November 15, 1909

CONTROVERTED ELECTION.

LIB

James Kirkpatrick Kerr (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from the Hon. Mr. Justice Pelletier and the Hon. Mr. Justice Lemieux, two of the judges selected for tiie trial of election petitions pursuant to the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, a report relating to the election for the electoral district of Montmagny, by which the said election petition was dismissed and the sitting member declared duly elected.

Topic:   CONTROVERTED ELECTION.
Permalink

MEMBER INTRODUCED.


Edmond Fortier, Esq., member for the electoral district of Lotbiniere, introduced bj Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Hon. L. P. Brodeur.


REPORT PRESENTED.


The Forty-second Annual Report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries relating to Marine.-Hon. L. P. Brodeur.


ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.

LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved:

That the order for the consideration of the motion for an address to His Excellency the

Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session be now called, and that the same until disposed of have precedence over all other business except the introduction of bills and questions.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


LIB

Arthur Ecrément

Liberal

Mr. A. ECREMENT (Berthier).

(Translation.) Mr. Speaker, custom will be my excuse for being so bold. Custom requires that some young, unexperienced member be entrusted with the task of commenting the speech from the Throne. It affords an opportunity for teaching him a lesson which may turn out to be profitable to him; besides, it affords an opportunity for the House to show indulgence, the greatest virtue of men and especially of leaders of men.

I feel deeply grateful for the honour bestowed upon me, and which the electoral district of Berthier, whose representative I am, is especially entitled to claim for itself. But 1 have good reason to hesitate at undertaking such a task, considering that I am expected in the course of a few minutes to review a series of questions which it will take the House the whole session to dispose of.

Bound as I am to merely give a very general idea of the government's policy, I should certainly be in fear of minimizing its importance by too summary a judgment, were I not aware that experienced and leading politicians are to follow me up and take occasion of this period of peace and tranquility, to deal fully with these great undertakings referred to in the speech from the Throne.

Such a task is not always congenial to a beginner; many difficulties are in his way, some of which are personal to himself; a youth is often taken to task for being youthful. But if years impart experience, youth endows one with a capacity for work and a willingness to work; and I would feel some satisfaction if though everything else might be wanting, the quality of sincerity was found to inspire my utterances.

It is customary, Mr. Speaker, at the opening of each session, to review briefly the general condition of the country. It would be unbecoming on my part to break away from the custom generally followed, and particularly at a time when complying with the usage cannot but be an agreeable task, since, as several of my predecessors have done, I am bound to submit a favourable report.

On the other hand, however pleasant the task of pointing out the really good features in a policy, I must say that it is not solely with the object of eulogizing the government that I intend showing the connection between the wisdom of the policy they propound and the satisfactory state of business.

We have just emerged from a very trying period of depression. Our neighbours to the south have been severely shaken up;

and, while I am not called upon to set forth the influences which have brought this about, it will be in order to recall how disastrous the effects of this crisis have been and how well founded were our apprehensions in this regard. However, things did not turn out as we had surmised, and the depression from which the United States suffered did not affect our eountry possibly to the same extent as it did most European countries, some of which, such as Germany, show heavy deficits in their finances, while others, such as England, are trying to find out some means of making the revenue meet the expenditure, at the very moment when our Minister of Finance is reducing taxation and announcing large surpluses.

While it was inevitable that so great a disturbance in the financial condition of such an extensive country as the United States, should in turn have a depressing effect on the general business of our country, on the other hand our business and financial institutions were not imperilled in consequence; they victoriously withstood the storm. Now, if it is only a matter of fairness to praise very highly the foresight and wisdom of our business men under the circumstances, we should also be frank enough to acknowledge that a large share of these happy results is attributable to this government.

Let us be frank about it, no country would have been able to withstand such a crisis, if the management of its public affairs had not on the whole been sound, if it had not been protected against sudden changes in the financial world by means of a strong and secure financial organization, the result of several years of political effort, of several years of administrative forethought, with the object of warding off all possible danger and ensuring an ever increasing prosperity.

The main factor in the continuance of that prosperity has been an ever increasing tide of immigration, kept under strict control and particularly well selected. No one will deny that such prosperity is an actual fact. It would be an easy matter for me to quote figures which are familiar to you; they are very telling, and in that respect would prove useful to me; but preferably I shall follow the advice of a leading member of the party opposite and for once endeavour to find proofs other than statistics as evidence of our country's progress. The fact to which I refer has not been sufficiently insisted upon, it having only slowly come to light, though of late in n. striking fashion: I mean the expansion of Canada abroad, outside of its own boundaries.

We have reached a point in our history when nature, vanquished by us, is freely giving up its treasures; all classes of society are equipped and ready to win the battle in the economic field. We are making the best of our own resources.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
LIB

Arthur Ecrément

Liberal

Mr. ECREMENT.

From now on, Canada will attract more and more the attention of foreign peoples who concern themselves with all our country may do, or think, or wish. Thinkers have their eye on Canada; its products, its possibilities, its resources are discussed, estimated and its future commented upon.

' Among new countries,' writes a leading economist, ' Canada is the one which most attracts attention.' ' It is a country whose progress cannot be impeded,' writes a former minister in the French cabinet. And you are familiar with the following quotation from another author particularly well informed in a book intituled ' Le Canada et les deux races ': 'In a near future, no doubt, the Dominion's economic progress will be enormous and largely comparable with that of its gigantic neighbour, the United States.'

