labour in the general economy, and to have exclusively showered its favours on capital. No one would dream of blaming the Conservative government for having encouraged the use of capital in the industries had it not stopped half way, and neglected to accord the workman a share of its solicitude so generally granted to the capitalist and the industrial contractor. It was reserved for the Liberal party to look after the workman and to assign him a place in the legislation and administration of the country. From its first moment in power, that party set itself to re-establish. between the two great elements of national production, that equilibrium of justice and protection necessary to harmonize their relations and to maintain social order. The measures flowing from that policy, amongst others, may be called the creation of a Labour Department, the Labour Gazette,' the Labour Act, the abolition of the sweating system, and the Fair Wage Act, and finally, the Lemieux Act, the success of which has challenged the admiration and envy of the older countries that had wrestled with the social problem. In this regard, the Liberal party not only has the well-merited approval of the labouring classes, but has also assured to the industries an indispensable element of progress and prosperity. How can I pass over in silence the admirable work of national pacification which, for twelve years, the government has carried on with the marvellous results that have so affected Canadian unity? The favourite motto of the Conservative party, 'divide ut imperes' has vanished from the councils of the nation. In its place an the two races closer to each other, and inideal of harmony and union reigns, drawing A few days ago, the New York 'Herald,' in an editorial referring to the port of Montreal and the St. Lawrence route, pointed out the dangerous rival our country might become in regard to transportation. I am confident the government will not stop short in its splendid pathway, that it will save itself no sacrifice, compatible with its resources, to preserve and augment the advantages flowing from its water-ways. Our neighbours are not inactive; they devote vast sums to their ports and canals. During recent years, the project of the Georgian Bay canal has given them reason to re-spiring them to common action and collaflect, and to redouble their efforts to improve their own water-ways. In the interests of our metropolis, in the interests of all Canada, I again appeal for the construction of that canal, the utility of which was foreseen by the great explorer Champlain, and the accomplishment of which is destined to affirm for all tine the commercial supremacy of Canada. boration in the work of erecting the edifice of union and harmony that inspired the of Canadian prosperity. It was that ideal which allowed it to satisfactory settle the government with the conciliatory policy ticklish questions of religion and race which, at other times and under other conditions, would have widened the gulf between the two principal ethnical groupes of the Dominion. And yet, what violent In fine, Mr. Speaker, I desire to remark assaults were not made upon this phase that the government, by its social legisla- of the ministerial policy, when racial pastion, and by its conciliatory policy between sions were kindled and fanned into fury the different races, has succeeded in put- by the extreme wings of the opposition. ting aside two great and serious obstacles Do we not still hear the echoes of the $247,790,232 for the twelve years ending the 30th June, 1908. For the twelve years prior to 1896, our exports of butter amounted to 57,247,699 pounds as against 259,655,811 pounds during the twelve years ending 1908. For the ten years prior to 1896, the total products of the farm exported including butter, cheese, bacon and hams, am unted to $146,558,000; and for the ten years after 1896, under the able administration of the Minister of Agriculture, these same products amounted to $369,404,000, or more than two and a half times the total under the ten years of Conservative rule. These are some of the results due to the policy and expenditures made by the Minister of Agriculture. some twenty or thirty years ago. Therefore I am not surprised that he should refer to the farmers' business as being destroyed by the government of the day. When I spoke last year on the wool tariff I referred to a woollen enterprise in which I am engaged in Renfrew. I am glad to tell my hon. friend that our year's business has just been made up and we find we have had another prosperous year under the tariff of the present administration. My hon. friend from North Lanark (Mr. Thoburn) will tell the House how the tariff works so much against the woollen men, but notwithstanding the tariff has been so damaging to the wool business, it is reported that out of that same business my Just a word about the woollen tariff, the hon. friend has made the large fortune of pet theme of the hon. member for East $250,000 and he is still a young man, and Grey (Mr. Sproule). One would imagine I have no doubt that before he leaves this from his speech that our farmers were maworld his fortune will be doubled, and I terially affected by the woollen tariff of the only hope it will. I myself am engaged in present administration. But what do we the woollen industry and I am particularly find? Let us see how much my hon. friend pleased with the tariff. But there is anand his associates assisted the farmers dur- other industry in the town of Renfrew in ing the eighteen years they were in power which I am interested and in which the and how their woollen tariff affected the capital invested amounts to some fifty or farmers. I find that when the Conserva- sixty thousand dollars. If the Finance tive government came into power in 1878 Minister, when he revises his tariff, will our farmers were then receiving for their include the articles manufactured in that wool thirty cents per pound, and in 1881 factory in his revision and give them the they received twenty-five cents per pound. same protection as the woollen men reI hope my hon. friend from Lanark will ceive, I shall be perfectly satisfied. I am listen to these figures. In 1884, wool took not finding any fault with the tariff, but another drop, and for three years the there are some fifteen or twenty factories farmers received an average of twenty-two manufacturing these articles in Canada, cents per pound. In 1887, it took a further and the time has arrived when they should drop down to twenty cents, and in 1891, it be protected to some extent, because the went to eighteen and a half cents. Yet the articles I refer to are on the free list. gentlemen, whose party was then in power, And now in conclusion let me say that congratulate the farmers for having re- I hope the Prime Minister, as president, ceived so much for their wool and for and the Finance Minister, vice-prehaving benefited so much by the Conser-sident, of the great national company, may vative policy. During five years prior to be long spared to guide the destinies of 1896 under Conservative rule, the price the people of Canada. paid was eighteen and a half cents; but for the last five years under the administration of this government, notwithstanding the claim that the preferential tariff worked so badly for the farmers, they received an average of twenty-four and a half cents per pound for their wool as compared with eighteen and a half cents. And the only reason why our farmers are going out of the wool-growing business is because there are more profitable things for them to go into. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) criticised this government because our farmers are not exporting so much wool to-day as they did in 1896. Well, the government have no control over the exportation of wool, and the market is open to-day just as it was in 1896. But the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is liable to charge this government with anything. I heard him last session hold it responsible for the destruction of the business of a couple of mills which were burnt down as Mr. J. A. SEXSMITH (East Peterborough). I have listened with considerable interest to the speech on the budget and the lengthy debate which has followed. I was surprised to hear the hon. the Minister of Finance make the statement that there would be no tariff changes this year. There are many changes which should be made and made at the earliest possible date in the interests of our agricultural population. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Low) spoke quite fluently about the woollen industry. When the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) talked about that industry a short time ago, judging by the expression of some of the members of the opposite side of the House, it was to them an industry to be laughed at rather than discussed. I am perfectly satisfied that the hon. member for South Renfrew has never taken the trouble to study the magnitude of that industry or what it has done for other nations. Before I sit down, I hope to draw the attention of that hon. gentleman and of the House to what that industry has done and is doing for the great countries of the British empire and of America. Speaking on the subject of agriculture, I feel, as one inexperienced in making speeches and in view of the magnitude of that industry, that I shall not be able to do it justice. However, I am a farmer myself, and if there is anything in the world I am proud of it is of that fact. Not that there are not other high callings in life, but to my mind there is no higher calling than that of tilling the soil and producing food for the nation. According to the statistics of the government, the farmers of Canada last year, in one branch of their industry alone, added to the wealth of the nation, $432,992,100, this being the value of the field crops. I contend, I think, rightly so, that every dollar produced from the soil is a dollar added to the wealth of the country, for no part of it is taken from the natural resources of the country, but, if a proper system of cultivation be used, that production can go on and on through all time. In addition to the amount I have already stated, we may count $200,000,000 or $300,000,000 to represent the other products of the farm, bringing the sum total of the wealth produced by the farmers of Canada last year close to the billion dollar mark. Yet in the face of this, we find one of the ministers of this government, if he is correctly reported, a short time ago practically asking the people by their votes to discriminate against the farmers as representatives in this House, declaring against a candidate on the ground that he was not a trained advocate and therefore not able to represent his constituents. I think we have a right to hold the government responsible for these statements. It seems to me the reason they do not want farmers here is because the farmers, through long practice of economy in making a living, on coming here will be, as I was myself, astonished at the extravagant expenditure of the government along many lines and will go back and tell their fellow-farmers, so that it would not be well for the government. I cannot think of any other reason. As to the woollen industry, concerning which my hon. friend (Mr. Low) has spoken so elaborately, I think that if that hon. gentleman had studied what this industry has done for other countries and how it has been fostered by other countries, he would have come to the conclusion that it is well worth while to do something for that industry in Canada. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in his budget speech the other day told us that the government had paid $13,009,000 in subsidies to the steel and iron industry in nine years. That industry is not what you would call a natural industry of the country; yet we have fostered it and spent upon it millions of the hard-earned money taken from the pockets of the people of this country, while the woollen industry, which has done more for the nations of the world than any other, and which is a natural industry, and which did not cost this country one dollar, has been practically throttled and put out of business. There are three great essentials in the foundation of a nation, especially in a country with a climate like ours-food, fuel and clothing. I am glad to be able to say that we are in a position to supply food for ourselves, and I hope that in a short time we shall be able to supply food for the whole British empire. As to fuel, we have it in abundance; we have deposits of coal that are practically inexhaustible. There is no reason why we should not provide clothing for the people, but that industry does not seem to be regarded by hon. members opposite as worthy of consideration. In 1899, there were 270 woollen mills in Canada; in 1908 these had decreased to 197. Now, I will ask the members of the government: Can we, having the remedy in our own hands, allow this condition of affairs to continue? According to the United States census of 1905, the capital employed in the textile industry in that country was $1,343,324,605, and the value of the goods produced per annum is $1,215,036,190. The woollen, industry, which is one of the textile industries, employed $477,000,000 and the annual value of its product was $517,000,000. Now, these