1915-03-10

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

Mr. PROULX:: 1.	How many prisoners or aliens are interned at the Petawawa military camp?
2.	What is the cost per day or week for their board ?
3.	How many officers and men are in charge at the said camp?
4.	Have these officers and men had any previous military training?
5.	What is their remuneration?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	564.
2.	29 cents per day.
3.	1 camp commandant, 1 medical officer, guard, 5 officers, 157 men.
4.	Yes, annual training.
5.	Lieutenants, per day, pay, $2; field allowance, 60 cents; subsistence, $1.50; captains, per day, pay, $3; field allowance, 75 cents; subsistence, $1.50; majors, per day, pay, $4; field allowance, $1; subsistence, $1.50.


BITUMINOUS COAL IMPORTS.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	What quantity of bituminous coal was imported into Canada during the year ending March 31, 1914?
2.	What was the duty collected thereon?
3.	What portion of this coal was imported by the railway companies?


Mr. J. D. REID:: '
1.	13,754,244 tons.
2.	$6,144,582.56.	.
3.	The coal imported by the railway companies is not compiled separately from other bituminous coal importations, in the customs returns.


KINGSTON PENITENTIARY.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Is there a Mr. Begg employed in the Kingston penitentiary?
2.	If so, how long has he been so employed?
3.	Was his name mentioned in the report of the commissioners appointed to investigate the condition of things at the Kingston penitentiary ?
4.	If so, what did the report say concerning him?
5.	Has his position been changed or his salary increased since that report was made?
6.	If so, what position does he now hold, and what is his salary?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Since October 1, 1902.
3.	Yes.
4.	The matter is dealt with on page 25 of the report which has been laid on the table of the House, and whereof a copy is annexed to this answer. (Report filed with Clerk of House).
5.	His position has been changed. In view of the recommendation made by the commission, it was thought desirable that Mr. Begg be transferred from the hospital to another department. The salary attached by statute to this new position is larger than that he formerly received.
6.	Clerical assistant in the office of the accountant, salary, $1,200 per annum.


WOOL STORAGE WAREHOUSE.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Has a request been made to the Government for the establishment of a Government warehouse for the storage of wool at Lethbridge?
2.	Has a request been made for the appointment of a wool Inspector at that city?
3.	Is the Government aware that the granting of these requests would be of assistance to the woollen industry in southern Alberta?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to comply with these requests?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The Government has had its officials considering these suggestions, as well as others that might assist the wool growers industry.
4.	Under consideration.
DEPARTMENT OP TRAtiE AND COMMERCE.


Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	Has the Department of Trade and Commerce sent the following reply to the secretary of the Metabetchouan Company, Quebec:
Ottawa, January 21, 1915.
" La Cie de Metabetchouan,
Quebec, Que.
Weekly Reports.
Dear Sir,-
In reply to your postcard of the 9th instant, I regret that I am unable to comply with your request, as the Weekly Report is not printed in French.
Yours faithfully,
R.	Grigg,
Commissioner of Commerce."
2.	If so, what is the minister's reason for not having such Weekly Reports printed In French?


Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Weekly Report has been issued since 1904, and is distributed to commercial bodies, manufacturers and wholesale business men in Canada. The practice as to

printing and distribution is the same as followed since the commencement of the publication, although the quantity has largely increased. From 1904 to 1910 the department had not received half-a-dozen requests for copies in French. During 1913 and 1914 five inquiries have been received for the report in French. The cost of a French edition would be about $4,000.


WAR SUPPLIES-HORSES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SAM. SHARPE:
1.	How many horses were purchased -by the Government in the riding of North Ontario since 1st August, 1914?
2.	From whom were the horses purchased, and what was the price paid for each?
3.	Who was the purchasing agent?
4.	What sum was such purchasing agent paid for his services?
Major General HUGHES:: 
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1. How many of the horses purchased for the first overseas contingent were sold by auction at Quebec last autumn?
2.	(a) What was the total amount received by the Government from the proceeds of said auction sale, and (b) what were the total expenses incurred therewith?
3.	What has been the amount expended for feed and care in connection with such horses from the time when the overseas contingent sailed to the date of the auction sale?
4 llow many of such horses were offered for sale without finding purchasers, and were either killed or given away?


Major General HUGHES:: 1.	481.
2.	(a) $25,855; (b) $1,292.75.
3.	Estimated, $3,056.
4.	None.


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Did the officer commanding 5th Mounted Rifles, Lieutenant-Colonel G. H. Baker, refuse to accept seven horses which were purchased by Messrs. Palmer and Pallister, at Sherbrooke?
2.	If so, what were the reasons given by that officer?
3.	Did Lieut.-Colonel Baker demand a Board of Inquiry to examine the said horses and report on their fitness for service?
4.	If so, has the board been convened, and their report submitted?
5.	What is the finding of the said board in respect to the said horses?


Major General HUGHES:: J. No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No.
4 and 5. Answered by No. 3.


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Did Sir Adam Beck act as purchaser ol remounts for the first contingent?
2.	If so, how many remounts were purchased by him, and what was the average price paid per horse?
3.	What was the average, per horse, to cover all expenses in purchasing the said horses?
4.	Were the owners from whom the said horses were purchased paid by Government cheque, or were they paid for by Sir Adam Beck, by his own personal cheque and he afterwards reimbursed ?
5.	Were the said horses branded at time of purchase, or only after arrival at Valcartier?
6.	If the latter, why were the regulations as laid down in Mobilization Orders 1913 not complied with ?
7.	What qualifications has Sir Adam Beck that would enable him to determine the different types of remounts required for the various branches of the service?


Major General HUGHES:: 1.	Yes.
2.	334 horses, average price $166.08.
3.	$7.50 per horse.
4.	Paid by order on Bank of Montreal, signed by Sir Adam Beck, and the Veter inary Inspecting Officer, and endorsed by the seller of the horse.
5.	Horses were branded at the time of purchase.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	Is an excellent judge of horses, as well as being a thoroughly honourable gentle-mau desirous of serving Canada and the Empire in the hour of need.


Mr. McCREA:: 1.	Did the Department of Militia advertise, or lias it advertised, to buy horses at Sherbrooke and other points in the Eastern townships for the 5th Mounted Rifles now in camp at Sherbrooke on different dates, and at different places?
2.	If so, were buyers present at places so advertised prepared to buy horses?
3.	How many horses were bought at each place, and at what price for each horse?
4.	What were the total expenses in connection with the said buying, including advertising, wages or compensation of the buyers and expenses, also wages or compensation of veterinary, and all other expenses in connection with said horses that were bought?


Major General HUGHES:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Actonvale-3 horses: 1 at $172.50, 1 at $172.50, 1 at $190. Sherbrooke-7 horses:
1 at $165, 2 at $300, 1 at $150, 1 at $175, 1 at $150, 1 at $150.
4.	Estimated expenses, $129.40.


DUTIES ON MICA.
Mr. DEVLIN:: 1.	Have representations been made to the Government by Sny person or persons in the county of Wright since October, 1911, rela-

tive to the duties upon the importation of mica?
2.	If so, what was the nature of such representations, and by whom were they made?


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


ICL. RY.-LEVIS STATION.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	What is the estimated loss as a result of the destruction by fire of the Lfivis station?
2.	For what amount was such insured, what was the amount of premium paid therefor, and what was the name of the company and the company's agent who solicited and obtained the risk?
3.	What was the amount received ^by the Government in settlement of such loss by fire?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to rebuild said station? If so, will it be rebuilt on the present site? If not, what other site has been selected?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	$57,849.20.
2.	Station was not insured.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Yes. Positive location not yet decided upon.


G. H. PICKLE, SHERBROOKE.
Mr. McCREA:: 1.	Is J. H. Pickle an employee of the Customs Department at Sherbrooke?
2.	If so, at what salary and what are his duties?
3.	Has he been constantly at work, is he, or has he been off on leave of absence, how long, and for what cause?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The customs officer's name is G. H. Pickel and he has been off duty from April 1st, 1914, to February 1st, 1915, on account of sickness subscribed to by usual medical certificate, and in accordance with the custom that is in force with all departments of similar cases.


A. B. GILLIS, WHITEWOOD, SASK.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	Has A. B. Gillis, of Whitewood, Sask., been in the employ of the Department of the Interior on tjhe Militia Department any tjme during the years 1912, 1913 1914 and 1915?
2.	If so, what was the date of his appointment, in what capacity was he employed, and what was his salary?
3.	Is he still employed?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


W. J. GALLON, REGINA.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	Has W. J. Gallon, of Regina, been in the employ of the Department of the Interior at any time in the years 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1915?
2.	If so, in what capacity, for what length of time, what was the remuneration and date of appointment?


Mr. ROCHE:: No.


PORT OF HALIFAX NIGHT WATCHMEN.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Were two customs night watchmen at the port of Halifax, Messrs. Connolly and Lavers, recently dismissed from the service? If so, upon what grounds?
2.	Have any persons been appointed in their stead? If so, whom?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	The services oLOfficer Connolly (aged 62) and of Officer Lavers (aged 63) are being dispensed with, the inspector of customs having reported that they are unable to perform their duties in the customs service.
2.	F. C. Graham and N. F. Sutherland have been added to the customs staff at Halifax for watchmen's duties and other services.


GEORGE E LONGARD, BAYSIDE, N.S.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Was George E. Longard, of Bayside, Halifax county, N.S., appointed to any office under the Government?
2.	If so, what are "his duties, and what salary is he paid?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	To take fishing bounty claim? and distribute cheques in payment thereof. $85 for the season's work.


GEORGE ROBINSON, CAMBRIDGE, N.B.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Was George Robinson, of Cambridge, N.B., appointed a special fishery officer for the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island?
2.	If so. what are his duties, an? what salary is he paid?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes, for New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
2.	To examine streams and afford the department detailed information in regard thereto, to enable it to decide intelligently on the stocking of streams from the hatcheries; to prevent mill owners in New Brunswick from allowing sawdust or mill refuse to pass into the water, and to assist the regular officers in preventing violations of the law. $600 per annum.

/


CARDINAL STATISTICAL OFFICER.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	What is the name of the statistical officer of the canal at Cardinal?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	Has an assistant to him been appointed?
5.	If so, when, and what is his salary?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	George Reid.
2.	April 13, 1912.
3.	$1,000 per annum.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


CARDINAL CANAL-REMOVAL OF HOUSES.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Did the Government call for tenders for the removal of three houses which were situated on the Government property beside the canal at Cardinal?
2.	If so, how many tenders were received?
3.	Who sent in the tenders, and what was the price of each?
4.	Who was the successful tenderer, and has he completed the work?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Eight.
3.	' Frame
Name.	Engineer's house No.2 Frame
office. south side house canal. No. 3.
Frank Rourke. .$5000		
Unsigned ..	..	45 00	E.	V. Dodge. .. 107 50	$82 50	$105 50B. W. Knight . . 115 00	*60 00	75 00Francis Rourke	
62 00	Aden Richmire. 100 00	45 00	John Barkley	
50 00	100 00S S. Rogers	
77 52	105 51
*The tenders accepted; ' superintending engineer notified on November 7.
As the offers for the engineer's house were considered too low, none of them were accepted.
On the 29th November, the department received a letter from Mr. C. D. Sargent, superintending engineer, dated 28th November, covering an offer from E. V. Dodge, dated 26th November, of $135 for the engineer's house, which was recommended for acceptance by the superintending engineer and the Chief Engineer of the department, and was accepted.
4.	E. V. Dodge. Work is completed.