In connection with this parallel between our country and the United States, I may be allowed to state with what deep sense of regret we who had enjoyed the happy condition of things created by the treaty of 1854 and that of Washington, witnessed the setting up of that wall at the prompting of the protectionist spirit of our neighbours, the outcome of which action will be to induce us to seek elsewhere other openings for our products. Such is the great work to which our government is devoting itself when endeavouring to develop means of transportation throughout the country. There is possibly no other means whereby to the same extent the development of the country could be brought about, or enforced, if I may so express myself.

It is not incumbent on me to deal anew with the matter of the Transcontinental railway. Nearly fifteen hundred miles of that railway will soon have been completed, a gigantic undertaking to which the right hon. gentleman has had the glory of attaching that name which so often led us to victory.

That question, as well as that of the reconstruction of the Quebec bridge,-the promise of which, given to us as solace on a day of mourning, is now being fulfilled,- should be kept apart from party strife and considered as a national undertaking. It should be looked upon solely as a masterful and beneficent attempt to improve conditions and with which sectional views or prejudices should not be allowed to interfere. We are to-dav in possession of the marvellous results secured by the Caandian Pacific railway, not only as a business proposition, as a business concern, but as a means for the_ country's development.

In connection with the proposed Hudson Bav railway, what wonderful things might be accomplished through the building of a new line running across the Laurentian highlands, somewhere north of Berthier and reaching Montreal-since according to ex-nerts that would be the easiest route,-at the same time putting the commercial me-

tropolis in touch with that great inter- ; ocean line of railway! What wonders i would it not do, from the standpoint of immigration, agriculture, industry and coloni- s zation generally, throughout those unex- t plored districts. It would be a repetition of : what the Canadian Pacific railway accom- 1 plished in the Canadian west, which is j largely indebted to that company for its development.

Promoters and business men are anxious for a settlement of this question. What has been done in the past should be our surest guide for the future, and I cannot insist on it too strongly, our future prosperity lies in the development of our means of transportation. Right here I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to quote an opinion recently expressed by an eminent engineer, and which I select purposely among others, because I take it to indicate clearly, notwithstanding its brevity, not only the desirability, but the necessity of such development. 'The ability of the manufacturer and business man, the wealth and resources of a country, however great, are not sufficient by themselves to ensure success. It is, furthermore, necessary that the public means of transportation to the distributing points should have their full development. Under certain circumstances, the reduction in. the cost of transportation may become the main factor towards cheap products.'

It is that same progressive policy which has induced the Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur) to exert himself to the fullest extent with a view to developing that means of transportation which has been so aptly termed 'the St. Lawrence undertaking,' and also with a view to pushing ahead the deepening of the channel to a uniform depth of thirty-five feet. Thus better lighted and made still safer, that route, 110 miles shorter than that connecting New York and the Great Lakes, will challenge all competition and carry the ocean, as it were, to the very heart of the continent. The outcome will be that underwriters will have to cut down their rates and exporters to ship their goods through our territory and over our waterways. If I dilate somewhat on that point, it is on account of its evidencing on the part of the government an unrelenting desire to improve and make perfect that public means of transportation.

Parliament is to be called upon to consider in the course of this session a Bill amending thS Banks Act, and another amending the insurance laws. Both sides of the House agree as to the desirability of such legislation. That will dispense me with going into an examination of the provisions of these Bills, the wisdom of which all readily acknowledge, resting as they do on an uncontrovertible principle of equity and justice. That, of course, does not detract in any way from the credit due to the

government for the spirit of fairness shown under the circumstances.

That same spirit of fairness will be instrumental in putting a stop to the formation of illegal trusts and monopolies, an abuse which has been going on for some time past and which should not be tolerated in this country.

Let me now take up another point in the speech from the Throne; that of naval defence. I quite realize that this is in many respects a difficult, I might say, a thorny question, considering the rather extreme view of it taken by some people. At this turning point in our history, one cannot but be moved by what the historian terms the uncertainty of human events. It was to be expected, then, I was going to say it was unavoidable, that numerous objections should be forthcoming and a diversity of opinions expressed following on the announcement of the carrying out of that measure which the Canadian people have been considering for years past. However, as Guizot puts it, 'One must keep up with the times and with the trend of events, and be courageous enough to speak out the whole truth to one's countrymen and contemporaries.'

We claimed and obtained from England the right to conclude our treaties. That monument dedicated to the business interests of our country and over whose frontispiece we read the Franco-Canadian treaty, a' treaty which we will be called upon to ratify in the course of this session, is not the less advantageous. We boast, and rightly so, of being in full possession of the privileges of democracy; we occupy in the business world a most enviable position; we proclaim through the mouths of our public men, here and in foreign lands, that Canada is large enough, rich enough and proud enough to cease remaining a colony and to become actually a nation. Notwithstanding which we would leave to others the task of protecting our frontiers, our territory, that growing trade and the routes followed by it, those coasts where our fishermen and merchants have shelters and safe harbours. We would close our ears to that mysterious voice which entices youthful nations to take the necessary means for ensuring their growth, from the material as well as. from the moral standpoint! No, our statesmen, anxious for the welfare of Canadian interests as well as for the welfare of the interests of the mother country, for over a century the defender of our rights and franchises, our statesmen, I say, have been urged solely by a sense of national pride and self-respect, when, after listening to the various views voiced from divers quarters, they set aside the proposals of those who were favourable to a direct contribution towards the support of the Imperial navy, as well as the senseless grop-

ings of others, and come out with a distinctly Canadian policy.

The creation of that navy which will offer new openings to Canadian youths and further opportunities for the display of energy and ability by our Canadian workmen, will as we are assured, be Canadian-built, Canadian in its uses, and Canadian in its management Let us hope further that it will lead to the establishment on Canadian soil of large shipyards wherein, to meet the pressing needs of the Canadian trade, merchantmen will be built either through a grant from the Dominion government or the imposition of a duty on ships built in foreign lands.

