1913-05-21

QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish):: 1.	Was an investigation held some time agd
into the workings of the office of the law clerk of the House of Commons?	i
2.	If so, at what date and by whom was the investigation held?
3.	During the present session was it nob
stated on the floor of the House by one of the members of the Government, that the report, evidence and all other documents relating to the said investigation would be brought down-speedily?	.	I
4.	Why has the report and evidence nob been brought down, in accordance with the order passed by this House on Wednesday, 9th April?


Mr. BORDEN:: An investigation was
held before the commencement of the present session. A motion has been made to bring down the report, and lit will be brought down in due course.


GROSVENOR MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish):: 1.	How many tenders were received for the mail service between Grosvenor and the rail' way station, who were the tenderers, and what was the amount of each tender?
2.	Did J. M. McKeough tender for 6aid service? If so, for what amount?
3.	Was liis tender accepted? If so, why was it afterwards cancelled?
4.	Did Alexander Tate offer to perform this service for $63? If so, why was it not accepted ?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	The tenders received for the mail service between Grosvenor and Linwood railway station were:	J. M. McKeough, $100
per annum; R. V. Tate, $121.68 per annum; George Green, $130 per annum.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	It was at first considered advisable to accept the tender of McKeough hut action was stopped pending consideration of a proposed mail service 'between Linwood and a railway crossing three miles distant from the post office.
4.	Alex. Tate's offer was for the proposed service to the railway crossing, and not for the Linwood station service. After consideration, the department decided to continue the service to Linwood station and as the inspector had reported that McKeough had

abandoned the service a contract was arranged with Redmond Tate at the rate of' McKeough's tender.


LES BOULES MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has the contract of Mathieu Bonenfant, of Les Boules, county of Rimouski, for carrying the mail been cancelled?
2.	If so, why, and at whose request?
3.	Has there been an investigation?


Mr. PELLETIER:: This contract contained a clause which provided for its termination on three months' notice. This has been done and a contract made with the postmaster, Achille Berube, at the same price, viz.: $100 per annum.


SINTALUTA POSTMASTER.
Mr. THOMSON:: 1.	For what reason was James M. Hastings, postmaster at Sintaluta, dismissed from office?
2.	When was this dismissal made, and who has been appointed in his place?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	For political partisanship.
2.	On the 2nd December, 1911. Mr. George Hill.


ST. LAWRENCE CHANNEL BUOYS.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	Who has been appointed or who occupies
the position of engineer for the placing of buoys for the Department of Marine in the channel of the St. Lawrence from Montreal to Gaspe ?	_
2.	If such engineer has been appointed, when was it?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Buoys between Montreal and Portneuf are under the direction of the agent at Montreal. Those between Portneuf and Gaspe are under the direction of the agent at Quebec. The respective agents detail one or more of the men attached to their agencies to place the buoys.
2.	See answer to No. 1.	*


PRINCE COUNTY FISHERY&quot; OFFICER.
Mr. RICHARDS:: 1.	Has Daniel N. Forbes, fishery officer in Prince county, Prince Edward Island, been' dismissed? If so, w-hen and for what reason?
2.	On whose recommendation was this dismissal made?
3.	Was there an investigation held? If so,
who held it?	.
4.	What are the names of the witnesses?
5.	Who has been appointed to fill the position? ,	.
6.	On whose recommendation was the new appointment made?


Mr. HAZEN:: Mr. Forbes was a special fishery guardian. Such officers are employed by the season only. He was not
329J
dismissed, but when his term of employment ceased, he was not re-engaged.


MANILLA ROPE.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Is the Government aware that the price of manilla rope has doubled to consumers during the past year?
2.	Will the Government take any steps to investigate the cause of this abnormal increase ?


Mr. REID (Minister of Customs):: 1.	The Minister of Customs is aware, from reports in trade journals that a large increase in the price of manilla rope has taken place within a year or two.
2.	The cause of this increase in price is already apparent according to information furnished through trade journals and other sources, which indicate that the increase in the price-of such rope is chiefly due to the increase in the price of the fibre from which the rope is made-the fibre being produced in and imported from the Philippine Islands *free of duty.


ST. SIMEON AND TADOUSAC MAIL SERVICE.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	What is the name of the mail carrier between St. Simeon and Tadousac?
2.	Has the new contract been granted for the carriage of the mails?
3.	If so, since when, and for what period of time?
4.	Were tenders asked for?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Alfred Poitras.
2.	The contract, which expires on 31st December, 1913, has been renewed.
3.	For four years dating from 1st January, 1914.
4.	No. The contract was renewed without calling for tenders in accordance with the provisions of the statute which empowers the Postmaster General to adopt this course when the service has been" satisfactorily performed and the terms and conditions are advantageous in the public interest.


A. GEORGE CHAMPAGNE.
Mr. DEMERS:: 1.	Has Mr. A. George Champagne been appointed to the Board of Examiners for the licensing of engineers? If not, is it the intention of the Government to make such an appointment?
2.	Is the Government aware that Mr. Champagne is said to be connected with the Boiler Insurance Company, and that his appointment would be regarded as undesirable by other companies, and would also be an injustice to other companies transacting boiler insurance business?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


EMPLOYMENT OF JOHN HOUGH.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Has the Commissioner of Customs received any communications complaining about a member of a union by name of John Hough, employed in the Customs Department in Montreal ?
2.	If so, what is the intention of the Government in respect of this communication?
3.	Is the Government aware that such communication was intended, as alleged, to injure Mr. Hough?
4.	Have any complaints been made regarding the moral or physical ability of Mr. Hough? If so, of what nature?


Mr. REID (Minister cf Customs):: 1.	The Department of Customs received a communication protesting against the employment of John Hough, customs clerk, in work outside his customs duties.
2.	Mr. Hough has been instructed that he should comply with the conditions of the Audit Act in respect of employment outside the customs.
3.	No.
4.	No.


BONA VENTURE SIGNAL STATION.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Who is in charge of the signal station at Bonaventure, Quebec, and what salary is
he paid?
2.	Have orders been given to have this signal station attended to this year, and has this been done?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Frederick Arsenault. Sixty dollars per annum.
2.	Yes. The station w.as opened this year, on April 21.


ST. GODFROY BUOY.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Who is the contractor for the placing of the buoy at St. Godfroy, Quebec, and what is pair, for the service?
2.	At what date was the buov placed in position this year, if it has been so placed, and if not, does the Department of Marine and Fisheries intend to have it placed in position? 1


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	(a) Mr. William Huard. (b) $25 per annum.
2.	Buoy placed in position May 5.


SOUTHAMPTON RAILWAY COMPANY. '
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Has a subsidy contract been signed with the Southampton Railway Company?
2.	If so, for how many miles, and for how much per mile?
3.	Has any amount, and if so, how much has been paid thereon?
4.	To whom was said amount paid?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1. Yes.


M. CODERRE.
[Stage Direction]
2.	Thirteen miles; $3,200 per mile not to exceed $6,400 per mile.
3.	Yes; $48,442.88.
4.	To the Southampton Railway Company.

Mr. BOYER:: 1.	What is the amount that has been paid to the contractor who recently made repairs to the arsenal at Rigaud on behalf of the Militia Department?
2.	If his claim has not yet been paid, what is the amount of it?


Mr. HUGHES (Minister of Militia):: 1.	$2,245.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


MALBAIE MAIL CARRIER.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. LEMIEUX:
1.	Has Leon Trudel, a mail carrier between the steamer Champlain and the wharf of La Pointe a Pic and the village of Malbaie, been dismissed ?
2.	If so, was a three months' notice given him?
3.	Has there been an inquiry?
4.	At whose request was the contract cancelled ?
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There is no contract for this service, which is being performed under temporary arrangement.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged during the year 1912 between Captain Belanger, commandant of the Eureka, and the Department of Marine and Fisheries, both at Quebec and Ottawa.-Mr. Boulay.	1
For a copy of all documents, correspondence, reports and inquiries, relating to an accident which occurred at Trois Pistoles, Intercolonial railway on 10th September, 1912, respecting the death of Arsene Ouellet, and the wounds inflicted on Joseph Gagnon, at the time that these two men were struck by train No. 150 on the above date.-Mr, Boulay. 1
For a copy of all papers, letters, documents, contracts, settlements, records of settlements, and all other papers and documents in any way relating to the claim of the Rainy River Navigation Company against the Government, arising out of a subsidy agreement, for the operation of certain boats between Fort Frances and Kenora for the season of 1911, or in connection with the settlement of the said claim, or of the said subsidy.

Mr. Macdonell.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I would like to ask the Government when they intend to bring down their new legislation?


Robert Laird Borden: I should
think about the end of the present week, or the beginning of next. Some days ago the right hon. gentleman made an inquiry as to what further legislation was to be

brought down during the present session. A Bill is under consideration having for its purpose the amending of the present law respecting the liability of municipalities for the pay and subsistence of militia called out in aid of the civil power. I am not quite sure whether the measure will be ready to be brought before Parliament this session; a conclusion has been arrived at in regard to the matter, but some further consideration will be required to determine the exact nature of the proposed amendment. The Minister of Justice intends to introduce a short Bill with regard to the staffs of the penitentiaries, and I understand that it will be necessary also to amend the Judges' Act, in view of provincial legislation which has provided for an increase in the judiciary in some of the provinces. The Postmaster General expects to introduce a short Bill to amend the Post Office Act. This Bill will deal* with the salaries of letter carriers, and with some technical matters in connection with the Post Office Department. It will not, I think, be of a controversial nature. There may also be necessary amendments to the Acts establishing the departments, having regard to their organization. I am not quite sure of that, but as soon as we arrive at a conclusion I will give an intimation to my right hon. friend.



TRANS-ATLANTIC MAIL SERVICE.

Air. LEMIEUX:: I have noticed in the
press some correspondence from business men with regard to the sending of letters to Great Britain via New York. When my hon. friend the Postmaster General laid on the table of the House the new contract for the trans-atlantic mail service, he stated that the additional number of weekly trips to Great Britain would probably do away with the sending of letters via New York. I observe that the business men in the city of Ottawa and elsewhere are complaining bitterly about this sudden change. I gathered from what the hon. gentleman said at that time that this change would take place immediately, and that, until the service was perfectly established and the new fast boats were engaged, mails could be sent by New York. Will the hon. Postmaster General explain what is being done at present?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The new service was inaugurated on the first day of the present month. I may say that no business men, nor, as a matter of fact, persons of any kind, have complained to me, although I have seen the reports in the papers to which my hon. friend refers, and I understand that some newspaper editors have telephoned the department with regard to the matter. I would like it to be distinctly
understood that we do not wish to prevent the people from sending letters via New York if they so desire and direct. We are trying to take care of the whole of the correspondence between Canada and Great Britain, but there is a rule of the Postal Union, to which, of course, we are bound to adhere, under which we are obliged to send the mails according to the direction in which they are routed. With the service we are giving now I am hopeful that all Canadians will help us in this matter by using our service for the transmission of this mail; but we cannot impose it upon them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: So that those who route their letters via New York can have them sent that way?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Undoubtedly.



RESIGNATION OF GENERAL MACKENZIE.

Mr. MACDONALD:: The House has no
doubt heard that General Mackenzie, chief of the militia staff of Canada, has resigned. It is understood that General Mackenzie since coming to Canada has discharged his duties in a satisfactory manner, so far as the militia generally is concerned, and the announcement of his resignation has certainly been received with surprise by a large number of people. It has been freely stated in the press that the Minister of Militia and the General have had some personal disagreement, and I would like to ask the minister if he will be good enough to tell the House whether that is correct, giving us at the same time some information as to the circumstances in connection with General Mackenzie's resignation, and as to when it took effect. I would ask him also if he would be good enough to bring down all the papers showing the circumstances that led up to General Mackenzie's resignation.


Mr. HUGHES (Minister of Militia):: I could not hear the remarks of the hon. gentleman, but I understood that he was referring to the resignation of General Mackenzie. It is true that General Mackenzie has resigned, and, if the hon. member will put his question on the Order Paper, I will answer it. Newspaper reports are sometimes exaggerated.


William John Macdonald: Has he given any
reason for his resignation?


Samuel Hughes: I shall be glad to answer any question that is placed on the Order Paper, and to bring down all the papers.


William John Macdonald: Will the minister
not be good enough to state to the House the reasons given by General Mackenzie for his resignation?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has been told that if he puts his question on the Order Paper in the usual way, he will be answered.


William John Macdonald: I think I have the floor, and there is no necessity for the Prime Minister's rather petulant remark.
The Minister of Militia said he did not hear what I was saying and I wish to let him know what I was referring to. If he has heard me, I would like to know whether he is going to answer the question.


Samuel Hughes: I told the hon. gentleman that General Mackenzie had tendered h:s resignation. I told him also that any other information he wished to obtain he could get it in the usual course by placing his question on the Order Paper.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: I think the
minister is acting within his rights in taking his own time for giving a full account of this matter; but I should be glad if he would give me his assurance that his very proper exercise of a little home' rule tendency is not going to have any deleterious effect in the way of the immediate disruption of the Empirev



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, resumed from May 12.
['If the hon. member will look at the preamble he will see that there is unexpended approximately $600,000. Then under this sub-section 2 of section 2, he will see that\nThe total amount of bounty payable under the provisions of chapter 31 of the statutes of 1903, chapter 13 of the statutes of 1908 (as amended by chapter 37 of the statutes of 1910), and of this Act, shall not exceed two million four hundred and fifty thousand dollars.\nThat covers all the legislation affecting this matter. My hon. friend was absent when I explained that $2,500,000 was set aside originally, of which about $50,000 was set aside out of that for investigations connected with the zinc industry. Out of the $2,450,000 remaining $1,800,000 was expended on bounties, leaving, as stated, approximately $600,000, which will now be available to pay bounties if required within the period of five years provided by this Bill. The amount to be paid in any one year is not to exceed $250,000. Last year the amount paid was $60,000. At the present prices of lead, no bounty is payable at all.\nBill reported, read the third time and\npassed.\nOn motion of Mr. Rogers, House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.', 'Thursday, May 22, 1913']
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, on rising to resume the debate upon the budget, the adjournment of which I moved on Thursday of last week, I desire to say that it is my intention to present to the House my remarks in the shortest time possible and that I have no desire to extend the debate beyond reasonable bounds.
In reference to the statement made by the Finance Minister (Mr. White) the other day-respecting the financial and material conditions of the country, I am sure that hon. gentlemen upon this side of the House will most heartily joiii with him in felicitating the people of Canada upon the very prosperous conditions which have prevailed throughout this country during the last fiscal year. Increased imports and exports, a buoyant revenue, a great increase in our immigration and commerce, are all indications to a remarkable degree of our prosperity and, I trust, are the tokens of a still greater future for this young country. We, upon this side of the House, followed with oonsid erable interest the successful operation of the many political programmes or policies initiated by the late Government, and I am glad to observe that the continuance of these programmes and policies in the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite, is even productive of good. When hon. gentlemen opposite
Mr. MACDONALD.
were upon this side of the House it was their persistent policy to condemn in the most unmeasured terms practically every-act of the Government referable to trade and financial matters, and at this stage in the career of the present Government, it was only natural to have expected the announcement of something revolutionary with regard to matters relating to trade and finance. However, we find that we have been complimented in the sincerest form of flattery-that is imitation. The Liberal party never pretended to prescribe at any time any administrative or fiscal programme that for long would meet the needs and requirements of this new country, particularly in an age of great progress and change. Liberals, to-day, feel they themselves could improve their own policies to meet changed conditions.
A moment ago I expressed concurrence in the remarks made by the Finance Minister respecting the remarkable, progress this country has made during recent years. I wish to revert to this for a moment just to point out to the House one consideration which I think should never be lost sight of: What is the source of the progress and development which have taken place in this country during the last *decade and more? I submit that such an inquiry is always pertinent, because, if we do not know the spring and source of our development and prosperity, our administrative functions will not be directed in the proper channels, we will improperly ascribe our prosperity and development to wrong sources, and governmental forces will be directed to unprofitable ends. I think that I am merely stating a truism when I say that the prosperity which has been evident in this country in recent years is due to the fact that we are rich in natural resources and, perhaps, to be more specific, I might say, that development and that prosperity are due to the fact that we have had vast areas of fertile lands, that we still have a great reserve of fertile and unoccupied lands and so -long as this condition exists this country is bound to be prosperous. Thomas Carlyle once remarked to an American with whom he was discussing the question of the prosperity of the United States: ' Yo-u may boast of your democracy, or any other ocracy, or any kind of political rubbish, but the reason your country and your folk are prosperous is that you have a vast deal of land with a very few people.' I say, Mr. Speaker, in all confidence, that the prosperity of this country has been due to the fact that we have had, and have, vast quantities of rich lands with a comparatively small population, and that, notwithstanding all our unscientific legislation and other impediments which Parliament and other

causes have east in the way of the progress of the country.
I only desire to emphasize this point for the reason that hon. gentlemen in this House, and others outside, are prone to ascribe the prosperity of this country to this, that and the other reason. I would not presume to say that the development of this country has been due entirely to one cause, but I say that substantially you can trace it directly to the fact which I have mentioned, namely, our great riches and reserves in fertile lands. To that you may trace the large measure of prosperity which we have had in this country in recent years. To it is due our large immigration, the establishment of many homes and the increase in the numbers of producers and consumers. It has been responsible for the increase in the rate of wages more than any other thing, because the agricultural wage in any country always dominates more than any other factor the general wage. It has been responsible for the extensive railway construction which has taken place; it has been responsible, more than any other factor, for the increase in the number, and diversity of the productions of our manufacturers and for the increase of our reserves of wealth.
The House must regret that the budget speech was- not delivered at an earlier period in the session, and disappointment must have prevailed in the country that no important announcement was made by the Minister of Finance respecting tariffs, trade, and markets. There must be in the hon. gentleman's own party many men and many interests who were looking for tariff changes, because the leaders of the Conservative party in 1911, if not directly, then impliedly, must have mortgaged themselves to a very great extent to the representatives of certain interests, who are naturally now looking for the payment of the first instalment on the mortgage. When hon. gentlemen opposite were in opposition they were continually decrying the tariff of the Government of the dav. They stated it was not a tariff suitable to the best interests of the country, and they boasted that were they placed on the treasury benches they would give Canada a tariff which would be more suitable to her needs and which would more rapidly develop her resources and her trade. In what is known as the Halifax platform, one of the several platforms announced by the Prime Minister, he declared the nolicv of the Conservative party upon the tariff question to be:
A fiscal policy which will promote the production within Canada of all useful articles and commodities that can he advantageously produced or manufactured through or by means of our natural resources, having due regard to the interests of the consumer as well as to the just claims of our wage-earning population.
This was a very extensive declaration of policy and it was calculated to meet the demands of any section of the country and any class of interests. If it was meant to be a statement that inherent defects and objections were in the tariff and that the Conservative party were prepared to rectify them when placed in power, then I submit that the Government party have had ample time to implement their pledges in this respect and to make plain what they meant when they asserted that the tariff of the Liberal Government was not one in the interests of Canada.
There are within my knowledge certain things which make me believe, that in 1911 the Conservative party did make promises to many interests respecting tariff changes. In September, 1911, I became aware of the following fact: The Independent Cordage Company was at that particular time, through their regular salesmen, endeavouring to dispose of the products of their factory in Halifax, and on September 1, an order for 150 tons of cordage was placed with the company by one of its usual customers, in Halifax, and which was accepted upon a condition which was stated upon the face of the order:
This order is taken subject to the Government being returned to power. If the Government is defeated we expect the duty to he again placed upon lobster rope.
I know that another manufacturer of cordage obtained an order in Halifax about the same 'time, and a similar condition was imposed. Surely there must have been some promise on the part of the leaders of the Conservative party to the manufacturers of this particular article, that in the event of their coming to power there would be some important change made in the tariff on rope.
I was surprised that the Minister of Finance in his financial statement made no reference to the tariff item dealing with certain forms of rough lumber, which was the subject of discussion last session. I would remind iron, gentlemen that immediately after the Government came to power in 1911, under a ruling of the Treasury Board, made, I suppose, upon the initiation of the Minister of Customs, it was decreed that a duty of twenty-five per cent should be levied upon certain forms of rough lumber imported into this cohntrv wHch previously had been admitted duty free. This matter was brought to the attention of Parliament at its last session by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). On January 23, he moved the following resolution :
That the Minister of Customs, in collecting a duty of twenty-five per cent on sawed planks, boards, joists, scantlings, studding and other 'lumber of wood dressed on one side when the edges thereof are neither jointed,

nor tongued nor grooved, is violating the Customs Act, and unduly and illegally imposing a heavy tax on the people.
When that resolution was under discussion, it was stated by hon. gentlemen opposite that the late Government deliberately and purposely permitted what they termed smuggling of lumber into this country. One of the British Columbia members protested against my denial that, in any event, whether the lumber were properly admitted free or not, it was not a case of smuggling. All hon. gentlemen opposite who participated in that discussion were most emphatic in the contention that lumber importations of that character were properly dutiable. One would have assumed that the Government, having taken that position, would have continued in the imposition of the twenty-five per cent tariff. For some reason, which must appear strange to everybody, the question whether these importations were free or dutiable was referred to the Exchequer Court. I can conceive of nothing that would justify the reference of this question to that court. I think the decision of the Treasury Board was sufficient. The Government could have admitted these importations free, and have given the matter a generous interpretation if they had so wished. The reference to the Exchequer Court was most reprehensible; it was nothing more or less than deliberate waste of public money, and behind it there could have been no real desire on the part of the Government to settle the question upon principle. The Exchequer Court decided that lumber of this character was properly dutiable. Shortly after this decision was given, however, it looked as if an election would take place in the province of Saskatchewan. Somebody suggested that it would hardly do, during an election in that province, to have it said that the present Government, by a decision of the Treasury Board had transferred from the free to the dutiable list certain forms of rough lumber, and that that decision had been endorsed by the Exchequer Court. Something had to be done to relieve the Government from criticism of this nature. What was done? Something even worse than the reference of the issue to the Exchequer Court. An appeal was solemnly made by the Government to the Supreme Court of Canada against a decision of the Exchequer Court, which was in harmony with the decision of the Treasury Board, and which had the endorsement of the Government. Could anything be more reprehensible than that? The Supreme Court of Canada reversed the decision of the Exchequer Court, holding that lumber of this particular character was admissible free of duty. This was not dealing seriously, honestly, and in a businesslike manner with a public matter.
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
There was no reason in the world for the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was a deliberate and unpardonable waste of public money and a reprehensible trifling with a public matter. It was quite within the power of the Government to interpret generously this tariff item, whatever might be the strictly legal interpretation. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, after all, is but a judicial interpretation, and may or may not represent what was the intention of Parliament. Hon. gentlemen opposite said last session that the intention of Parliament was to impose a twenty-five per cent duty on lumber. They asserted that the late Government deliberately and wilfully permitted smuggling of rough lumber into the western provinces, and that officials of the Customs Department deliberately connived at such violations of the tariff. I want to ask the Minister of Finance and his colleagues in the Government if, at last session of Parliament, it was their emphatic and clearly expressed opinion that this lumber should be dutiable at twenty-five per cent, why they have not imposed this twenty-five per cent duty during this session. If they are true to their expressed convictions made to Parliament, they would have this session announced the imposition of a twenty-five per cent tariff upon these importations of lumber. If they say they had no intention or desire to impose a tariff, why do they not amend the tariff so as to make it clear and indisputable that lumber of this particular character might be imported free of duty? Two important courts have disagreed as to the interpretation of this tariff item, and doubt still exists. I submit that the	Government	should
make it absolutely clear, that rough lumber of the character involved, should hereafter be admissible free of duty. The Minister of Finance, and his colleagues must admit that they have not been entirely frank upon this matter.
Before proceeding to discuss the two matters which I have particularly in mind, namely:	the matters of revenue
and expenditure,	I want to	refervery briefly to	one other	matter.A little more than a year ago hon.	gentlemen opposite were telling us that the proper market for this country to seek for its exportable productions was that of the United Kingdom. We were told it was large and not capricious. We were told that the Conservative or Unionist party of England were the advocates of protection and of the giving of a preference to Canada upon her natural products. But certain things have happened during the past few months, and I think we must express surprise that we have heard nothing from hon. gentlemen opposite respecting it. A few months ago the leader of the
Unionist party in Great Britain stated publicly that it was the policy of his party, should they get into power, to give a preference to the natural products of the several dominions of the Empire. Hon. members will recollect that when this statement was made it caused a tremendous hurricane within the Unionist party, practically rending it asunder. Mr. Bonar Law, leader of the Unionist party, then announced that his former declarations would be abandoned, at least as a matter of party policy until after the next election. But that was not acceptable to his political friends, and he was compelled to make a further announcement. He said:
If returned to power, he would immediately impose a moderate tariff on foreign imanufae-tutes and give the dominions a preference ini the British market, the largest preference possible short of the imposition of new duties on food.
That is the last and final statement of the Unionist party in Great Britain upon the matter of preference to the dominions of the Empire concerning which we have heard so much from hon. members opposite for a gTeat many years. Under the policy attributed to the Unionist party some years ago, we were to find ample markets for our exportable products, but apparently all hopes of that have been forever abandoned. Of course, we may possibly be thankful for the fact that, according to Mr. Bonar Law it is possible that, if his party ever does come into power, we may have the chance of exporting to that country our manufactures under some preferential tariff treatment, an advantage which hon. gentlemen in this House will readily perceive, would amount to nothing whatever.
There is just one other matter to which I would refer very briefly at this point, and that is the fact that we have heard nothing this session from the Government or from the Minister of Finance in reference to the appointment of a Tariff Commission. The Prime Minister in 1911, promised that one of the first things he would do if returned to power would be to appoint a tariff commission which should deal with tariff matters in a scientific manner. A Bill to authorize the appointment of such a commission was introduced last session. The Senate made a few 'amendments which did not vitiate the principle of the measure, yet these amendments were refused by the Government, and the Tariff Commission Bill consequently never went into effect. Now, this commission was expected to define a method of placing in the melting-pot all the discordant and irreconcilable facts which are referable always to the making of tariffs, and it was to take therefrom ingots of economic truth which were to satisfy protectionists, freetraders and fair-traders alike . I assume therefor that upon consideration the Government have concluded that a tariff commission could not serve the useful purpose alleged for it prior to the last election. So far as 1 am concerned I do not regret that the measure did not pass and has not been re-introduced. I regard the purpose of a tariff commission as mere fiscal fantasy, and as absurd in its entirety. It was a very good thing with which to humbug the people generally in reference to tariff matters. I could never conceive that it could possibly be of any advantage in the construction of our tariff.
Having said these few words in reference to tariff matters, I desire to discuss briefly some matters relating to revenue and expenditure. Some days have passed since the hon. gentleman made his statement, and some very interesting figures which he gave may not now be fresh in the minds of hon. members. I wish, therefore, to refresh their memories by again recalling some of these figures. The Minister of Finance told us that the revenue for 1912-13 was $168,250,000 and the revenue for 1911-12, $136,108,000, an increase during the last fiscal year over the year preceding, of $32,000,000 in round numbers. Let me give the House the revenue in four-year periods since 1896 to furnish a basis of comparison for the revenue of last year.
"Revenue of the Dominion of Canada-Four year periods.
1896	$ 36,618,000
1900	 57,000,000
1904	70,179,000
1908	 96,000,000
1912		 136,000,000
1913		 168,250,000
It will be seen that there has been a remarkable and steady growth in the revenues of this country ever since 1896. Now, to show the proportionate increase of the revenue of the last fiscal year over that of some other years let me point out the following:
Increase of	revenue	for	1912-13	over	1896, about. Increase of	revenue	for	1912-13	over	450%1900, about. Increase of	revenue	for	1912-13	over	326%1910, about. Increase of	revenue	for	1912-13	over	65%1912, about.	25%'
When looked at in this way the increase in the revenue for the last fifteen yeaTS would appear to be most impressive and striking indeed.
I wish to refer very briefly to the matter of our expenditures. According to the statement made by the Minister of Finance, I find that our expenditure for 1913 is greater than tnat of the preceding year by $15,000,000, and I find that in 1913 the increase in expenditure over 1912 is greater


Mr. BLAIN:: Are they spending too much at Halifax?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not complaining of any one particular expenditure at the present moment. I suppose it is desirable that a large portion of the money to be voted in these estimates should be expended, and I have no doubt that the expenditures in a great many cases wall prove beneficial. But I would tell the hon. member for Peel that a great many of them are absolutely unnecessary and represent a pure and deliberate waste of money.