YARMOUTH MARINE HOSPITAL.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	Are the drugs and medicines used at the Yarmouth Marine hospital purchased by tender?
2.	If not, from whom were they purchased during the years 1913 and 1914, respectively, and what were the amounts paid?

3.	How many seamen during the years 1913 and 1914 were treated outside the Marine hospital?
4.	Why were they not treated in the Marine
hospital ?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	No.
2.	In 1912-13, $4.20 from Messrs. Ingram and Bell, Toronto. In 1913-14, $91.15 from B. F. Trask, Yarmouth.
3.	1912-13, one seaman at the Yarmouth hospital. In 1913-14, one seaman at the Yarmouth hospital.
4.	1912-13, Seaman Leonard Allan of the vessel Westport met with an accident necessitating amputation of one limb. Upon the suggestion of Dr. Wilkinson, port physican, he was taken to the Yarmouth hospital and treated there at the rate of $1 a day, to avoid expense of having special nurses at the Marine hospital. 1913-14, C. Muise, seaman of the vessel Condor. This sailor was admitted at the Yarmouth hospital on his own request, saying he would defray expenses; when about to leave it was found he had no funds, and upon recommendation of the collector of customs the department allowed fifty cents a day, the same as would have been paid to the Marine hospital.


MATTATADL LAKE POST OFFICE.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. SINCLAIR:
1.	Was Alfred H. Bonnyman, of Mattatall Lake, Colchester county, N.S., postmaster, dismissed from office?
2.	If so for what cause?
3.	Was there an investigation and by whom?
4.	Who was appointed to the position and on whose recommendation?
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1. No. A petition was received from the residents representing that the post office was situated at one end of the district and recommending that it should be removed to a more central and suitable location. A report was obtained from the post office inspector, which showed that the post office was in too close proximity to the Lake Road post office, being only one mile distant from that office. The Postmaster General directed, therefore, that the post office shoulfi be removed to the site proposed, which is one and a half miles further from the Lake Road post office. This necessitated a change also in the postmastership. .
2 and 3. See answer to No. 1.
4.	Mr. George H. Fisher, on recommendation of Mr. John Stanfield, M.P.


NOVA SCOTIA ELECTORAL. LISTS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Have the electoral lists for any of the electoral divisions of Nova Scotia for 1914, been printed by the King's Printer?
2.	If so, what are the divisions for which the said lists have been printed?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Cumberland, Halifax, Hants, Kings, and Pictou divisions.


POST OFFICES CLOSED.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. SINCLAIR:
1.	How many post offices have been closed in the Dominion of Canada since January 1, 1914?
2.	How many of the total number were closed by reason of the deorease in the business of said offices?
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	1,255.
2.	35. There have been 1,110 offices closed on account of the establishment of rural mail delivery.


MONTREAL-CAMPBELLTON STEAMSHIP SERVICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	How much was paid in the year 1914 for
the Montreal-Campbellton, N.B., steamship service?
2.	To whom was the money paid?
3.	Was the amount computed per round trip, and what was the amount paid per trip?


Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	$9,615.25.
2.	The Gaspe and Baie des Chaleurs Steamship Company, Limited.
3.	Yes. $384.61.


SHIPPING CASUALTIES.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What is the number of casualties at sea
and on the inland waters of Canada in connection with sailing vessels of Canadian register for the year ending December 31, 1914?
2.	What is the number of lives lost in connection with casualties referred to in question No. 1, if any?
3.	What is the number of casualties at sea and on the inland waters of Canada in connection with steamboats or vessels propelled other than by sail, of Canadian register, for the year ending December 31, 1914?
4.	What is the number of lives lost in connection with casualties referred to in question No. 3, if any?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	At sea, 82; inland, 3.
2.	At sea, 14; inland, 0.
3.	At sea, 49; inland, 29.
4.	At sea, 38; inland, 1.


ST. JEAN L'EVANGELISTE MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Who is the contractor for the mail service between the post office and railway station at St. Jean l'Evangeliste, Quebec?
2.	(a) What is the price paid, (b) when was the contract awarded, and (c) were tenders called for?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Georges Frenette.
2.	(a) Twenty cents per trip, which
amounts to $125.20 per annum. (b) 1st August, 1914, for a contract to date from 1st September, 1914.	(c) Yes.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Law: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, vouchers, pay-rolls, correspondence, specifications and tenders for the construction of the new fog-alarm station at Cape Roseway, Shelburne county, N.S.
Mr. Thomson : For a copy of all reports, petitions, letters, telegrams and other documents in connection with the dismissal of W. M. Thomson from the postmastership at Fort Qu'Appelle, and of any petition or petitions for his reinstatement, and of all correspondence in connection therewith.
Mr. Ethier:	For a copy of all letters and
correspondence between D. McDonald, superintendent of the Intercolonial, at L6vis, P. Brady general superintendent at Moncton, or any other official of the said Intercolonial railway and Thfiophile BHanger, commercial traveller Qf the city of Montreal, concerning certain claims made by the said ThSophile B&langer for delay of baggage in transportation between Drum-mondville and Matapedia, in May, 1913, also all reports made bearing upon such claims against the said Intercolonial railway.
Mr. Ethier: For a copy of all petitions, correspondence and other documents in connection with the dismissal of Emile Cyr, postmaster at St. Hernias, county of Two Mountains.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance), for the Committee of Ways and Means, resumed from March 9.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of summarizing the arguments which have been presented on this side of the House, on the subject now before us, and to present my views upon it in as concrete a form as possible. When at the opening of hostilities in the month of August last the Government announced that it had offered the services of Canada to the Government of Great Britain, if these services should be found useful, we on this side of the House, His Majesty's loyal Opposition, the Liberal party of Canada, declared at once that to this policy we would offer no objection, but on the contrary that we would give it loyal support



To that engagement, then announced, we nave been absolutely faithful. We would have deemed it contrary to our dignity and to our duty if we had at that moment, by word or deed, in any way impeded the Government in the heavy responsibility it had assumed.
But it would be equally contrary to our dignity and to our duty were we to fail to point out most seriously the laches and deficiencies which mar the resolution introduced by the Government, as it asserts, in consequence of the war, but, as I believe, only under colour of the war.
The attitude which we have assumed has in some quarters been animadverted upon in rather severe language. To the objections which have been urged against our course I for my part cannot pay any respect. The view represented by these objections, if it were to be adopted, would constitute a very serious stricture upon parliamentary institutions. It would mean that parliamentary institutions, while good enough in time of peace, would have to be discarded in time of war. It would mean that the Government, which in time of peace under our system, should be kept under rigorous observation, in time of war should be given an absolutely free hand. It would mean that the Opposition, which in time of peace has the right to approve or to disapprove, to oppose or to consent, would in time of war be inhibited from any criticism, even though wrong were to be rampant un'der our eyes. I have not so read parliamentary history. If the war with Germany had been wrong in principle, if it had been causeless or purposeless, if it had been without justification, we would have been ready to so express our opinion. For that course there are abundant precedents. There is the precedent of Charles James Fox, who in 1800 severely blamed William Pitt for rejecting the peace overtures of Bonaparte. There is the precedent in almost our own day of John Bright and Richard Cobden criticising and condemning the war of the Crimea, representing it as useless if not criminal-a judgment which, by the way, has been pronounced by history to have been absolutely correct. Here the case is different. We were of the opinion that Great Britain was supremely in the right; that she was engaged in a war the most sacred that she has ever waged. Being of that opinion, we did not hesitate to give to the Government our adherence when it proposed that Canada should bear her share in the war. To that course we have been absolutely true.
We went further: Not only did we give our support to the Government, but we 
thought it would be more in accordance with the fitness of things that we should refrain even from discussing those domestic problems which always divide a free people. In so far as I had command of my party, I gave directions that no literature coming from a source which I could control should be of a party character. That injunction has been reasonably well fulfilled, and it has been fulfilled under great provocation, because, as a matter of fact-as was stated the other day by my hon. friend the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham)-every week from the official bureau of the Conservative party torrents of the most controversial kind of literature have been issued. It came to such a point that in the month of December one of my friends brought me a whole batch of such literature and asked me with some indignation: " What are you going to do?" After having looked at it, I said to my friend: " It seems to me that the Conservatives are more partisan than patriotic; we will show them that we are more patriotic than partisan, and we will not change our course." We did not change our course. It would not follow, however, and certainly it was never intended by me nor by any of those who sit around me that, when we were summoned to Parliament and called upon to pass judgment, to sanction or not to sanction the measures brought down by the Government in consequence of the war, we were to abdicate our judgment and to sit here as recording machines, simply to register the decisions of the Government. We are still of the opinion that the war is the supreme issue; but if we believe that in the method of carrying on the war, in the policy proposed by the Government, there be errors of judgment or otherwise, then it is our imperative duty to cry halt, to show the mistakes, to point out the true course, and to use every endeavour to prevent the mistakes from being carried into effect. When we come to matters of this kind, it is always well to refer to England, where parliamentary government is certainly better understood than in any other p.-rt of the world. The situation in Great Britain is exactly the same as in Canada. There the duty of the Government and the rights of the Oppositioin have been again and again discussed, and the judgment of the country has sanctioned the course pursued by both parties. It may be well here that I should quote in this respect an article of great authority, published in the Saturday Review, giving opinion upon the very ques-