'There is no escape from destiny,' once said the victor of the world, on board the ' Northumberland.' So it is with nations as with individuals. It is then a task worthy of our leaders to make to-day preparations for the future, unflinchingly, though at the same time unostentatiously. To-morrow all adverse opinions, all criticisms, will give way to admiration at the enviable position our country will occupy, with greater liberty and independence.

Such are, Mr. Speaker, the proposals of the government. They one and all spring from the same inspiration, and it is one that makes for progress. Indeed the great mainspring of all government projects, which persists under a variety of forms, is a desire to do right, and whenever possible to do better still.

I am quite ready to acknowledge that youth is apt to be carried away by deceptive appearances, but there is no deception in believing that improvement is always within reach, providing there is proper guidance, there is no deception in hoping for one's country a constantly brighter and greater future. There is no deception possible for whoever follows that venerable and glorious leader, supported by his colleagues, sustained by the House, working hand in hand with the whole Canadian people, all united in one common expectation. Then, satisfied as to the necessity of developing unceasingly our powers, we will have the satisfaction of seeing Canada play a more important part, not only on the continent of America, but among the nations of the world in whose company it has just been admitted, conscious of its strength and justly proud of its youthful activity.

I have the honour to propose that an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General in answer to the speech from the Throne.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
LIB

George William Kyte

Liberal

Mr. G. W. KYTE (Richmond, N.S.).

Mr. Speaker, we are living under parliamentary institutions, absolutely free from imperial interference, and it therefore appears desirable that we should from time to time be reminded of the source from which we have our being as a parliament- I Mr. ECREMENT.

ary body. And about the only material and substantial evidence of the tie that binds us to the motherland was presented to us on Thursday afternoon, as it is annually presented to us at the ceremony of the opening of parliament. According to ancient usage and custom, His Majesty's dutiful Commons, attended at the Senate Chamber and there learned from the speech of His Excellency the causes for which parliament was summoned. According to usage, equally ancient and respected, we are required to acknowledge this speech in a suitable reply. The honour and distinction of seconding the motion of my hon. friend from Berthier (Mr. Ecrement) that an humble address be presented to His Excellency has fallen upon me. I thank the right hon. the leader of the government for so honouring me, and I assure him that I have accepted the task, as I trust I shall accept every other serious duty in life, with a full sense of its responsibility. The mild and balmy weather we have enjoyed since our arrival at the capital and the lingering tints of autumn remind us that we have been invited to the discharge of our duties somewhat earlier than usual. Surely to begin earlier is to end earlier and my hope is that we shall have completed our labours before the melting winter's snows have overflowed the Chaudiere; and I trust that diverse councils or overmuch speaking may not shame my expectation.

In His Excellency's speech he dealt with many important subjects, but it is my purpose to limit my observations to three or four. The first subject that appeals to me is that of immigration. I have always felt that Canada can never expect to achieve her destiny until her vast prairies and important stretches of land shall be peopled by a sufficient and contented population. Last year, I am happy to say, was a year unique in our history as respects the number of immigrants who landed on our shores. I am not going to inflict upon this House any statistics, and I trust the House will pardon me if I indulge one statistical quotation.

The number of immigrants arriving in Canada for the fiscal year, ending 31st March, 1909, was as follows:

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink

IMMIGRATION FOR FISCAL YEAR, ENDED MARCH 31, 1909.


Great Britain 52,901 Continent 34,175 United States 59,832 146,908 From Great Britain- England and Wales 37,482 Scotland 11,810 Ireland 3,609 The following are the figures of immigration for the six months ending September 30 last, compared with a similar period of the previous year: 6 mos. 6 mos. to to Sept. 30, Sept. 30, In-1909. 1909. crease. Ocean ports 64,447 From United States.. 56,486 Total 120,933 100,471 20 p. c. Estimate for the whole year 175,000. Now, Sir, while we in this country are always willing to open our doors to the best immigration that comes to us from Europe -from England, from Ireland, from Scotian and from the other countries who have contributed to our population for many years, there is a peculiar interest involved in the immigration which we receive from the United States. That is an immigration which is not forced upon us by reason of undesirable or unhappy social conditions at home or by reason of any inability on the part of these people to find profitable employment in their own country. They come to us voluntarily because they believe that in the great Canadian northwest there is a future which far exceeds the prospects that lie before them anywhere ,else in the world. I would ask our friends from the west to treat well these immigrants from! the United States. Their coming here is a repayment to some extent of the debt which the United States owed to Canada for many years by reason of the immigration they received from Canada under less happy conditions than those which exist at the present time. This is to us a notable and glorious fact. Instead of the tide of migration setting from Canada, and the maritime provinces to the United States as it was heretofore, to-day the tide of migration is from the United States to Canada. In the United States Canadians found comfortable, prosperous homes; they found the doors of opportunity in every walk of life open to them. There was no position in the social, intellectual and industrial life of that great country to which a Canadian was not welcome or to which he might not aspire. I trust that the same will hold good with regard to the immigrants coming into this country from the United States. They are worthy of the warm welcome which Canadians will always give them, and let us hope that while' immigration comes to us from the United States it will always be of the quality and class that characterized the immigration from that country into Canada during the last twelve months. I do not propose to make reference to the question of finance and trade; these *were dealt with by my hon. friend from Berthier. But there is one matter mentioned in His Excellency's speech which has a great fascination for me-the subject of railways. I am pleased that the day has come when the government can afford to undertake the projection of a new railway into the great west. I observe that surveys and plans have been completed for the Hudson Bay railway, and, in the ordinary course of things, I would expect that the policy that the government enunciated some time ago in that regard would be carried out and that the construction of a railway to Hudson bay will be one of the undertakings of the not far distant future. But while we rejoice that the people in the west are receiving what was coming to them and what belongs to them in the matter of railways, I am glad that the government have not overlooked the position of affairs in the maritime provinces. It was my privilege last session to support the resolution of my hon. friend from Westmorland (Hon. H. R. Emmer-son) with respect to the absorption of certain branch railways by this government. I had scarcely hoped that the efforts of my hon. friend, who has conducted a vigorous and persistent campaign all along the line on that subject, would have borne fruit so early. The suggestion of his Excellency that the government would take power to lease certain branch railways is a fulfilment of the dearest and best expectations of my hon. friend from Westmorland and myself. I do not purpose going, this afternoon, into the question of the Intercolonial or setting forth the reasons why the people of the maritime provinces may reasonably look forward to a degree of railway development greater than they have heretofore enjoyed. There is a great field for the exercise of the benevolent policy on the part of the government outlined in that paragraph of his Excellency's speech. I trust that the government will carry out this policy vigorously; and while I cannot hope that they will enter into the purchase or leasing of all the railways that it is desirabe the Intercolonial should control in the near future, I would hope they will make an early start and that one or two branches connecting with the Intercolonial may be acquired at an early day. One other question referred to in the speech from the Throne appears to me as having great importance, the question of enhanced prices of certain manufactured goods. I notice that his Excellency has referred to that, and intimates that the government intend to propose further legislation to prevent the enhancement of prices of goods that may be the subject of combines. I must confess to a fear that there is an activity abroad in the combining of industrial enterprises that bodes no good to the consumer in this country. We have from time to time been informed through- the newspapers that large and