Richard Blain: Will my hon. friend give a list of them ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, some time I will, but I will not occupy the time of the House in doing so now. If my hon. friend from Peel will be as zealous in the cause of financial righteousness to-day as he was a few years ago, he will perform a great service to his country and to his fellow countrymen. Let me now refer to another department of expenditure. In the fiscal vear 1912 the Department of Militia expended $7,580,000, and in 1913 $8,307,000, a very substantial increase. If there was any department of the public service for its expenditure which met with unrelenting criticism on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite when they were on this side of the House, it was the Militia Department. I find that for the year 1914 the estimated expenditures amount to $10,500,000, practically $3,000,000 over the actual expenditures of 1912. I submit that that increase is alarming and is worthy of the very careful attention of this Parliament. I think that Parliament requires a full and frank explanation from the Minister of Militia as to this very great increase of $3,000,000 in the estimated militia expenditures for 1914 over the actual * expenditures of 1912. As I have said, hon. gentlemen opposite pledged their word to the people that if they were given access to the treasury benches they would
carry on the great public services of the country with very much smaller expenditures than the last Government .required. The Prime Minister of this country, I think in 1910 or 1911, in a public speech which he made on one occasion,-the date and place of which I cannot for the moment remember-.referred to the total expenditure of that year and the preceding year, and he added that the amounts were so large that p-rima facie the Government stood convicted of corrupt expenditures of public money, and that the burden rested upon the Administration to show that they were innocent of the improper and corrupt expenditure of public money. What do my hon. friends opposite say to-day, in the face of the estimated expenditure of over $290,000,000 for the present fiscal year, and which, if the contemplated expenditures of the Government in regard to highways and naval defence are made, will probably reach more than $225,000,000? I ask hon. gentlemen how they propose to square themselves with their professions of only a few years ago.
To the Minister of Finance I would say that- I think this is a year in which he might very properly have curtailed his expenditure. It is probable that there will be a very substantial increase in revenue for the present fiscal year. It was $168,000,000 last year; it might very well be estimated to be $190,000,000 or $195,000,000 for the present year; but there are many circumstances which I think should have justified the Minister of Finance in reducing the expenditure ot this fiscal year. I cannot help but feel that there will be a decrease in the amount of money borrowed from abroad this year, and consequently that there will be a reduction of importations and a lessening of the normal revenue. While the general effect will be an increase in the revenue for the year, that increase will not be in proportion to the increase during the last fiscal year or the year before. There are other conditions in this country which make one feel that the immediate future will not be as bright as the immediate past. I have no desire to be pessimistic as to the future, and I am not, but I do think that the circumstances to which I have referred, the financial stringency which has prevailed in this country during the past several months, the unusual industrial expansion and the vast speculation in land which has been going on during the last few years, must certainly have their effect upon our financial and material conditions in the near future. 1 think if ever there was a time in recent years during which the Minister of Finance should have evidenced some desire to curtail expenditure,

it should have been for the fiscal year 1914.
I have pointed out to the House that in the last fiscal year we had a surplus of revenue over expenditure on consolidated fund account of $55,000,000, and in the present year that surplus will probably be $85,000,000 or more. I now wish to discuss briefly this matter and in its relation to taxation. A Government with a surplus of $55,000,000 in the past fiscal year, with a probable surplus during the present fiscal year of $85,000,000 or $90,000,000, can hardly justify its position unless they make a remission of a substantial portion of that surplus to the people. There are two reasons for the ground which I have taken, the one I have given, namely, that we have had for several years past a surplus which in the last year has grown to very substantial proportions and which will be greater still in the next year. There is another reason and it is that we are facing, as people are in most countries, a new problem created by the rapid and abnormal increase in the cost of living. Upon these two grounds I base my conclusion that we have reached the stage when no other course should be pursued by the Government than a remission of taxation.
In order that hon. gentlemen may understand what has been the history of surpluses, or the excess of revenue over consolidated fund expenditure, during the past several years, I would like to give to the House just a few facts upon this point. Let me remind the House that it has been the practice to consider as consolidated fund expenditures only those expenditures necessary to carry on the ordinary affairs of the country, occasionally including some expenditures that might properly be chargeable to capital account. It has usually been agreed by both parties that when it is absolutely necessary that we should embark upon expenditures of a larger and permanent nature, the money required for the same should be obtained by borrowings, and should be charged to what is called capital account. Occasionally that system of financing has been questioned by some people, but on the whole I think the same has met with the favour of hon. gentlemen belonging to both political parties. I think it is only proper that if the country engages in a very large undertaking requiring an expenditure of many millions of dollars, the benefits of which undertaking will be enjoyed by posterity, we should ourselves pay a fair proportion of it and the annual interest, leaving the liquidation of a portion of the capital expenditure to those who follow us and who will enjoy the results, to at least the same degree, and perhaps more than we do. Since 1900 we have had what are known in this country as surpluses,
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax!.
that is excess of revenue over consolidated fund expenditures, in the following amounts:
1901-	2	
1902-	3		
1903-	4	
1904-	5	
1905-	6	
1906-	7 (9 months)	
1907-	8	
1908-	9	
1909-	10	
1910-	11	
1911-	12	
1912-	13 (approximate).. ..

14.345.166	17 15,056,984 12
7,863,089 81 12,898,719 12
16.427.167	20 19,413,054 22
1,029,171 97 22,091,963 91 30,006,211 46 37,946,776 59 55,000,000 00
In 1914 the probable surplus will be anywhere from $85,000,000 to $95,000,000. There is no doubt, and I am sure that hon. gentlemen will agree with me, that this surplus will continue growing from year to year, barring any year of commercial depression, or unless the money is wasted by extravagant and improvident expenditures by the Government. It would appear from the figures that I have given that our sup-pluses began in 1900 at very moderate figures, averaging up to 1919 about $7,000,000 a year for the decade, and being about $30,000,000 in 1910, and a greater sum in 1911, then rapidly forging to the front to the amount of $55,000,000 in 1913 and it will probably be $85,000,000 or $90,000,000 in 1914. Therefore, I say that we have reached a stage when we may very properly consider, whether or not we are justified in taking that amount from the pockets of the people or whether it should be remitted to the people in some form or other. That is the position of affairs which hon. gentlemen opposite must take cognizance of and I wish to argue that principle at some further length.
There is another way of looking at this matter of surpluses, or of considering the question whether or not we are taking too much money from the people. Let fus look at the amount of money taken from the people in the form of customs and excise taxation which are the principal sources of revenue in Canada. Out of a total revenue of $168,000,000 last year $134,000,000 was recovered from excise and customs in the following proportion:
Customs	$113,000,000
Excise	 21,000,000
I have not figured out correctly what this would represent per capita, but it would amount to $16 and over. I remember just a few years ago now when hon. gentlemen opposite were almost disposed to tears in this House and out of it, when the amount per capita taken from the people of Canada in customs and excise was $10 or $12. In the days of 1910 and 1911-they wailed like Jeremiah; to-day, I suppose they will talk like Isaiah. How do they propose to justify this increase in the taxation taken from the people by customs and excise, particularly when the Government are

unable to expend it wholly? The increase
in customs and excise taxation for 1913	over	1896	was over	500 per	cent,over	1900,	350	per cent;	over 1910, 50per	cent;	and	over 1912, 25 per	cent.The customs and excise taxation for 1914 will	show	a very marked	increase	over
1913.
Hon. gentlemen opposite will perhaps say: why did not the Liberal party, when in power and when they had surpluses, make a remission of taxation to the people? I suppose it is a question which, while no answer to my statement, is deserving of consideration. In the first place, when revenue is obtainable from tariffs, it is not desirable that the same should be continually subject to change. Nevertheless, the Liberal party when in power did make a very substantial reduction in the customs taxation, so substantial indeed that the Conservatives frequently said that the Liberal tariff was not producing for this country the results which a tariff they would frame, would. Again, I might point out that the surpluses during the Liberal Administration were relatively moderate. From 1900 to 1910 they would not exceed on the average more than six or seven million dollars a year. True, for 1910 and 1911 the surplus did reach thirty millions and thirty-seven millions, respectively, but taking all the years the late Government were in power, their surpluses were small as compared with the enormous surplus of this year and the equally large probable surplus for the coming year. Further, during the years the Liberal Administration had surpluses, they were engaged in the construction of the National Transcontinental railway which was built by the country itself at great cost. For several years, from the commencement of the construction of this public work down to 1911, a large amount was annually taken from the consolidated fund account and applied to the construction of this railway, thus reducing the expenditure on capital account which otherwise would be added to the public debt.
I believe the Government of the day were justified in so applying the surpluses, and 1 do not think it met with any criticism from the Conservative party." But at the present time we are not engaged, nor are we likely to be, in any great national undertaking which will require the expenditure of public money, comparable to that required for the construction of the National Transcontinental railway. That being so, no reason is left to hon. gentlemen opposite for continuing to take from the people of this country the amount of taxation they are now taking; and especially in view of the fact that last year they had $55,000,000 more than was required for carrying on the ordinary affairs of the country. I submit,
Sir; that under present conditions there should be a remission of taxation.


Mr. AMES:: Would the hon. member indicate the manner in which he would grant this remission of taxation?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I will come to that
later. Another reason why there should be a remission of taxation in this country is that hon. gentlemen opposite, when not in power, contended for reduction of taxation in similar circumstances. I can tell the Minister of Finance that every gentleman sitting behind him-in the days when Mr. Fielding announced moderate surpluses-claimed there should be a remission oif taxation. The present Minister of Trade and Commerce was always shocked because Mr. Fielding was taking such a large amount of taxation from the people, and in order that hon. gentlemen opposite may know Mr. Foster's opinion, I shall read one or two extracts from his speech.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When the House rose
at one o'clock, I was endeavouring to show reasons why there should be a remission of taxation, the chief one being that ithe Government were taking from the people a greater amount of taxation than the necessary expenditures of the country seemed to justify. I was saying that one of the reasons why I urged that position was that hon. gentlemen opposite, when in opposition, had always contended that continued and large surpluses of revenue beyond necessary expenditure were undesirable and not in the interests of the country. I was about to read some statements made by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) a few years ago, which are particularly referable to this point. I wish to give this as evidence and authority for the soundness of the position I am now taking, namely:	that, by reason of the
immense and extraordinary surpluses which we have had this year and last, there is only one logical and businesslike course for the Government to take, and that is to make a remission of taxation. Speaking in 1905 almost directly upon this point, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce made the following statement:
The axiom is as true as gospel that every dollar of unnecessary taxation you take from the people is so much extracted from their remunerative and productive capital, which otherwise they would employ in the constant processes of production and reproduction.
Upon reference to the words of the hon. gentleman immediately preceding this statement, it will be found that it has particular reference to this matter. Again in 1907, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce,

speaking upon the budget debate, spoke as follows:
The Conservatives in their last years of office preferred to incur a debt of $31,000,000 and leave that extra taxation, which they would have had to take from the people of the country, with the people who need it, and to do with that $31,000,000 of debt what was necessary in the way of capital expenditure to be used and to be enjoyed not only by the people of these years but by the future generations. That is the proper way of, financing. You have no right to take, especially from a young and new, striving and struggling country any great amount more than is needed for the current expenditures of the country. When you are building the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, when you are putting immense public works for the use of the country ' for hundreds of years, why call upon the poor toiling people of one year to put up these works which are to be enjoyed by all generations to come after us?
It will be seen that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was controverting the idea that all capital expenditure should be provided for out of current revenue. The conclusion from that is that the only amount of revenue collected should be that required to meet ordinary expenditures. (Reading):
The proper method is to borrow the money for these capital expenditures and place the burden of interest on each generation which enjoys the use of these permament works. Then those who come after us will pay their proportion of the cost of the works which they are using, and in good time, as the country beeomes wrealthy and able to do so, it can pay off its debt year by year as it pleases. The Finance Minister has made, to my mind, a radical mistake and has done an irreparable injury to this country in his mad race for taxation, and his avoidance of borrowing capital for these capital constructions, consequently drawing from the people their savings ana earnings in larger proportions than he should draw them, and so crippling them to that extent.
This was the judgment of an experienced and highly qualified member and administrator of this Parliament, who takes the position that it is wrong to take from the people that amount of revenue which would meet ordinary and capital expenditures, and further that there should only be taken from the people for revenue purposes that which is necessary to meet ordinary expenditure.
In 1905, speaking upon the same point, the same hon. gentleman said:
Now, my honourable friend-and this is what I want the House to mark-argued that there was a class of expenditure which we ought to charge to capital account. The very moment he argued that and I agreed with him-that very moment he put the strongest argument to this House in favour of keeping your taxation simply up to the limit that is necessary to carry on your expenditures except those which are capital expenditures. But if you keep your capital
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax'.
account to a certain and well-defined line, there is no necessity for over-taxing the people. Only then should you tax to the limit of what is necessary to meet what you may call the current or consolidated fund expenditures of the country.
I commend these remarks to hon. gentlemen opposite. If they apply the opinions thus expressed to our financial position today, they will conclude that the Government should remit to the people this year a very -considerable sum of money, approximating pretty nearly one-half of the surplus, because as the Minister of Trade and Commerce urged and I think with a great deal of force, particularly so far as this country is concerned-that capital expenditure should not be provided for entirely out of revenue, and that the revenue taken from the people should not exceed, to any great extent at least, the amount of money required for ordinary current expenditures. Therefore I am in a strong position to urge this course upon hon. gentlemen opposite, because they have always taken the same ground, when in opposition, and I think also when they were in power, that is, that it is indefensible, illogical and unbusinesslike to take from the pockets of the people more revenue than was actually required for our ordinary and legitimate expenditures.
Now, I wish to give a further reason wny the Government should not take revenue from the people to an excessive or substantial amount above the ordinary *needs of the country. It is axiomatic that no greater taxation should be taken from the people than is necessary. That is the commonsense theory with regard to taxation, and will meet with the approval of all economists. A British economist once truly remarked:
It is not wise, it is not just, to take from tlie pockets of the people into the treasury of the country an amount greater than the current expenses of the treasury require.
I say further that any taxation scheme that raises a greater revenue than the ordinary expenditure of the country requires does not correspond with the notions regarding taxation commonly entertained by the people of this country. If we go into the provinces, or to the cities and towns of this country, where the collection and disbursements of taxation is un^ler the immediate and direct control of the people, at least to a greater extent than is the case in this Parliament, you find the prevailing idea regarding taxation to be that revenue should be on a parity, or thereabouts, with expenditure. We have, I say, reached a financial position in this country to-day when a remission of taxation must be made, or, in dealing with our financial affairs, we must reverse all preconceived theories and practise regarding finance. The Finance Minister either must remit taxation or must

come to Parliament and state that our revenue is going to be a particular amount; and ask Parliament to provide ways and means of expending it. That hitherto has not been the practice in finance in this or any other country. As I remarked earlier in the day, the practice always has been to estimate your expenditure, as is done in the municipalities, and then provide ways and means for securing the necessary revenue. But here we have reached the position when the Finance Minister must say: Our revenue is growing and will be $75,000,000 or $100,000,000 more than we require for ordinary purposes: come to my aid and tell me how I am going to get rid of this surplus. I must say that his colleagues are displaying considerable capacity in this direction. The estimates presented yesterday indicate great capacity on the part of the Minister of Public Works to expend money. I put the question to hon. gentlemen opposite, whether they consider it good business on the part of the Government they support, to take all the revenue that it can possibly obtain, and then determine how it can be entirely expended.


Mr. BRADBURY:: The hon. gentleman
did not feel that way when his party was getting its surpluses.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think I answered that objection very well a few moments before the one o'clock recess. I think I gave very excellent and indisputable reasons upon that point. I would say what I am saying now, if my political friends were in control of the treasury. My political friends went out of power on a policy which meant the remission of taxes to some extent at least. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been in power two years. They knew before the budget was announced that they were to have a surplus of $55,000,000. They had ample time to devise ways and means by which they could reduce that surplus to some extent at least.
Another reason why there should be a remission of taxes in view of the large and continued surpluses is that unexpended surpluses are an incentive to governmental waste and extravagance and an encouragement to political corruption. I pointed out to the Minister of Finance last year that he had among his colleagues some extravagant gentlemen, and that they would lead him into unnecessary expenditure. I pointed out that the mere fact that he had such a large surplus-at that time $37,000,-000-would be an attraction to his political friends throughout the country from coast to coast for unreasonable requests for public expenditures. I am sure no one on the other side of the House will more heartily concur in my statement that unexpended surpluses are an incentive to governmental waste and extravagance than my hon.
friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames). He, I' am sure, will take the position he has always taken since he entered Parliament, that the existence of a surplus is a tremendous encouragement to waste. Let me refer the House to the financial history of the United States at a time when they were very much in the same position as we find ourselves to-day. We can frequently study Canadian political and financial problems by reference to the history of the same problems in the United States, for that country is very much like our own, and its people have many of our characteristics and tendencies. In 1887, when Grover Cleveland was President oi the United States, he found himself confronted with a large surplus amounting to $140,000,000. His idea of dealing with that situation was to make a remission of taxation to the people. But the opinion of the Republican party at that time was that the money should be spent rather than that taxation be reduced. There is a very conspicuous similarity between hon. gentlemen opposite and the leaders of the Republican party in this respect. These hon. gentlemen, I have no doubt, will take the position that this Government should spend all the revenue it can get, whether the purposes be profitable or unprofitable. They will take the position that it is not sound finance to reduce taxation whether you need the revenue or not. Mr. James G. Blaine was then in public life in the United States, and he said that rather than reduce taxation it would be better to spend the whiskey tax, which amounted to $69,000,000, on coast protection and divide the balance of the surplus among the different states to reduce real estate taxation. That was what one of the leaders of the Republican party urged; hon. gentlemen opposite are practically coming to the very same position and are urging certain expenditures as unique as the suggestion put forward by Mr. Blain. Mr. Aldridge suggested that it would be wise to purchase United States bonds or make a prepayment of interest rather than a remission of taxation. He did not believe in making a revision of taxation if it could possibly be avoided. Another United States Congressman suggested bounties to wheat growers rather than a remission of taxation, -while another suggested a very elaborate educational scheme. As I said before, President Cleveland recommended a remission or reduction of taxation to the people, and I think his position was sound. He went out of power without being able to effect any substantial remission in taxation, and the Republican party came into power with Mr. Harrison as President. On assuming the presidency, Mr. Harrison found himself confronted with this surplus-and a sur-

plus of revenue must always be the subject of consideration by any government responsible for the administration of public affairs. President Harrison was, as I say, confronted with this plethora of revenue, and he carried out what was the true Republican doctrine, and which I fear is the doctrine of the Conservative party. That doctrine is to expend the surplus; whether the expenditure be wise or unwise, profitable or unprofitable. And what did he do? In the first year of President Harrison's term of office, the amount paid to the people in war pensions jumped from $87,500,000 to $107,000,000, and in his fourth year they had reached the sum of $149,000,000. At the present time I think the pension disbursement in the United States approximates $200,000,000. And what was the cause of the growth in United States pension payments? It was the existence of an annual surplus or a wide margin between revenue and expenditure. Has it been a good thing for the national life of the United States? I believe hon. gentlemen will agree with me that it has had a most disastrous effect upon the national life of the United States. The mere fact that the pensions in that country should to-day far exceed the amount paid ten years after the Civil War is sufficient to condemn and brand the expenditure as corrupt, as indeed, it is. I say that will be the result in this country. Tha Government of this country, enjoying such large and growing surpluses as it has in the past and will have in the future, will be simply opening the door to unwise, unprofitable, and sometimes, corrupt expenditure. Is there any evidence before us to justify me in making the prediction that we shall travel the same course financially as did the United States, by reason of these excessive surpluses ? Hon. gentlemen, since they have assumed power, have endeavoured, though frustrated in some instances by circumstances to which I shall not now refer, to make expenditures wli'ch are unusual in this country. It was inevitable that this should be the case. I think hon. gentlemen sitting behind the ministerial benches a year ago saw that with these large and prospectively larger surpluses, their leaders would be compelled to devise some means of dissipating such surpluses. As I said a moment ago, I warned uie Minister of Finance last year that his friends would get rid of this excessive revenue for him if he would permit tnem to do so. Last year a Bill was introduced to increase the provincial subsidies to the province of Manitoba. I am not going to say whether or not Manitoba was entitled to this increase of her provincial subsidy, but I do say that that increase Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax!
was made without any regard to policy or principle, and absolutely without consideration of all the circumstances and conditions. I say it would not have been made at that time and in the manner in which it was made, had it not been for the fact that the Government had that year* a very large surplus, and that they anticipated surpluses in the future. That is an instance of the danger of large surpluses in this country. Let _us go a little further and see what is taking place this year, in a public service of the same nature. A commission has been appointed to inquire into the claim of the province of British Columbia for an increased provincial subsidy. Whether or not British oolumbia is entitled to an increased subsidy is one question, and whether or not a commission should be appointed to inquire into this matter is another. No fair-minded man, however, can give to this House a reason for the appointment of a commission to inquire into the question as to whether or not British 'Columbia is entitled to an increase in its subsidy. It is not a question for a commission to decide. How can a commission assist the Government in the determination of this question ?
Mr. BURRELL; What has my hon. friend got to say with regard to the appointment by Sir John A. Macdonald of sir John Rose as a special commissioner to investigate claims for adjustment with Nova Scotia?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That was immediately after Confederation, when there was in Nova Scotia a strong opposition to the terms of confederation. At that time many of the provinces were dissatisfied in regard to the terms made between them and the Federal Government, and it was only natural that the Federal Government should seek to establish itself upon friendly relations respecting finance with the several provinces. But it is a sheer and useless waste of money and an insult to the intelligence of this country that a commission should be appointed to make re-'ommendations to a responsible government upon the question as to whether or not they should increase the provincial subsidy payable to any province. That commission has only been appointed to implement a promise made by the Prime Minister when in opposition, and I venture to say he would not have endeavoured to implement that promise were it not for the fact that to-day we have such a large surplus.
While I am speaking about this matter of British Columbia subsidies, I may say that I was very much disappointed when the personnel of that commission was announced. I have particularly in mind one member of the commission whom I know very well,