tion which exists in England as it exists here to-day. I commend to the House the following language:
The brillant speeches of Lord Curzon and Lord Selborne last week will help to remind the Government that the right of criticism and inquiry is claimed in war time as well as in peace. It would be quite fatal to the Parliamentary system if this right were for a moment in question. It would reduce our political system to absurdity if the duty and function of an Opposition automatically ceased whenever the Government of the day was called on to grapple with a big and critical problem. In time of war, as in time of peace, it is the duty of the Opposition to watch constantly and jealously the men to whom the task is given of employing to the best of their ability the resources and wisdom of the country. In time of war this task mainly resolves itself into finding the right men for the work in hand, and in securing that they shall have all the support they require in material and in authority. ******
The Opposition must consider itself as deputed to guard against any wasting of the nation's manhood or treasure. Should the Opposition become aware of, or should it reasonably suspect, incompetence or bad faith in any responsible minister or in any political group, it is its duty to speak out and call the accused to a strict account Such action has nothing to do with party politics.
******
The Opposition cannot surrender its right of criticism and thorough inquiry into such matters as these without grossly failing in its duty to the country.
******
An Opposition in war time must not be factious, but it must be watchful, critical.
[DOT] *[DOT]***
The Opposition is bound to reserve to itself the right to question the Government, to watch closely and perpetually its political conduct of the war, to express any misgiving or disagreement it may feel frankly and distinctly.
To this I may add the comment of a paper published in this city, a paper which is not unfriendly to the Government; I refer to the Evening Journal. In its issue of a recent date we read:
War and Party Politics.
Australia and New Zealand have had general elections since the war broke out, and some of our Canadian papers are pointing to these as illustrating the fact that domestic politics do not need to be suppressed in war time. Would it not be better to look to the view of both parties in the Mother Country? When the Imperial Parliament met in November, " This '>
said Premier Asquith, " is not a proper time foi dealing with any matter of domestic politics," and the view he thus expressed was taken willingly by both sides. Practically the whole attention of the House was devoted to the war and matters arising out of the war. A fine example of the surrender of party to patriotism was given by Mr. Austen Chamberlain when, with the approval of the leader of the Opposition, he accepted Mr. Lloyd George's invitation to co-operate with him in making the Budget proposals as workmanlike as possible. These proposals were not such as he himself would have submitted, but once they were laid before the House he consented with-53$
out prejudice to his own views, to resume the Treasury consultations which proved so useful at the outbreak of the war. By this proceeding the path of the Finance Bill was set free from difficulties which might have hindered its progress.
Mr. Bonar Law held as an exception that every member and every newspaper had a right to attack any member of the government who might be doing his work inefficiently. And nobody questioned that.
I commend these words to the attention of the House. You will see that in Great Britain the Opposition were consulted by the Government as to their financial proposals. This is a matter of record and of history. I might go further than this newspaper goes and say that at all stages of the war, from the first to the present day, the Opposition have been kept in constant consultation by the powers that be; they were consulted as to military operations, and at every step were asked to give their advice. It was not so in this country. We were not consulted. If we had been honoured in the same way-not that I claim anything in that respect, but representing here a great party comprising almost half of the population, having views of their own on many of the financial problems which now confront us, claiming to be as patriotic as the other side, and claiming to have done their duty as amply as was in their power-I say that, if we had been ' consulted, we should have been happy to give our views as to the policy to be pursued. I do not say that our views would have been accepted; but certainly there would have been an effort on my part at all events to give way on some of my own views, and I might have felt it right to ask the other side to give way on some of their views also, so that we might have been unanimous in policy as we have been unanimous in the objects which policy is to serve. But we were not consulted. I do not complain of this; I have no right to complain. But my hon. friend the Finance Minister has no right to complain either if to-day we have to take issue with him, and take issure sharply, upon the resolutions which he has laid before the House.
In his opening speech in presenting these resolutions to the House, my hon. friend laid the financial situation of the country before us, and everybody admits that that situation is a serious one. He told us that for the year which is to close on the 31st of this month he expects a revenue of $130,000,000 and an expenditure of $140,000,000, leaving a deficit of $10,000,000 upon consolidated fund account. Besides this,

there is $50,000,000 of expenditure on capital account and $50,000,000 of war expenditure, making a discrepancy, a chasm, between revenue and expenditure of $110,000,000. The situation for next year is still more serious. The hon. gentleman tells us that for next year he .does not expect a revenue of $130,000,000, but of $120,000,000 only, while he expects a total expenditure of $200,000,000, leaving a deficit of $80,000,000. This is exclusive of war expenditure, and when that is added there will be a deficit of $180,000,000 between revenue and expenditure for the year. This is a serious situation, a situation the gravity of which we cannot dispute. The figures would be staggering but for the enormous resources of Canada. They do not stagger me. But I do not hesitate to say that the situation is such that there is danger that Canada will be seriously hampered unless that situation is very carefully handled.
Now, my hon friend has a policy to meet the situation; and what is it? As to the war expenditure, he has been very lucky; he has had the good fortune to have opened for him the Imperial Treasury. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told him that he will provide all the money required for the war. So far as war expenditure is concerned, therefore, the hon. gentleman is free from anxiety; he has only to provide for the other expenditures. But the domestic situation is almost as serious as the other. And as to that domestic situation, the only policy the hon. gentleman has to offer is additional borrowing and additional taxation, a double method which, he will admit, is neither novel nor ingenious. There was another method called to Ills attention by my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) when he opened the debate on this side, a method which, I am sure, must have suggested itself to him more than once, a method which, if he had adopted it, would have saved him a tremendous amount of worry and anxiety. This method, however, some evil genius prevented him from accepting-the method ot economy and retrenchment. The hon gentleman, perhaps, has not yet perceived, though I almost think he must have perceived it, that economy and retrenchment are words not to be found in the vocabulary of the party with which he has cast his fortune.
The hon. gentleman had ample warning of the situation which was coming upon him. He has a very serious task before

him, and I sympathize deeply with him in his efforts to meet it. But while, as I repeat, he has had due warning of what was coming, I fail to see any precaution he has taken to meet the difficulty. The prudent mariner when he sees the clouds gathering upon the horizon, at once prepares his ship to meet the danger. He slackens speed, lowers his fires, and keeps his power well in hand. It would have been well had my hon. friend considered that example and prepared accordingly. But be did nothing of the kind. He did not slacken speed, nor did he lower his fires. On the contrary, he threw more coal into the furnace until the supply was exhausted; and when the storm struck his craft he was left pounding helplessly, and helplessly drifting. Is this an exaggerated statement ? Is this an unfair presentation of the case ?
Let me ask, what has been the attitude of my hon. friend since he took office r He took office in October, 1911. In that year we spent on consolidated revenue account something like $98,000,000. He will tell me-and I agree at once-that for this expenditure he is not alone responsible, that he simply spent upon the basis of the Estimates which had been prepared by his predecessor, Mr. Fielding. Then, take the year following: Instead of $98,000,000, he spent $112,000,000, an increase of $14,000,000. In the year after that he increased the expenditure to $127,000,000, an increase over his first year of $29,000,000. And for the present year, he tells us, he expects to spend $140,000,000, or $42,000,000 over the expenditure of 1912. Thus in three years he spent in excess of what would have been spent in three such years as that in which he took office, the sum of $85,000,000.	How happy he would be
if he had been more careful and if he had this $85,000,000 to-day in the treasury to face the situation in which he	now finds himself.
But he has not. Has my hon. friend been made wiser by his experience in the matter of expenditure? Coming to Parliament with announcements of more taxes and more bor rowings, can he claim that in his contemplated expenditure for the coming fiscal year he is as economical as he ought to be? Can he say with justification that he could not have applied the pruning knife to the Estimates instead of resorting to increased taxation? In 1912 my hon. friend spent $98,000,000 on consolidated account; this year he proposes to spend $105,000,000 or

$7,000,000 more that he spent in 1912, and he proposes to spend on capital account something like $44,000,000. Would it not have been possible for my hon. friend to have cut down those large figures? In view of the stress under which we are labouring at the present time, in view of the necessity of providing money for war purposes, in the face of a huge deficit, does my hon. friend belieye that he is justified in making these large demands upon the country? Would it not have been better for him to have gone hack to the expenditure of 1912?
It has been stated by almost every hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who has taken part in this debate that we must have large expenditures on public works. I have no objection to expenditures on public works; I quite approve of expenditures on such revenue-producing works as are needed for the development of the country. But are these the kind of public works my hon. friend has in contemplation? It is true that some of them belong to this class. I approve of expenditures upon canals, upon railways, upon works which will give employment to many persons who are now unemployed. But I ask the attention of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House to the fact that there is in the Estimates, to be provided for out of consolidated revenue fund, a contemplated expenditure upon public works of $22,000,000. This amount, which is made up of more than 600 different items, is to be expended upon small works, such as public buildings, post offices, postal stations, armouries, barracks, drill halls, and things of that kind in various parts of the Dominion. Unemployment does not exist in the rural parts of the country, and the expenditure of this $22,000,000 will give no relief to present conditions of unemployment. Would it not have been possible for my hon. friend to have applied his pruning knife and to have cut off a good deal of this expenditure? If I were in the position which I occupied at one time, if I had upon my own shoulders the responsibility of determining these matters,! would have decided that under the existing circumstances, no such expenditures as these should be made during the present year. I admit that some of these works may be useful; but the greater number of them are purely ornamental and all can be postponed. If we had such abundant revenues as we had some years ago, these expenditures might be indulged in; but in these times of stress I think that it would have been better policy to have said:
We will cut off all but what is indispensable so that we shall not have to resort to taxation which in view of the prevailing conditions must be doubly oppressive. Whether or not the war is considered, everybody agrees that the financial situation of the country at the present time is serious. Hundreds and thousands of men in all the large cities of Canada are begging for work and cannot get it; distress prevails in all those communities. Is this a time, I ask, to make these large expenditures? I submit, with all deference to the judgment of the free people, that economy and retrenchment, not more taxation and more expenditure, is the proper policy under present conditions. But my hon. friend the Minister of Finance takes another course. Ignoring retrenchment and economy, he goes on spending money as in the .days of plenty. Instead of retrenchment, he proposes new taxation; that is the chief feature of the resolution which he lays before us. In regard to my hon. friend's resolution I have this to say to him:	in my
estimation, although labelled war expenditures and war taxation, these taxes and expenditures are not war measures at all; the object of this resolution is simply to benefit the privileged and protected classes.
The resolution which my hon. friend has brought down may be divided under three heads: first, special taxes; second, a general increase in the customs tariff; third, an increase on British goods. Let me consider in consecutive order these three phases of his proposals.
First, the special taxes. My hon. friend has been extremely moderate in his tax of one per cent upon banks, loan companies, trust companies and some insurance companies-he has not taxed all insurance companies I do not know why; perhaps we shall find out later. These powerful corporations will have reason to believe that they have a friend at court-I should say a friend not at court, but in the very seat of power. [DOT]The pin prick with which he merely scratches their epidermis will cause them no hurt at all; it will simply create in them a feeling of pleasant surprise that they have been let off so easily. The increase in postage, in one case of 33 per cent, in the other of 50 per cent, is in my humble judgment, a very doubtful experiment; I doubt if my hon. friend will get much revenue from that source. In 1896 the Finance Minister of that day (Sir Geo. Foster), in his Budget speech, made this statement:
There is now a deficit of nearly $800,000 between the total receipts and the total expendi-