important industrial enterprises are being absorbed by larger enterprises, or are being combined into what are called mergers. And there is already some evidence that the result of these combinations and mergers is to enhance prices very materially as regards certain lines of goods necessarily consumed by the people of this country. Far be it from me to detract from the energy or enterprise of these captains of industry who, by their talents for organization, their financial genius and splendid optimism, have consummated what are known in this country as mergers but are known ^n other countries by harsher and less delectable appellations. It is our duty to study public questions and evolve policies on public issues in the light of the past history of other countries similarly circumstanced with ourselves, and I believe that the time has come to limit to some extent' the bxercise of those talents for promoting mergers recently so much in evidence in this Dominion. 'Predatory wealth ' is a term that happily, ; so far has had no meaning or application in relation to our industrial finances and I conceive it to be the duty of parliament in so far as it may properly do so by legislation to make it absolutely impossible for that opprobrious expletive ever to become engrafted upon the language of this country. There is only one other question that I should refer to, and that is the question of naval defence. That question has already been dealt with by my hon. friend from Berthier, but, as it is an important one. perhaps the House will pardon me even if I go over ground that he has covered. The resolution passed unanimously by this House on the 29th of March last calls for action on the part of the government for the purpose of crystallizing that resolution into an active and vigorous policy with respect to naval affairs in this country. I confess that I was in a haze as to what was best for Canada to do. Not being a military or naval man, I had to exercise such judgment as I was able to arrive at after having heard the speeches of the leaders of the House on that occasion. But I wanted to know also what naval experts thought of the policy of this country and through it of the policy of the Imperial government, and I was pleased to learn, some months after this resolution was passed, that Lord Charles Beresford had delivered himself on that question. Speaking at the Australian annual banquet in the city of London, ^ on June 29 last, Lord Charles Beresford said: The government was wise to ask a conference to assemble in this country to discuss this all-important matter. There was no doubt that the question of imperial defence was in the minds of the Dominions, because they had shown us at home that they thought we were Mr. KYTE. getting a bit sleepy, not looking facts in the face, and the fact was further emphasized by the offer of money for the purpose of building what were called Dreadnoughts, but which ho preferred to call battleships. . . [DOT] The great object was to help one another, and he thought the best way was for the Dominions to make proposals for defending themselves. The best investment for the colonies was to build cruisers with which to protect their trade routes. ***************** The vessels should be under the administration and control of the Dominions, but in case of war ready to join the imperial fleet. I confess that I was glad to observe that Lord Charles Beresford agrees with the policy of this House as regards the vote given on the 29th of March. I am pleased to see that the government felt called upon to make some practical move as regards the policy that was adopted on that occasion, and I observe that that resolution has been strictly adhered to. There appears to be some difference of opinion in this country as to what particular form Canada's assistance to naval defence should take, but so far as the hon. members of this House are concerned I think there will be no difference of opinion in view of the vote that was given here last session on that subject. Now, I have no strong views with regard to this question. A cash contribution is an alternative proposal: but it appears to me that that savours somewhat of feudalism, a spirit that we got away from hundred of years ago. I think Canada would do well to move slowly in this regard, to form the nucleus of a navy for its own coastal protection and for its own purposes as regards naval defence in co-operation with the imperial navy should occasion arise for co-operation with the stronger force. When the proposals come down, I have no doubt, there will be a discussion on the question, and, perhaps, with more light upon the subject we may all be disposed to give some further expression to our particular views in that regard. Now, Mr. Speaker, history affords us many instances of alliances having been formed among nations for the purpose of mutual assistance and support, to repel the attacks of other powers, and to assist each other in aggressive warfare. These alliances, however, having been based upon no higher law or nobler sentiment than fear on the one hand or hate on the other, if we except those sordid and selfish instincts, that frequently coveted the territory of some weak and unoffending neighbour, fell apart when self interest or expediency demanded new combinations; and the countries that were to-day leagued together, to-morrow sought new allies to conquer and destroy their friends of yesterday. The policy of the government as regards naval defence foreshadowed in His Excellency's speech, is the opening of a new and striking chapter in the world's history. Great Britain, the foremost nation in the world, with her lusty and vigorous daughters, four other nations in vigour, promise and resource-Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa-united together in a quintuple alliance for the protection and enfranchisement of the British race in every quarter of the globe. In this alliance, fear, or hate, or covetousness will have'no place. It will be held together by ties of blood and kinship, by devotion to British institutions, and by the recollection of what Great Britain has done to uplift the burden of oppressed mankind in every region and every clime, bonds that are enduring and indestructible. Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion of the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Ecrement) that an humble address be presented to His Excellency.


CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to discuss the motion which has been presented to the House, I would like in the first place to express the sympathy of those sitting to your left for the family and friends of Dr. Wilbert McIntyre, late member for Strathcona, a gentleman whose fairness, whose courtesy and whose genial disposition endeared him to every member of this House, on whichever side of the Speaker he sits. Speaking for every one on this side of the House, as I am sure I can also speak for every one on the other side of the House, we tender to the family and friends of the late Dr. McIntyre our most sincere and hearty .sympathy. His death is a loss, not only to this House, but to the whole country; because, in addition to the qualities to which I have alluded, he was a man of more than ordinary ability, and one who devoted himself with the greatest possible industry to every public question that came up for the consideration of parliament.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to congratulate in no purely formal manner the hon. gentleman, (Mr. Ecrement) who moved the address of His Excellency, and who did so in very happy terms and with great eloquence; also my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte), who spoke with very great ability, and for the most part very happily.

With respect to the growing time which has been alluded to, I notice a distinct difference in the tenor of the speech which has been put into the mouth of His Excellency from that which we heard last year. I noticed in the gracious speech of His Excellency last year, that attention was called to a world wide depression, and it was indicated to us that this world wide depression had in some inevitable way 2 ' ' "

been extended to our own country. There was a suggestion that the depression was prevailing throughout the world, and that no effort of any government could possibly have prevented it from reaching Canada. But this year I do not observe any reference whatever to the world wide prosperity which is enjoyed by every civilized country at this moment, the inference of course being that the great advance and growth which have been happily manifest in Canada, and the rapid recovery from the depression of last year, are altogether due to the fact that we have upon the treasury benches of Canada today that wonderful aggregation of ability and talent which now presides over our destinies. Well, I suppose there must be a difference' in the way in which you look at it one year and the way in which you look at it in another year. But, after all, those of us who give intelligent consideration to such matters know that world wide prosperity and world wide depression are beyond the control of any government, or of any combination of governments. We are happy indeed that Canada in the past eight or ten years has had her full share in the world wide prosperity, we are glad of it, we rejoice in it, and we trust that it will long continue.

But there were one or two matters in connection with the growth of this country as to which I did not observe any allusion in the remarks, either of the hon. gentleman who moved the address or of the hon. gentleman who so ably seconded it. It has been a growing time in Canada, and it would be strange indeed if Canada did not share in this world wide prosperity. But have any of these hon. gentlemen considered the way in which the public expenditure of Canada has been growing in recent years? I have some figures that were made up for me not long ago, and they were of so startling a character that I sent for the public accounts, because I did not believe that they could be correct. I did not realize that the public expenditure of this country had grown to such an extent. But I found upon examining the public accounts that the figures given to me were correct. I found that, taking the ten years from 1886 to 1896, the aggregate revenue of this country amounted to $371,000,000, in round numbers. I found that, taking the ten years from 1900 to 1909, inclusive, the aggregate revenue of this country amounted to $692,500,000; in other words, I found that during the past ten years the present administration have received from the people of this country- because the money could come from no other source-$321,500,000 more than was received by the late Conservative administration during the last ten years they were in power. I imagined to myself what a good,

stalwart Liberal of the old school might say, coming to this parliament or coming into this House to-day, having regard to the pledges and to the declarations of principle which he had heard on so many public platforms before 1896, when he learned that in ten years $321,500,000 had been collected by this government in excess of what the people had paid to the Conservative administration during a similar period before 1896. Well, he would say in the first place that he was glad the revenue had been so abundant, but he would say also, 'When our friends went into power, when we assumed the reins of office in 1896, there' were $258,000,000 of public debt in this country. We had complained of the growth of that public debt, we had deprecated it, and I have not any doubt but that out of the $321,500,000 of surplus excess of revenue which the Liberal ministry has received from the people of Canada in the last ten years, the whole of that public debt has been wiped out.' Well, then, he would be told: 'No, it has not been all wiped out.' He would say: 'At least $200,000,000 must have been wiped out, because that would leave $121,500,000 excess of revenue to supply all the growing needs of this developing country.' He would be told: 'No, $200,000,000 have not been wiped out.' 'Well, then,' he would say, 'surely $100,000,000 of the public debt must have been wiped out, because that would leave to the Liberal leaders who are in power to-day $221,500,000 to supply the needs of the rapid growth and development of this country. He would be told: 'No, the

public debt of this country has not been decreased as much as that;' and if he seemed to be a man of robust health, capable of standing the shock, he would be told that the public debt of this country has been increased by nearly $66,000,000. I did not observe any allusion to this somewhat rapid and remarkable growth in the speech of either the mover or seconder of the address.