who is a very able and excellent gentleman, indeed, but who is one of the executive of a large railway corporation in this country which in recent years has had large business transactions with the province of British Columbia. I say that that gentleman is disqualified from acting upon that commission by reason of his connection with a railway corporation that has extensive business relations with British Columbia.
I referred a few minutes ago to the very rapid increase of the pension allowance in the United States, due altogether to the fact that they have had surpluses there. We had introduced into this Parliament only a year ago the Fenian Raid Bounty Act. I do not know and I am not going to discuss now whether that legislation was proper or not, but I want to point out that unless the Minister of Militia and his colleagues of the Government exercise greater care than they are now doing in the administration of that Act we shall have a public scandal in this country which in some degree will be commensurate with the war pensions of the United States. I say that Act would be very much better administered were it not for the fact that the Minister of Militia is conscious that with such a large surplus as we have, he can administer it in a loose and easy fashion and permit many to obtain the benefits of that Act who in all probability are not entitled to it.
Last year there was introduced in Parliament the Highways Act. Hon. gentlemen opposite will say that that was to implement an election promise. Very well, but that election promise would never have been made, had the then leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, not been cognizant of the fact that we were having surpluses and were likely to have for a number of years unless there was a remission of taxation and that therefore he might promise unusual expenditures. Never since September, 1911, when the Prime Minister of this country announced the Highway Bill as part of the policy of his party, have the Government given any businesslike consideration to this question. I say that an expenditure of that kind should never have been contemplated, or embarked upon, until a policy at least had been worked out. Assuming that that Act becomes law this year and that Parliament votes $1,000,000 for an expenditure under that Act as it did last year, I say it is humanly impossh ble to prevent the utter waste of that entire amount. I take my own province of Nova Scotia. Under that Bill and with a vote of $1,000,000 some $60,000 would be apportioned to that province and without any defined policy in mind, withaut at present any organization to expend it, with the claims that would be made by hon. gentlemen opposite from Nova Scotia for the counties represented by them, that amount of $60,000 would be absolutely wasted and this country and the province of Nova Scotia would never be able to see any tangible results from lx. And why? I say it is altogether due to the fact that we have these surpluses which encourages the Government to adopt all sorts of schemes and policies without due and proper consideration, without reference to sound policy, in order to get rid of surplus rather than make a remission of taxation.
I say again that were it not for the fact that the Minister of Finance had in mind a probable surplus of $55,000,000 for 1912-13, the Prime Minister would not have been so hasty in his visit to England last year to negotiate with the British Admiralty upon a naval programme. To put it in another way, I say that if the Prime Minister had believed in the month of July of last year that the Finance Minister of Canada in his budget of this year would announce a deficit instead of a surplus, he would have proceeded in a different fashion upon his naval policy. I may say the same with respect to the matter under discussion here the other day in reference to the letter written by the secretary of the Minister of Public Works to the Senator for Antigonish. This was a letter, as was shown in this House the other day, in which the expenditure of $160,000 was promised on the eve of a provincial election in that constituency. It is easy to write such letters and hold such promises for political effect, in any province in Canada, to aid a candidate friendly to the present Administration, with a surplus of $55,000,000 in contemplation. I say that if there had been a deficit instead of a surplus of revenue that that letter would never have left the department of the Minister of Public Works. Yesterday the supplementary estimates were tabled. They provide for additional estimates amounting to $23,000,000, I think, in round numbers, $17,000,000 on account of consolidated fund and the balance on capital account. As I pointed out this morning, the estimated expenditures for the Public Works Department on consolidated fund account for the present fiscal year amount to $28,000,000, double the amount expended in 1913, and nearly three times the amount expended in 1912. I have not examined very critically the expenditures proposed by that department, but I have given them a cursory glance, and I observe there many expenditures which are very questionable indeed and many which I am sure would never have found their way into the published estimates of the Government were it not for the fact that there exists this surplus which must be dissipated, and which members of the Cabinet are apparently anxious to distribute for political effect, a



desire which, I am sorry to say, the present Minister of Finance apparently countenances. Nobody who makes a request for expenditure of public money from the present Government seems to be refused. I would be extremely surprised if within the last six months anybody has made a request of the present Government involving an expenditure of money whose request was not granted wholly or at least in part, and I am sure if their request had to be deferred the applicant was kindly and politely told that next year his request would meet with favourable consideration.


William John Macdonald: That is anyone who knows how to ask properly.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Mr. CARVELL:: And who does not know over thereV


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: With the surplus of
$65,000,000 this year and with a surplus of $85,000,000 or $90,000,000 next year is it not the natural thing that unreasonable demands would be made upon our exchequer?
We on this side of the House warned the Finance Minister last year, that unless,^ in some proper manner, he managed to diminish his growing surplus, his friends behind him would always be making unfair requests for expenditures. He now sees what the year has brought forth, and I do *trust that he will in future give consideration to the matter that I am calling his attention to, and will recognize the fact that it cannot but end disastrously for the country if he continues taking from the taxpayers the amount of revenue he is now taking, and which leaves so great a difference between the ordinary expenditure and income. After all it is human to be extravagant if one has more than he requires. The vast amount of surplus that we have enjoyed during the past year has apparently determined the Government upon a race of riotous and wasteful expenditure.
In concluding my remarks upon this point let me repeat that there should be a diminution of this surplus in the way of a remission of taxation to the people. The people would prefer having the excess of revenue above ordinary expenditure in their own pockets. The Government is safer without it, and the people would rather have it themselves. Again, I say it is economically unsound to tax the people for a sum greater than is required for the ordinary expenditures of the country. Again, I say it inevitably leads to extravagance, and the Government have already exhibited too great a tendency in the direction of improper and wasteful expenditures, and I am sure that if thev continue obtaining a large surplus year after year they will continue in their extravagant and wasteful adminis-Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
tration of the financial affairs of the country. Again, I say that there should be a remission of taxation because it means decreased taxation for the people.
There is another reason why I think there should be a remission of taxation. I refer to the increased cost of living. That is not a point which I am going to labour at any great length, for I find I have already taken very much more of the time of the House *than I had intended. I will refer, however, to this phase of modern life in just a few words and I shall be content to state my position in general terms rather than with any particularity. The question of the increased cost of living is a modern one, it affects many countries of the world. I grant you, but nevertheless in this country it is a pressing one and engages the attention of all thoughtful and reflecting men to whatever party they belong. The imperious cry for food at prices within the reach of the ordinary consumer As one that cannot be silenced. The promise of the Creator that the fulness of the earth is for man's enjoyment is one that must be fulfilled, and if its fulfilment is being impeded in any way it is our duty as legislators to remove the impediment in so far as we possibly can.
This question has been studied in recent years in a great many countries and many causes have been assigned for the high cost of living. The causes are not all within the control of Parliament. I do not take such an unfair and illogical position in dealing with this matter. The reasons usually assigned by students of the problem after all are quite few in number and I wish to state some of them. In the first place, it is, I think, granted that oneof the reasons is the increase in the world's production of gold and silver which necessarily and inevitably reduces the purchasing poweT of both gold and silver. Another cause is the waste of nations and in some respects the waste of individuals. Another Teason is the disproportionate growth of urban and rural population. There is an increase in consumption and a higher standard of living adopted by the people of many countries of the world and particularly of Canada. There is the over-expansion of industrial and commercial enterprise, there is the demand for capital, and consequently a very high rate of interest, there is speculative trading and there is also the question of taxation in all its forms. These are some of the causes assigned by students of, the problem, and I suppose each of the causes that I have stated plays its part in some degree or other. But when I have stated the causes it does not in any respect minimise the effects. It is a modern problem thrust upon us for our consideration and action, and we must face and meet the issue squarely. That there has been an increase in this

country in the cost of living is, I think, undoubted and undeniable. In the report of the Department of Labour, published recently and presented to Parliament, I find a statement giving the percentage of increase in twenty-eight articles entering [DOT]prominently into the cost of living. It gives a comparison of prices in 1912 with those of 1911, 1890, and also with the year of the lowest prices in the last fifteen years. The results are as follows:
Com-
		Compared	Compared pared	
with	with	with low1911.	1890.	year.Animals and meats. 9-7	44-6	95-1-1896Dairy	products..	.. 16-7	54-0	76-5-1897Fish..	.. 8-4	50-7	71-8-1897Other	food stuffs.	.. 6-6	14-7	46-5-1897
The prices here quoted are the wholesale prices; but if we take into consideration the retail prices, we will find that they have increased in still greater proportion. I think I should also remind the House of the well-recognized economic fact that the smaller the income, the greater is the percentage he must pay thereof required for articles ' necessary for actual subsistence, particularly for foodstuffs. The proportion of a man's income usually required for the purchase of foodstuffs ranges from forty per cent to sixty-five per cent.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Are the wholesale
prices quoted representative prices generally over the Dominion or are they taken at particular points? May these prices be considered as the prices in Canada as a whole?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They are taken from the figures collected by the correspondents in the different provinces, and I presume they would apply to Canada as a whole.
Another thing important to consider in connection with this question of the increased cost of living is the change that has taken place in our rural and urban population. According to the census of 1911, the population of Canada increased thirty-four per cent over that of the previous decade, and the rural population increased by seventeen per cent, while the urban population increased by sixty-two per cent. In that period our rural population fell from 62.3 of our total population to 54.4, while the urban population increased in the same ten years from 37.7 in 1901 to 45.6 in 1911. This shows a decrease of rural population and an increase of urban population greater than ever known before in Canada, and I believe greater than ever has been known in any other country. It may be interesting to give the proportionate increase' and decrease of rural and urban population in proportion to the total population for the last three |
330J
decades as described by our census statistics.
1891.	1901.	1911.Rural population	
67.9	62.3	54.4Urban population	.. ..	32.1	37.7	45^6
Should our urban population continue to increase and our rural population continue to decrease proportionately, then the difficulty of meeting the increased cost of living will be accentuated. We will inevitably have an increase in the number of consumers and a decrease in the number of producers, which will intensify the problem -and make it more difficult to solve.
Another aspect of this question should not be overlooked and that is, that wages do not increase proportionately with the increased cost of the necessaries of life, nor do salaries, I mean moderate salaries, increase as rapidly as wages, so that therefore the Increased cost of living 'bears most heavily on the wage-earners and those in receipt of moderate salaries. The social effect of the increased cost of the necessaries of life on the majority of the people of a country, is another factor which enters into the consideration of this question. I shall de-al but briefly with the sociological aspect of the question; and I believe that in the future our political problems will be more sociological than economic, and in that respect the politics of -the future will be in contrast to the politics of the present and of the past. One effect of the high cost of living is to force many men and women into the labour market, it keeps a great number of people upon, and some under the poverty line to an extent that most people do not realize.
I express the hope that during the recess hon.' gentlemen will take the trouble to read the evidence given before the committee dealing with Old Age Pensions, and there they will find startling conditions in this country disclosed. I know that hon. gentlemen will be surprised upon investigation to find how closely, in this new and prosperous country, we approximate the conditions of some of the oldest countries in the world. The existing conditions do not make for physical efficiency; they aggravate the spirit of social unrest and they create new social problems which we must -sooner or later face, and which -are particularly undesirable in a countrv where we have so many avocations which can only be pursued by those engaged in them during certain months of the year. Our climate naturally gives us many occupations which _ are but seasonal. The conditions to which I refer are forcing a grave social as well as economic problem upon us for our consideration. In a general way the modern world has created new conditions which must be faced. In the last analysis it is a human problem and must

be solved in a human way. These conditions are attributable to many causes, some [DOT]of which I grant, are beyond our control; but one of the contributing causes is undoubtedly the question of taxation, wnicn is very largely under our control, at least so far as federal taxation is concerned. These conditions are undoubtedly known to the Government, and the circumstances are such, particularly in view of the large and unnecessary surplus of revenue which the Government are enjoying, that they should face this problem squarely and should grant some relief by a remission of taxation. I think I have made it clear that upon two grounds, namely: that of the great disparity between revenue and ordinary expenditure, which means the extraction of unnecessary taxation from the people, and that referable to the recent increase in the cost of living, there should be made a reduction in taxation.
The hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) asked me if I had any particular method in mind by which this taxation might be reduced. That is a question which might very easily be answered, but in no short time. Hon. gentlemen opposite are responsible to the people of this country for the collection and the disbursement of revenue. After all, I do not think the problem is a difficult one. The fact is that our revenues are in excess of the needs of economical administration, and a reduction is justified to the amount exacted from the people above the requirements of the Government. A reduction in taxation necessarily means a reduction in the amount taken from the people by means of the customs tariff. After the amount of such reduction has been determined, the inquiry follows where it can best be remitted and what articles can best be relieved from taxation in the interests of our citizens. That is the issue which confronts the Government; the responsibility which rests upon the Government and should not' be evaded any longer. I go so far as to say that at the present session of Parliament that responsibility and that duty should have been faced, and that the Government should have declared their determination to make some reduction in taxation at once.
I intend saying something in reference to the changes announced in the tariff the other day by the hon. Minister of Finance. Having already occupied so much of the time of the House, I do not desire at this stage to do so. I shall reserve my remarks on the tariff changes until we are considering the resolutions in the Committee of Ways and Means, where these changes may perhaps be more fittingly considered, as many of them are of a technical character.
In conclusion, let me say that we on this side of the House deplore the rapidly Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
growing expenditures of this country. We particularly deplore the proposed excessive expenditures as we find them announced in the main and supplementary estimates for the present fiscal year. We deplore the evidently extravagant tendencies of the present administration; we are of the opinion that a great many expenditures, which they have made and which they contemplate in the near future, will be unprofitable and unproductive to this country. We say further that, in view of the disparity between revenue and ordinary expenditure, a remission of taxation should properly be made at the present session of Parliament. I feel that I may express the regrets of hon. gentlemen on this side of the1 House, that at this session of Parliament, and on the occasion of the deliverance of the budget speech by the hon. Minister of Finance, there _ was no indication of any substantial remission of taxation to the people of this country.


Herbert Brown Ames: Mr
Speaker, I have Jistened with pleasure and attention to the somewhat prolonged remarks of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). I have followed his remarks as carefully as I could, expecting, as his theme developed, that I would find something that might make it possible for me to term his remarks a criticism of the policy of the Government. During the years I have sat in this House, I have never before found the first speech in reply to a budget speech so absolutely devoid of what one might call critical analysis of the position taken by the Government in reference to the subjects treated in the budget speech.
When we rose at one o'clock, I was vainly hoping that my hon. friend would answer the simple question which I put to him whether, in view of his declaration that it is absolutely necessary that there be a remission of taxation, he would tell us how the members on his side _ of the House propose to set about doing it. There are many ways in which it may be done. Many ways have been suggested. I have waited anxiously, presuming that some of these ways would be recommended by the thoughtful and careful member for Halifax. He has avoided, however, disclosing in any way whatever the mind of the Opposition in reference to this matter. One is led to wonder whether the Opposition have a mind on this subject, or whether their mind is so diversified and divided that it is thought the best way is to say simply that something ought to be done, but not to suggest any way in which it might be done.
It is interesting as we take up year by year these matters that are treated in the b iug"t to find how the point of view changes the

remarks of hon. members. Very much that the hon. member for Halifax has said to-day by way of doubting the advisability of the action of the Government has in previous times been alleged from the Opposition benches, and I suppose will continue to be used so long as Parliaments endure. The difference of being a supporter of the Government or a critic of the Government seems to me to leave but little choice of argument, the same stock arguments appear on both sides of the House. I find, for example, that at the present time, what our Liberal friends were accustomed in times past to characterize as 'abundant revenues ' are now spoken of as ' excessive taxation '; and one is hardly nimble enough to be able to adapt oneself to the change of definition. I find, too, that while in times past our Liberal friends were prone to claim for their leader, their Government and themselves credit for Canada's prosperity, growth and power, to-day that is all laid at the door of Providence, and the present Government is regarded as having done but their duty in so far as they have not greatly impeded that manifest development.
The hon. member for Halifax has raised the contention that the present system of taxation is taking out of the pockets of the people of Canada larger sums of money than it is advisable should be collected. His contention is that the people are overtaxed, and therefore he would argue that the system by which these abundant revenues are turned into the public coffers, should be altered in some way which he has not seen fit to define. I want to point out in the first place that the increased revenues are collected entirely by the continuation of the system in force for a number of years, and not changed since the present Government came into power. This proves that, instead of being an extraordinary growth in response to special stimulation, this growth has been the natural, regular, normal. When we find that the system of taxation which has been manifestly sufficient and proper for the past, let us say, twenty-five years, this year yields abundant revenue, I do not think it can be contended that the system, not having been to any notable degree departed from, ought to be altered at this time merely because it does yield abundant revenue. The first question that we have to deal with in taking up the adverse contention of the hon. member for Halifax, namely, that the people are being too heavily taxed, is: Are they being asked to pay more than they can stand ? The sources of our taxation are well known. Roughly speaking, they are divided into three parts. We have no large public enterprises and large federal monopolies as they have in Australia and elsewhere. Only about $30,000,000 of our
revenue comes from sources that are not regarded as taxation, and that amount is counter-balanced by the expenses of the same enterprises against which they are charged. We are generally content in this country, for example, if our post office service manages to make both ends meet. And I doubt very much whether it does make both ends meet, if we charge up against it the subsidies we now pay through the Trade and Commerce Department, the rent of which might properly be charged for buildings, and also the interest on such capital expenditure as might be found necessary from time to time for the extension of the plant. I doubt, were all things taken into account, if there would be a profit in our postal service. So far as our governmental railway is concerned, there were times when we thought that the Government was doing well if it paid expenses. We have improved on that; we are trying to meet not only running expenses, but betterments, repairs and renewals, and even to show what may begin to balance the great interest account, which might fairly be-and is in other countries-charged against government enterprises of that character. But we hardly expect this Government railway, even under its present businesslike management, to reach the point where it can pay expenses, pay for renewals, repairs and betterment, and let us say, three per cent on the $90,000,000 or more invested therein. So, from these accounts the figures very nearly balance. Our main method of collecting revenue is from excise and customs. Now, the excise serves another purpose than raising revenue, for it is largely regulative of certain classes of commodities which, in all parts of the country are to a certain extent, controlled by means of taxation. So that, I think, as the customs tariff raises four-fifths of the money which comes from taxation, probably the reduction which my hon. friend from Halifax has hinted at. but has not very clearly defined, would have to be made on these lines. Let us, then, ask ourselves the question as to whether the customs tariff of Canada as we have it to-day is taking too much out of our people. I would point out that the customs rate as it exists to-day in Canada, is not by any means an unduly high rate, if we compare Canada with other countries where the protective system is considered to have a right of consideration, such countries as Germany, Belgium, France or the United States. We find that, in comparison with these countries, Canada would be reckoned as a low tariff country. Taking the tariff that is levied upon all classes of goods that come into Canada it only averages sixteen per cent of the total value, or taking it upon those goods upon which customs taxes are collected, we find that it falls somewhat

under twenty-six per cent. That is a comparatively low tariff, and if we look into the history of the tariff legislation during the last twenty-five years, we find that under successive governments, whether Conservative or Liberal, there has been a constant tendency for the tariff rate to be reduced. Ever since 1888, it has been by slight gradations, diminishing year by year. In 1888 the rate of duty upon customs paying articles'imported into Canada was 31.858. Then in successive years it fell to 31, to 30, to 29, for a series of years to 27, then to 26, then to 25 and a fraction at the present time, where it has stood for the last two years. So that, with a gradual and falling rate-and probably it will continue to fall inasmuch as some of the recent trade treaties will affect it to a certain extent-with a tariff which compared with other tariffs is low and with a tendency for the rate to gradually fall, it does not seem to me that a strong case can be made out in favour of the contention- if that contention has been fairly put by my hon. friend from Halifax-that our rates of Customs taxation are too high.
There	is	another phase of	the	matterwhich	the	hon.	member	has	beendealing	with. Is	the tax	rate	morethan the people can pay ? That is a question	not	so much	of amount
as of relative capacities of endurance. I admit that the amount we take from the people of Canada to-day by way of taxation is very much greater than it was in preceding years, but I claim that the shoulders which bear the load to-day are very much stronger than they were in previous years. For example, if a man received a salary of $1,200 a year, he could quite easily pay a rental of $25 a month, but if his salary is increased to $2,400 a year, he can pay $50 a month rental quite as easily as he paid the sms'ler amount when his salary was only $1,200. So it is with a country. Our ability to pay taxes has greatly increased, as would appear from many statistics, only a few of which I shall give to the House as pertaining to this discussion. Comparing the Canada of to-day with the Canada of ten years ago, we find that whereas our total trade ten years ago was $467,000,000, tne total trade to-day is $1,085,000,000. Ten years ago we thought we were doing well if our exports amounted to $214,000,000; to-day we are disappointed when they are found to be $356,000,000. Looking back over the bank statistics, we find that ten years ago the total amount of bank deposits, representing the active money of our people, accounted for $424,000,000; now we find that the amount has increased to $1,074,000,000. The circulation of Dominion bank hotes, which is a fair evidence of the business of the country, was $38,000,000 ten years ago, and now it is $114,000,000. The one-dollar Mr AMES.
and two-dollar bills, representing the pocket money of the people, and the change which is constantly passing from one hand to another throughout the country, amounted ten years ago to $11,400,000; to-day we find that $21,000,000 is not more than enough to serve our purposes. Canada's burdenbearing power has increased so greatly during the last ten years that we have no hesitation in making the assertion that it is as easy, if not easier, for Canadians to carry a per capita tax of $17 to-day than it was for them to carry a per capita tax of $8.50 ten years ago.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) is greatly exercised over the fact that we have a surplus, and the burden of his song has, to a large extent, been that the Administration should desire to get rid of the surplus, and that it is dangerous for any government to be entrusted with a surplhs of such a size. I desire to point out, by way of comparison, that it does us good once in a while to see how this lusty young man known as Canada is growing and feeling his strength and power. The Canada of ten years ago is not the Canada of to-day. Ten years ago there was one transcontinental railway, and we were wondering whether we could undertake the building of a second one. To-day we have three transcontinental railroads, nearly completed, each of them opening up vast new territories. We are also expecting to build the Hudson Bay railroad; in fact it is partially finished, and, following out the great development and extension of railroad construction in every province of the Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific, we find it necessary that large expenditures should be made on ocean terminals. Then, it does not often occur to us to consider how the inhabitable area of Canada has increased during the last ten years. We now have a new Quebec and a new Ontario. I have travelled from one end of the clay belt to the other, and I can say that it is a magnificent agricultural land if climatic conditions are such fas to make it possible for a population there to thrive. In the future the development .and building up of a country 350 miles in length in northern Ontario and Quebec is going to call for large expenditure on the part of the Government. Let us look at the development of the prairie provinces; let us compare the homestead man of ten years ago with the homestead man of to-day. Ten years ago, with the exception of the sections near Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary, and a fe.v scattered homesteads along the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway, little or no land was occupied, but, looking at the homestead map of to-day, it is almost impossible to find a spot as large as a postage stamp which has not already keen pre-empted and occupied by farmers

and settlers. The enormous new area which is being opened up in these three provinces will make a great demand upon the expending power of this Government. Then there ia the province of British Columbia, in winch new railroad lines are crossing, like the stripes of the British flag, from northeast to south-west and north-west to southeast, and doubling and trebling the -available area of that province, and all of which will call for vast expenditures.
The hon. member for Halifax has directed attention to what I think will be admitted on both sides of the House to be a growing tendency on the part of the federal government, namely, to assist the provinces in doing what in the earlier days it was considered they should do themselves, out of their own revenues. I would like to point out that in the early days the total revenue enjoyed by all the provinces of the Dominion as compared with the revenue enjoyed by the federal Government was about as one is to two, but to-day the proportion is as one to five. In other words, while the revenue of the federal Government has greatly increased, the revenue of the provincial governments have not, and the provincial governments have demands beyond their ability to pay, while the federal Government is able to cope with all demands made upon it. The result has been that the people of the country have looked more and more to Ottawa and less to their own capitals for assistance in the financial requirements cf their development. That is why Bills are introduced in this Parliament to assist provincial roads and agriculture; that iswhy we find that the various provinces ask for larger subsidies. The federal Government will in the future, no douibt, be asked to enter into further expenditures on 'behalf of the provinces which have hitherto been regarded as entirely provincial, and this will make a further inroad upon the public revenue of the country.
Let it not be forgotten also that the year 1913 marks the 'time when Canada is making her first real expenditure on naval defence. I do not refer merely to the purchase of the three dreadnoughts, but I would refer hon. gentlemen opposite to the outline given by the Prime Minister the other day of the expenditures which will be incumbent upon Canada in the future for her own self-defence; the erection of four dry-docks at the principal ports upon the Atlantic and Pacific coasts; -the establishment of naval bases and their fortification, the development of our fisheries protection fleet and the establishment and maintenance of training schools for sailors and seamen. The Prime Minister the other day made no secret of the fact that the grant of three dreadnoughts would not end the programme of this Government, but that they intended to continue along
other lines in doing what was necessary in many ways and in many places for the defence of Canada, all of which would involve enormous expenditure; so it does not seem to me that we can afford to be ranked among the little Canadians, among those who look back ten years and say we used to spend enough then, can we riot go back to those days and still continue our small expenditure? We are coming to an era of greater things than we have ever known before and the next ten years will probably see a greater advance made by Canada than in any preceding ten years of-her history. We must be prepared to spend what is necessary to develop our country in order that we may be able to deal adequately with the problem which enlarged population and increased development of our resources make incumbent upon us. I shall not be at all surprised if before we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Confederation we findthat our annual revenues will considerably exceed $200,000,000 and for the Canada of that time that amount will not be proportionately a greater sum than the revenue of earlier days. I do not see that it would be wise at this time to make an attempt to curtail the revenue coming to us, because we must always be prepared for less prosperous years, we must be prepared for a time when money will not come so freely to us, as it has not come in so freely into Canada this year owing to the high rates of interest; we must be prepared for a time when there may be some check on immigration. While it is easy to cut off sources of revenue, every government knows it is extremely difficult to restore them and consequently it would seem to me to be the path of wisdom to let a normal system which is working reasonably well continue without interference. It is easy to put it wrong, but it will not be difficult to keep it right if it is left alone. I would suggest a remedy for the terrible evils which the hon. member for Halifax dreads. He seems to fear that the greatest possible danger would be large revenue or a surplus. But we have $316,000,000 of indebtedness to work away at in the meantime and if we find ourselves with more money than we know what to do with, it can be used in the reduction of this our debt, and I am sure that no one will say it is not wise policy in times of plenty to pay your debts and reduce your obligations because the times may become harder, when it will be necessary to increase your indebtedness.
I congratulate the Minister of Finance on some of the things which were shown by the budget which he delivered here a week ago. In the first place, I congratulate him on the fact that notwithstanding his revenues were large he kept well within them. Sometimes it is harder for a Finance Minister in bountiful years to keep within his

revenue than in lean years. In hard times you can say to all comers: This is a bad year, we cannot do what you want this year, go away and come again. But when the revenues are abundant, it is much more difficult to say no and there are many who are always ready to make plausible suggestions as to how money may be expended so that a Finance Minister who can keep well within his revenues in a flourishing year is certainly deserving of great credit.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will you name a man .who was sent away empty-handed ?