lure of our post office service, and this, I fear, makes, the time somewhat distant when what otherwise mig-ht be fairly asked for can be granted: that is, a reduction of postage rates in this country.
That is the view which was taken at that time by the Minister of Finance-a man of ability, as everybody knows-but he had not the courage which was manifested by some other men who came after. Four or five years afterwards the Postmaster General
-us my colleague, Sir William Mulock. I te took the position that by reducing the rates of postage he would increase the revenue to such an extent as to wipe out the deficit which existed in the Post Office Department.
After a slight decrease in the first year the revenues immediately became buoyant and have been increasing ever since; so that today the surplus is larger than was the deficit in 1896. Does my hon. friend expect that, by increasing the tariff as he proposes, he is going to benefit the treasury to any extent? It is doubtful, I repeat, and time, and time alone, will tell.
As to the other items included in the special taxes, I have nothing to add to what has been said by my colleagues who have already spoken. But there is one item to which I would call the special attention of the House, and to which 1 take absolute objection; that is, the taxation upon railway travelling. In my judgment, the taxation in that respect is absolutely unfair to the poorer people, and wholly to the benefit and advantage of the rich. My hon. friend lias placed upon railway travelling what, -he calls a horizontal tax. He provides that every purchaser of a ticket costing over one dollar and not more than five dollars shall pay an additional five cents; and on a ticket costing over five dollars-for each five dollars and, in addition, for any fractional part of fi^ dollars, he shall pay five cents. Further, he provides that every purchaser of a berth in a sleeping car or a seat in a parlour car shall, in addition to the regular charge for the berth or seat, pay ten cents in respect of each berth bought, and five cents in respect of each seat bought. I say that the basis of this taxation is absolutely wrong. There are three classes of railway fares in this country:	second-class, first-class, and
parlour car. The taxation upon railway travelling should have been graduated so that the burden would fall the lowest
4 p.m. upon the second-class traveller, and the highest on the user of the parlor car; so that this tax would
[Sir Wilfrid Laurier.J
weigh less heavily upon the poor, and would weigh more heavily upon those who best can afford it. Let us suppose this tax has come into force. Here are two men going to the railway station to buy tickets say to Montreal. One of the men belongs to the working class. He may be out of employemnt, a man who has lost his job in Ottawa and is trying to better his fortunes by going elsewhere. He has carefully calculated [DOT] the price of a second-class ticket. He has his thumb' upon it, when he is told that his ticket will not carry him over the railway unless he pays an additional five cents. He fumbles in his pocket. He may or may not find the five cents. If he has not, he has to give up his trip. If he finds five cents, he has to give up some luxury, nay, some necessary of life. The other man belongs' to the wealthy class, and we have many of the wealthy class in this country, thank God. This man may be a young swell, the scion of wealthy parents, who never yet earned an honest dollar in his life, and who thinks no more of the price of the ticket than of the stump of his cigar. Or he may be an old gentleman who has retired from business after having made his pile. To him the railway ticket is not even a consideration. Or he may be a professional man deriving a large revenue from his profession, so absorbed in it that he has not even a thought to give to any such consideration as weighs upon the mind of the first traveller. He may be one of this class or one of many more. Whoever he may be, he thinks so little of the payment of his first-class ticket that when he has it he does not even enter the ear for which he has paid the price. He forthwith buys another ticket which gives him a seat in the parlour car, one of those palaces on wheels upon which modern art has lavished all the luxury of the age. He goes into the car and falls into a seat covered with velvet. If the seat is not soft enough for his limbs, he is propped up with pillows and cushions by coloured attendants. The Queen of Sheba dazzling the Orient, even the Orient, with the splendour and gorgeousness of her retinue and equipage, was not surrounded with such luxury as this modern epicure. And for that luxury a benevolent Government taxes him the sum of only five cents. I ask my hon. friend and hon. gentlemen opposite whether that policy is right; whether they do not agree with me that this tariff was made, not for the poorer classes, but for the benefit of the wealthy classes. If it is true that the poor widow who out of her want put two mites in the treasury of the temple gave

more in the sight of God than the rich man who gave much of his abundance, it is just as true that in the sight of that just God the poor man is wronged who out of his want is taxed just as much as the rich man out of all nis wealth. I say to my hon. friend that his whole conception of the basis of this taxation is wrong, and I hope that on reflection he will agree with me. When you have poverty as you have it at this moment, when you have want as you have it at this moment, it is not fair that the same degree of taxation should be placed upon the poorer classes as upon the wealthy classes. My hon. friend does not seem to havb given any heed to this consideration, and it is my duty to call it to the attention of the House, and to ask my hon. friend to revise this resolution when the proper times comes.
I now come to the other resolution dealing with the increase of the Custom tariff. My hon. friend has told us that his primary object was to raise revenue. Does he call this a war tariff? Does he pretend that when he made that increase he had in view the revenue of the country-that his primary object was to raise revenue? If my hon. friend had had for his primary consideration the raising of revenue, he would have made not a horizontal but an undulating tariff, so as to weigh less or more according to circumstances. If my hon. friend had had in view simply the raising of revenue, and not, as I said a moment ago, the idea of benefiting the privileged and wealthy and protected classes, he would have selected some articles on which he could have raised a maximum of revenue with a minimum of inconvenience and loss. But he has not done that. He is raising his revenue in such a way that he must and will have a minimum of revenue with a maximum of inconvenience and loss to the community. My hon. friend says that we have to provide for the war, and he gives this tariff as a painful necessity of that war. He says that the ordinary revenues of the country will not suffice, and that he must look elsewhere. If that is the object he had in view, I ask him why he put his tariff upon articles which we do not import? What revenue does he expect from articles which we do not import at all? He knows very well that that will give him nothing at all. Yvhat is his object, then? Sir, we are living in hard times. Unemployment is only too prevalent; at this moment there are in every community men to whom the providing of the daily bread is an arduous problem. That is the consideration which my hon. friend should have had first of all. ./hat revenue
does he expect from the articles which go upon the tables of all classes, especially upon the table of the poor? These articles are not imported into this country, and therefore the tariff on them will not produce revenue. I ask my hon. friend what revenue he expects from the duty on meats, or cereals, or things of that kind. He knows very well that the revenue from these sources will not fill the hollow of his hand. But it is possible for speculators to speculate upon the prices, in order to make wealth for themselves at the expense of poor people. That is what is going on, and my hon. friend has never seen it. He has made his tariff universal. It will profit somebody, but it will not be the treasury of the country that will profit by it. Still, to this there are some exceptions, and these exceptions only prove the rule. My hon. friend has exempted wheat and flour. I do not blame him for it; on the contrary, I quite approve. He did not give us the reason why he did it. He was wise in this; better no explanation at $11 than a poor excuse. But the reason is very obvious:	my hon. friend would not dare
to take upon himself at such a time as we are now confronted with to put additional taxes upon the bread of the people. He shrank from it, and we approve of bis doing so; but I ask him, if he shrank from placing a duty on wheat and flour, would not a parity of reasoning have forced him [DOT] also to exempt all other classes of food? He did not think it.
There is another item in the tariff as to which, for my part, I would like to have some explanation. My hon. friend has made a general increase which places an increased customs duty upon spirituous liquors of all kinds. I would have expected that he would have done what has always been done under such circumstances, imposed a corresponding excise duty. He did not. In the month of August, when he increased the customs duty upon spirituous liquors, he also put a corresponding excise duty on liquor. This time he did not; and what is the reason? If there is an article which ought to be taxed, which has always been taxed undeT all systems of taxation, it is wines and spirituous liquors. But he did not see fit to impose an excise duty. I am told and I understand that at present there is a financial advantage to the distillers of the country in that item. They have to their advantage 7J per cent upon what they produce, which I understand means 25 cents per gallon upon the total

production of the country. I make this statement with some diffidence, because I have not had time to look carefully into it myself; but I have it on good authority that the duty, ad valorem, will produce at least 25 cents per gallon, and, if there is no corresponding excise duty, an immense advantage accrues to the distiller, because the production exceeds 9,000,000 gallons, and that would mean something like $2,000,000 more of profit. That is the situation that we have before us. I charge against my hon. friend that upon this point the principle on which he has acted is altogether wrong, and that the whole thing is unacceptable to the intelligence of the people.
But that is not all. This tariff, says my hon. friend, is a war tariff intended to help England in the most stupendous struggle in which a nation ever was engaged; yet, would you believe it, the last feature of this tariff is to put an additional duty upon British goods and give a blow to British trade. Only a few weeks ago my hon. friend approached the British Government to help him in his difficulty; only a few weeks ago he applied to the British treasury for a loan to help him carry on the affairs of this country and to discharge the obligations with which he is confronted; and, having been relieved of his obligations, my hon. friend returns a blow which, I am sure, never was expected by the British Government when he applied to them for the loan which he obtained. It was only a few weeks or months ago that Mr. Lloyd George, speaking of the situation in which England was placed^ stated that in the last resort the battle would be won not by the armies in the field but by silver bullets. And everything that has taken place since goes to show that the judgment of Mr. Lloyd George at that time was well founded. The powerful armies which have been fighting with one another for the last six months with varying success and with no marked result on one side or the other, may continue to do so with little progress. Already it is apparent that this war is to be a war of attrition, that the power will win-shall win-whose resources will enable it to withstand the struggle the longest. Germany understands that to-day. Germany, having [DOT]failed to crush France, having failed to crush Russia, understands that if she wins at all it can only be in one way, and that is by ruining the trade of Great Britain. If she can ruin the trade of Great Britain she can hope for success; but unless she is able to 
dislocate the trade of Great Britain, her hope of success is gone. Therefore Germany has adopted new tactics, and one of her tactics is to destroy the trade of Great Britain. She has surrounded the British Isles with a cordon of submarines with instructions to pounce upon every ship that comes in or goes out. To-day we learn that three ships have been sunk in that way. On top of all this, all the trade that may escape the submarines and reach its destination in Canada will fall under the taxing machine of the Canadian Government. Is this what we had reason to expect? Is this the policy which my hon. friends ought to have adopted under such circumstances as those with which we are now confronted? When the policy of decreasing the duties on British goods was adopted in 1897, it was adopted as a bond of union as well as an economic measure, and everybody will agree that it has been reasonably successful. It has increased our trade with Great Britain in such a way as we never expected it would; it has more than trebled our imports; it has more than quadrupled our exports; and under it Canada has been prosperous as she never was before at any time in her history.
I am well aware that this policy never was popular with a certain large section of the Conservative party. They never dared attack it openly; they waited for their opportunity, and England's danger they ' made their opportunity. If we were not in war times, if we were living now in times of peace, I would remind these gentlemm opposite that that policy contributed in no small degree to the era of prosperity which it was the good fortune of the Liberal party, under Providence, to bring to this country. I would remind them that four years ago, when we wanted, not to let well enough alone, but to make well enough better than it was, when we wanted 'to improve our trade relations with our neighbours in the United States, one of the arguments of our opponents was that freer trade with the United States meant the prevention of freer trade with Great Britain. I would remind them that there are only two countries with which we trade to any great extent Great Britain and the United States; and I would call the attention of the House to the strange conduct of the victorious party who four years ago would not let us sell to the United States and who this year will not let us buy from Great Britain.
But these are war times, and it is not the occasion to discuss economic probh ms.