are figures that, in my opinion, are well worth looking into. When we look over the great manufacturing industries of the United States, we find that the production and manufacture of food employ more capital than does the textile industry. We find that the iron and steel industry employs more capital than does the woollen industry. But if you take into account the labour employed in the manufacture of textiles into clothes in the United States, you will find that that industry gives more employment to labour in that country than do the iron and steel industry and the food industry combined. I contend that the value of a great industry to a country is to be judged by the number of people to whom it gives employment. Taking that into consideration, surely every hon. member of this House will admit that the woollen industry far exceeds every other. Now let us look at Great Britain. The textile industry in Great Britain represents a capital of $1,250,000,000. It is the greatest export industry in that country, and it employs directly and indirectly about 5,000,000 people. I would like hon. gentlemen to pay strict attention to these facts. The textile industry in Great Britain employs about one-tenth of the entire to-night, that there are not half a dozen of them at present in the House. The Conservative party, with which much fault has been found, were driven from power in 1896, and there is no possibility that dead men can return. If they were here, if one of them should rise and take my place, I am sure that all that has been said against them would soon be annihilated and would have very little force in it. It is not, I think, a brave act to attack men who have gone, and who have no opportunity to return and defend themselves. It is not necessary to go into details in regard to this matter. rail a The two last speakers, who gave us great deal of information and whose speeches certainly were very well delivered, seemed to be a little wrong in their bookkeeping. The hon. gentleman for South Oxford (Mr. Schell), in discussing the public debt, quoted a certain amount of debt with which he said the Conservative party had to contend at confederation. He forgot to tell us that the very act of confederation implied that the government in power at that time had to assume certain burdens as the very foundation of confederation. They had to assume $109,000,000 of debt from the different confederated provinces. This is laid to the charge of the Conservative government but it could certainly not have been avioded. They had also to build the Intercolonial way as one of the conditions of confederation; the maritime provinces came into confederation with the understanding that the Intercolonial railway was to be built, the Conservative government of that day built it and it cost the country $50,000,000 to do so. They completed it, they were bound to complete it and no blame could be laid to their door for carrying out the agreement made at confederation. British Columbia came into confederation with the understanding that the Canadian Pacific railway was to be built to the Pacific ocean. The Conservative government agreed to do that at confederation and they fulfilled their contract. It cost the country $62,000,000 but the government was certainly not to blame for doing that, that was something which it was impossible for them to avoid. It was understood and it was only right that if these large amounts of money were to be spent on the maritime provinces, and for the benefit of British Columbia and the west, a certain amount of money should also be spent in the two older provinces and from $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 were spent in deepening the canals and improving the waterways. Adding these four items together, the $109,000,000 of debt taken over from the provinces, the $62,000,000 spent on the building of the Canadian Pacific railway, the $50,000,000 spent on the building of the Inter colonial railway and the $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 spent in deepening our canals in Ontario and Quebec, and it will be seen that every dollar of debt that was on the country when the Liberals came into power is accounted for, and every dollar of that debt was in fulfilment of the conditions of the pledges that we assumed at confederation. The Conservatives during all the years that they were in power did not run the country into debt a solitary dollar according to that estimate. They governed the country and built post offices, wharfs, harbours, public buildings, purchased and paid for the Northwest Territories and they also built these magnificent parliament buildings and paid for every one of those without leaving any debt on the country beyond what was involved in the very beginning of confederation. The Liberals came into power in 1896 and they have run this country into a debt of $80.000,000. What have they to show for it? They have a partially completed railwaythey have completed no great work. However, it is not necessary for me to defend these Conservatives of old days, these men are not coming back to this country and it is not necessary that I or any cther person should talk longer on that subject; that is ancient history and I feel that if the two eloquent speakers who addressed us to-day had spent their time in discussing present day affairs, it would have been much better for them and for us and we would not have lost so much time. They were also wrong in their book-keeping in some other respects; in fact as I followed the particulars as they were brought out item by item in regard to the finances of this country and the condition of affairs, I came to the conclusion that the whole system of government bookkeeping in the departments in Ottawa and elsewhere is defective, and misleading. The more it is examined, the worse it appears. It seems to me that if it had been especially devised for the purpose of deceiving and misleading the Canadian public and the Canadian electorate it could scarcely have done so more effectually than it does. Every business man knows and we all know that in any properly arranged system of book-keeping vouchers or receipts must be produced to prove the accuracy and bona fides of every separate item of expenditure, fraternal societies, joint stock companies, school trustees, village, township, county, and town-councils are all rigidly particular in this respect. They insist that everything shall be made absolutely clear and satisfactory, not only to the auditors and the people's representatives, but also to the people themselves. Yet, in the highest book-keeping establishment in the land, in the departments here in Ottawa where we |