Herbert Brown Ames: I could name one without going very far from where I stand in some things I have asked for. In the year which has just ended there has been a real, not a paper surplus, and by a real surplus I mean a reduction of the debt at the end of the year, after all obligations under consolidated fund as well as capital accounts have been met. In the last twenty years real surpluses have not been very frequent, and it is a feat of which the Finance Minister may be well proud that he in this present year has reduced the debt of the country by $23,300,000. The Liberals were in office for fifteen years. During those fifteen years there were only four years in which they had what I call real surpluses, and those real surpluses only aggregated a little over $15,000,000. Eleven out of the fifteen years showed deficits which aggregated $96,065,000, leaving a net deficit for their fifteen years of office of over $81,500,000. This deficit was not confined to the earlier years of the Liberal regime when revenues were comparatively small, but was built up mostly towards the end of their regime when the revenues were double what they were at the beginning. We all remember the dreadful year of 1909 when the largest deficit ever known to Canadian history was recorded by a Liberal Government a year in which there was added $46,000,000 to the debt in that year. In 1910 they added $12,300,000, and in 1911 $3,700,000. So, in the last three years before the Liberals went out of office, they had an over-expenditure of $62,000,000, while the present Government, after being in office for two years, is able to claim an aggregate surplus over all expenditure, capital as well as consolidated fund, of $23,300,000, and this Government in the short time they have been in power have brought the debt back to where it was in 1909, namely $316,000,000. We should congratulate ourselves on not having had to go into the money market in the last year. There are but too many who have been forced to go in, and they have been made to pay right royally for doing so. The rates o'f interest have been higher than in many years previously. But our action during the past year has been just the reverse.
Mr. AMES.
Some of the short term obligations contracted at high rates of interest have fallen due, and the $23,300,000 we had in hand has been used in paying off debts running at three and a quarter and four per cent interest, which means that altogether we will start out in 1913-14 with a necessity of appropriating, in order to meet the interest on the public debt of the country, some $900,000 less than we had to appropriate a year ago. That $900,000 is so much saved money, it is so much to our advantage. It, therefore, has been a very fortunate circumstance that our Finanoe Minister has been able to look ahead, has been able to realize that this year was going to be a bad one for borrowing, has been able, instead of incurring large amounts of indebtedness at high rates of interest which would have to be paid by succeeding generations, to live within his revenue without incurring another dollar of debt and to take up the high interest bearing obligations to the extent of $23,000,000 and thus reduce our annual interest charges by nearly $1,000,000. Then, too, he has been able to sustain the credit of the country by coming to the rescue of the Grand Trunk Pacific and buying the bonds issued by that railroad so that they might not be put upon the market and sold at a reduced figure. In that way our credit as an endorser has been preserved. I think you may safely say that, although the past year has been one of considerable money stringency in certain money markets of the world, Canada stands today in a better financial position in those markets than she ever occupied at any time before in her history.
Now, I want to congratulate the country generally also upon the fact that the trade figures for the past year are on the whole thoroughly satisfactory. For the first time in the history of Canada we have reached high-water mark and passed it- I mean the billion-dollar mark as the total of our imports and exports for the year. I admit that the balance of trade is against us. I admit that at first glance one might say that to have sixty-four per cent of imports as against thirty-six per cent of exports was not a healthy sign. But it must be remembered that Canada is a very rapidly growing and expanding country. We are exactly in the position of a manufacturer who, seeing his business greatly extended, determines to put a new wing on his factory. While he is building that new wing he is paying out large sums of money for bricks, mortar, planking, machinery, roofing, and everything that goes into that structure. Consequently you take a balance sheet for the year and what do you find? You find that the produce does not begin to pay for what

he has consumed. He may have borrowed that money, or the money may have been put into the business by some one else. But his products are not equal to his consumption because he is extending his business. That is what we are doing in Canada and the idea could not be better expressed than it is in a statement in the Canadian Year Book under ' Wholesale Prices ' republished from the Toronto Globe. The extract is as follows:
Our new labour is employed as largely upon the construction of the machinery with which we shall presently increase enormously our output of goods, as upon the production of food stuffs which would have an immediate revenue value, and this circumstance would intensify the effect of any serious slackening in our construction operations.
In other words, we are in the position that I have described of preparing for greater things. We are squaring our shoulders, we are buying new tools, we are enlarging our production and we expect to do a very much bigger business because of the fact that in a short time we shall have largely increased our plant.
Did we find a state of affairs such as we see in older countries where the exports and imports were exactly balanced, we would say that Canada was stationary, and we would be right in saying so because it would mean that we had reached the point of equilibrium and that expansion, growth and preparation for future increase were no longer in evidence. I admit that our market to the south of us is not taking as large quantities of Canadian goods as sometimes it is argued that market should. I think that our American friends are themselves preparing to make it possible for Canada to send more to them than we have been sending, but as matters have stood in the past the fault has not been ours, but that of our friends in the United States, because they have had towards us a tariff wall twice as high as we have had towards them. An analysis of the articles which we do send to them shows that they only take from Canada such raw materials as they can themselves work up and make a substantial profit upon. Our exports to the United States last year amounted to $113,000,000 and of this sum $67,000,000 represented minerals, coal and wood in unmanufactured form. Besides that the only other items of importance that we exported to the United States were breadstuffs, fish, hay and hides. At the present time the Americans take from us mainly our raw materials and, in order to make a profit, they manufacture them, export them and 'compete with us in the other markets of the world. It would therefore not be a very great loss to us if the amount of that export did not increase so long as it kept to
raw materials of that character because we would ourselves manufacture them and make a reasonable profit out of them.
I also would like to congratulate the Government upon the wonderful showing that the Immigration Department has made during the last year. There again we have reached the high water mark which will stand as a record in the future. Four hundred thousand people have been added to our numbers during the year which has just ended. I do not think that we realize what our problem of assimilation is and how much greater it is than have ever been the problems of similar nations elsewhere. At the time when the United States had iso,000,000 population, they were only taking 'in about four times as many people as we are to-day. We, with a population of 8,000,000, are adding one-twentieth to our population annually by immigration. There never was a time in the history of the United States when they added more than one-fortieth or one-fiftieth to their population in any given year. We have to address ourselves to the solution of this great problem of taking care of the immigrants that come to Canada. But certainly it is an indication of the attractiveness of 'Canada and of the way in which our prosperity is challenging the attention of the world. It took a long time for immigration to get started. The earlier years of the Liberal regime showed but comparatively meagre returns.
1 Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):	Will the
hon. gentleman give us a few years of the Conservative regime with regard to immigration?
1 Mr. AMES: Yes, you can go back as far as you want to. During the first ten years of .the Liberal regime we had altogether an immigration equal to that of the last two years since this Government came into power, or 756,706. During the whole fifteen years of the Liberal regime there was an *average immigration of 125,000 a year while during the past two years it has been
378,000.	We are pleased to find that British Immigration not only keeps up, but surpasses the wonderful year of 1907-8, when
120.000	British immigrants came in from 'Great Britain. Last year the number of immigrants from Great Britain was no less than 150,000 people who joined us here in Canada.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We, on this side of the House never thought that immigration was going to cease because our friends came into power.


Herbert Brown Ames: I listened to a great many prognostications from this side of the House when the Liberals were in power as to the direful things which would happen in case the places of the parties should be changed.

It is, I am sure, a great relief to all of us 'to find that Canada keeps moving forward in the same progressive way. We may be *pardoned if we think that conditions are how even a little better than they were.
There is another important matter that I wish to speak of and it is one which has been under discussion for a considerable time. It is the tariff and the treatment that has been accorded it by the Minister of *Finance in his speech. I had been expecting that we would have had the tariff views of the Opposition through the mouth of the hon. member for Halifax. I had been expecting that he would tell us whether be would revise the tariff, whether he would revise it generally or whether he would revise it with reference to special articles, or whether he would revise it with reference to certain parts of the world, and how he was going to undertake to reduce the incidents of taxation. Not a ray of light has come from him, not a word on those matters. Consequently I shall not be able to Criticise any of the views which he entertains upon the tariff because they have not been disclosed and I shall therefore have to content myself with complimenting the Minister of Finance upon what he has evidently indicated to be the fixed view and 'policy of the Government for the present year and for the years that are to come. It 'is quite evident that the Minister of Finance has had a great many requests during the past twelve months to make changes in the tariff. He has had a great many demands, I am sure, to alter the tariff both upward and downward but apparently he has turned a deaf ear, for the moment at least, to all these requests because we find that the changes in the tariff, outside of those rendered necessary by the West India treaty, are very few indeed. It is a strange thing that the Minister of Finance of this Government, which has always been accused by members on the other side as being an ultra-protectionist government, should have introduced tariff changes which for the most part are reductions.
The Minister of Finance said there were anomalies in the tariff, and all of us have had these anomalies pointed out to us by our constituents, and some of us for the benefit of our constituencies have pointed them out to the Minister of Finance. These anomalies are allowed to remain for the present, but it is altogether probable that there will be a general revision of the tariff in the not very distant future when this accumulation of anomalies, which from year to year grows larger, will be dealt with, I trust, in a scientific manner and for a term of years, so that we may have that fixity of conditions which is so essential to the progress of industries. Such tariff changes as have been announced the Mr. AMES.
minister has defended upon wha,t I consider thoroughly sound principles. In the first place, he has put ditchers and typecasting machines on the free list, and he has given as reason for his action that those articles are not, and do not appear likely, to be made in Canada, and that consequently, since there is no necessity for protecting any Canadian industry in the making of these goods, they should be allowed to come in free of duty. With that wehave no fault to find, and there may be other items in the tariff which can be similarly treated. The second principle laid down by the Minister of Finance is illustrated by what has been done in reference to cement. Last summer we had an unusual condition in the matter of cement, which, being an emergent condition, I think was dealt with wisely by the Government at that time. But when the emergency was over the rate of customs duty was restored and prior to the bringing down of the budget, the tariff stood as it had been before. As a result of a study of these conditions it was made evident to the Minister of Finance that the cement industry throughout Canada could still continue to take a fair share of the Canadian market under reduced protection, and therefore the protection is reduced so that British cement can come in at twenty-four and one-half cents a barrel and Belgian and other cement at thirty-five cents, and that being regarded as a reasonable protection for an established industry, we may take it that it will probably be the rate for time to come. No item in the tariff has been altered where the principle of reasonable and adequate protection has not been asserted, and therefore that principle still stands. I am sorry I have not an opportunity to deal with suggestions from the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) as to how he would bring about that remission of taxation which he urged. I had prepared myself in advance for his suggestions and as they have not come I find it necessary to curtail my remarks to a very considerable extent. I shall therefore be deprived of the privilege, which otherwise would have been mine, to express approval or disapproval, as the case may be, of these undisclosed ideas which are still back in the mind of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). I must say that his illustration taken from American history did not strike me as altogether a fortunate one. Are we to infer that the fate of President Cleveland is one he would commend to the members on this side of the House? President Cleveland committed political harikari and possibly my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) has thrown this out as a suggestion as to the manner in which he would like to see the members on this side of the House meet a similar fate. No doubt hon. gentlemen opposite have a

lively willingness to take our places in case we fall by the wayside.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the hon. member
give his opinion of the conduct of President Wilson?


Herbert Brown Ames: Yes, I think the conduct of President Wilson for the United States is admirable, with a tariff of 48 per cent against the world. There was one phase of that American incident which the hon. member for Halifax did not bring out; he did not show that after the American civil war the Americans had an enormous debt and that their rate of taxation was purposely not only arranged for meeting expenses but for paying off that debt. Where the Americans made their mistake, however, was that when they had reduced that debt to a reasonable limit they still for a time kept to the high rate of taxation. But, that' is not a fair comparison with Canada, whose system of collecting taxes has been a normal creation to meet normal needs. We did not start with a war debt, we did not start with a rate of taxation intended to wipe out that war debt, and as the country has proved adequate continued to prove adequate.
I have only	a few words to say
in Teply to what the hon. member said regarding the high cost of living. I do not think he made his case very strong in endeavouring to prove that the taxation at present being taken from the country was the reason for the high cost of living. It may be an incident to it, but he has only to look around the world to see that the high cost of living is general. He will find it in protected countries and unprotected countries just the same; he will find it in Great Britain where since 1897 the cost of the foodstuffs of the British workingman has increased fifty per cent; he will find it in the United States; he will find it elsewhere. If he could point out to me that only in high tariff countries the cost of living had gone up and that in low tariff countries or countries that have no tariff it had remained stationary, I would see the force of his argument. But as the matter stands, I cannot see that it is more than an incident and not the real cause. If you come to consider the conditions in Canada you will find that the high cost of living is largely due to the fact that our consumptive power has increased more rapidly than our productive power. Think that over for a moment and you will see that the demand has increased more rapidly than the supply in the Canadian home market and the effect of course is that products have advanced in price.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We export a great deal.


Herbert Brown Ames: We export a great deal of
raw material. Would the hon. gentleman undertake to curtail the demand and so lessen the Canadian market by bringing in the cheap-made products of elsewhere and then say: as we have lessened the demand the local supply can take care of the balance and consequently prices may be expected to fall? Is not that a pretty dangerous experiment? If we follow a path of that kind may we not find ourselves far worse in the last result than in the first, because we are deliberately introducing a method whereby we are curtailing the purchasing power of a portion of the Canadian people, and once you take that power from them it is difficult to restore it? Let me use an illustration: suppose there is a town in the West with fifty families and there is in the immediate neighbourhood one hundred farmers, who are supplying them with the necessities of life, and prices are fairly normal. But suppose the town rapidly increases from fifty families to two hundred families and the farmers in the immediate neighbour hood have a larger market for their products than before and not enough to supply it, the result would be for the time being that prices would go up and would continue at a high level until the hundred farmers producing became two hundred and the supply and demand were equalized. You will find that is the history of what i3 working all the time. Prices go up because the demand increases more rapidly than the supply. When the supply overtakes the demand, there is a tendency towards equilibrium. That I think will come here as elsewhere, if we only have patience. To my mind it would not be wise, for the sake of a possible temporary relief, to interfere with that system. If we do that, we would find ourselves cutting off from a large proportion of the Canadian people the purchasing power which it is extremely' valuable and necessary for them to have.
I have been wondering whether my hon. friend from Halifax was going to intimate that there might be certain articles, on which taxation is now levied by way of customs duty, that might be put on the free list. Is that his method of reducing taxation? He has not disclosed any method to us. There again let me point out, in order that it may be clearly in our minds, that in the argument raised we are taking what used to be known as ' the vicious circle.' Protection is not justifiable for one unless it is justifiable for all. If it is not justifiable for one, it is not justifiable for all. All of us are producers and consumers alike. You cannot say to one producer: You are not entitled to protection, and then say to another producer: You are entitled to protection. Consequently if protection exists in any country, it must be distributed with fairness and equality to all those industries throughout that country which the Government judge to be entitled to receive

it. Suppose you say to an industry: The demand for a reduced rate on the article you produce is so great that we have decided that your industry shall be the victim and that you will hereafter be subject to world-wide competition. Take, for example, an article of which I know nothing, but which I may perhaps use for purposes of illustration, namely: shovels. Suppose the price of a shovel in Canada is claimed to be too high, and you say: The man who uses a shovel must have it at a lower rate. Therefore we will take off the duty on shovels and allow them to come in from the whole world in order that the price may fall. What would be the result? The men in Canada who are making shovels would probably find themselves out of business by reason of ruinous competition. Their employees would find themselves out of employment and would go into other industries at lower wages. They would be discontented. They would say: If the industry which I am accustomed to work at is no longer protected, why should I pay for meat and lamb and dairy products that are raised by protected farmers? I refuse to do so. Suppose his refusal can be put into actual effect, and the farmer finds that his products are to be no longer protected. He will say: Why should I pay protected rates for my coat and hat and boots and shoes and so on? The moment you let in the principle that it is possible to single out one man and say to him that his protection shall cease henceforth, it seems to me you will find no place where you can stop until' the whole protection is taken away.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the doctrine.


Herbert Brown Ames: If that is the doctrine which hon. gentlemen opposite wish to adopt, I shall be delighted to deal with it. If the hon. member for Halifax had intimated a list of articles that he would like to see sacrificed and thrown to the wolves, let us say, we would have been delighted to deal with those articles. Striking in the dark as we are at the present time, we can only enunciate the general principle, and intimate -that protection, if it is to be maintained, is right for one and right for all, and that consequently an infringement upon it brings danger to all.
There is one point raised by my hon. friend from Halifax, on which I do not altogether agree with him. He intimated that the cost of living advanced more than wages. I do not think that is strictly correct. The cost of living advances usually before wages advance. The cost of living will go up first; wages will follow more slowly, but they usually follow in about the same proportion. What happens? The cost of living, by an equalization of -supply and Mr. AMES.
demand, frequently falls, but wages remain where they were. Wages take a long time to come down again, although the cost of living has decreased. Consequently _ it would not be wise for us, in dealing with the cost of living, to remove from any considerable portion of our community that protection which they now enjoy, and thus lessen their purchasing power as spenders in the Canadian market.
On the whole, taking the Budget Speech- for I have had to deal with it rather than with that of the hon. member for Halifax- I think it discloses great prosperity_ so far as Canada is concerned. No new policy has been enunciated. There has been no new policy in Canada for a great many yeaTS. There was no new policy in 1897, 1898 or 1900, notwithstanding all the promises made before the election of 1896.


William John Macdonald: What did Sir ChaTles Tupper say about that?


Herbert Brown Ames: I do not care what Sir
Charles Tupper said; the facts show' that no new policy was enunciated.


Mr. MAKCIL:: Is the British preference a new policy?


Herbert Brown Ames: The British preference in
the form in which it was brought in was a new policy. It is in force to-day. I would like to know from the hon. member for Halifax if on his side of the House they have any changes to offer in reference to the British preference. .


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If your friends are afraid to deal with the tariff, they had better abandon it and let us manage it.


Herbert Brown Ames: What would you do?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We would do what is
right.


William John Macdonald: What about the adequate protection policy of the hon. member's leader which was to come into effect w'hen the present Government came into power? Are you going to have adequate protection, or is it necessary?


Herbert Brown Ames: I think I have been dealing w'ith that for the last hour. I was in hopes that the hon. member for Halifax would intimate what suggestions were to be offered by the Liberal side of the House on this question.


William John Macdonald: You do not take
many suggestions from this side on any question.


Herbert Brown Ames: At present-, in view of having nothing controversial to deal with, I have been dealing with what the hon minister said, and I have pointed out the principles w'hich the hon. minister has enunciated in regard to the changes he has made.


Michael Clark: Does the hon. member consider himself a fair or logical controversialist when he says in one breath that no new policy was introduced in 1897, and in the next breath that the British preference was a new policy?


Herbert Brown Ames: I had in mind two different things at that time. So far as the policy of protection is concerned, I say there was no new policy introduced in 1897, 1898 or 1900. If you wish to deal with the British preference as affecting protection, that is another question. The British preference as brought in by the Liberal party in 1897 was a new policy.
To sum up what may be characterized as the spirit of the Minister of Finance's speech, I may say that he has indicated plainly to this House, by all the figures he has presented, that Canada of to-day is in a prosperous condition. Canada being healthy, the fewer changes that are made in the conditions that contribute to that health, the better it will be. I do not think that the Minister of Finance, from what I can judge, of his utterances, has any intention or desire to make radical changes in the existing system. I think he is wise. He heeds the warning given cn a tombstone in an English churchyard:
I	was well;
I	wanted to be better;
And here I lie.
Canada to-day is progressing along safe, broad, prosperous lines, and it would be unwise for us to do any experimenting which might tend to less prosperity than we enjoy to-day.