Great Britain is at war, Canada is at war, and when Great Britain is at war and when Canada is at war, to attempt to curtail the trade between Canada and Great Britain :s not a Canadian idea; it is at best a German conception:	When Parliament met on the
4th of February last we were prepared to go far with our friends on the other side of the House in these strenuous times; we were prepared to give up a good many of our own ideas in order to meet them; we were prepared to make sacrifices in order to have unanimity of opinion; but we were not prepared to go that far, and that far we shall not go. To-day, therefore, we have to part company with them, and for these reasons I move, seconded by Dr. Pugsley:
That Mr. Speaker do not now leave the Chair, but that it be resolved :	,
This House is ready to provide for the exigencies of the present situation and to vote all necessary ways and means to that end, but it regrets that in the measure under consideration duties are imposed which must be oppressive upon the people whilst yielding little or no revenue, and that the said measure is particularly objectionable in the fact that instead of favouring, it is placing extra barriers against Great Britain's trade with Canada, at a moment when the Mother Country is under a war strain unparalleled in history.


Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the amendment proposed by the right horn the leader of the Opposition, and the more salient features of the criticism directed by the junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) against the Budget. But before entering upon my argument I desire to call attention to a remark made by the leader of the Opposition to the effect that we need not complain if he takes issue with us upon this Budget.' I desire to say to my right hon. friend that we do not complain. We welcome the issue that my right hon. friend presents upon this Budget or any other issue he may desire to bring forward. We ask no indulgence except that indulgence which is the courtesy passing between members on both sides of this House and between Government and Opposition. Let me say to the right hon. gentleman distinctly that we have no complaint; we are prepared to meet fairly and squarely the issue which he has presented to us.
And, Sir, what was the substance and the gist of the attack made by the junior member for Halifax, the financial critic of the Opposition, against the Budget which I had tlie honour to present to the House? He said:	You have been extravagant in the
expenditure of public moneys; the war is
not the cause of your financial condition; that additional measures of taxation were unnecessary; you should retrench expenditure and establish an equilibrium between income and outgo. He said further I desire to state his case as strongly as he would state it himself-that our fiscal proposals were unscientific and inequitable and that the British preferential rate should not have been raised. My right hon. friend to-day associated himself with that line of argument, and indeed so have all other members on that side of the House who have spoken since the junior member for Halifax addressed the House.
My hon. friend seemed to be quite at home when dealing with the topic of extravagance, and well he might. The Administration of which my right hon. friend was the head, and of which my hon. friend from Halifax was a strong supporter and almost a member, with the most intimate knowledge of its counsels, ran such a career of unbridled extravagance-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


William Thomas White: Yes, unbridled extravagance, especially during the late years of its existence as a government, that its continuation for any considerable length of time would have ruined beyond redemption, during the present generation, the credit of this Dominion.
I speak with a full realization of the gravity and seriousness of the charge that I am launching against the late Government. No man has had a greater opportunity of realizing that extravagance than I have, because upon my shoulders has fallen, in consequence of that policy of uncontrolled prodigality, of utter wastefulness and of reckless extravagance, a heavier load than has rested on the shoulders of any Minister of Finance since Confederation. I am not complaining. I am not the man to complain. I have always been able to see my way through. I saw my way through in the year 1913, when, in the midst of that great financial stringency brought about by the Balkan war and by the shadow of this great war cast before, I was struggling with the consequences of the ruinous railway policy launched by hon. gentlemen- opposite. In the midst of this war, which is not only the greatest war in the history of the world, but greater, as I said the other day, than the aggregate of all wars of all history. I see my way through, just as I saw it through in August last, when the outbreak of this tremendous struggle threatened to over-


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: And purchase
them at par.


William Thomas White: And, as my right hon.
friend suggests, I had to purchase them at par. In connection with the implementing bungling and other bungling of the late Administration, I had to find no less a sum than $40,000,000, at a time when the markets of the world showed greater stringency, than at any time, I suppose, in the lifetime of any one here. Yet hon, gentlemen get up and talk to me about the " rich legacy" I had, about the " solvent estate that was handed over to me. And they call me " the prodigal son " because I had to take care of these obligations which they had incurred. Talk about large families! If obligations were children, my right hon. friend would truly, like George Washington, be tlie father of his country.
Let me ask my right hon. friend who has made an attack upon me to-day-and I must say I was surprised at its demagogic character; it did not seem to me to be quite in keeping with his ability as a statesman

and parliamentarian-let me ask him, who bungled the Quebec bridge? Who let the contracts for the eastern division of the National Transcontinental? Does he say that we should repudiate these contracts entered into by his Administration? For that is what is implied in the criticism of hon. gentlemen opposite. At least $25,000,000 or $30,000,000 will be required before the Quebec bridge is completed-I mean the total expenditure. Who conceived it? At whose instance was the work commenced and the contracts let? Am I blamable because I was oblieed to find money for all these purposes, for the purposes of these huge enterprises undertaken, some of them most unwisely, by hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in power?
Now, let me say this to my right hon. friend-and I say it because I want him to remember it and the people of Canada to know it: upon four accounts alone during the last four years $125,000,000 had to be found for works undertaken during the incumbency iD office o\ my right hon. friend. That is greater than the entire revenue of Canada in the year preceding that in which we took office. So that, if he is basing his criticism of me upon revenue as well as expenditure of the year before we came into office, he must write off the revenue for one year.
So much for direct liabilities. But what about indirect liabilities? What about guarantees? Who initiated the policy of guarantees in this country? My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. $125,000,000 were given in guarantees by his Government; $70,000,000 to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and, I think, about $55,000,000 to the Canadian Northern Railway. Through the action of my right hon, friend these companies became involved with the credit not only of the Dominion but necessarily of the provinces as well, and the result is that we have been obliged to take the action for which we have been most severely criticised by hon. gentlemen opposite and in some places throughout the country. We have inherited not a rich legacy, but obligations such as have devolved upon no Government that ever held office in Canada; obligations for which we are not in the slightest degree responsible. These facts cannot be controverted; I defy any hon. gentleman to get up and say that I did not have to find the money which, as I have stated, I have been obliged to find. With what face does the hon. member for Halifax charge this Government with ex-

travagance! When the charge of extravagance is passed from this side of the House to the other side, there is only one course for hon. gentlemen opposite to adopt, and that is to put up the white flag and throw up both hands, because no possible defence is open to them on the facts.
The hon. member for Halifax said:
There never was the slightest effort on the part of this Government to establish an equilibrium between income and outgo.
What are the facts? My hon. friend had absolutely no justification for that statement; he knew better. In 1912-13, the year after we took office, we had the largest surplus in the history of this country. I have not changed the methods of bookkeeping which prevailed under my predecessor-that cannot be controverted-and up to this year we have had to our credit as a Government the largest surpluses in Canada's history. Can the hon. gentleman say that we have not established an equilibrium between income and outgo when we reduced in 1912-13 the national debt of Canada by not less than $25,000,000? I want to say this to the hon. member for Halifax and to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. On March 31, 1914, less than one year ago, the net debt of Canada was less than it was when this Government took office. Let me talk to my right hon. friend about debt. He has probably never been in debt, because he has no appreciation of what it means. He never had any appreciation of the meaning of debt when he was in office, and he needs some education in that respect even now. My hon. friend cannot get away from these figures, because they are official. From September 30, 1911, about the date we took office, to July 31, 1914, the end of the month preceding the outbreak of the war, the increase in the debt of Canada was only $8,000,000. That was under Conservative administration. But for the period of two years and nine months preceding September 30, 1911, the Liberals, under my right hon. friend the present leader of the' Opposition, increased the net national debt of Canada by	$70,000,000-nine
times the amount of the increase- during the same period under Conservative administration. And, forsooth, we are extravagant. Well, I think that from this forward we shall not hear very much about extravagance from hon. gentlemen opposite. What is proposed by my hon. friend the member for Halifax? He says, drop public works. Then the hon. member for the city of St. John, coming along to conduct a sprt

of salvage operation to pull my hon. friend the hon. member for Halifax off the rocks, says: Let us stop in the Pickwickian sense; in other words, let us slow down.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Not a bad idea.
Mr.^ WHITE: If my hon. friend does not mind, I will give him a little attention later; there is something coming to him, just as there is to the hon. member for Halifax. This is what the hon. member for St. John, quoting the hon. member for Halifax, said:
They might have wiped out altogether expenditures tor public works for the next fiscal year.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: That is not fair. Read my statement.


William Thomas White: I am quoting from the remarks of the hon. member for St. John. Let me ask the hon. member for Halifax this: What did he mean when he said, "Establish an equilibrium between income and outgo"? If he did not mean that we should cut out $60,000,000 of public works expenditure, I would like to know what he did mean. I estimated a revenue of $120,000,000 and an expenditure of $180,000,000 on consolidated revenue fund and capital account. If he says, as he did, that we should establish an equilibrium between income and outgo, that means that we must cut out $60,000,000. The real fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Halifax said a great number of things; he was hedging in the matter.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: All I ask the Minister of Finance to do when criticising my remarks about public works expenditure on consolidated revenue account is to quote me fairly and correctly.


William Thomas White: I am trying to quote my
hon. friend's remarks fairly. I understood him distinctly to say-and if I am wrong it is open to him or to any other hon. member to correct me

that the remedy was to stop public works. The hon. member for St. John, as I say, was engaged in salvage operations; he was stirred to his depths by the proposal that public works should stop. Let us see what he said. I have it here; it is one of the finest passages in parliamentary history, if not in all literature. He says, quoting the hon. member for Halifax:
They might have wiped out altogether expenditures for public works for the next fiscal year.
Then he adds this immortal touch, so far as literature is concerned: " That is, if need be."


William Pugsley: That was a good word.


William Thomas White: What policy did I announce in regard to public works? In my August Budget and in the present Budget I said that there were no new items in the Estimates, that as to public works we should proceed only as the sources of revenue from which expenditure might be defrayed were apparent. I met the situation. My Estimates of last year were $210,000,000. The Estimates I have presented to the House for the coming year are, according to my Budget, in the neighbourhood of $190,000000; as compared with $210,000,000 last year. Let no man say that we are not trying to meet the situation. But we are not going to lose our heads. We are not going to destroy this country. My right hon. friend, too, and I am surprised at him, is evidently in favour of stopping public works. I want to recall to my right hon. friend,for probably he has forgotten it, just how strongly public works weighed on his mind years ago, just what importance he has in the past attached to the subject of expenditure on public works. I do not know anything that could have been closer to his heart. For what did my right hon. friend say at the Imperial Conference in 1907, on a motion by Dr. Smartt in which it was set out by way of resolution:
That this Conference-considers it to be'the duty of the dominions beyond the seas to make such contribution towards the upkeep of the navy as may be determined by their local ilegislaturesi-
That is, by this Parliament and other parliaments.
-the contribution to take the form of a grant of money, the establishment of local naval defence, or such other services, in such manner as may be decided upon after consultation with the Admiralty.
What did my right hon. friend say upon that occasion? He said:
1 am sorry to say, so far as Canada is concerned, we cannot agree to the resolution. .
. We have too much to do otherwise; in the Mother Country, you must remember, they have no expenses to incur with regard to public works.
Public works weighed so much on the mind of my right hon. friend at that time! They weighed more heavily on his mind than the supreme question of contribution to the defence of the Empire. He said:
Whereas in most of the colonies, certainly in Canada, we have to tax ourselves to the utmost of our resources-
And here he is to-day complaining about taxes!