But, it does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that these are figures which call for some comment, and they are figures which have already evoked some expression of opinion from great financial authorities outside of Canada. I may be told, perhaps, that the National Transcontinental railway undertaking has absorbed a very large amount of this. I have taken the trouble to look into that and I find that, excluding the Quebec bridge, about $52,000,000 was expended up to the 31st March last in connection with the National Transcontinental railway, and that, including the Quebec bridge, a little more than $58,000,000 has been expended in connection with that undertaking. So you can put the National Transcontinental railway out of the matter alto-Mr. R. L. BORDEN. .

gether by deducting the amount expended upon it from the increase in the debt, and you will find, after balancing the accounts in that way, allowing $58,000,000 of debt for expenditure upon the National Transcontinental railway, that you have $321,500,000 of excess revenue beyond that which was received from the people of this country in the period of ten years before 1896, and you still find that the gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches to-day have spent the whole of that enormous sum and have also increased the public debt by $7,100,010. Not only that, but $46,000,000 in the increase of the public debt to which I have alluded took place, in the past year, and inasmuch as we have spent only $52,000,000 up to date upon the National Transcontinental railway we can foresee from the figures brought down by the government themselves that between $100,000,000 and $150,000,000 still remain to be expended upon that gigantic undertaking before it shall have been completed.

Passing from this question of the expenditure upon the Transcontinental rail-wav itself, I do not observe a reference iD the speech from the Throne to the probable Mate of the completion of the undertaking; nor do I observe, in the speech from the Throne, any reference, or any information whatever, as to the date at which the Quebec bridge will be completed. I think that these are matters upon which we might well be enlightened by the Prime Minister when he comes to address the House. We know that very severe comments have been made by the late president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, Sir Charles Rivers Wilson, who has spoken in very indignant tones and in very severe language as to the extraordinary delay which has taken place in the work of construction between Winnipeg and Quebec. 1 would like to know, if possible, at what date the government expect that the road will be completed, and at what date they expect the Quebec bridge will be completed. Have they any reasonable idea, which they can vouchsafe to the House as measurably correct, as to when either of these events will take place; and if, as we assume the event will be, the Transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Quebec and the remaining portion of the line from Quebec to Moncton will be first completed, what do they propose to do with thesa portions of the road during the period when the Quebec bridge will be still in process of construction? We are all aware in this country that traffic, once routed in a particular direction, is very difficult to move, and we are all aware that the traffic coming over the National Transcontinental railway may get routed in directions which are not thoroughly in the

interests of the people of this country; at all events, not in the interest of the great maritime ports of Canada. I think the matter to which I have directed the attention of the government is one of considerable importance, and I do trust that we will have from the Prime Minister, when he comes to address the House, some reliable information as to these very important questions.

1 did not observe any reference in the speech from the Throne to the waterways treaty. The Prime Minister was good enough to tell us a day or two ago that the matter is still under the consideration of the government. If it is still under the consideration of the government I cannot reasonably expect any very definite information to-day, but I think the decision of the government, as soon as it is made, should be announced to the House in order that there may be an opportunity for debate, because I still adhere to the view which I expressed last session, and, I think, the previous session as well, that this treaty, inasmuch as it involves, to a certain extent at least, territorial rights, ought not, according to the modern and, I think, the better British practice, to have been entered into without having been made subject to the ratification of this parliament. Inasmuch as that course was not pursued it is only right and absolutely in the public interest that we should have all the information in regard to it as soon as possible.

I remember also, that the Prime Minister, at the concluding session of the imperial conference of 1907, proposed to the conference a certain famous resolution. I do not know whether many hon. gentlemen in this House can remember it thoroughly or not because the matter seems to have faded pretty well out of the public view in the meantime. As a matter of fact it concerned what was called the All-red line and the Liberal press throughout the country heralded the idea of the All-red line as one which had sprung in full armour, like Minerva from the brain of Jove, from the brain of the Prime Minister of this country, So, a resolution was introduced in the concluding days of the session of 1908-I think it was-the matter was placed before parliament for its consideration and the resolution, in the terms proposed by the government, was eventually passed. During the last session of parliament I asked for some information as to the position of, and as to the progress, if any, which had been made in this affair, and, as far as I recollect from the reply of the Prime Minister, it did not seem that any great progress had been made up to that time in that direction. It is possible that some progress has been made in that direction and if so I have no doubt the Prime Minister will give to this 2i

House all such information as may be available in that regard.

Allusion is made in the speech from the Throne to the French treaty. I do not desire to say one single word in regard to it which would in any way embarrass the government in its consideration of what appears to be a very difficult question. I have under my hand the tariff recently adopted by the United States of America. Every hon. gentleman in this House who has given any consideration to this question at all knows the terms of the second section of the American tariff of 1909. The second section of that tariff provides that the rates set forth in section 1 of the Act shall be the tariff to be levied in the United States upon goods coming from all foreign countries together with 25 per cent ad valorem in addition thereto unless the President of the United States shall after taking into consideration the fiscal measures of other countries, come to the conclusion that the United States has in every respect reciprocal and fair treatment from such other countries, and shall make proclamation accordingly. In the absence of any such proclamation by the President of the United States-and, of course, he has to depend, as we understand, for his advice in that regard, upon a board of experts whom he has appointed -every-article exported from Canada to the United States, or from any other country to the United States, shall be subject not only to the tariff set forth in section 1 of the Act but to 25 per cent ad valorem as well. I do not to-day propose to enter into any debate upon the bearing of the treaty with the French Republic, but I shall venture to bring to the attention of the government a consideration of our relative trade with France and with the United States during the past three years. Our aggregate imports from France during the past three years amounted to $24,798,756; our aggregate imports from the United States during the same period amounted to $546,622,404 or about 25 times greater than those from France. Our exports to France during the same period of three years amounted to $6,392,400 and our exports to the United States during the same period amounted to $285,146,337 or nearly fifty times as much. Under these circumstances I must confess that a consideration of the French treaty will involve some matters of serious import, and when that treaty does come to be considered I trust w'e shall have from the minister in charge of it some definite information as to what effect its ratification may have in connection with the probable effect of the United States tariff.

The hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the address made some reference to the paragraph in the speech from the Throne which alludes to the subject of

naval defence, and which is in the following language:

Two members of my government attended the imperial conference called by His Majesty's government, on the question of defence A plan was adopted after consultation with the admiralty, for the organization of a Canadian Naval Service, on the lines of the resolution of the House of Commons, of the 29th of March last. The papers will be immediately brought down and a Bill introduced accordingly.

I was a little in doubt during some portion of the remarks of my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) as to whether Canada was still a portion of the British empire, but I trust nothing has occurred since we entered the House of Commons to-day to lead us to the conclusion that we are not still a part of that great empire. I am glad to believe that Canada still floats the British flag. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Kyte) rather adopted a tone which would lead one to think that he was speaking of four or five absolutely independent nations who for convenience might see fit to enter into a joint alliance for purposes of defence. I shall not discuss the naval question this afternoon; it will be time enough to do that when the government proposals are brought down. I do not propose even to allude to some rather remarkable speeches which have been made by members of the cabinet, if the public press is to be trusted. I do not yet know whether the gentlemen in question have been properly reported, but I have heard that at least in one case the minister disclaims the language attributed to him. All I have to say is that if those eminent Liberal journalists who have been proclaiming that I am entirely in favour of the government proposals, imagine that any such proposals as those which have been outlined in at least one of these speeches will meet the approval of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, they are labouring under an entire misconception. I neither oppose nor denounce these proposals because I do not know what they are. We are very happy indeed to say to His Excellency the Governor General, that we thank him very much for his gracious speech, but in doing so we do not concede for one moment that we are restricting our right of action in any way in respect to whatever proposals the government may see fit to make.' Like the other proposals of the government, reasonable and fair consideration will be given to them, and the sooner they are brought down the better. In fact, the sooner we get to work the better, because I entirely agree with my hon. friend from Richmond that we should all endeavour to expedite the work of parliament this session, as at every session. We are ready to begin work as soon as possible. Let the government get their committees Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

appointed, let them bring down their measures, let them come on with their work and we will work as hard as they to expedite the public business. [DOT]

In the brevity of my speech I am at least giving an earnest of my desire to expedite the business of the House, but I cannot conclude without congratulating the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon his elevation to the cabinet. Might I remind the House that this is the sixth occasion on which the Prime Minister has gone outside of the House of Commons for a cabinet minister, and it is the fifth occasion on which he has gone outside of parliament altogether to make a selection. We on the opposition benches had nothing to say about that. Indeed the Prime Minister explained the situation to us two years ago when he said that he always endeavoured to select the best man, and inasmuch as he could not find the best man, or a sufficiently good man within the ranks of his supporters in the Commons, he was naturally obliged to go outside. But, these hon. gentlemen who have been passed over need not imagine that their usefulness is gone for thev will still be required to vote for the Newmarket canal and things of that kind. In that way they will be able to contribute to the fighting strength of the Liberal party, if not from the . treasury benches, from the benches immediately behind. I trust the Prime Minister will be good enough to furnish the House with information on the matters to which I have alluded so that we may get down to business and begin the actual work of the session as early as possible.

Rt, Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). Mr. Speaker, when in the month of May last this House was prorogued, it was understood that the government would endeavour to so shape its course that the session of parliament would be called to meet for the despatch of business in the early part of November. Parliament has been called at the appointed time according to that programme, and in this'as in all other instances the government has faithfully discharged its duty. Of course, for this we have received very little credit but with this government virtue is its own reward, and its ambitions no other. Meeting thus early in the season I agree with my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) that we should see the blessing of a prorogation early next spring. Indeed there is no reason why parliament should not be prorogued long before the melted snows have passed over the Chaudiere Falls. And if I may be permitted to recall a recent utterance of my hon. friend the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) on this subject he stated, if I am correctly informed, that if the government brought

down its measures promptly, the session would be reasonably short. That is not,

I think, the proper way to put the matter. The session will be reasonably short if the opposition is not unreasonably verbose; but I confess, after experience, that I have my doubts as to that, though I may be mistaken. If we find that the opposition have had a change of heart, that they have turned over a new leaf, and that, in addition to the art of speaking, of which I know they are masters, they have learned the art of stopping speaking, then I will be the first to proclaim the fact to a grateful people.

I must extend my congratulations to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. He has set a good example, which I hope will be followed by those behind him. I must also offer to him my very sincere thanks for the generous manner in which he has spoken of our departed friend, the late Dr. McIntyre. Nothing could be too good to say of Dr. McIntyre. He was one of those rare men, who, to a brilliant intellect joined a kind heart, and he had nothing but friends on both sides of the House. I also appreciate the generous compliment which the hon. leader of the opposition paid to my friends, the mover and the seconder of the address. Indeed, in the course of a long experience it has not been my fortune to hear on such an occasion utterances at once so brief, so pertinent and containing so much matter.

I am afraid that I cannot meet all the requests that my hon. friend has made to me. I cannot discuss all the questions he has raised. I do not see any occasion at present for discussing the prosperity of the country. We are prosperous, and we do not grudge the prosperity of other nations, because we claim that Canada is more prosperous than any other country.