Mr ALPHONSE VERVILLE (Maison-neuve):: from or forgotten in the speeches on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Like the other members of the House, I have read carefully line by line all the Speech from the Tyrone contains, and it is surprising to find how little that Is definite there is in it. After reading it for the second time, to be sure I had not mistaken any of its meaning, I was astonished for the second time in two sessions to find the labour cause overlooked. From my knowledge and experience in . this House, if I am not mistaken, the Government generally assumes the responsibility for the Address. Last session I took advantage of some of the time at my disposition to call the attention of the Government to such an omission, honestly believing that* new party coming into power so unexpectedly could be excused for such an error. The labour men throughout Canada have waited patiently in expectation that at this present session an announcement of some character would be made in that respect, but not a word, good, bad or indifferent. This prosperity we boast of so much-I would ask the Government if the labour men of this country can legitimately claim their part therein? Is there any one in this House who would take the responsibility of saying that he denies them that right? Is there any one who would say that they have not at least contributed to such prosperity? If so, then why, I pray, were they not honoured with some mention?
Of course each and every one can draw his own conclusion, and I for one will expose mine frankly. My firm belief is, that large financial institutions, trusts and mergers, manufacturers' associations, and all large aggregations of capital were not strangers to such omission, and I am induced to so believe by the action of the Government. Has not the present Government indirectly acknowledged that it is hostile to the masses of workmen of the country? I naturally expect some protest from the other side of the House, with the reasons brought forward that present conditions do not warrant such a mention. It is perhaps true regarding the present Government, but nevertheless the impression remains the same; down you are, and down you will stay. It may also perhaps be that the Government honestly believes that present conditions are more than sufficient to bring peace and harmony among the workers; that the cost of living, for example, is such that higher protection should be granted to their kind friends the manufacturers; that the purchasing power of workmen to-day is such that they can live in luxury; that since the pledge of loyalty taken by the people in 1911, joy Mr. VERVILLE.
and happiness now reign in every family. If these were some of the reasons brought forward for omitting the labour clause it would be my duty to protest. Whether it is or not, it is my duty to enlighten the masses of the country and it is fair to believe that this will have the effect of exposing some of the misdoings of some of our business men.
The figures I am about to give and the comparisons I am about to make have not been taken from newspapers, for it has been my privilege to visit during this last summer some of the great American cities where I have gathered my information, by going from store to store in different parts of those cities to ascertain whether our Canadian workmen were on an equal footing in respect of ' cost of living,' with American 'workingmen.
These comparisons are from June the 15th to July the 20th, 1912, and they are not made from wholesale prices, but from retail-my hon. friend from Wentworth brought them into the House, in his speech on the address, not by the ton, or by large baskets full, but by the smaller quantities purchased by working people. This appears to me to be less than generous on the part of the hon. gentleman, especially when the application of high protection is supposed to be the only plank of salvation designed to better every day conditions of life.
It is not my intention to touch on the tariff question just at present, for I will deal in another way with this very important subject before I resume my seat.
The House will follow me. I hope, the presentation of figures comparing the prices in the markets of New York and Chicago with those of Montreal. It must be borne in mind that the figures I am about to give to the House are the average prices for the commodities mentioned in those American cities, and we will see later on that prices are much lower in the labour residential sections, and the prices for Montreal, which I will also read, apply to districts with a population of ninety per cent of working men, thus increasing the percentage in favour of New York:
	New York.	Montreal.
Fresh eggs, doz ..	.. 25	32Butter, per lb.. ..	.. 27	32Cheese, per lb.. ..	.. 20	20Flour, 7 lbs	.. 23	28Lard, per lb	.. 18	20Sugar, per lb.. ..	.. 05J	0618 per cent in favour	of New York.	Meats.	New York.	Montrea 1Mutton per quarter, per lb. 08	12Beef for roast, per lb.	.. .. 1G	18Steak, per lb	. ..18 to 20	18 to 22Ham, raw, per lb.. ..	.. .. 16	20Short ribs, per lb	... 16	16Ham, boiled, per lb.. .	35
Meats.
New	York. Montreal.
Bacon, per lb	
16	20Lamb, per lb	
16	20Fowl, per lb	
22	22Salt pork, per lb	
10	15Pork for roast, per	lb.. ..	42*	18
24 per cent in favour of New York.
Vegetables.
New	York. Montreal.
- Onions, red, 3 lbs	
10	30Onions, yellow, per	lb.. ..	05	10Potatoes, new, bushel	
80	$1 75Radishes, bunch	
02J	10Lettuce, bunch	02J	10Onions, fresh, bunch	.. ..	02*	05Cabbage	
08	15Cucumbers, each	
05	15Tomatoes, per lb	
06	10
130 per cent in favour of New York.
Fruits.
New	York. Montreal.
Strawberries, 3 boxes	....	25	60Peaches, per doz	
25	40Pears, per doz	
25	40
90 per cent in favour of New York.
On the whole the prices were ninety-five per cent dearer in Montreal than in New York.
As the figures which I have just given are for June and July, one might say that a change must have been brought about in the latter part of the season. A change was brought about, and for the benefit of the members of the House and the public I will later on bring before the House prices for the same commodities during the last week of December.
Before reading these figures it is necessary to explain where they wrere obtained. All the members of the House know, or they should know, that women in the United States have of late taken an active part in bringing to the attention of the public the condition of retail prices on the New York markets respecting foodstuffs. They have in many, if not in all cases, exposed the unfair and exorbitant prices demanded and received by the wholesalers as well as by the retailers, thus exposing the real situation of the consumers. Mrs. Charlotte R. Bangs, the founder of the Home Market Club of New York, in the course of an investigation into the high cost of living relates some facts and figures which are worth mentioning, and these figures can be found in the Evening World of New York in its issue of December 20, 1912. They are as follows:
Eggs, fresh, thirteen to fifteen for 25 cents; eggs, best, 2 cents each; Savoy cabbage, large, 4 cents a head; green peppers, large,
3 cents for two; green peas, good, 12 cents a pound; celery, three stalks, 7 cents; white turnips, 1 cent each; carrots, three in bunch, 1 cent; onions, yellow, three pounds 5 cents; oranges, good, large, 2 i
cents each; dried prunes, 8 cents pound; nuts, mixed, 12 cents pound; spinach, 5 cents gallon; lettuce, good, 3 cents a head; cabbage, small, 1 cent each; stew lamb, 4 cents pound; calf's liver, 8 cents pound; best bacon, 25 cents a pound; stew beef, 6 cents pound; chops, 9 cents pound; beef to roast, quality good, 12 cents pound.
Take the whole of the articles which I have just cited and you will find a difference of over 100 per cent between New York and Montreal prices. They are over 100 per cent cheaper in New York than in Montreal, and if these prices were compared with the prices of these same commodities in the other cities of Canada, one would find everywhere a big. difference in favour of the New York market. Patrick market, where these figures were obtained, is situated in a workingman's residential district of New York, which covers from 99th street to 110th street and Second avenue. There is no doubt that prices vary in different parts of such a large city, but nevertheless according to these figures the facts remain the same. The working classes of New York have the advantage of better and cheaper goods, and they were not and are not now afraid of reciprocity in foodstuffs with Canada. If our Canadian women would only take the trouble of doing as effective work in our home markets as Mrs. Bangs is doing in the United States in connection with the high cost of living, they would also bring to the knowledge of the country some of the misdoings of some of our wholesalers and retailers. I have not heard anyone say that those American ladies have in any way belittled their social position by working for the betterment of mankind. On the contrary they have been worthy of praise. Owing to their democratic sentiments and actions, they have been approved the world over. I hope to see the day when our Canadian women will do likewise, the amount of good they will do then is. beyond our imagination. Two things are essential, good will and good substantial democratic principles.
I will now give some figures showing the difference between the prices in the markets of Chicago and Montreal respectively:
Potatoes, new, bushel. Tomatoes per pound.. .	Chicago. . 80	Montreal $1 75
	. 08	10
Tomatoes, canned.. .	. 12*	14Corn canned	. 10*	10Cucumbers	05	15Celery	. 08	15Lettuce	. 05	10Cabbage	. 08	15Carrots, bunch	. 05	10Turnips	. 04	07Onions, per bushel.. .	.$1 00	$1 60Eighty per cent in	favour of	Chicago.Fruits. Oranges, per dozen .. 35	40Lemons, per dozen.. .	. 20	20Raisins, per pound.. .	. 08	10
Fruits.
Chicago. Montreal. Strawberries, per box.. 08 Pears, per dozen .... 30	40
Peaches, per dozen.... 30	*0
Apples, per bushel.. ..$1 50	$1 60
Eighteen per cent in favour of Chicago.
We must bear in mind that Chicago is classified as a western city. I have compared Montreal to New York because Montreal is an eastern city. Chicago is classified as a western city on account of the amount of transportation paid on goods. The comparative prices of meats in Montreal and Chicago are as follows:
Meats.
Chicago. Montreal.
Beef steak	
20 to 22	20 to 22Beef for boiling	10	12Pork for Roast	
16	18Mutton	
14	15Lamb	
18	20Fowl	
19	22Sausage	
19	12B&con	
18	20Ham, boiled	
30	35Ham, raw	
16	20
12 per cent, in favour of Chicago.
A difference on the whole of these products of 24 per cent.
For the benefit of the members I wish to put on ' Hansard ' the comparative cost of living in two of the larger cities of the Dominion, which, I suppose, will be approved of by hon. gentlemen opposite. A statement of the cost of living in Toronto and in the city of Ottawa may be of service particularly when questions of rate of wages" to be paid on Government work may come up for consideration. The figures I shall cite in reference to Toronto were furnished me by the vice-president of the Labour Congress of Canada, Mr. Bancroft, of the Toronto Star. The Toronto list for one year is as follows:
Coal, 5 tons at $8.25	$ 36 25
1	cord light wood	 5 75

 42	00
Light and gas cooking at $1.50
per month	 18	00
Clothing for man-
1	suit a year	
16	001	hat a year	
2	504 shirts a year	
2	404 pair sox a year	
1	20Collars and ties a year.. ..	2	00Underwear a year	
3	50
27	60
An equal amount for his wife	 27	60
3 children clothing at $15.00
each	    45	00
Boots and shoes-
3 children, 3 pairs each	$1.50	13	502	pairs men's hoots at	$3.50	7	001 pair men's overshoes	
2	001 pair men's rubbers	
1	001	pair ladies' rubbers .. ..	1	002	pairs ladies' boots at	$2..	4	00Repairs	
2	00
30	50
Furniture and utensils-
3	brooms at 50 cents	
1	50Brushes	
1	59Gas mantles or	lamp glasses	50Stove polish	
25Shoe polish	
75Renewal of furniture	
25	00Bread, 1 large loaf per day at 10c.$36.50 Cakes per day at 5c	18.25Milk, 1 qt. per day at 9c	Meat at 35c. per day	Potatoes, 10 bags per year	Sugar, 4 lbs. per week at 7c. lb	Tea, 1 lb. per week at 20c	Coffee, 4 lbs. per year at 40c	
Breakfast foods and cereals, 25c week. Vegetables-
1 cabbage per week, 5c	$2 60
Onions per week, 5c	2 60
Turnips per week and carrots,
5c..		2 60
Parsnips, per week, 5o	 2 69
Lettuce, &c., per week, 5c	v 60
29 50
54 75 32 85 127 75 11 00 14 56 10 40 1 60 13 00
13 00
Fruits-
2	bbls. apples at $2.50	$o 00
Preserving 1 crate strawberries.. .!	, -.160
Preserving ^ crate raspberries.. 1 50 Preserving 3 baskets peaches .. 2 25 Preserving 2 baskets pears.. .. 1 00 Preserving 1 basket plums .. .. 0 50
Sugar for above	4i00

	15 75
Produce-
Butter, 3 lbs. per week $1.. ..
Lard, i lb. (per week 10c	
Eggs, 1| doz. per week, 42c....
Cheese, \ lb. per week, 10c....
Flour, 25-lb. bag per month at 65c..
Can goods-
1 can	fish per week	$0	151 can	corn per week	0	101 can	peas per week	0	10Pickles, per week	0	05Insurance per year	Union dues	
Street car fares, 35c. per week
Sundries-
Pepper per year, 1 lb	$0 40
Salt per year	0 50
Mustard per year, 2 tins	0 40
Matches per year	0 50
Vinegar per year	0 45
Soap per year, 100 bars	5 00
Extras at Xmas	
Evening paper, 25c. per month	
Rent for six-roomed house at $18.. ..
Doctor and medicine for family	
Donations to church per year..' .. .. Family attends one concert per year	$1 25
One trip on lake	5 00
One to Island Park	0 50
One to Scarboro Beach Park .. .. 1 00 Total	
52 00 5 20 21 84 5 20 7 80
20 80 20 00 12 00 13 00
7 25 2 00 3 00 216 00 15 00 10 00
5 75 ,$991 70
The cost of living in Ottawa is very much the same. The figures I shall quote were furnished a year ago this month and prices have increased since. The following table
Mr. VERVILLE.

shows the cost of living for a family of five .for one year based on prices prevailing in Ottawa in the month of May, 1912:
Coal, (5 tons at $8)	
Light wood, (2 cords at $3.50)	
Light and gas for year	
Clothing for man for year:
1 suit	
1	hat	
4	shirts at $1	
6 pairs socks at 25 cents	
Underwear, 2 suits at $2.50	
Clothing for woman for one year.. ..
3	children, $15 each for clothing....
Boots and shoes for family:
3	children at 3 pairs each $1.50.. ..
2	pairs for man at $3.50	
1 pair overshoes	
1 pair rubbers	
1	pair rubbers for woman	
2	pairs boots for woman at $3.00 .. Overshoes for children 1 pair each..
furniture and household utensils:
4	brooms at 40 cents	
Brushes, &c	
Gas mantels and lamp glasses	
Stove polish	
Renewal of household furniture and
bedding, &c., for one year	
Bread, lj loaves per day at 8c	
Cakes per day 8 cents	
Milk, 1 quart per day at 7c	"
Meat per day at 30e	
Roast each Sunday at 65c	' ' ''
Eggs, 1 dozen per week at 30c..
Potatoes, 10 bags at $1 50	
Sugar, 4 pounds per week at 6^c.'.' tea, J pound per week at 40c.. .. Coffee, 4 pounds per year at 40c..	!!
Cabbage 1 per week at 10c	
Unions per week at 5c	
Turnips and carrots, p.w. at 8c.. !! Parsnips and lettuce, p.w. at 8c Preserving fruits:
1 crate strawberries at $1.75	
1 crate raspberries at $1.75	'
3	baskets peaches at 75c	"1	basket plums at 50c	
'	"2	baskets pears at 50	" ]
sugar for preserving above.. .. putter 3 pounds per week at 35c.. .. Card 4 pound per week at 20c.. . Cheese 1 pound per week at 20c.. tlour 24 pounds, bag per month at 90c-Canned goods:
Fish, 1 can per week at 22c	
Corn, 1 can per week at 10c....' '
Peas 1 can per week at 12ic	
Pickles, per week at 10c.
Insurance, fire and life	V " "
Car fare, per week at 25c	
Sundries:-
Pepper 40c. salt $1. mustard 40c... Matches 50c. vinegar 50c. soap $5..
Evening papers per year	
House rent at $18 per month .. .!

3	00
4	00
1	50
5	00 35 00 45 00
13 50 7 00
2	00 1 00
6	00
3	00
1.60
1	50
1 00
35 00 43 80 29 20 22 55 93 90 33 80 15 60 15 00 13 52
10	40 1 60 5 20
2	60 .2 60
4	16
1 75
1	75
2	25 50
1 00
4	50 54 60
5	20 10 80 10 80
11	44
5	20
6	50
5	20 25 00 13 00

6	00
3	00 216 00
Total cost for one year	$943 42
No allowance has been made for charity, churches, pleasure, sickness, drugs, medical attendance or tobacco. After the figures I have given and comparisons I have made, it is needless to go into statistics regarding the earning power of work-331
men in these three respective cities, for some can be found in the remarks I made last year. But if we compare the increase in the cost of living in twelve months we come, to our astonishment, to a difference of twenty-two per cent in Montreal alone, and no doubt it has increased in the same proportion in other cities.
The causes for such an increase may be many, or few. Every day we hear of new causes, and all of our great economists do not seem to agree on the real cause of such an alarming increase. Some will say that the production of gold has something to do with it. Others will say that scarcity of grass in our fields is responsible also. Others will say that the cost of transportation is the great plague. The duplication of services in connection with the distribution of goods, which increases more and more every day, is also responsible. By the words ' duplication of service,' I mean the delivery at the consumer's door not only of all that he eats and drinks, but also of every minor .article purchased by him at the city or village store. Many other causes too numerous to mention are also assigned for the high cost of living.
It is strange, however, that very few men who make a special study of this great problem have counselled the cutting out of the middleman's profit, and the more we study this great question the more we conclude that the tariff has everything to do with this increase, which has become a plague. Observing conditions from a practical point of view, I have no hesitation in saying that over-capitalization, better known as watered stock, is absolutely responsible for the tariff and therefore responsible for the increased cost of living. This year we can anticipate that no less than two hundred and fifty mil-ions will be paid as interest on watered stock alone. If we compare this enormous interest paid, with the population in Canada at the present time, say, 7,500,000 inhabitants, we find that about $33.30 is imposed on every man, woman and child in the country, or in other words $166.50 per family, and we must not lose sight of the fact that they have no choice as to whether they shall pay or not. I call this highway robbery, for it is impossible under present conditions to prevent this operation and we must accept it.
If we proceed further with our investigation and subtract the number of inhabitants that cannot be called upon to pay this over-tax, it becomes more alarming. About ten per cent of our population come under this category. There are the patients in all of our institutions, the invalids, also a large number who will never work, without mentioning the parasites, who are more dangerous



[Stage Direction]
to society than all other classes combined. Deducting the ten per cent I have already mentioned are the population upon which this burden is really imposed is then 6,750,-0O0,fand the amount would be $37 on every individual or $185 per family. This is too heavy a tax, especially when it is paid on a fictitious and non-existent value and this situation is responsible for the increased cost of living and it also contributes to the increase of the tariff. In other words, it furnishes arguments for high protectionists in favour of not reducing or abolishing the tariff on first necessities of life.
I would like to read here an expression which appeared in the Monetary Times of October 12, 1912, on this subject, and the expression in such a paper surely will be accepted in this House. This expression although given by an American covers the situation m our own country.
The rise in the cost of living is still a problem on the North American continent. It has increased sharply during the recent year' and is still rapidly rising. Mr. J. J' Hill has said that the cost of high living has been an important factor: in other words that extravagance is one of our faults. While there is much truth in that assertion, inquiries prove that, aside from reckless expenditures, the cost of necessaries has risen con-eider ably. In addition, the average income has not increased to a corresponding degree. There has just been completed under the aus-Pv0eSn0^ United States Labour Bureau of the Department of Commerce and Labour, a survey of retail prices actually paid by consumers of the cities of the country.
The statistics of this survey, when used along with the report of the 1910 census, shows that the average workingman conld, in 1909, buy with the results of a day's labour less than nine-tenths of the food he could buy with his day's labour in 1899. By a conservative estimate, he can to-day buy less than four-fifths. Without any indulgence in high living, the cost of duplicating a wholesome weeks regime in 1899 is to-day fifty-two to seventy-seven per cent higher than it was then, and even if a man gets twenty-five per cent more wages than he got then he is still twenty-one per cent worse off on his bill for meats and groceries.
This is a considerable rise for a period covering ten or a dozen years; but the grade that prices have taken in their upward course is steeper now than it has ever been before in the period. The Government's figures show that, between June 15, 1911 and June 15, 1912, prices of ordinary food increased six to ten per cent.
Undoubtedly similar conditions, generally speaking, prevail in Canada, for it would appear that all employers of labour have not yet shouldered their share of the difficulty. I would like to cite an item that appeared in the Montreal Gazette of Mr. VERVILLE
November 22, 1912, a newspaper in which members on the other side of the House have absolute confidence. I quote:
A man in Winnipeg the other day bought a barrel of Ontario apples paying therefor $5.25. In it he found a note from the grower of the fruit, which read:	' I got
seventy cents for this barrel of apples, what did you pay for it '. . . . The $4.55 difference between the purchaser's price in this case presumably went part to the original buyer as profit, part, possibly almost a dollar, to a railway company for hauling it twelve or fourteen hundred miles, and part as profit to the Winnipeg merchant who sold and delivered it. There is money madd somewhere in the handling, if not in the growing of apples.
What is said of this barrel of apples can be said of all commodities and especially of foodstuffs, and the Montreal Gazette simply states the facts. But if we go deeper into this case we can specialize and probably conclude who gets the difference, for the same paper in its issue of November 27, 1912, five days later, published a small article in its editorial columns from the Winnipeg Telegram which reads:
The Winnipeg Telegram is trying to figure out how it is that a barrel of apples for which an Ontario farmer received 70 cents, retails in Winnipeg at $5.25 without somebody or other making enormous profits. The freight is 76 cents per barrel and the barrel itself cost 30 cents, a total cost of $1.76 for the fruit laid down in Winnipeg. This leaves $4.95 for somebody so far unknown. Having failed to locate the whereabouts of the discrepancy the searcher might try something easier. In the case of a potato shipment from Stonewall to Winnipeg, a distance of 20 miles, the farmer it appears got 30 cents a bushel; the freight was 3i cents a bushel, the potatoes sold at wholesale at 55 cents at Winnipeg, and the local consumer paid 65 cents.
The producer an-d the railway received practically one half that amount for grow-lng the bushel and carrying it to the market. Who got the rest of the 65 cents?
It seems from these figures that the farmers and the consumers ought to be up in arms against such exploitation. The farmers, the great producers of natural products, should understand that they, as well as the masses in the cities, are the tools of the combines, and that when an open market is offered to them that they should grasp the opportunity to bring about better conditions. It is unfair for the farmer or fruit grower to support those that are responsible for such conditions. The farmers are not getting the full value of their products, and we, in the cities, are paying too much. It is time also that the farmers of the country should understand that they are the consumers of all that is produced in the cities. What has been said of apples or of potatoes can also be

said of all other goods they have to purchase.
If the farmers of the country would take the trouble to prepare their budget and classify the different items on which they have to pay exorbitant prices, as well as high tariffs, they would conclude that after allowing a good substantial profit to the manufacturer as well as the wholesaler, retailer, and the transportation companies, they are paying all the way from 22 to 40 per cent higher than they should pay and without a particle of benefit to them.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. VERVILLE:: Mr. Sneaker, before
six o'clock I was trying to show where the interests of the farmers as well as those of the masses of the consumers lay, for the benefit of both, their combination of which should be considered rather than to draw from them all their productive power. It is time that the farming as well as the labour element should unite in a common cause for better markets, free entry for foodstuffs, and should not allow themselves to be blindfolded by all the large monied interests which are dominated at present by the cry of loyalism. If I were asked if we are loyal subjects of His Majesty, I would be tempted to answer thus: Ask the mergers and trusts; as far as we know, we have been forced to take the oath of allegiance to their majesties the trusts, combines and manufacturers.
I made special mention last year in my remarks that, if it was possible to gather information as to the quantities of foodstuffs held in cold storage in our large cities and the manner of their operations, sound thinking members of this House would be scandalized. I have, since the close of last session, been able to gather some information, incomplete but nevertheless enough to set our population thinking. We all agree that cold storage from its inception was organized for a good cause, and especially from a sanitary as well as from a humanitarian standpoint. The system was subsidized in - that respect, and everybody admitted that it would mean the furnishing to the consumers of better foodstuffs in the less favourable months of the year. Believing as usual in the reasonableness of the operators, and above all, in their honesty as business men, we all applauded the new system. But what the people thought, as a big child against a small one, turned against them not only as regards the consumers of the cities, but as regards the farmers.
We have seen and we have heard these so-called fathers of society, these benefactors of mankind, making the strongest fight
331*
possible against reciprocity in 1911, and why? Because they thought, and rightly so, that natural products entering free would be the means of preventing their nefarious operations in oppressing the masses in their most vitally needed foodstuffs; and the scandalous process has been condemned by all true and law-abiding citizens. It remains to be seen and proved whether they have gained any advantage by the waiving of the flag.
While I am on this waving of the flag system, which is becoming a force in this country at the present time, I would like to read an article that appeared in the Voice of Winnipeg under date of December 28, 1912. The article is entitled:
Reciprocity among Anti-Reciprocity	^
Advocates.	1
It reads as follows:
'To George H. Bradbury, from the market gardeners of Kildonan, Alan., in recognition of your fight against reciprocity, 1911/
This was the inscription engraved on a gold watch and presented to the member for Selkirk last week by the market gardeners of Kildonan. As stated, the motive that prompted the deed was that Mr. Bradbury fought against the opening of the Canadian markets! to the producers south of the line. Patriot-* ism was the cry that was raided by those who opposed reciprocity. It was a holiday time for the flag-waving fiends. Patriotism, as has been said is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Whatever definition may he given to the term 'scoundrel/ it is just as well for the city dweller, who caught the fever and rallied to the salvation of the Empire by voting against reciprocity, to understand that the reason the market gardeners of Kildonan presented Geo. H. Bradbury with a gold watch was not because they loved him, hut they wished to show their gratitude for the service rendered to their pockets by being permitted to hold up the people of this province in the matter of purchasing garden truck. Not that reciprocity would have established the long-dreamed-of city of God, hut it serves to indicate again how very easy it is to pull the wool over some people's eyes.
I was accused last year on the floor of this House of having brought the figures and the remarks I made on the budget a year too late to the knowledge of the country. I will say that, if the policy then before the country had been adopted, a very slight necessity, if any, would have commended such an exposure; and I will give to the House and the country some figures, before I am through with my remarks, that will prove, beyond a doubt, that the policy of 1911 was to some extent, if not altogether, the most effective remedy for the present oppression. This question of oppression has been taken up by some of our most prominent men. Universities are now introducing special courses, and all of them have concluded that some radical measures should be set in operation to

prevent a social cataclysm. Any one to-day who takes the trouble to travel and observe must come to this conclusion. Is is possible to prevent an industrial revolution? This may seem radical and so it is for many; but it is fair to say that, to prevent such, something has to be done to change the ill-feeling of distinction that has of late rooted itself deeply in the minds of members of different classes of society.
I will admit that our country can be advantageously compared with our neighbour, for our vast field of production, with our small population, may have for effect to bring about a substantial economic understanding. But in order to achieve such among men of all classes, justice must prevail. Instead of creating more millionaires at the expense of the community, we should by the power vested in us as legislators, diminish the number and prevent the formation of a larger number.
Common sense teaches every soundthinking man that, the richer his neighbour gets, in the same proportion does he become poorer; and still his obligations increase constantly, thus depriving him of the absolute necessities of every day life. To-day businessmen, absorbed by their 'Get rich quick' operations, have no time to think of the conditions of those through whose labour they have accumulated immense fortunes. Why change social conditions? I am satisfied; let good enough alone, they say. We have heard such utterances before; boasting in the same form was made in England, Germany, Norway, France, Italy and Portugal, and from the knowledge of the men of our century, the result has not always been so encouraging for them. The United States have given an example lately, for the result of the last election, which brought to power a Democratic party, with the policy of tariff for revenue only, may have for effect to bring into the mind of the present Government a certain remorse over their attitude
Meat for three months	
Including figures for 9 months..
Total	
From bakeries for 3 months.. Including official figures.. ..
Total	
Fruits for three months, .. Official figures	
Total
Vegetables for three months..
Official for 9 months	
Total
Milk for 3 months "	9	"	.
Total	 840
Total value for market prices Mr. VERVILLE.
respecting free entry of food stuffs into this country. We can play with words or diplomatic expressions; but it is my firm belief that, whether the present Government want it or not, they will be forced by circumstances sooner or later, and I hope it will be sooner, to grant this absolute necessity. Call that policy what you wish, clothe it whichever way you like, it matters not, for I am convinced that we shall have it, it is inevitable; the pressure has done already some of its benefactory work, and I would not 'be surprised to see more of the same medicine applied during the present session.
I shall again weary the House with some figures I have taken from an official report, and the figures I am about to give will comprise the number of pounds of food stuffs that were condemned by the Montreal authorities in a period of nine months, that is from January 1 to October 1, 1912; and also the average for the three months that finish the year. We must not lose sight of the fact that it was thrown in garbage whilst so many are crying for food.
From the statistics for nine months in the official report we find the following food stuff thrown in garbage:
Meat, 473,195 lbs at 10 cts	$ 47,310 50
From Bakeries, 2,453 lbs. at 20 cts. 590 60
Fruits, 157,679 lbs. at 10 cts	 15,767 90
Vegetables, 36,610 lbs. at 5 cts.. ..	1,830 50
Milk, 760 gals, at 32 cts	 243 20
Total value	 $65,742 70
And we must remember that these figures are official-a large amount of foodstuffs is thrown in garbage with the knowledge only of those closely connected with such establishments.	[DOT]
Taking the figures for the three months based on the official figures for the nine months, we have the following comparison for a year:
157,701 lbs. at 10 cents	 $ 15,770 10
473,105	"	10	"	
47,310	50630,806 lbs	
$63,080	60716 lbs. at 20 cents	
$ 143 202,453	"	20	"	
590	603,169	"	20	"	
$ 733 8052.557 lbs.	at 10 cents	
$ 5,255 70157,679	"	10	"	
15,767	90210,236	"	10	[DOT]'	
$21,023	604,067 lbs. at 5 cents	
$ 200 3536,610	"	5	"	
1,830	5040,677	"	5	"	
$2,030	8584 gals, at 32 cents	
$ 26 28756	"	32	"	
241 92"	32	"	
$ 268 20
$87,137	05
If we take the official figures of the different items and compare them with the number of families or souls we could have fed, it becomes alarming. There was enough meat thrown away in garbage during those months to feed 876 families, or in other words enough to feed 4,380 souls; enough fruit to feed 2,190 families or 10,950 souls. What has been the cause of the finding of those inspectors? It is because the goods are bought at low prices from the producers, and held in a sort of confinment until such time as the scarcity of foodstuffs has raised prices to such an extent that goods must be sold, whether good or bad.
' I will now try to give to the House some figures to show what the farmers have to 'spend on articles they cannot produce. This may be of some interest, and by bringing the figures before the House it may, in *many cases, prove beyond a doubt that the position of the farmers is similar to that of the consumers in the cities in a good "many respects.
iMy calculations show the expenditures of the owners of a farm of eighty acres upon which mixed farming is in operation.
Clothing of family for the year.. .. $120 00
Sugar, 200 pounds at 5J.. .. $11 00
Rice, 40 pounds at 10c	 4 00
Syrup, 20 gallons at $1..	.. 20 00
Raisins, 30 pounds at 10c ....	3 00
Dried apples, 20 pounds at 12c.	2 40
Tomatoes, canned, 50 boxes at
14c	
7	00Corn, canned, 50 boxes at	10c..	5	00Spices, essences, &c	
5	00Bread, 1,800 pounds at 3c..	..	54	00Fish, 100 pounds at 6c	
6	00