-in the development of our country, we could not contribute or undertake to do more than we are doing In that way. For my part, if the motion were pressed to a conclusion, I should have to vote against it.
That is the importance and the weight my right hon. friend attached in 1907 to the question of expenditure on public works. He put it even before the matter of contribution to the defence of the Empire. In view of what my right hon. friend said in 1907 and thinks to-day, unless-his views have materially changed since, I would ask him what his choice would be to-day if he had to choose between shutting down public works under contract in this country, and bringing down a $100,000,000 Bill, representing what we propose to expend in the defence of the Empire?


Mr. BRADBURY:: Public works.


William Thomas White: I do not say what his choice would be. I asked that question.
And now I come to the genial and urbane member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). I was afraid he might be thinking I had overlooked him, but no one can overlook him in this House. The other night I was impressed by a word that my hon. friend used. He does not often use it; it is a word that we would hardly associate with the hon. gentleman, although we hold him in very high esteem and regard. It was the word "sacrifice." He said, in substance, that the Hon. Mr. Fielding, when Finance Minister, had come to him in 1908 when the financial stringency was on, and said:	"Really,
you must cut down your Estimates." And the hon. member for St. John tells us that he cut them down fifty or sixty per cent. It seems strange that the hon. member for St. John should so willingly cut down his Estimates.


William Pugsley: A very sensible thing to do.


William Thomas White: We shall see how sensible it was. I always finish stronger than I begin. This was a case of such conspicuous, such unusual, such extraordinary sacrifice on the part of my hon. friend the exMinister of Public Works, knowing his predilection for public works as I did, that I looked this matter up, and this is what 1 found-too bad all these figures are on record. In 1906 the Estimates were $14,000,000. In 1907, for nine months, $10,000,000, which is about $13;000,000 for the whole year; and in 1908, after my hon. friend had made the sacrifice, $15,000,000. What a sacrifice was that, my countrymen! And what a job he was putting upon the Minister of Finance if he presented Esti-

mates for double that amount, that is, $30,000,000, as compared with $13,000,000 the previous year. Of course he could afford to cut them down. He probably put the $30,000,000 in so that he could cut it down to $15,000,000, and still be considered in excess of the previous year. What year was that? An election year, 1908. It seems passing strange that the ex-Minister of Public Works should in such a year, an election year, say just as a matter of course: " Oh, well, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has just cut mine down fifty or even sixty per cent; but it is a sacrifice which I am glad to make at this time."
Now, then, have we heard enough on the question of extravagance, that charge put forward against this Government? I say, Mr. Speaker, that the late Government were inventors, originators, parents, progenitors and propagators of the most inordinate, reckless, purblind and wilful extravagance that this country or any other British country has ever known. And the figures I have given and the statements I have made prove it. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) put forward a most extraordinary assertion, and this time I will quote it. This is the statement he made in criticism of the Budget, and this is the second heading that I shall deal with:
I am of the opinion that our customs revenue will be found to have fallen but little as the result of the war. ... I personally do not believe our loss in revenue is in any substantial degree attributable to the war.
That was a most extraordinary statement for the financial critic of the Opposition to make. I said the other night, and I desire to say it now as a foundation for the observations I propose to make, that there are certain things in this House that are taken as presumed; and one of them is the personal loyalty of every man in this House. If I have to say that my hon. friend from Halifax is not or was not aware of the effect of this war upon the trade of the world, that he has no adequate realization of its consequences, I do not desire to be taken as in any way reflecting upon his loyalty, because the two ideas are not in the least connected. It is not necessary that I should explain that to a man of the intelligence of my hon. friend from Halifax.
Let me point out to this House what was the situation created by this war not only in this country but in other countries. Stock exchanges of the world closed, trade cut off at once, automatically, with all enemy countries, international exchange absolutely collapsed, no transactions inter-

nationally possible financially and few commercially because the German raiders were threatening the commerce of the seas, finance and commerce all over the world almost prostrate, freights increased, risks of shipping so great that ship owners would not hazard ocean trips ! Yet my hon. friend from Halifax says that in his opinion it ought to have had no appreciable effect upon our customs receipts. I pointed out in my Budget speech that this Dominion had been borrowing no less a sum than $1,000,000 a day up to the time of the outbreak of the war. That borrowing was cut through as with a sword. How did we bring in the million dollars a day that we borrowed? My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) is an economist of repute and even of renown. I ask him: how did we bring in the million dollars a day that we borrowed? Did we bring it in in gold? My hon. friend from Red Deer will be able to explain to the House that you could not bring it in in the form of gold. Great Britain would never part with a million dollars a day in gold. When we borrow in Great Britain we really import our borrowings; they may not come from Great Britain, they may come from some other country. In the past we have been importing from Great Britain and the United States but the million dollars a day that we borrowed from Great Britain came in in the form of imports. How do I raise my customs revenue? From imports. My hon. friend's proposition is that you can cut off borrowings of a million dollars a day, and cut off imports representing a million dollars a day, and yet there will be no effect upon your revenue. A million dollars a day represents $300,000,000 and more per year and my hon. friend says that it will have no effect whatever upon the customs revenue of the Dominion. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is an affront to the intelligence of this House to argue that the war has had no effect upon the revenue of Canada. That cessation of borrowing at once diminished building operations throughout this whole country. Buildings that were under way, railway construction that was projected, stopped instanter. Why? -because the funds were not forthcoming. Moratory legislation in London prevented for months the payment of even the funds which have been provided for in advance. Yet my hon. friend says that it ought to have no effect upon the revenues of the country. My hon. friend pays an unintended compliment to this Government if he asserts that Canada is the sole exception in all this world and that the war on the gigantic scale upon which it has been waged has not had any appreciable effect upon the imports of this country. Let me give my hon. friend a few figures and
I	shall use figures very sparingly. These are official figures and they are not open to contradiction. Take the foreign trade of the United Kingdom; there was a decrease in imports in July last of 3.9 per cent. In June it had been only .1 per cent. In August, such was the effect of the war, that the imports of the United Kingdom dropped 24.3 per cent; in September 26.6 per cent; in October 28.1 per cent and in November 18.2 per cent.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that as compared with the previous year?


William Thomas White: As compared with the previous year, showing that the imports of the United Kingdom, which had begun to drop by July, decreased 24, 26 and 28 per cent for the months succeeding the outbreak of the war and the argument is that the war has had no effect upon Canadian imports. Take the United States, the great Republic to the south of us, and what is the position there? Why, the position is very similar. There had	been	an	increase in UnitedStates imports to the end of July. In the months of March, April, May, June and	July the	increases
in the imports were 17.6 per cent, 18.9 per cent, 22.8 per cent, 20 per cent and 14.8 percent. Then what happened? Then came the war, and when I stated the other night that the war came along, arguing that it had had a definite effect upon this country's trade, I was met with a burst of laughter. The returns of the United States show that up to the month of July there had been an increase in imports from abroad. In August there was a 5.7 per cent decrease, in September an 18.1 per cent decrease, in October a 3.6 per cent increase, in November
14.7	per cent decrease and in December a
37.7	per cent decrease. The same is true of Australia and I have the record in my hand.


Robert Laird Borden: Give the figures for Australia.


William Thomas White: I do not want to weary the House. The returns for Australia for the months of March, April, May, June and July showed an increase of 17-3 per cent, 4 per cent, 15-4 per cent, 2-9 per cent, and
II	-9 per cent respectively. Then what happened when the war broke out ? In August there was a decrease of 4-5 per cent; Sep-

tember a decrease of 30 -5 per cent, and in October a decrease of 28-3 per cent. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite tell me that the war has had no effect upon the revenues of this country. The sole exception in all the world is Canada ! What a compliment-an unintentional compliment-to this Government that could bring about such a modern miracle !


William Pugsley: It is not a compliment to this Government, but it is a compliment to Canada.


William Thomas White: I am very glad that my hon. friend has interrupted me, because I recall something that I had inadvertently overlooked. My hon. friend was speaking about the way they acted during the consulship of Plancus. Hon. gentlemen who have read their Horace will remember the consulship of Plancus, who flourished in the days of ancient Rome. Let me tell my hon. friend what happened in the year 1908, the year to which my hon. friend wanted to draw our attention. What were the total estimates for nine months of the yeaT 1907, the year of the great panic ? They were $75,000,000, or for the whole year, $100,000,000. Next year, 1908, the year in which my hon. friend made, not a sacrifice hit but a sacrifice, the estimates of expenditure were $124,000,000, and in 1909 they were $133,000,000. Excelsior was his motto.


William Pugsley: Does that include capital as well as current expenditure ?


William Thomas White: The same kind of money is required to provide for capital expenditure as is required to provide for current expenditure. I want to please my hon. friend. He knows how I would like to please him, and I have the figures. If my hon. friend-


William Pugsley: Will my ihon. friend answer the question ?


William Thomas White: Certainly I will answer the question when I come to it.


William Pugsley: Well, you have stated that the amount of -the expenditure, or the estimates for 1908 was $124,000,000. Does not that include a large amount of capital expenditure ?


William Thomas White: Undoubtedly. It includes all the Estimates.


William Pugsley: Would it not include over $40,000,000 of capital expenditure ?


William Thomas White: I would not say how much. I said that the total Estimates were $124,000,000 for 1908.


William Pugsley: Capital expenditure is very different from current expenditure.


William Thomas White: We will come to that in a moment. We expect patience from my hon. friend, because we associate with him an almost Jovian complacency. The total expenditure in 1905-6 was $83,000,000, and in 1911-12, only five years afterwards, it was $137,000,000. My hon. friend has asked me as to consolidated fund expenditure, and I answer him that in
1905-6 it was $67,000,000 and in 1911-12 it was $98,000,000. My hon. friend has also asked me about capital expenditure. The minor public works do not trouble a finance minister; what troubles him are these great undertakings we have inherited from the Liberal Government. It is not a question of finding a -few dollars for a post office; it is a question of finding tens of millions of dollars, a considerable portion of which w:il be lost to the Dominion, in respect to some of these ill-advised projects which were undertaken by hon. gentlemen opposite. The capital expenditure in 1905-06 was $12,000,000, and in 1908-09, under this excelsior policy-I had almost said this German policy of extension-it had reached $42,000,000, or 31 times what it was four years before. And yet I am charged with extravagance by these gentlemen opposite. Let me ask my hon. friend how he met that?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why don't you answer his question?


William Thomas White: I have answered it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You have not touched upon it at all.


William Thomas White: I have at hand no figures other than what I have given, but I may before I finish be able to answer the precise question put by my hon. friend.


William Pugsley: The minister will get these figures?