Neither do I propose to discuss at present the expenditure of the country. My hon. friend has stated that during the ten years in which we have been in office we have taken from the public $321,000,000 more than the Conservative party took from them in the same length of time. I do not dispute this, but I have not observed because of this any discontent on the part of the people of Canada. It has been an easy task for my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to get money from the people. My hon. friend the member for North Toronto recalls the days when he was Minister of Finance, and he will agree with me that he was sleeping on a bed of thorns, whereas my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is sleeping on an easy pillow. He has no difficulty in getting the money he requires,, because he has a wealthy population to draw upon, whereas my hon. friend the member for North Toronto was drawing money from an impoverished people. If ever there was a period in the history of Canada when the people were contented and happy, it is this period in which we live.

Neither do I feel called upon at this moment to discuss the question of the completion of the Transcontinental railway. I can leave this to a future time, when my hon. friend the Minister of Railways will give all the particulars to my hon. friend. The same remark applies to the question of the Quebec bridge. But before I leave the point raised by my hon. friend as to the completion of the railway, I would observe that the remarks of Sir Charles Rivers Wilson, the President of the Grand Trunk railway, were hardly justified and have been falsified by the event. He complained that the line from Winnipeg to the Lake Superior branch of the Grand Trunk Pacific had not been completed, and that therefore this year the railway could not serve to carry the crops of the Northwest to Lake Superior. I am happy to say that since the words of Sir Charles Rivers Wilson were uttered, the railway has been completed and opened for traffic, and that at this moment wheat is being carried over it from the prairie provinces to Lake Superior.

With regard to the waterways treaty, we have about made up our minds on all points except one, which requires some further consideration, and it will be our duty if we come to a conclusion on this point during the present session, as I hope we shall, to communicate it to parliament as soon as it is arrived at.

I have nothing to say at present on the French treaty. According to my own view, neither the French treaty nor anything in the legislation of Canada can be construed as an act of discrimination against the United States, and therefore the article in the American Tariff Act does not apply.

My hon. friend has not discussed the question of naval defence, which is the very question which I think on the present occasion should be discussed, for this reason, that the policy which was adopted unanimously by this House last session has been singled out for attack in quarters from which we had reason to expect support. Last session, when the House unanimously came to the conclusion that Canada should organize a Canadian naval service in cooperation wtih the British Admiralty, we informed parliament that we were going to send to Great Britain two members of the cabinet for the very purpose of discussing that question with the admiralty. Shortly afterwards, His Majesty's imperial government called a conference of all the selfgoverning colonies for the purpose of discussing the larger question of imperial defence. Two ministers of the cabinet, as we informed the House were appointed to attend that conference, my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. L. P. Brodeur) and my hon. friend the Min-

43 .

U|.on the Chinese coast, and envies Canada and Australia the fleets which they are to possess, man and operate.

It is not for me to offer any suggestions to my hon. friends on the other side, but' i may venture to ask them to reflect upon this-that if the British empire is to remain strong as it is to-day, it will not be by compelling the daughter nations to revolve as satellites around the mother country but by allowing every daughter nation to develop itseii to the fullest extent possible so that it may add strength to the whole.

Now, I have presented to the House one side of the opinion amongst hon. gentlemen opposite. There is also another side. I have presented the side of the ardent; now I come to consider the side of the supine. But if I qualify those who are inactive by applying to them the word ' supine," I use a term that is not sufficiently strong. If I were to do them justice, I think I should be obliged, if I may do so without violating parliamentary propriety, to borrow a term from American political slang and say that these gentlemen are of the party of the ' stand-patters." The chief of that class is my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk).

Topic:   IMMIGRATION FOR FISCAL YEAR, ENDED MARCH 31, 1909.
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).

Does my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) think it quite right to discuss this question, referring to papers in the case and not give those papers to parliament?

I do not think it is at all fair.

Topic:   IMMIGRATION FOR FISCAL YEAR, ENDED MARCH 31, 1909.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

It is just as fair for me to answer the speech of my hon. friend the member for Jacques Cartier as it was for him to make that speech before the papers are laid before the House.

Topic:   IMMIGRATION FOR FISCAL YEAR, ENDED MARCH 31, 1909.
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

But it is an ordinary rule of debate that an hon. member should not, in speaking in this House, refer to papers that are not before the House.

Topic:   IMMIGRATION FOR FISCAL YEAR, ENDED MARCH 31, 1909.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

And it would have been well for the hon. gentlemen not to speak outside of parliament until he had the papers before him. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) might have told his hearers that there had been an occasion when he might properly have spoken. He might have spoken last session when this resolution was before the House and when others spoke

though he did not. He has changed his mind apparently. At a banquet which was tendered him in the town of Lachine. in the division of Jacques Cartier, he might then have told his friends that he had lost a good opportunity of thundering his objections to this policy last session. I recollect that my hon. friend was in his seat on the 29th of March last. He did not speak-he stood pat even then; he did not offer any objection, nor did he by speaking express approval. But on the more recent occasion Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

to which I allude he did not hesitate to speak, and spoke apparently by the book. He gave a wealth of objections against the policy adopted here last session, and in which he was a participator in that he did not challenge a vote upon the question. He voted for the resolution, but, having voted for it, without more information than he has to-day he chooses to attack the policy of the government, the policy of' his own party, and to declare that he will not stand by it. That was what the hon. gentleman did just eight days ago to-day.

Topic:   IMMIGRATION FOR FISCAL YEAR, ENDED MARCH 31, 1909.
Permalink

November 15, 1909