Linen	$25	00Dishes, breakage	
15	00Soap, 150 bars at 5c	
7	50

The agricultural implements, machinery and tools used on such a farm cost, let us say, $550. As these implements are supposed to last about fifteen years and then be renewed, it is fair to say that this amount can be divided by fifteen, which would be equal to $36 a year. If we take into consideration the repairs made necessary by accident, wear or otherwise, it is safe to calculate that at an average of $5 per year. This makes a total for this item of $41 a year. The same can be applied to buggies and express carts of all kinds. For their full value when bought $200 is not exaggerated. Suppose they have to he renewed in the same space of time, say fifteen years, it would mean $13 and adding repairs at $5 it would mean $18 a year. A farmer with eighty acres of land must have at least three horses, the shoeing of which is $4 each, $12 a year. Harness of all kinds
would cost at least $5 a year. Wear and tear of buildings, repairing, &c., would cost $25 a year. For furniture new and repaired as family progresses $15 a year is little enough.
These figures are for absolute necessities that the farmer does not produce and for which he has to pay good, substantial prices. In many cases the buyer of his farm products is the seller of the goods I have enumerated. There is also another feature which should not be forgotten. Many of our farmers, for one reason or another do not buy for cash. Proprietors of industries through their agents seem to have a weakness to induce some of our good farmers to buy on notes payable in the fall of the year after harvest time. And it is remarkable how well some of the buyers of farm produce are acquainted with the condition that some farmers are in, and too often take advantage of their situation to offer an inferior price, knowing full well that they have obligations to meet and in many cases our good farmers are caught in the trap. We can safely say that they have one buyer and one seller, and they, too, are subjects of their majesties the trusts. *
The recapitulation of figures will show where onr farmers stand:
Clothing	$120	00Food	'	
117	40Linen	
25	00Dishes, breakages	
15	00Soap	
7	50

Agriculture implements ..	.. $41	00Carts and buggies	
18	00Horseshoeing	
12	00Harness	
5	00
Maintenance and repair of
huil-dings	
35	00Furniture	
15	00

Total	$390 90
In round figures about $400 a year; and I am sure that the farmers who are sitting in this House will say that this is far below the average. Let every farmer in the country make his budget, and he will see then that his immediate interest like that of the consumer lies in a closer understanding of the economic as well as of the political field. If it ever is understood by these two powerful elements it may be then a sorry day for a few, but one of blessing for the masses.
I will now give to the House some of the figures which I referred to during my remarks on cold storage. In 1911 there were forty-six cold storage plants in Canada with a capacity of 8,186,600 square feet, many more are now being built. These figures were taken from a return of the House laid on the table in 1911:

Square feet.
Prince Edward Island has 1 with. 225,000
Nova Scotia has 4 with	 174,940
New Brunswick has 2 with.. ..	781,161
uebec has 6 with	3,317,307
ntario has 14 with	 1,486,663
Manitoba has 3 with	 800,000
Alberta has 5 with	 293,140
British Columbia has 11 with.. 1,098,400
I am giving these figures, so that the members of the House will understand more clearly that what I am about to say should be taken into consideration. I am going to speak of the operation of Montreal storages where the five plants now in operation command more than one-third of the floor space of cold storage in all the Dominion. The five plants I have mentioned have a [DOT]capacity of 3,092,307 square feet of floor space, and presumably they store the most goods. In these plants are not comprised private as well as packing house plants, so a reasonable amount could be added to the figures already given. My observations concerning foodstuffs confiscated are that they are absolutely over and above the amount that has in some cases been thrown away in garbage from some of these institutions, for care is taken to hide a great many of their operations, and, from information I have at my command, I will give to the House an idea of what transpires in Montreal. There were in December last in storage approximately 1,800,000 dozens of eggs which have been bought from farmers or shippers for 18 to 20 cents per dozen. After those eggs have been in storage from six to seven months they are put on the retail market at 35, 40 and as high as 60 cents, according to their quality after classification. The eggs are tested when entering and retested in the fall of the year. The labour upon the two tests amounts to two-thirds of a cent per dozen eggs. The storage for the season is one and one-third cents per dozen, making a total of 22 cents, including insurance. The retailer receives as profits from three to four cents per dozen, making 25 to 26 cents a dozen. The difference between 25 cents and an average of at least 45 cents leaves a net profit of 80 per cent. It.may be said that there must be a large number of eggs which are not fit for consumption. It would reasonably appear so, but they have found another way of putting them on the market, and here I will explain their mode of operation. When eggs are tested for the second time, those supposed to be unfit for consumption, and I may say, half rotten, are handled in a very cautious manner. Half of an egg may be very bad and the other half not very good. However, they are broken and scraped, and to whatever extent the sense of smell can stand it, the mixture is put in gallon measures and sold by the gallon at from $1.25 to $1.50 to bakeries, to make the cakes and pies which we are so fond of.
Mr. VEBVELLE.
I have said enough about eggs, and I will now speak about butter to show also the prices at which it is bought and sold. The amount of butter in the same cold storage plants in December, 1912, was about
75,000	boxes and tubs, with an average of 60 pounds, making a total of 4,500,000 pounds. This butter in season is bought for 22 to 23 cents per pound. The storage on same is 14 cents per 100 pounds per month. An average of three months would mean 42 cents per 100 pounds, making the butter worth 23 cents and a fraction. Add to this the profit of the retailers, which is only three cents, and we find that the butter costs 26 cents and a fraction per pound. This same butter is sold in December, at an average of 40 cents per pound giving a net profit of about 60 per cent. Certain merchants often announce that, owing to a shortage of butter, some has to be imported from New Zealand.
I will now give some information on another product which is also of great importance. Chickens are bought in the best part of the season from the farmers at 8 to 9 cents, turkeys at 12 to 14 cents, and geese at 7 to 8 cents a pound.
After entering the storage, these products are frozen and kept there at the cost of three-eights of a cent for each subsequent month, the total cost being half a cent. Chickens thus cost say 81 cents and are sold on the retail market at 18 cents per pound, the profit of the retailer being about 3 cents per pound. This gives to the storage company about 70 per cent net profit.
For turkeys an average price of 13 cents is paid. They go through the same process, and, by allowing 3 cents to the retailer, the net price becomes 161 cents. They are sold on the markets at 22 cents, making a net profit of 50 per cent. For geese an average price of 71 cents is paid. They go through the same process, and by allowing 3 cents to the retailer, the net price becomes 11 cents. They are sold on the market at 16 cents, making a net profit of about 50 per cent. It must be borne in mind that the profit here allowed the retailer is generous enough, as it is above 40 per cent; I am sure that there are very few, if any, who are making that much.
I have also been informed that thousands of pounds of these foodstuffs, after having been kept in storage for two or three years" are so unfit for consumption that they have to be thrown away as garbage, and that to the knowledge of the operators alone. We must also remember that if these commodities are kept for that length of time the prices will be increased; that the storage companies by so doing can later on sell at exorbitant prices and make a profit of from one hundred to one hundred and fifty per cent, but in more than one case they have had to throw away products that should have been sold in the proper time, and

which would then have been substantial food for the public.
Present economic conditions do not permit the rank and file to buy luxuries in foodstuffs, but instead of giving the people a chance to feed themselves at a reasonable price, these companies prefer to throw this food away. We must also bear in mind that apart from what is thrown away in garbage, there is a certain quantity which, although unfit for consumption, is placed on the market without the knowledge of the authorities! and is sold and consumed.
I would ask the members of this House who belong to the medical profession if it is any wonder that there now and then appear in different forms diseases which out most eminent men are making strong efforts to put down and prevent. I will ask them if many of these diseases are not a direct result of the consumption of the foodstuffs I have just referred to?
There is also another product in regard to which cold storage people take advantage of their position to overcharge the consumers. I speak of the fish industry. There were in Nova Scotia in 1912 four cold storage plants for the storage of fish, with a capacity of 249,940 square feet of floor space, and, if I am not mistaken, there is still another one in Halifax. These plants are operated in the following cities and towns: Port Hawkesbury, capacity, 75,000 square feet; Canso, capacity, 40,000 square feet; Halifax, capacity, 75,000 square feet; Lockeport, capacity, 59,940 square -feet; total capacity, 249,940 -square feet.
I desire here to give some figures establishing the prices paid to the fishermen by proprietors of cold storage warehouses and the prices paid by the consumers. We will base those -comparisons upon the Halifax market, which is one of the largest in the Maritime provinces, and also one of the best for fishermen. We must admit that prices paid to the producers may vary according to sea-son and supply. Continued rough weather may prevent the fishermen from reaching the fishing grounds, thus creating a shortage in the supply of fresh fish, when the prices to the producer may slightly increase. But if we take the average price paid to the fishermen, we find that they receive 14 cents per pound with entrails removed. This price is paid for cod, haddock, cusk and hake, which are retailed at 5 cents per pound, a difference of 350 per cent, and steak out from large fish of the above varieties sells as high a-s 124 cents per pound. In the fishing season of 1911, halibut was sold by the fishermen to the dealers at Halifax at prices ranging from 44 to 8 cents per pound, while the same fish was retailed to the consumers of the cities at from 13 to 15 cents per pound. The average price paid to the fishermen was six cents per pound. The average price
paid by the consumers was 14 cents, making a difference of 8 cents per pound to be divided between the wholesaler and the retailer. I am in doubt -as to the retailer making more than 2 cents per pound profit. Even at that price the profit of the trust or combine would be 80 per cent, and the difference in cost to producer and price to consumer comes to over 120 per cent. The fishermen receive for fresh herring from 8 to 10 cents per dozen, while the consumers -pay at the rate of 25 to 30 cents per dozen for the same fish. The average price received by the fishermen is 9 cents per dozen, and the average price charged to -consumers 274 cents per dozen, a difference of over 200 -per -cent.
No. 1 fresh mackerel, were bought l-ast -summer from the fishermen for 10 cents each, and sold to the consumers for 30 cents, a difference of 200 per cent. There is. an apparently welhgrounded belief that the combine on fish are establishing prices under which the fishermen have to work, and they have succeeded in keeping the prices -paid to the fishermen down to the very lowest standard. Cases have arisen in the -past where fishermen, refusing to sell to -a dealer on account of low prices offered, met exactly the same conditions in regard to prices elsewhere, and in every -case were forced either to sell their fish at the first terms offered or return home with the fish unsold. There is also some kind of uniformity of prices among the retailers, furnishing good grounds for the conclusion that the combination not only affects the fisherman by keeping prices down to a non-living basis, but also affects the consumer by charging him the highest possible price.
' Fish is recognized by all medical authorities as being one of the necessities of life, 'and the oppression brought about by the operation of such institutions is scandalous. The Canadian Government has no right to pay any money from the public 'treasury in subsidies to any institution "which sells these necessities of life at exorbitant prices. I am citing these facts so that the people- of Canada may know the fnanner in which they are treated. We hear every day about the operations of moneymaking institutions, and many will say another blessing for our country. In the case of the cold storage companies, these operations are not only permitted by law, but they are rewarded by the Government through the payment of subsidies to carry on their nefarious operations. Why this state of affairs is allowed to continue any longer beyond my comprehension.
1 Another point I wish to bring to the "notice of -the House and of the country is the conditions under which men have to labour in those institutions. From all appearances the conditions should be ideal

if we consider the large profits made by proprietors of such institutions.
The public has a right to believe that this is the ease. The producers themselves, 'who are contributing to so large an extent to the growing wealth of those mergers, believe that fair conditions exist. Under these circumstances it is fair to expose the real facts and for this reason I shall read to the House a copy of a contract that employees have to sign if they wish to earn their daily bread in those institutions.
' I have in my possession three of those contracts, two of which men have signed and worked under. The third I shall read. It is the one that men would not sign this year, this refusal leading to the strike. I 'shall leave to the members of the House the privilege of drawing their own conclusions :
By these presents, I accept the offer made to
me by -Messrs	and consent
to remain in their employ and faithfully serve them in all work that may be assigned to me for a period of one year commencing December 1, 1911, doing all the work I can. My salary will be twelve dollars per week.1 The working hours from seven a.m. to six p.m. I also consent to work overtime when requested at the rate of 25 cents per hour employed. It is further understood by this present agreement that if I remain in the employ of the company for the period of time mentioned, I will be entitled to a ' bonus ' of $25 on November the 30th, 1912.
It is furthermore agreed that if Messrs___
	desire to close their establishment at one p.m. on Saturdays at any time during the year that I will have mo obpec-tion, and I will accept my salary at the same rate for time worked as other days of the week.
It is also understood that the present agreement can be annulled by the comapny at all times for bad conduct or disobedience on my part, or if my work does not give satisfaction.
Dated at Montreal, this 30th day of November, 1911.
In view of ibis arbitrary contract, is it any wonder that the men who were forced to sign it are now asking for an investigation? The time has come when legislation 'should be introduced to prevent the employment in such establishments of men ivho are incompetent and who do not safeguard the health and the interest of the public. Legislation should also be introduced to prohibit cold storage plants from keeping foodstuffs for a longer period than ten months, as they have in New York state.
The New York state law is as follows: Chapter 335.
An Act to amend the public health law, relating to cold storage and refrigerating warehouses and places, and the sale or disposition of the food kept or preserved therein.
Mr. VERVTLLE.
Became a law June 15, 1911, with the approval of the Governor. Passed, three-fifths being present.
The people of the -State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:-	.
Section 1. Chapter forty-nine of the laws of nineteen hundred . and nine, entitled ' An Act in relation to the public health constituting chapter forty-five of the consolidated laws,' is hereby amended by adding after article sixteen thereof, a new article, to be article sixteen-a, to read as follows:-
Article 16-A.
Cold -Storage.
Section 335. Definitions.
336.	Cold storage food to be marked.
337.	Time that cold storage food
may be kept.
338.	Powers of state commissioner
of health.
339.	Reports of warehousemen.
339-a. Transfers from one warehouse
to another.
339-b. -Prohibits return of food to cold storage when once released for purpose of placing same on market for sale.
339-c. Prohibits sale of food kept in cold storage without representing said fact.
339-d. Penalties.
335.	Definitions. The term food as used in this article shall include any article, except nuts, fruits, cheese and vegetables, used for food by man or animal and every ingredient of such article.
336.	Cold storage food to be marked. It shall hereafter be unlawful for any person or persons, corporation or corporations, engaged in the business of cold storage warehousemen or in the business of refrigerating to receive any kind of food unless the said food is in an apparently pure and wholesome condition, and the food or the package containing the same is branded, stamped or marked, in some conspicuous place, with the day, month and year, when the same is received in storage or refrigeration.
It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, corporation or corporations, engaged in the business of cold storage warehousemen or in the business of refrigerating to permit any article of any kind whatsoever used for food in the possession of any person or persons, corporation or corporations or refrigerating to be taken from their cold storage warehousemen or refrigerating, to be taken from their possession without first having branded, stamped or marked on said foodstuffs or the package containing same, in a conspicuous place, the day, month and year, when said foodstuffs or package was removed from cold storage or refrigeration.
337.	Time that cold storage foods may be kept. It shall hereafter be unlawful for any person, corporation or corporations, engaged in the business of cold storage warehousemen or refrigerating to keep in storage for preservation or otherwise any kind of food or any article used for food a longer period than ten calendar months, excepting butter products which may be kept in said cold storage or refrigeration twelve calendar months.
104S9

338.	Powers of state commissioner of health. The state commissioner of health is hereby vested with foil power and authority to inspect and supervise all places in this state now used or hereafter to be used for cold storage or refrigerating purposes; the state commissioner of health or his duly authorized agents or employees shall be permitted access to such place or places and all parts thereof at all times for the purpose of seeing that said place or places are kept and maintained in a clean and sanitary manner, and for the purpose of determining whether or not provisions of this article or any other Act relating to foodstuffs are being complied with. The power of supervision hereby granted shall extend to enable the state commissioner of health to adopt such reasonable rules and regulations as may be determined upon from time to time as essential to the proper protection of the consumer of the commodities kept and preserved in such place or places, and the state commissioner of health may appoint and designate from time to time such person or persons as he deems fit for the purpose of making such inspections.
339.	Reports of warehousemen. All persons or corporations engaged in the business of cold storage warehousemen, or in the business of refrigerating, shall submit reports to the state department of health, upon printed forms to be provided by said state department of health, setting forth in itemized particulars the quantity of each and every foodstuff in storage or in the control of said person or persons, corporation or corporations; said reports shall be filed on or before the twenty-fifth day of January, May and September of each year, and reports so rendered shall show conditions existing upon the first day of the month in which said report is filed.
339-a. Transfers from one warehouse to another. The transfer of any food from one cold storage or refrigerating warehouse to another for the purpose of evading any provisions of this article is hereby prohibited.
339-b. Prohibits return of food to cold storage when once released for purpose of placing same on market for sale. When food has been in cold storage or refrigeration and is released therefrom for the purpose of placing the same on the market for sale it shall be a violation of the provisions of this article to again place such food in cold storage or refrigeration.
339-c. Prohibits sale of food kept in cold storage without representing said fact. It shall be a violation of the provisions of this article to sell any article or articles of food that have been kept in cold storage or refrigeration, without representing the same to have been so kept.
339-d. Penalties. Any person or persons corporation or corporations, or officers thereof, violating any of the provisions of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The conviction of any corporation shall not operate to relieve any officer of officers, agents or employees of such corporation from prosecution under the provisions of this article.
2. This act shall take effect immediately. State of New York.	f
Office of the Secretary of State } ss:
I have compared the preceding with the original law on file in this office, and do hereby certify that the same is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of said original law.
(Sgd.) Edward Lazansky.
Secretary of State.
If a commission were appointed to investigate the real situation of cold storage in respect to the public, it would disclose a system which would be immediately condemned.
I have mentioned New York state. It is perhaps interesting to have some information concerning . the cost of standard living in New York city. I have given figures and made comparisons from that city. Let me now compare the standard of living in New York with the standard of living in Montreal, and you will see that the cost is far cheaper in New York than in the Metropolis of Canada. The New York state conference on charities and correction through their investigation, and it was an elaborate one, came to the conclusion that $825 per year was the necessary income to allow a family to maintain a fair and proper standard of living in New YTork city. If we compare these figures with those I have already given on food stuffs in Montreal and New York the working men of the Canadian Metropolis should receive ninety-five per cent more wages to enable them to balance their budget. The minimum itemized estimate established by that conference is $709.20 for a family of five. The figure I gave last year for Montreal was $746.13, and if we compare the earning power of working men, we find that New York has an advantage of sixty per cent over Montreal. I have not yet found in the labour ranks a mathematician clever enough to solve this problem. This House is composed of members of high standing, many of whom are great financiers and I call upon them to solve it.
The coal famine, if it can be called such, this year furnishes an occasion also for the legislators of the country to take necessary steps to prevent its repetition next year. We are informed, and rightly so, that coal has cost very little more a ton to the operators this year than last year; nevertheless, the coal was sold during the latter part of December, 1912, at $J0 per ton. The profit made at $7 and $7.50 per ton was enough to enrich to an alarming proportion operators of mines and also the wholesale dealers. This increase of about forty per cent to those who have revenues enough to buy by the ton and for cash on delivery may not be a burden. What about the amount paid by the largest part of the consumers? With such an exhorbitant price they have to buy in small quantities, by the basket or by the 100 pounds. Has any one in this House ever dreamt

what it costs for coal under the present conditions to the poorer classes of people who are in the majority in this country? They have to pay from seventy-five cents to one dollar per one hundred pounds; this would mean $15 to $20 per ton, or in other words, 100 to 155 per cent more than they could buy their coal for last year. Such an exorbitant price this year has forced the masses to buy by the hundred pounds instead of by the ton. Of course, the wholesaler will say that he is not responsible for such a charge, but he has cornered the coal market and has been successful in driving the small coal dealers out of business, thus increasing the power of exploitation of the coal trust.
Some few years ago, the statement was made that the strike of the coal miners was responsible for the increase of coal. Information at my command proves that not more than eight cents per ton has been added to the. cost on that account. It is a wonder that the trust this year does not use the same argument, for the coal trust has mo more sense of honour than any other institution of the same character. I -am informed that coal costs $2.50 per gross ton, free on board, in the cars at the mines. The freight on a car is $2.76 per ton, thus making the value of the coal delivered in Montreal $5.26 per ton. By tallowing a reasonable profit to the wholesaler, say, one dollar per ton, and a legitimate profit to the retailer, say, one dollar per ton, the coal can be delivered in every workingman's cellar for $7.26 per ton. The prices charged in December were $10 and $11 per ton. If the prices of last year, $7 and $7.50, were high enough to enrich the operators and wholesalers to an alarming proportion, what about the profits this year?
If we take the population of Montreal, say, 550,000 and divide by 5 as to families, we have then 110,000 families at an average of three tons, which is too little. This makes
440,000	tons of coal for consumption in that city alone -and for the winter only. A reasonable average would be 450,000 tons, and by giving a good substantial profit to all those who handle coal we can figure that the trust has pocketed this year at least over and above a legitimate profit $1,125,000, or, at the rate of five toms per family, $1,375,000.
Is this not enough to justify us in asking that such -a proceeding should be prevented? Is this not enough to arouse the masses against conditions that permit such exploitation? Is this not enough to cause the rank and file to protest, because after being robbed of their food, they are also robbed of their means of keeping warm in winter. If the members of this House had to submit for a few Mr. VERVILLE.
days to the same privation that a great number of workingmen had to submit to on account of the exorbitant price of coal last winter, I am convinced that Bills would be introduced or the Government would be obliged to legislate for the prevention of such disastrous operations.
While I am on this question I would like to read the report of the commission that was appointed by the Government of the United States last year when it was stated by the coal dealers that a large amount should be added to the price of coal because there was a certain increased amount to be paid to the men in the mines. That commission made a report and a summary of that report appeared in the Montreal Gazette which hon. gentlemen opposite will I am sure be satisfied to take authoritatively, and I may say that the Gazette generally gives a fair report. On March 3, 1913, the Montreal Gazette published the following:
What Coal Companies did. Took $13,450,000 from Consumers to pay $4,000,000 Wages.
Washington, March 1.
Hard coal companies increased the wages of their employees at the rate of $4,000,000, according to a report based on an investigation by the Bureau of Labour submitted to the House to-day.
The report submitted by Secretary Nagel is the result of an investigation concluded in response to a House resolution asking for the ' elements of cost and profit included in the present high price of anthracite/
An average increase of 26 cents a ton in) wholesale coal prices was discovered to have been made since the strike agreement of last May. In spite of the fact that the workers benefitted about $4,000,000 in increased wages during the year, the report adds that ' the recent increases in prices have been more than sufficient to compensate fully those companies whose cost of production have increased most rapidly during recent years, and at the same time have very greatly increased the profits of those companies, of whom there are at least several whose costs of production either decreased or remained stationary during the same period/
On more than $13,000,000 gained by the operators after the strike agreement, $10,900,000 was derived from general increase in prices and about $2,500,000 from the suspension of April and May discounts, while in addition a limited number of operators are reported bo have ' received very large sums through the sale of coal at premiums made possible by the shortage of shipments/ incident to the strike. The discounts of 40 and 50 cents a ton customarily allowed in April and May on domestic size coai were suspended during these months in 1912. As a result the operators not only gained by saving this discount, says the report, but in addition purchasers who were unable to secure their usual supply in those months were forced to buy it during June, July or August, when discount rates were smaller, or in September, and later when full circular prices are charged.