William Thomas White: I will get them and they will discomfit my hon. friend considerably. Let me ask hon. gentlemen opposite how they provided this money that they required to meet the rising expenditure in 1905, 1906, 1907, and 1908, which culminated in the enormous expenditure of 1911-12. Let us see what is the difference made by them between the British preference in the

year 1900 and the British preference in 1907. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) put a statement as to this upon Hansard, and I have it here, and I will ask the right hon. the leader of the Opposition one or two questions concerning it. I want to test him and to find out whether he is absolutely-I am not permitted to use the word " sincere "-but whether he is really in earnest in asking why we raised the British preference. I ask my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, and I ask my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) who is to follow me in this debate, to give attention to what I say now. I ask my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition why did he, as shown by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), raise the British preference on dry white lead from 3J per cent to 20 per cent; why did he raise the British preference upon white lead in oil from 16s per cent to 30 per cent, or just about double, and why,	above	all, and to this
I direct the particular attention of the hon. member for Red Deer, did Ihe raise the British preferential rate on wool cloth from 23J per cent to 30 per cent; why did he increase the British preference on wool clothing from 23J per cent to 30 per cent; why did he increase the British preference on silk clothing from 23J per cent to 30 per cent; why did he Taise the British preference on paints from 16jj per cent to 20 per cent; on varnishes from 13J cents per gallon and 13A per cent ad valorem to 20 cents per gallon and 15 cents ad valorem? Did my right hon. friend do that for the purpose of adopting a protectionist policy, or did he do it because he needed revenue? There is no escape from the dilemma I present to my right hon. friend. He must say, if he answers at all, that he did it to give greater protection to Canadian industries, or he must say on the other band, that he did it to get revenue, and there is no other possible answer open to him. And if the right hon. gentleman admits he did it on the ground of protection, then what does all this talk against protection mean from hon. gentlemen opposite, and what has my hon. friend from Red Deer to say to that. And if my right hon. friend admits that he did it not for protection but to raise revenue in order to meet the enormous increase in the expenditure of this country during the year in which this change in the British preferential tariff was made, then I say to him, if he had to do it then to get revenue, with what face 54
can he say now-in presence of the greatest war in history, with finance and trade collapsed, and with our imports and borrowings cut off-you should not for the purpose of raising additional taxation, have increased the rate of British preference. We have not decreased the British preference. We have increased the British preference in the sense that it is more advantageous to the British manufacturer to-day than it was when I brought down my Budget.
My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) declares that additional taxation is unnecessary, and he says: establish an equilibrium between your income and your outgo. I estimated that for the coming year $180,000,000 was necessary and I said that on the basis on which we then were of customs and excise duty, our revenue would be $120,000,000.


William Pugsley: How much of that is on
capita! account?


William Thomas White: I think $40,000,000 was
estimated on capital account, and $140,000,000 on the other.


William Pugsley: The hon. member for Halifax did not include that.


William Thomas White: Then he should not talk
of establishing an equlibrium between the income and the outgo. As we all know, there are public works in this country under contract, and the honour of this Dominion is involved in carrying out the contracts, and it is the same kind of money I have to find to pay capital expenditure as to pay consolidated revenue .expenditure, and it represents the extravagance of hon. gentlemen opposite. What is the remedy? My hon. friend from Halifax disclaims and says: "I did not say to stop all public works." I accept the hon. gentleman's word. There is no fairer member in this House than he, and I accept his word when he says he had reference to consolidated fund expenditure only. But what in substance is said to the people of Canada by hon. gentlemen opposite, and what is the effect which they intend to produce by this debate? Is it not to say to the people: The policy of the Liberal party is to stop expenditure on public works in this country, to reduce the $180,000,000 to let us say $140,000,000. The hon. member for St. John has added the words, " if need be." Well, if he were sitting on this side of the House I do not think it would be a case of need be; I think he would be able'to see that there would be no



need to reduce the expenditure so far as he was concerned.
But what about the Civil Service? We have an organized Civil Service extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific. What are you going to do with it? Are you to break up your organization and dismiss your officials when you may need them a few months hence? The hon. gentleman says that we have increased consolidated fund expenditure from October, 1911, by some $40,000,000.
The mistake made by hon. gentlemen is precisely what I pointed out the other night. Why, they think that this country has stood still. What are the facts? The year before we came into power the total trade of this country was $750,000,000. The first year that we were in power one-half or a little more than one-half of which year belonged to hon. gentlemen opposite, the trade was $850,000,000; the next year it was $1,000,000,000, and the next year it was $1,100,000,000. Has the country stood still? What about the extension of parcel post? What about the money that we have been obliged to raise on account of the bungling policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, to which I have already referred? Where is that money coming from? The machinery of the Government has had to be increased throughout the entire country. Of course, it had to be increased, if we were to meet our obligations as administrators of the affairs of this country. Therefore, it is only to be expected that the consolidated fund expenditure of Canada will increase. There are items in the Estimates which I announced that the Government would not proceed with until the sources of revenue from which they were to be defrayed were apparent; but I would point out to hon. gentlemen opposite that in this country there is such a thing as uncontrollable expenditure; and when contracts or obligations are entered into regarding the finishing of the National Transcontinental, regarding the completion of the Quebec bridge, regarding all those different works undertaken by hon. gentlemen opposite, is it to be laid down that in order to avoid this expenditure, we are to break those contracts, to do a dishonourable thing and to render ourselves liable to actions on the part of those contractors who have their plants established and who are going ahead with the work in good faith?


William Pugsley: Is it not true that in all the contracts of the Public Works Department, and, I think, also in all the contracts

of the other departments, it is provided that, where the appropriation is exhausted, the contractor has no remedy, but must wait for further appropriations or can go on and wait for his money until Parliament votes it?


William Thomas White: I am surprised at my hon. friend, who is a lawyer, putting forward an argument of that character. It is true that in most of the contracts there is that clause.
I will suppose my hon. friend to be a contractor-and he knows something about contracts. He has asembled a plant and has spent $1,000,000 or more on his plant, and has several thousand men employed. Does my hon. friend mean to say that -when a contract is entered into, although there is a saving clause of that character, the Government of this country is entitled to say to the contractor: " Quit work, and suffer whatever loss you may sustain?" Such action is absolutely unjustifiable.


William Pugsley: The Government has
done it frequently.


William Thomas White: Some consideration might arise which might make it expedient to follow such a course; but if the Dominion Government closed down its contracts and threw thousands of men out of employment, what would be the next duty of the Government? To start relief works throughout the country in order that the men might not starve. As Minister of Finance I have had requests from provinces and from municipalities to assist them or to attempt to [DOT] increase their credit with financial institutions in order that they might take care of the wholly abnormal situation respecting unemployment forced upon them by the war. An appeal was sent out yesterday to the Dominion Government anil to all the provinces and the municipalities to' create a great fund for the purpose of taking care of the unemployed. We had a member of the Opposition-and the curious thing is that the Opposition have such an elastic policy on this as on all other questions-we had the Mayor of Montreal the other night not protesting against our continuing public works, but asking us to go on with more public works. Hon. gentlemen opposite speak about our extravagance and the works that we have undertaken. The right hon. leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) within the last year or so have said: Yes, we are in favour of the Welland canal; go

on with it; and in addition to that, go on witn the Georgian Bay canal. What is the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to expenditures? Have they been wise in their day and generation? Did they foresee this war? If they did, what accounts for their action in 1912? If we were to close down those public works, we should simply aggravate a situation which is bound to be serious enough in war time, and we should not save the expense, because we should have to establish relief works in order to relieve unemployment. It is a fortunate thing for the people of this country that they have in office at the present time men who do not become panic stricken, who do not lose their heads, who do not say: Stop all the public works in this country; but who say: We will proceed with such work as will afford employment and with those works especially which, at the present time, we have under contract for completion, having regard to the honourable discharge of our obligations, and we will do the best we can with the fiscal measures which we have proposed to this House and with such borrowings as we may be able to accomplish in the money markets of the world.
My hon. friends, the member for Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff) and the member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), the other night said:	"What would any private business man do? Of course, he would shut down at once." The case of a private business man and the case of a government are two very different things. A private business man has no obligations outside of his own business and his own family. He can say: As for me, I will cut down my expenditure; I will dismiss every employee I have. To the credit of the business men of Canada be it said that they have not adopted that policy. A private business man would say: What have I to do with seed-grain distribution in the West? What have I to do with drought-stricken districts? What have I to do when calamity overtakes a portion of this country? He would certainly say: I have nothing to do with these matters; I am a private citizen. The position of the Government, however is different. Government is much wider than business. Government is as wide as humanity. It touches humanity at every point. Business is only a division of polities, and public life is much wider than business life or private life. Therefore, the policy that might be adopted by a private individual is not open to the Government of this country to adopt, if we are to have 54|
any regard for the obligations that devolve upon us, charged as we are with the administration of the affairs of this country.
My hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) says:	" No
new taxes are necessary." Does my hon. friend, who is the financial critic of the Opposition, mean to say that no new taxes are necessary at this juncture? I point out again that, from the right hon. the leader of the Opposition down, there has not been an appreciation-I say it with all respect and with absolutely no intention of imputing any improper motive-of the effect of this war not only upon the trade and commerce of this country, but upon the financial position in which we necessarily find ourselves, and which we have not sought after. In the Budget speech I stated that next year we should require to raise no less a sum than $300,000,000. I am sure most of the hon. members realize what $300,000,000 means. Are they aware that every day of the year, if we except Sundays, I shall have to provide no less a sum than $1,000,000 for the expenditure of this country on war and on purposes other than war? Our expected revenue for next year was $120,000,000, so that there is a difference of $180,000,000 to make up. Yet the hon. junior member for Halifax says: "No new taxes are necessary." I tell hon. gentlemen opposite that if they do not understand the situation the people of this country do understand the situation; and one reason why my Budget was so well received-as it has been well received- throughout the country, was the profound and instinctive judgment on the part of the people that we had faced our situation and not temporized with it.
Now, the money for war is borrowed; and my hon. friend put forward this view: You are obtaining so much from the British Government. But we are borrowing the money just as much as if we had borrowed it in the open market. We increase the national debt, we are liable for the interest, and Canada is obliged to pay just as if she had borrowed the money in London, or in Paris, or in New York. There is no gainsaying that. What is the use of trying to draw a red herring across the trail? Canada is committed this year to an expenditure of $300,000,000-almost two and a half times the estimated revenue without this war taxation.
My hon. friend from Halifax, followed by my right lion, friend the leader of the Opposition, says that this is not war taxation. I confess, I had expected better from the right hon. leader of the Opposition, for such a statement is the very acme of