The increase in wages, however, the report adds, represents a raise of only eight to ten cents in the cost of coal production per ton.
I will now take the liberty of reading a passage from an article, in which Mr. Le-Eoy Beaulieu, the great French economist gives his opinion concerning the cost of living. I presume that this gentleman is known by reputation by many members oi this House, as a moderate writer. In L'Economiste Francais of Saturday, September 9, 1911, this is what he says:
As a matter of principle, it is not a bad thing for consumers to attempt to defend themselves against the increase of prices.
If the householders of the departments of the North of L'Aisme and others, when clubbing together and making revendica-tions, had contented themselves with boycotting certain traders or certain marketers and had refrained totally or at least partially during a few days from purchasing goods at exorbitant prices, they certainly could not be blamed for doing so; on the contrary, they would have been worthy of praise.
In fact, the consumer must not accept without discussion all the increases in prices decreed by the producer, as these increases are not always justified, at least not to their full extent.
These words written bv Mr. LeRov Beaulieu are significant as proving that the same problem exists in France. It also existed under the Roman Empire and I had occasion to tell this House last year how it was solved by one Emperor. If laws were not then permissible, they are to-day. Why not then take advantage of the power of Parliament and make laws to remedy these conditions?
We have heard much about the German scare. What occupies the mind of the German people in this very same acute question as to the high cost of living. William Hubener, a great economist, has come to the same conclusion:	that reduction of tariff
on foodstuffs and a return to a more liberal policy is necessary.
The consumers of the cities as well as the rural districts were led to believe in 1911 that if a Conservative Government come to power in Canada all absolute necessities of life would receive a substantial diminution in price. We have had this present Government in power for nearly two years, and instead of the price of those articles diminishing it is increasing, and still we hear the supporters of the present Administration boasting about protection. What kind of protection do we hear so much about ? Is it the
furnishing of better means to the workers to bring up their families ? Is it the furnishing of more work and better wages? Is it the granting of shorter hours of labour so as to enable them to rest and educate their families? Is it the provision of three meals a day and a roof over their heads in their old age ? Is it the granting of a substantial pension to widows and orphans so as to enable the widowed mother to remain at home to raise her family, to prevent her from being insulted while performing her duty, and to prevent young boys from being taken to the courts to answer for some of their misdoings ? Is it this kind of protection we hear so much about, or is it tariff protection, that the present Government is so anxious to give to their friends? We have been able to judge by the change in economic conditions even in the short period of sixteen months, and true enough, our great manufacturers have reason to be satisfied with their present conditions, In the name of the workers of the country I ask the Government right here and now: Can we expect a substantial reduction of tariff on the absolute necessities of life ? Can we expect some protection for labour as well as for the manufacturers ? Mr. Speaker, on this very important question of reduction of tariff I would like to again bring to the knowledge of the House, and to the country, some figures on importation of foodstuffs, for which we are paying enormous sums of money for duty, and also compare the amount paid by each workman's family. To be sure that my calculation will meet with the approval of the House, I will say at the outset that the figures are from the last report of the Departments of Labour and of Customs for the year ending the 31st March, 1912. I have gone carefully over the items of actual necessities of life, and find the amount of foodstuffs remarkably large and also the amount of duty paid on same by the consumers of the country. Hon. gentlemen will see that I am entering on the line which I have not yet covered. I hope, M#r. Speaker, that when I am through the hon. Minister of Finance will see his way clear to legislate in favour of a substantial reduction of the tariff, so as to enable the poorest classes to feed themselves in a reasonable way. We have imported in the year 1912 the following articles of food on which we have paid the following duty:

10o0r/
to satisfy millions of empty stomaches which are in need of food?
It has been said in England that you can-'not teach1 a child with an empty stomach. Neither can you teach men to love their country and her institutions if they are subjected to starvation conditions, 'the waving of the flag may have a temporary effect; so may an appeal to their loyalty, hut they will soon understand that the greatest object of that cry is to furnish occasion to some great trusts to create more millionaires.
' The Parliament of Canada has appointed a commission for the preservation of our forests and everyone admits the necessity of preserving our natural resources. Can-hot the masses of consumers of the country 'expect to be treated at least on an equal footing with these natural resources?
' The assets of a country, can be estimated only by the machinery that sets them in operation. The biggest asset is surely the population. If so, the people have a right to say that the consumers have been ignored for political as well as anti-economic considerations and that they recommend, like the people of European countries, a 'return to a more liberal policy. They should not be obliged to petition and pray for their rights. If they only knew 'their strength and power, they would be the masters of the members of this House, who, after all, are only the servants of the people of Canada.
I hope to see the day, Sir, when the great producers of wealth, the great creators of industries, the great users of natural resources, will understand, will feel more strongly than they do now the constant oppression of high protective tariffs, specially on natural products. I hope to see the day when the masses of the people will understand, that their immediate interest Lies with those whom are willing to protect them by the enactment of modern legislation, that will have for effect the diminishing of the burden now imposed on them for the benefit of a few.
' I hope that the day of the retribution will soon come, when the masses of consumers, in accordance with the great producers of our country, will demand and will obtain, a diminution in the cost of living. They, too, are anxious to breathe the air of liberty; they too have a right to the rays of sunshine of prosperity; they* too have a right to protection in the fullest sense that word to peace, harmony, amongst our fellowmen and nation; and to achieve such, the present Government will be compelled to legislate in the form of a reduction of tariff, at least on first necessities of life. We, as legislators, are confronted with this great problem, and no one in this House has any right to shrink from such a responsibility.
Mr. VERVILLE.
I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by making an appeal to the Government, to all the members of this House, not to ignore any longer those who have built this country. They are hoping for, and expecting to receive, fair treatment in accordance with, and in proportion of their number, their power, thedr needs and their rights.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford):: The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) has given us a very long discourse presumably in the interest of the labouring classes. I myself represent a labouring constituency and I should 'be very sorry indeed for the lot of the workingman, if I thought that many of the statements the bon. gentleman has placed on ' Hansard ' were in any sense true or could be borne out by facts. The figures that he has quoted with regard to the necessities of life, particularly with regard to fruit, vegetables and dairy products, may apply to some hole or corner in the Dominion of Canada, but in no sense can be said to represent what the average workingman of Canada has to pay for these products. He made the broad statement in the early part of his address that the cost of living in Montreal is practically one hundred per cent higher than in New York. I wonder how many citizens of Canada the hon. gentleman expects to believe such a statement. I believe he said also that Montreal was eighty per cent higher in cost of living than Chicago. The figures he quoted on some ordinary necessaries of life it is unnecessary for me to spend even a moment in recounting, because they bear their refutation on - their face; they are absolutely not in accord with the facts well known to the workingmen whom he presumes to represent. The workingmen of Canada are in no such disposition as he has given us to understand. The city from which I come, is not a large city, having a population in round figures of 25,000, of whom 7,000 are classed as workingmen and working in the factories of that city, and before I get through I shall endeavour to show what they are producing and how they are living. But the hon. gentleman has made broad statements and I think it a pity that such statements should go on ' Hansard ' uncontradicted, because they are absolutely untrue in regard to the large majority of products which are usually classed as necessities of life. It may be that Ontario differs from Quebec in that respect. The factories of Ontario are located largely in agricultural centres, and it is well known by everyone who frequents the markets of the various towns and cities of Ontario that the prices that obtain there-and I call the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) as a witness-are very moderate indeed, and not more than from twenty-five to fifty per cent

of those the hon. member for Maisonneuve has just stated. It was to be expected that when he made the statement that there was great unrest and disquiet in Canada among the workingmen, he would have given a few facts to bear out that'statement. I take the ground that the workingmen of Canada are thrifty, prosperous and contented. I think that statement cannot be refuted. In order to prove it let me give a few figures. I take the facts of industrial disputes for 1911, the last year for which I have such figures at hand. In that year there were one hundred industrial disputes in Canada. Of these, forty-two were settled between the parties, two were settled by arbitration and seven by conciliation. In seventeen cases work was resumed on the employers' terms: in ten cases, the strikers places were filled. Of the total, thirty-four ended favourably to the employers, twenty-one favourably to the employees, and there were compromises in twenty-four. That surely does not show great dissatisfaction among the workingmen of Canada; it shows that the workingmen are well satisfied with their lot. Let me give the returns for the past ten years in order that there may be no misunderstanding as to how many industrial disputes we have had, and as to whether or not the workingmen are satisfied with present conditions. The total number of disputes that we have had during the ten year period between 1902 and 1911 was 1,069, nearly all of them in Ontario. Of the 1,069, 394 were settled in favour of the employers, 279 in favour of the employees, and 246 were settled by compromise. Therefore I say that the average lot of the workingmen in Canada is unexcelled in any country in the world. I am sorry that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has just withdrawn from the Chamber, because I was about to compare free trade England with protectionist Canada in that respect.
My hon. friend who has just spoken has attributed many of the disabilities under which the workingmen of Canada labour to the fact that we have a tariff in Canada, and he endeavoured to show that the existence of this tariff was raising the price of goods to the extent of one hundred per cent in Montreal. No free trader, so far as I am aware, has ever made the contention that a tariff can raise the price of goods higher than the amount of the tariff itself. The average tariff on the goods my hon. friend mentions runs from twenty per cent to thirty-five per cent, so that, providing the whole of the duty collected on those items-and it certainly would not be anything like the whole duty-were added to the price of these products, the price could not be more than thirty-five per cent higher than the price in the markets of New York
or Chicago. I think, therefore, that the ground upon which the hon. gentleman based his argument is entirely fallacious, and that the workingmen of Canada are well satisfied with their lot. They are receiving good wages ; they are living under prosperous conditions, and the fact that labour is so well employed, and employed at satisfactory rates, proves that the conditions existing in Canada so far as labour is concerned are of the best. It is true they may not be ideal, but I repeat that they are of the best. I invite my hon. friend to come to Brantford, and if we cannot show him comfortable, prosperous homes, in which the workingmen are living in content, happiness and peace, then I will admit that something must be done to relieve the workingmen of Canada.
I propose to place upon ' Hansard ' the value of the products turned out by fourteen of the principal manufacturing cities of the Dominion. The city of Montreal leads, with a production valued at $115,000,000, in round numbers, showing an increase of one hundred and sixty-eight per cent in twenty years. Toronto comes second with a production of $154,000,000, an increase of two hundred and thirty-four per cent in twenty years. Hamilton takes third place, with a production of $65,000,-
000.	Winnipeg is fourth-a western city, in spite of the fact that it is contended that they do not manufacture anything in the West-with a production of $32,000,000. Ottawa is fifth, $20,000,000; Quebec sixth, $17,000,000; London, seventh, $16,000,000; Brantford, eighth, $15,000,000; Vancouver, ninth, $13,000,000; Halifax, tenth, $12,000,000; St. John, eleventh, $10,000,000; Sydney, twelfth, $9,000,000; Berlin, thirteenth, $9,000,000; Calgary, fourteenth, $7,000,000. So that the manufacturing cities of Canada are turning out a vast amount of manufactured products. I think that the city of Brantford, from which I come, is perhaps a fair indication of what the workingmen are producing in Canada. I presume it is desirable that we should have placed upon the records some indication of the efficiency of the average workingman in the Dominion of Canada. It is said, and I think with some truth, that we are not producing as much goods for export as we should, and I shall deal with that later on. In regard to the city from which I come, which has a population of 25,000, a factory employment of 7,000 and a total production of $15,000,000; if you divide $15,000,000 between 7,000 workmen, you will find that on the average they are producing about $2,000 per man. That, I think, is a very respectable amount for the workingmen to produce, and will probably compare favourably with the work of men in any other calling in life.


Mr. NESBITT:: Does my hon. friend know the average wage paid for that production ?


William Foster Cockshutt: 

is the case now, it was not the case when the late Government was in power. The other.day we had placed in ' Hansard' the cost of the Transcontinental railway up to date, and it was given in round figures at $130,000,000. On the construction of the Transcontinental railway, which was estimated by hon. gentlemen opposite to cost all the way from $13,000,000 up to $55,000,000, $130,000,000 has been paid, and it is now thought that before it is completed it will approach $150,000,000 or $175,000,000.
I want to call my hon. friend's attention to one or two reasons why this Government should spend a lot of money now that they are in power. My hon. friend says that we used to criticise the previous Government for spending large amounts of money on wharfs, breakwaters and canals. It is true that we did, and I think upon very good grounds. But the trouble was that in the past much of the money that the Government had to spend went to the province from which my hon. friend comes. These breakwaters and wharfs were placed where they were not wanted, canals were dug where there was no water, both in Nova Scotia and in Ontario, and in many ways the Government which my hon. friend .supported was one of gross extravagance. The Government that is extravagant in one part of the country is bound to be economical in another, and that is the reason why the present Government has to make good the deficiencies of the last ten years. For fifteen years the Government had ignored the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Manitoba, and they were absolutely robbed of their legitimate rights in the way of expenditure. That is the reason why the expenditures are high, and they are going to be high.
Look at the city of Toronto, with its post office producing abctut one-sixth or one-seventh of the whole post office revenue of Canada crowded into a little bit of a box. When the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) visited that office a few months ago he could hardly squeeze into it, his officials were packed into a small space, they had to work with electric light and they were not in a position, for lack of proper accommodation, to perform their duties. My hon. friend from Kouville (Mr. Lemieux) is waking up at that. That took place under his regime.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The post office in Toronto is one of the finest in Canada.


William Foster Cockshutt: That shows how
.Toronto was served at that time. What applies to Toronto applies also to a very large portion of the province of Ontario, and that is the reason why the Minister of Public Works' comes down with esti-Mr. COCKSHUTT.
mates of $28,000,000, which the hon. member for Halifax asserts is an evidence of groiss extravagance. We have, to make good what we were deprived of during the last fifteen years.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There are a
good many constituencies in Ontario.


William Foster Cockshutt: Yes, and most of
them have been robbed by the Government that held the power for fifteen years. They were not given their fair share although we have in Ontario a province that pays one-third of the entire taxation of the Dominion. Under these circumstances I think they are entitled to a fair share of the distribution of public works. The city from which I come, during the time that the late Minister of Customs, Mr. Paterson, held power, got scarcely enough to enable it to eke out a miserable existence in the way of public services, and Brant county, from which my hon. friend (Mr. Fisher) comes, was treated in very much the same way. We were robbed in that city and county of our rights for many years, and now that we are restored to power, the Government recognizes the claims of a city like Brantford which is among the large and. important cities of Ontario, and we have at last got a little of the public expenditure. British Columbia has received some, Manitoba has received some and it is not all going down to the sea as the hon. member for Halifax would like to have it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Never.


William Foster Cockshutt: That part of the
country got a great deal more than its share and the late Minister of Finance saw to it that his own native province was spoon-fed with a vengeance. (Therefore, we had breakwaters, wharfs and other public works placed both in position and out of position, where they were wanted and where they were not wanted-any place to spend money. It is true that we had one or two exceptions in Ontario when useless works were provided. Let me remind my hon. friend of that famous Newmarket canal running through the constituency from which the late Minister of Justice, Sir Alien Aylesworth, ca,me. That is only one out of a good many constituencies that got more than their share possibly during the time of the late Government, but when my hon. friend charges extravagance, I think he will have to wait a considerable time before he will find such a flagrant waste of public money as was exhibited in the construction of the Newmarket canal.
My hon. friend has charged that we are setting out on a most extravagant course and that we are collecting money that should be left in the pockets of the people. These are very fine sounding words, but this money is being collected under the same

tariff that existed when the Government that he was supporting was in power. If they were not then exorbitant duties they are not to-day. The taxation of the Dominion increased very largely under the administration of my hon. friend. I have under my hand, but I shall not read them unless the statement is disputed, the figures showing that in 1878, when the national policy was first brought into existence, the taxation- per head was less than $4. Before the Conservative Government went out of power in 1896 it was between $4 and $5 per head. Under the late Government it rose to between $11 and $12. When they went out of power they were collecting three times as much duty per head as they were when they assumed office. That was a very fair advance for the time they were at it. If they increased the amount of taxation taken from the people three times over what it was when they assumed office, I think my hon. friend should not begin to grumble because we have such a large surplus as that which is disclosed this year.- He says that we have no public uses to which we can apply this money satisfactorily. I take issue with my hon. friend. I think that in a country such as Canada we have now, and we will have for many years, very many public works to construct, very many national necessities in which a large amount of public money can safely be invested. We all know that we must go on constructing railways and canals. We have a very large expenditure to face in this regard and when my hon. friend was looking around for places at which to spend money he must have forgotten that during the present session he has been backing the proposition which calls for a very large amount of money, and further that if the Laurier navy with these two fleet units became a practical fact all of this $55,000,000 would be swallowed up and there might be required a great deal more. Australia has embarked on a policy costing $440,000,000, and surely Canada, with nearly double the population, would not be satisfied with anything which would involve an expenditure less than that of Australia. My hon. friend who thinks the tariff is too high, was ready to join with the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), in advocating that a ship-building plant, or plants, with subsidies and tariffs, should be established forthwith. Why? Because they would be down by the sea from whence these hon. gentlemen come and from which I expect some of them will not come if there is a general election. But, however, these hon. gentlemen, when they talk of industries that are going to locate near their own homes, are quite ready to back those' enterprises.
They have both hands up for building shipyards and dreadnoughts and entering on such reckless expenditure that even we so-called high tariff men cannot stand for it. These gentlemen opposite are not satisfied with existing industries, but they must embark on dreadnought building, one of the most difficult industries to establish it is possible to conceive, and with failure staring them in the face. In forty years we have built up a manufacturing system in Canada that is second to none in the world. The products of our factories are of such quality, quantity and value as to fully justify the policy of protection. If we are wise and consistent we will stick closely to the tariff as at present we have it. I, who am sometimes accused of being a high tariff protectionist, am making no kick whatever against the tariff the Liberal party left behind them; I say it is a moderate, a wise, and a sane tariff for our purposes at present. There are some anomalies in it and there should be some little pruning here and there, but taking it on the whole it is very satisfactory and it has proved that the Dominion of Canada can prosper under it. I do not, however, give the late Government credit for establishing that tariff; they found it when they came to office mostly as it is to-day and whenever they attempted to change it as they did in some cases they made a mistake.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have heard you complain of it in this House.


William Foster Cockshutt: I complained when
the duty was struck off binder twine and when twelve factories were closed in Canada. I complained when the duty was taken off barbed wire and all the barbed wire factories shut down. But these things are gone and I suppose there is no use lamenting them to-day. Let me tell hon. gentlemen opposite that many thousands of farmers in Ontario had considerable sums invested in the manufacture of binder twine and that investment was wiped out when the Liberals undertook to admit binder twine free. I tell these gentlemen further that when they did admit binder twine free they did not succeed in cheapening the price of it to the farmer. Last summer we had a persistent call from the West that all restrictions be now removed from binder twine. Binder twine is absolutely free of duty, but the restrictions they referred to were as to the quality and the weight and the application was that the United States binder twine, which did not come up to the Canadian standard should be admitted, even without inspection. Let my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) take that home and think over it. I say we will do very well if we stick pretty closely to the well beaten path in tariff matters. Canada with its natural advantages is destined to become a great nation, but you cannot have a great nation without a di-

versity of labour and you cannot have a diversity of labour unless you have manufacturing institutions of all kinds; mercantile, industrial and agricultural. Every man is not cut out for a farmer, and every man is not cut out for an artizan and the man who follows the calling he is best suited for is the man who is best serving the country in which he lives. For the last thirty years under both the Conservative and Liberal governments, the progress in Canadian manufacturing has been most satisfactory. I have figures here which show the total manufacturing product of 1900 as compared with 1910, and they are worthy of being placed on ' Hansard.'
Canada's manufacturing expansion, 1900-1010.
Per cent
Schedule.	1800.	1910.	Incr.Factories .. .	14,650	19,218	31-18Capital	$146,916,487	$1,247,583,609	179-15Employees. .	30,691	44,077	43-61Salaries. .. .	$23,676,146	$43,779,715	84-91fEmployees .	308,482	471,126	52-72W-ages	$89,573,201	$197,228,701	120-19Raw and mfd	125-68materials .	$266,527,858	$001,509,018	Products .. .	.$481,053,375	$1,165,975,639	142-39
* On salary- t On wages.
That statement will give to the people of Canada a fair idea of the progress of our manufacturing industries and I think that progress will -compare very favourably with the progress of any country in the world. Canada to-day occupies the proud position of being at least in the second place, if not the first, In the products of its industries, and there is perhaps no country in the world in which products of a certain class are sold cheaper. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has attributed the cost of living to the tariff, but he failed to tell us that the tariff is also responsible for a large increase in the wages of the workingman. I -contend that the wages of the workingmen have advanced, so as to put them in -as good, or perhaps a little better position, than if the cost of living had not been increased.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I deny that,


William Foster Cockshutt: I am speaking of the high cost of living as applied to the necessaries of life. My hon. -friend (Mr. Maclean) has in his mind the cost of high living which is a very different thing.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Quite different.


William Foster Cockshutt: The cost of high living is pretty expensive. Where a man fifteen or twenty years ago was content to drive a pony chaise, he now wants a carriage and pair, and the man who had a carriage and pair ten years ago now wants a motor car, and some of them not content with a high-priced car are looking around for aeroplanes.
Mr. COCKSHUTT.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Ham and eggs come high.


William Foster Cockshutt: They come high because the farmer is getting more for his products; but we are quite content that he should, because bacon and eggs have now become a dish fit for a king. I can assure my hon. friend that living is not so much higher now than it used to be, if people will only live as they used to do. Men are not content to live now as they used to do, when men walked to church on the Sabbath and thought, if they got a new suit of clothes once in two years, they were doing well, even if it did not happen to be cut by a high-class tailor. My hon. friends want to have the best tailor-made clothes, the latest neckties, the best style of hat; that is what increases the cost of living. It is the cost of high living that troubles hon. gentlemen opposite. If we could only simplify our habits and come back to what our forefathers lived upon, we would find a vast shrinkage of the bills of hon. gentlemen opposite and perhaps of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House as well. Our habits have become extravagant. That is one of the features that are not so; comforting when we look over the Dominion to-day and see the vast amount of money spent in extravagances. When we say:	Money is
beginning to be a little tight, we should think of the millions invested in motor cars and other luxuries that were unknown fifteen or twenty years ago. That is only one item of a hundred that might he named when we consider what living is costing. My hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) gave figures showing that it costs a man about $900 a year to live and to bring up his family. I know of families that are living almost in affluence on not much over half that amount; they have comfortable homes of their own; they have well dressed wives and children, and -they are able to give their children a first-class education in the public schools, costing ten or fifteen cents a month for each -child, so that the workingman of to-day -has practically got what the rich man of twenty years ago could not get at any price. That is the reason th^t conditions in Canada are as good as if not better than conditions in any other country in the world.
My hon. friend spoke at length in regard to extravagant living. Extravagance in any people is not wise. I am free to confess that I would be a good deal better if I ate a little less and worked a little more with my hands; and I think that will apply to hon. gentlemen opposite as well, especially while they are in Ottawa. If we live high and do not -take much exercise, the result is not very satisfactory.


George Perry Graham: Back to the soil.


William Foster Cockshutt: If we would be content with the simpler modes of life and if

only the simpler *wants of life were supplied, we would be to-day a better, a more prosperous and a more contented people than we are, because it is a well-known fact that the more a people have the more they become discontented.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Put that policy in your platform.
Mr. &OCKSHUTT: The various expenditures made on our own selfish pleasures often work our own destruction. I think my hon. friend, the member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), in his address on war, might also have touched on the extravagance of human nature at the present time, which is costing almost as much as excessive armaments. I said that my hon. friend might have got rid of a considerable amount of this $55,000,000 that he complains of us collecting, if the Laurier navy had become an established fact. Fortunately it has not.
I think he criticised only one other de

partment, the Department of Militia . I have been accused of making a warlike speech in tnis House during the present session. I do not wish to be misunderstood; I am a man of peace, but I believe in being ready for war. I believe that every Christian city should be able to get along without police, but I have yet to discover a city in the Dominion of Canada that has been able to disband its police force, and to trust to the honesty, integrity and Christian charity of it's citizens to enact and to carry out such laws as are for the best interests of the community. If it is a fact that such a condition is obtainable in the most Christian city in this or any other country, you cannot get away from the fact that we must have military and naval defence in this country. My hon. friend has criticised the expenditure of $10,000,000 for the Militia Department. I am no sponsor for the Minister of Militia; he is well able to take care of himself.	He is a fighting man. I am
not.	I do not think $10,000,000 for
the Militia Department is too much for this reason: We have in the militia of the Dominion of Canada to-day less than
100,000	men, nearly ail volunteers, who are very poorly paid for the few days they put in per annum, and who, at great personal sacrifice, go week in and week out to the armouries and take their drill in the evenings, sacrificing their personal pleasures in order to serve their country. When they go to camp, they get about fifty cents a day. Surely no hon. gentleman would complain that that as excessive. These men, who are in the ranks of the militia of Canada and who are self-sacrificing enough to place their services at the disposal of their country for a mere bagatelle, should be supported in the very best spirit. Hon. gentlemen opposite may say:	Oh, they are
never going to be required; everything will be peaceable. If you have been reading the papers for the last few days, you will see that they may be wanted very soon.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Germany.


William Foster Cockshutt: I see my hon. friend who has been to Japan knows that the truth of what I am saying. The United States is full of unrest over the Japanese question. My hon. friend settled that question once off-hand without any force of arms. The next time he is sent on a mission of that kind, he may have to take some force with him to back him up. Suppose the United States and Japan were to go to war in the coming year. What would happen? Canada must remain neutral or be drawn into the fight on one side or the other. What does 'neutral' mean? It means that the whole of our borders from Vancouver to Halifax must be policed. Who will do that? We have no one on whom we can rely except our militia to police that four thousand miles of boundary. If you allow arms, ammunition and men to cross that boundary to go into the fight for the United States against Japan, you have violated the law of nations; you have become a party to the fight and would be subject to attack. I think it dll becomes my hon. friend from Halifax, who looks very thrifty and prosperous himself, to find fault with this expenditure on the Militia Department.
My hon. friend criticised two departments, the Department of Public Works and the Department of Militia. I think I have justified both of them. The thinking people of Canada will agree with me that we, as a people, are the most peaceable on earth to-day, as the hon. member for Norfolk stated a few days ago. The small militia expenditure, which is only a little over a dollar per head for the whole of our population, surely cannot be called excessive. That being the case, I think this House will vote both the appropriations asked for under the Public Works Department and the Militia Department.
I have shown that the Customs Department is collecting the necessary revenues. The Excise Department is also bringing us a very buoyant revenue, and the Post Office Department is following suit. Therefore, dn all these avenues of public revenue we find that our coffers am very well filled, and we have a comfortable surplus of $55,000,000 for the present year, with a reduction of public debt of $23,000,000 in a single year. Surely that should be satisfactory to hon. gentlemen opposite. The financial statement given'by the hon. Minister of Finance is one that must commend itself to every thoughtful man in the Dominion of Canada. It ds the most important business state-

merit made in the Dominion of Canada. It indicates to the country the results of our stock-taking; it tells the country what we have received and what we have spent; it indicates the sources from which we have derived our revenue, and the avenues in which our expenditure has gone, and shows the annual balance, credit or debit, as it may be, at the and of the fiscal year. In a statement of that kind, no one could excel the performance of the Minister of Finance. And he has given a statement of our finances which must be satisfactory and reassuring to every business man who reads it.
There is one feature in the outlook that I myself-and I speak only for myself and do not wish to be misunderstood-do not view with equanimity. I did not view with equanimity a similar condition when I was in opposition, and I wish to be consistent in this respect. The feature to which I refer is the relative amount of our annual exports and imports. Sir, I cannot view with equanimity a policy under which our imports are almost two dollars for every dollar of our exports. That, to my mind, is a state of things that cannot go on perpetually. And, . though the Minister of Finance has given us some very good explanation, and though I am willing to give those explanations all the weight to which they are entitled, I must say they are not wholly convincing to my mind, nor do they show us to be in good shape relatively to countries similarly situated with ourselves. To have a total import of nearly $692,000,000, and an export of only $393,000,000, is not, to my mind, a very reassuring sign. It is the one cloud I see upon the horizon, and I think it ultimately must be corrected to a very large extent. I do not see how we can continue, without producing intense stringency, to settle a balance of trade of from $250,000,000 to $300,000,000 in cold cash; for, when we have sent all the products of the farm, of the mine, of the forest, of the fishery and of the factory that we have to spare, we have to put our hands in our pockets and pay between $250,000,000 and $300,000,000 in cash to settle the account for the year. We receive in Canada almost half a million people per annum. The Finance Minister's argument is-and it carries weight

that these newcomers bring in in their pockets nearly as much money as will represent this balance of trade against us. That may or may not be the case; I have not the figures by me and am not prepared to dispute the figures given by the Minister of Finance, but on the other hand I am hardly ready to accept them. Countries similarly situated to Canada are in a better position in my judgment than we are in this respect. I wish particularly to call the attention of Mr COCKSHUTT.
the House to three of our principal competitors in the markets of the world, two being in the British Empire and the third the Argentine Republic. I have not the very recent figures of the exports per head, but I think I can give them from memory for the year 1909, which will be near enough for practical purposes to show the House the point of my argument. In 1909, Canada exported a little over forty dollars per head of her population. Australia, a country that has practically our own conditions in this respect though it has only about half our size and receives about half as many immigrants as we do, produces enough to export about ninety dollars per head of its population. And New Zealand, which leads the whole world, exported about one hundred and five dollars for every man, woman and child in the islands. Is there any argument that can be advanced with regard to Canada as a new country that cannot be advanced with regard to Australia and New Zealand ? If there is, I should very much like to hear it; I have never heard it yet. I visited Australia a few years ago and then got these figures and saw the production, and I know no reason why we in Canada, who are just as thrifty and just as able, who have the appliances that ought to produce as much per man, should have only forty dollars per head to export while Australia had nearly ninety dollars per head, or double ours, and New Zealand about two and a half times ours. And what applies to Australia and New Zealand practically applies to Argentine. Then, the United States has not for many years made up its balance sheet without a large excess of exports over imports. Therefore, there is nothing to my mind that fully explains the discrepancy in our trade figures; and I commend to the Finance Minister close attention to this matter in the coming year to see if he cannot arrive at some explanation or something that will relieve-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why not
ask the Finance Minister to wipe it out and be done with the question?


William Foster Cockshutt: That might not be
possible, for the reason that the Finance Minister gave-that the large influx of immigrants bring in settlers' effects which are included among our imports. That accounts for a large part, but it is not convincing to my mind that we are producing as much as we should produce. I trust that whatever is decided upon as the policy of Canada for the future, we shall endeavour to bring close together the totals of our imports and our exports. Of course, the total makes admirable reading if you do not analyse it-a foreign trade of $1,085,. 000,000 during the past yeat.

I have occupied pretty close on an hour, to which I desired to confine my remarks, though I have a large number of items I have not yet been able to touch on. But I think I should be frank enough to deal with a question which has been thrust upon me not only by gentlemen opposite but sometimes by my own friends who have asked me to say a word with regard to the particular line of manufacturing in which I am supposed to be most especially interested. I may say frankly that I, for one, would never ask any individual in Canada to suffer any penalizing in the way of duties for my benefit and on my behalf. And while I speak, it may be said, for the moment, as a manufacturer, as a matter of fact I have never followed manufacturing as a business, as everybody knows who knows me. I was brought up a merchant, and for nearly the whole of my business career have been engaged in merchandising.
That is why I think I know something about tariffs, as for many years I made my own entries at the customs, and I think I learned a good deal of how things were done jn the Customs Department. But that is aside from the question for the moment. I have here a few figures, and I trust I shall not weary the House if I place these where they may be read by the people. I have been asked by many of my friends as well as by hon. gentlemen opposite if the agricultural implement business is not in a position to stand a good substantial cut or, some even go so far as to ask, to have its goods placed upon the free list. I have obtained from the Customs Department a statement showing the value of importations of agricultural implements into Canada during the years, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913, respectively, and it is as follows:
1909.	1910.	1911.	1912.	1913.Value.	Value.	Value.	Value.	Value.$	$	$	$	$Threshing machine separators	362,083	629,799	741,360	1,404,455	2,176,077Portable engines with boilers in combination, and traction engines for farm pur-	6,063,960	7,369,219794,854	1,817,209	3,636,392	Mowing machines	61,599	62,978	52,999	79.539	76,66217,009	8,350	60,677	75,455	68,599Harvesters, self-binding	129,775	166,013	115,794	264,890	215,129462,184	953,716	1,993,214	1,352,323	1,317,243123,542	218,599	355,821	349,499	282,478Harrows	61,220	114,586	229,911	143,546	176,853All other agricultural implements and	1,707,729	1,962,427	2,254,520parts	755,491	1,126,111	Totals. 	$2,767,763	$5,097,361	$8,891,097	$11,696,094	$13,936,781
This will show bon. gentlemen that in five years the importation of agricultural implements and machinery has increased from $3,000,000 to nearly $14,000,000, and that it now amounts to four or five times as much as it did five years ago. That, I think, will indicate to the House that the tariff is not unduly high, and that the importation of farm implements has been very large for a country that manufactures them so well as Canada does. I make the broad statement that no country in the world to-day has cheaper agricultural implements than the Dominion of Canada, excepting, perhaps the United States. The quality of the manufactured goods turned out 'by Canadian manufacturers is of the best, and the fact that they have competed in the markets of the world against all competitors shows that they are able to
compete with the world in quality and_ in price. I am asked whether agricultural implements should not stand a reduction so that the farmer would get his implements cheaper. I say at once that I believe they would under certain conditions, but if this country should embark upon the conditions which I shall name, I think they would be doing a very unwise thing. To reduce largely the duty on agricultural implements, which is now from fifteen per cent to twenty per cent, would mean that you would hit probably fifty or one hundred subsidiary interests that produce the raw material of which the agricultural _ implements turned out by these factories are composed. You certainly could not reduce the duty on the implements without reducing the duties on the raw material which enters into their manufacture.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do the manufacturers
not get a rebate of ninety-nine per cent?


William Foster Cockshutt: Only on reapers and mowers. They receive a refund on export of ninety-nine per cent of the duty paid, one per cent being retained for collection and redistribution, but only in the case of mowers and reapers are any concessions made with regard to the raw material that enters into their manufacture. That concession was made because the duty was reduced some two and one-half per cent years ago by the Government of which my hon. friend was then a supporter. So I think that it would only be possible to reduce the duty on agricultural implements if the accessory parts entering into the manufacture of the goods were made subject to the same concession. These materials would include iron and steel goods, bolts, screws, bars, angles, paint, varnishes, and everything entering into the manufacture of that line of goods. Therefore if that reduction were effected, instead of penalizing just a few manufacturers of agricultural machinery, you would hit forty, fifty or one hundred industries which manufacture the various materials entering into the construction of these implements. In my judgment we are not hitting the farmers by the high duty. The implements in Canada to-day are sold as cheaply as in any country in the world, with the exception of the United States. It has been charged that these goods are being sold cheaper in England than they are in Canada, but I have figures to refute that assertion.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why does production
cost less in the United States than in Canada?


William Foster Cockshutt: Where Canada has a million dollars employed in the agricultural implement business, the United States probably has fifteen or twenty millions. The International Harvester Company has probably more capital engaged in the implement manufacturing business than all the implement manufacturers of the Dominion. Their production is enormously large; everyone knows that in order to have goods turned out efficiently and at the lowest possible cost, they must he manufactured in large quantities. Therefore all the small dealers and manufacturers have gone to the wall under recent competition. Hon. gentlemen may say that the manufacturer is making too much money, but the fact remains that all the small men have been driven out of business by the fierceness of home competition. About thirty years ago there were twenty-five different kinds of binders and reapers manufactured in the Province of Ontario alone; how many are there to-day? Three. What has become of the rest? They have all been driven out of business by the fierceness of home competi-
Mr COCKSHUTT.
tion and by the large production of the few manufacturers who have been enabled, by [DOT]the use of larger capital, to turn out a thousand machines where the small man turned out only ten. I am not speaking at the instigation of any single manufacturer, hut I say that if every branch of industry in Canada were as efficiently managed and turned out goods as cheaply as the implement manufacturers, there would not be much cause for complaint. I say that, knowing it to be absolutely by the book. Although hon. gentlemen opposite may think that we are hard-hearted wretches to pursue those who do not pay up I can tell the country why our goods are not sold even cheaper to-day to Canadians. The terms of credit are entirely out of proportion to what they should be and are probably in excess of almost any country in the world. Six months is considered a very short time. Agricultural goods run from six months to two tyearS credit and this year only about forty per cent of collections have been collected and yet hon. gentlemen think we are hard-hearted because we ask that occasionally these accounts should he paid up.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The hon. member says
that the terms are from six months to two years, after six months the manufacturers charge interest do they not?


William Foster Cockshutt: That is altogether by arrangement. If the hon. gentleman is referring to a man who wants to buy at six months credit, the exact price is named at the time of the purchase. Many men want to buy on two to four payments fixed over a period of from six months to two years. Of course, after six months, interest is charged in those cases, but there is a cash price also quoted; if the man wants to buy for cash he gets a liberal discount.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: How much?


William Foster Cockshutt: From five ner cent to ten per cent on the average and on large orders such as are placed by some farmers in the West who buy in quantities there is a still more liberal discount.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It is impossible for me to get a better discount than six per cent per annum, no discount of five per cent or ten per cent but a discount of six per cent per annum. That is to say, I can buy a binder to-day dated in October. I can pay for it any time in October, but if I buy if for cash I get a discount of six per cent per annum.


William Foster Cockshutt: Mv hon. friend is
speaking from personal experience and I cannot say whether he is correct, but I am speaking of the western trade.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am speaking from experience and experience with the Massey Harris Company.


William Foster Cockshutt: Of course I am not posted as to the terms on which the Massey Harris Company do business and, therefore, cannot say what they allow, but in round figures, I think, I can say five per cent to ten per cent discount can be got from any agricultural implement dealer if a man wishes to pay cash.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is all I could get. I offered to pay cash and the only discount I could get was six per cent per annum, and that was not sufficient to induce me to pay cash as I had to pay that for money.


William Foster Cockshutt: Another reason why implements are higher than some of our friends think they should be is on account of the high cost of transportation. If my friends only knew the cost of getting these goods here out to the West and distributing them into the various business centres they would see that a large part of the cost of machinery is made up of transportation charges. I have in my hand a few of the freight rates charged on a reaper to certain points from Toronto. They are as follows:
Carberry, Manitoba	
$12	42Regina	
14	17Saskatoon	
16	29Red Deer	20	53
The freight from Toronto to Liverpool on the same machines would be $7.16; only one-half as much as to Regina. To London the charge would be $9.59; to Havre, $8.92; to .Hamburg, $9.75; to Odessa' $12.84; to Buenos Ayres, $12.83; and to Melbourne, $10. So it costs nearly twice as much to deliver a machine in Red Deer as -to deliver the same machine in Melbourne, the most distant part of the earth from Canada. There is one reason why implements are not as cheap as some *would like to see them. Speaking for myself and for my own interests, I would be prepared to say that if we got all our raw materials at an equally reduced duty, either no duty or a duty commensurate with the amount knocked off implements, we could afford, there is no question about that, to reduce the duty on agricultural implements; but it would be at the cost of displacing probably one hundred thousand men in the Dominion of Canada in all these implement works ' and their tributary industries that supply them with raw material. In my judgment, that is too big a price to pay for the small advantage that would be obtained, because, after all, the implements are sold, as I have said, as cheaply as in any country of the earth except the United States and a large part of the difference in that case is
| caused by the larger transportation charges over which we have no control.
As far as I can see, the present financial outlook of Canada is very reassuring. Whether we look at the position of the agriculturist, the workingman, the lumberman, the miner, all the avenues which supply the lifeblood of our trade and commerce appear to me to be thriving and on the up-grade and that in the face of the fact that the reciprocity Bill to which my hon. friend just referred was not accepted. I think that even he, looking at the prosperity of our country and the high prices which the hon. member for Maisonneuve, has given us, will agree that it is well that we did not go into that deal on the occasion when it was offered to us.
I would say in conclusion that a great deal is being said in the papers to-day about the present position of the United States and their tariff and the proposals of President Wilson now before the House. We are told that the United Stated are going in for a kind of free-trade proposition. But that only applies to a very few items, and I give my opinion that when the United States free trade policy under Mr. Wilson is adopted, it will be found that the duties average higher than they do ini the Dominion of Canada to-day without any free trade policy. They have a lohg way to come before they get down to our level. Their -average tariff on dutiable goods is about .forty-five per cent, and vet they are able to manufacture many lines against the world, and do. so. They manufacture in some lines better than a.ny other nation on earth, and, as a matter of fact, they could do with free trade in some lines better than any nation on earth. Yet, with their forty-five per cent tariff they have a long way to come before they get as low as our tariff. Do not let us shout before they get out of the woods over there. Do not let us be too sure that the propositions that President Wilson has put before Congress and the Senate of the United States will be adopted. , He has troubles ahead of him yet. I think it will be found that the propositions that are made there are not going through as easily as is generally supposed. There will be a tremendous upheaval in the United States and trade conditions will be disorganized if they go into effect. Why do I say that ? Wilson represents only about forty per cent of the voters of the United States and the other sixty per cent voted for Taft and Roosevelt, both of whom stood for a higher tariff than that which Wilson has proposed. He has -not at his back nearly half of the people of the United States for his proposition, and if he is a wise man he will go slow.
The cost of living is not going to be materially reduced even if he succeeds in

putting his measure through, but he may succeed in injuring labouring conditions and reducing the workingman's wages. It is a serious proposition. It is easy to say that things ought to be better than they are. We are too ambitious to be content with conditions that are good and I say that the conditions in Canada to-day, whether in regard to the workman or the farmer, are probably as good as they are in any country in the world. Why do I say that ? Because from all nations, from every sea and with every wind that blows, we find immigrants coming into Canada, so that to-day we are speaking about one hundred languages in this Dominion. We offer a home to the people of all the nations of the earth. Why is that ? It is because it is recognized that the conditions in Canada are as good as the best, and there is streaming in from many of the countries of the world, the United States included, a very large influx of people.
That would not obtain unless the conditions in Canada were sound. That is evidence to me that we would be wise in following well beaten paths and not taking up with any fad ideas or any nostrums that may perhaps be put forward as a reason for upsetting conditions as they are. It is a great deal easier to upset conditions that are good than to establish conditions that are better. An examination of the trade statistics and of the speech of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance in presenting the budget will convince any man who reads them with a desire to understand things as they are and as they compare with the conditions in any other country in the world, that the conditions that obtain in Canada to-day are unequalled, or at least unexcelled, by those of any other country. That condition has been produced by hard labour, by an immense amount of thought on the part of those who preceded us, by an immense effort on the part of our forefathers who came and hewed out homes for themselves in the province of Ontario under conditions that were perhaps more rugged, more severe, than are exacted from the most distant dwellers in our western or northern country to-day. There are men still living in the province of Ontario who can remember the struggles that were had by tnose who preceded us in the older counties of that province-how wheat and the products of the farm were taken from fifty to seventy-five miles to the point of shipment. The prices that are obtained in the West to-day are very high as compared with the prices that our forefathers obtained in Ontario fifty or seventy-five years ago.
We have seen great changes, we have seen the farmer develop, we have seen him broaden out, until to-day we see him Mr COCKSHUTT.
enjoying a great many of the luxuries of life, driving in his carriage, in some cases in his motor oar, and giving evidence to the world that he is an independent man, a. man who has money and time to enjoy himself and to live in a prosperous way. That is the condition that obtains to-day and if we pursue a wise and sane policy and do not allow ourselves to be carried away with nostrums that may be proposed by those who think that every experiment would be better than a tried doctrine that has stood the test for twenty-five or thirty years and that has proved itself true and good, we will continue to drain from other countries some of the very best blood and a large amount of capital and we will transfer to Canada some of the brawn and muscle to be found in all the enlightened, and it may be some of the unenlightened, nations of the world.
What is the condition to-day in Canada? We are drawing from the United States
150,000	of its citizens per annum most of whom settle in the West as farmers, some coming to Ontario and Quebec to engage in manufacturing industries and bringing their plants and capital with them. We have invested in manufacturing in Canada to-day $300,000,000 of American capital. Only last year the American Steel Company proposed to spend $20,000,000 upon the erection of a steel plant on the shores of the Detroit river. I do not know whether this enterprise will be proceeded with right away but I think it will. Look at the $20,000,000 of American capital invested in and around the city of Hamilton and you will realize from that how much American enterprise has been transplanted to that city. Similarly, we might go through the Dominion of Canada and we find that the conditions that Obtain are tempting men from all the countries of -the world, that we are bringing them in here and affording them conditions which enable them to become prosperous and contented citizens. Whethei you look to the farm, the factory or the mine you will find in Canada enterprise, a reward for labour, a prosperity, a civilization and a Christianity that are equal to those of any country in the world.
Why should we disturb these conditions? Why should we be discontented with conditions that are good and a past that has justified itself? Surely these conditions should not be upset and I trust that we will not have any movement to upset conditions that are sound and true and good and that have given the very best results that the Dominion of Canada has ever experienced.
On motion of Mr. Carvell the debate was adjourned.


QUEBEC SAVINGS BANKS.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. T. W. White (Minister of Finance), Bill No. 212, respecting certain

sayings banks in the province of Quebec, was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Mr. WHITE:: The object of this Bill is to extend for a period of ten years the charters of the Montreal City and District Savings Bank and the Caisse d'Economie de Notre-Dame de Quebec. The capital stock of the City and District Savings Bank is $2,000,000, of which $1,000,000 is paid up; the capital stock of the Caisse d'Economie de Notre-Dame de Quebec is $1,000,000 of which $250,000 is paid up; the total liabilities of the City and District Savings Bank are $30,000,000 and of the Caisse d'Economie $10,000,000; the total assets of the City and District Savings Bank are $32,000,000 and the total assets of the Caisse d'Economie $12,000,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why do these banks not come under the Bank Act?


William Thomas White: They have not the same powers as the chartered banks hut their charters expire on the same day. They have no right of note issue nor do they do a discount business. They invest in bonds, debentures, and loan upon collateral security.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is this Bill based on the Bank Act?


William Thomas White: Yes, and that is why I delayed presenting it until it was seen what action this House would take on the Bank Act. The provisions for auditing are very similar.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suppose this Bill has been very carefully considered?


William Thomas White: It has. Section 29 is a new clause but it is precisely the same as the clause in the Bank Act. The committee will observe there is a restriction upon the acquisition of real estate to the amount required for the actual use and occupation of the bank.


George Perry Graham: I suppose they will observe that the same as the bankers observe the Bank Act?


William Thomas White: So far as the clause is concerned the restriction is absolute and I do not think it can be made stronger. By section 34 they are allowed to invest in school bonds or debentures in the Dominion of Canada. Formerly it was confined to the province of Quebec and they requested wide powers and I thought they well might be given them.	"
On section 48-appointment of auditors by shareholders:
t Mr WHITE: I think it is advisable that I should make an explanation with regard to this section. Many members will recall that provision is made in the Bank Act for
external audit, the auditors to be appointed by the shareholders, but from a list selected by ballot by the genera) managers of the chartered banks. These two savings banks do not come under the Bank Act, and are not in any way connected with the Canadian Bankers' Association. Therefore we have not put in any provision that the general managers of the banks shall select the auditors from whom the shareholders shall make the appointments. There is this distinction between two classes of banks: the chartered banks are commercial banks, tanks of discount; these are savings banks and analagous to loan and trust companies in the province of Ontario. My hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) is acquainted with their mode of operation and audit. The provisions for audit here are practically the same as those appearing in the Bank Act at the time that I presented it to the House, without the qualification of auditors subsequently provided for by the committee. A clause has been inserted here analagous to the clause in the Bank Act:
After the appointment of an auditor or1 auditors under subsection 1 of this section, shareholders the aggregate of whose paid-up capital stock is equal to at least one-third of the paid-up capital stock of the bank, who in writing under their respective hands allege that they are dissatisfied with the appointment so made, may, in and by the same writing, make application to the minister to have the person or persons so appointed superseded, and the minister may, after such inquiry as he may deem necessary, select an auditor or auditors instead of the auditor or auditors appointed at the annual meeting and the auditors so appointed shall thereupon cease to be the auditors of the bank and the auditors so selected shall be the auditors of the bank until the next annual meeting.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 49-examination by auditor appointed by minister:
George Perry Graham: I suppose that is in
harmony with section 48.


William Thomas White: That is the same section as appears m the Bank Act, and in substance is to this effect, that the minister may at any time require the auditor appointed by the shareholders, or any other auditor whom he may select, to make inquiry into the affairs or business of the bank. I explained the other day, when the Bank Act was under oonsideraticn that, if the Minister of Finance receives notice of any irregularities, at present he has no .power to make an inquiry, and he is given such power under the provisions of the new Bank Act and under the provisions of this Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) Bill No. 213, respecting the payment of Bounties on Lead contained in lead-bearing ores mined in Canada, was lead the second time, and House went into Committee thereon. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair).
On section 2, sub-section 2-bounties on lead refined in Canada; limitation of amount:
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does this include all that has already been paid?


William Thomas White: If the hon. member will look at the preamble he will see that there is unexpended approximately $600,000. Then under this sub-section 2 of section 2, he will see that
The total amount of bounty payable under the provisions of chapter 31 of the statutes of 1903, chapter 13 of the statutes of 1908 (as amended by chapter 37 of the statutes of 1910), and of this Act, shall not exceed two million four hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
That covers all the legislation affecting this matter. My hon. friend was absent when I explained that $2,500,000 was set aside originally, of which about $50,000 was set aside out of that for investigations connected with the zinc industry. Out of the $2,450,000 remaining $1,800,000 was expended on bounties, leaving, as stated, approximately $600,000, which will now be available to pay bounties if required within the period of five years provided by this Bill. The amount to be paid in any one year is not to exceed $250,000. Last year the amount paid was $60,000. At the present prices of lead, no bounty is payable at all.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.

Thursday, May 22, 1913