absurdity and partisan misrepresentation.
I have been abused a good deal about employing the title, "War Revenue Bill," and I propose to discuss the matter for a few minutes. I have been likened to a man who puts out a fraudulent prospectus. But I am not thin-skinned; I do not rise and indulge in heroics at such a charge; I respect the members of this House, and I think I have their respect, even if we do occasionally fight each other. But I have been likened to a man who puts out a fraudulent prospectus, stating this is war taxation when it is not.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: That statement, "Hear, hear," does more credit to the hon. gentleman's partisanship than to his intellect. All this money belongs to the one fund. Let me put it to my hon. friend from St. John City: Supposing that, instead of borrowing $100,000,000 from the Imperial authorities, I had borrowed that $100,000,000 in London, or New York or Paris. I should have had my revenue of $120,000,000, the estimated revenue on consolidated fund account, and also the $100,000,000 I had borrowed. Does any one mean to say that if, in order to meet that situation and prevent our national debt from increasing at an alarming rate, I bring down a measure for additional taxation to assist the revenue, that is not war taxation? The funds are not earmarked, the money 1 borrow in London and the money I raise here are all available for the purposes of Government- for the expenses of civil government, for consolidated fund expenditure, for capital expenditure, and for providing the cost to Canada of this war; these are all mingled in the same fund. I think it is the pettiest quibble ever put .forward by a great party to say that this is not war taxation. Take the tax that I am denominating especially a war tax-though they will all be included -that is, the stamp duty. I shall have to pay, and if hon. gentlemen will look at the Estimates they will see that I shall have to pay, at least $7,000,000 of interest upon the debt that we have incurred on account of this war; it is a melancholy thing for me to be obliged to say-we shall have to provide, if we may at all depend upon the calculations of those experienced in these matters who should be able to make their calculations with a fair degree of accuracy, a pension list, and I am afraid a growing pension list, of between $4,000,000 and $5,000,000 a year. Does anybody grudge that a portion of these taxes should be used for the purposes of [Sli-. W. T. White.]
paying the interest upon this war loan and for a pension list which will insure to the widows and children of those who have given up their lives for the country that they shall not be reduced to penury? Are those war taxes or are they not? Now, come to the other taxes, the sums I am raising by means of tariff increases. What has caused me to raise the tariff? I pointed out that my borrowings were cut off in the markets of the world; I cannot go to the London market and get a dollar except with the consent of the British Treasury. And we are a belligerent, Mr. Speaker. One million dollars a day this whole country, including Governments, Dominion and Provincial, municipalities, corporations and individuals were borrowing and importing, and we were deriving our revenue from duties upon these imports. If that is cut off and I have to replace it, does any one dare to rise in this House and say that that is not war taxation? What caused it? The war. The man in the street knows it was the war; there is not a child of ten years of age in Canada who does not know that it was the war; and hon. gentlemen opposite well know it is the war.
Now, the taxation proposed is the minimum measure which the Government could adopt unless it deliberately shirked its financial responsibilities. I say further that even if the $10,000,000 that my hon. friend from Halifax, according to the hon. member for St. John City said should be cut off, or even if $20,000,000 could be cut off the policy still is to raise money by additional taxation in order that the finances of this country may be dealt with in a proper way and that our debts may not increase at too rapid a rate. I have some regard for those who are coming after me; and I say it is the bounden duty of the people of this country -and I know they will discharge that duty willingly, loyally, patriotically-to meet the very moderate taxation having regard to the responsibilities we are assuming, that this Government is imposing in order that we may pay a share of the expenditures devolving upon the Government immediately or indirectly due to this war.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Thomas White: Before resuming my argument, I desire, in compliance with the request of my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax, to place upon Hansard details of the expenditure for the years
1906-7 and 1907-8, the last being the year in

which, according to his own statement, the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Pugs-ley) made his historic sacrifice. I stated this afternoon that I would supply the information, and that it would not be particularly comforting to the hon. member for St. John City.
This afternoon I gave the total expenditures for the years 1907 and 1907-8. In order that the record may be complete, perhaps it would not be out of place for me to mention the figures again. The fiscal year 1906-7 was one of only nine months; during that period the total consolidated revenue fund expenditure was $51,000,000. Add one-third for the three month? omitted, and you have $68,000,000 as the approximate expenditure on consolidated revenue fund account for the fiscal year 1906-7 if it had been of the ordinary period of twelve months. For
1907-8 the consolidated fund expenditure was $76,000,000, and for 1908-9 $84,000,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What was the expenditure for 1909-10, which was the year the Finance Minister cut down his ordinary expenditure?


William Thomas White: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; it was in 1907 that the financial stringency occurred in this country, and it was in the following year that the Minister of Finance attempted to cut down the expenditure. But the figures for 1909-10 are just as strongly against my hon. friend as those for 1908-9, because if we assume that the consolidated fund'expenditure for 1906-7 was $68,000,000, then for 1909-10 it would be $79,000,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How much less than that of the preceding year?


William Thomas White: On consolidated fund account, $5,000,000 less than that of the preceding year. As to capital expenditure- because there is capital expenditure in the Department of Public Works and in the Department of Railways as well as consolidated fund expenditure-for the nine-months period of 1906-7 the expenditure on capital account under the late Administration was $11,000,000. 1907-8 was the year of the financial stringency, and the only one in respect of which a comparison may be made with the present period so far as the question of the reduction of expenditure is concerned. For the year 1907-8 the capital expenditure had grown to $30,000,000, almost double what it would have been during the preceding fiscal year had that year been a
period of twelve months. It is no wonder that in 1909 my predecessor insisted on cutting down the Estimates, because for the fiscal year 1908-9 his expenditure on capital account had grown from $11,000,000 three years previously, from $14,000,000 two years previously and from $30,000,000 one year previously, to the colossal sum of $42,000,000.
I wish to point out to my hon. friend that during the fourteen months of which the fiscal year 1907-8 was a portion and during the remainder of the calendar year 1908, my predecessor borrowed on the London market no less a sum than $110,000,000. I may hold the record as a war borrower, but my predecessor holds the blue ribbon among finance ministers as a peace borrower.


William Pugsley: Will the Finance Minister state the purposes for which his predecessor borrowed that money?


William Thomas White: He borrowed it to meet
the consequences of the extravagance to which I have referred. He borrowed it because the late Government, instead of being able to build the National Transcontinental railway for $13,000,000 as estimated by my right hon. friend the present leader of the Opposition and $60,000,000 as estimated by the late Minister of Finance, (Mr. Fielding), found themselves confronted with an expenditure which has run into $200,000,000. Mr. Fielding did not want to borrow the money; he was obliged to do so, and he borrowed $110,000,000 within a period of thirteen or fourteen months. There has been nothing like it since Confederation.
Following up that line of argument, and to give the remainder of the detailed information asked for by the hon. member for Halifax-for the comfort, too, of the hon. member for the city of St. John-1 may say that the total estimates presented to the House for the nine months ended March 31, 1907, amounted to $74,000,000. Add one-third to that and you get approximately $100,000,000 for a period of twelve months. For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1908, the aggregate of the Estimates was $124,000,000, and for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1909, the total Estimates were $133,000,000. Yet hon. gentlemen charge me and this Government with extravagance.
Now we come down to the particular department over which my genial friend the member for the city of St. John presided. I have under my hand a statement prepared by my deputy as to the total public works estimates, capital and income,

presented to the House for a certain number of years. I find that for the nine months ended March 31, 1907, the main consolidated and supplementary consolidated estimates for the entire year amounted to $10,000,000. Add one-third, and we have approximately $13,000,000. In the following year, in which my hon. friend says that he made a sacrifice, we find that it had run up to $15,000,000, and in the next year, in which my hon. friend the member for Halifax claims the sacrifice was made, it had run up to no less a figure than $20,000,000.


William Pugsley: How much of that was against consolidated revenue and how much against capital ?


William Thomas White: I have told my hon. friend. The figures I have given are on consolidated account. The figures on capital account run into a much larger sum. I am glad my hon. friend has drawn attention to this, because there was an omission in my statement. The main consolidated and the supplementary consolidated for the year ending March 31,	1907, was
$7,685,000. Add one-third to that and we get approximately $10,000,000 on consolidated fund account. For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1908, we have on consolidated fund account $12,000,000; for the year ending March 31,	1909, nearly
$17,000,000. Now my hon. friend has the information.


William Pugsley: The reason I asked was that the minister previously gave $10,000,000 for 1907-for the nine months, I presune. One-third added to that would make $13,000,000. Then, for the next year the minister gave $15,000,000 instead of $12,000,000.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend now has the corrected figures, which sustain the contention I advanced this afternoon, that my hon. friend, although he may not have realized it, did not as a matter of fact make a very notable sacrifice in 1908 in connection with cutting down his expenditure.
When the House rose, I was about to deal with the taxation measures which I introduced to the House and to the country upon the occasion of the Budget speech. What was the object, Sir, of those taxation measures ? The object was to supply a portion of the expenditure which we are making in connection with this war, and to maintain upon a proper basis the financial credit of this Dominion. Not-
I'Mr. W. T. White.]
withstanding any suggestion of my right hon. friend to the contrary, that was the only purpose; and there was no other purpose whatsoever, I say now to my right hon. friend that this Government and any Government confronted with the situa-ation with which we have been and are confronted, must either impose further taxation or cease sending troops to the front. I say on my responsibility as Minister of Finance that we must raise additional revenue by the imposition of further taxation or cease sending troops to the front to participate in the defence of Canada and the Empire. And I defy any man in this House to controvert that statement. Does any hon. gentleman suppose that we should be justified in pursuing the weak financial policy of resting with a revenue of $120,000,000 when we are confronted with the necessity of raising for the coming year no less a sum than $1,000,000 a day, excluding Sundays, or a total of $300,000,000 a year. Into what financial position would this Government and this country drift if I should fail to face the situation, if I should temporize with it? I should be derelict in my duty if I did not resolutely cope with this situation. The public of this country expect me to discharge my full duty in that regard; and I have done it. I say further that, giving this House and the country the benefit of such financial experience as I have had, instead of raising too much money by taxation I have erred, as I intended to err, on the other side; and I pledge my reputation as a financier that the leading financiers of the world would say: You have not gone far enough, you should have raised more money by taxation instead of less money. But I am content to bear that criticism, for, as a matter of fact, on account of the profound dislocation of business, on account of the condition of this country by reason of the war, it was my desire to impose as small a measure of taxation as was consistent with dealing with this matter on a reasonably proper basis.
If hon. gentlemen opposite are heart and soul with this Government in the prosecution of this war, and I make no comment as to their intentions or motives, I say they must take one of three courses. There is no alternative left to them. They may either say:	Cease sending troops to the front;
and 1 do not understand them to say that; they may as an alternative suggest another method of supplementing our revenues, so as to meet the situation with which we are

confronted, or, if they are sincere in their statements that they desire to co-operate with the Government in prosecuting this war, they must concur in the proposals of the Government. There is no escape from those three positions.


Mr. MACDONALD :: In his Budget speech did not the hon. Minister of Finance say that he proposed to borrow in England all the money that was necessary for war expenditure ? And did he not proceed to justify that on the ground that posterity would pay it?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend seems to have failed to grasp the significance of what I pointed out this afternoon. This money is borrowed; the interest on it must be paid; and in addition to that, I must borrow large sums of money in order to carry on the business of the country, including the capital and special expenditure.


William John Macdonald: The interest on the
war expenditure will not be $8,000,000.


William Thomas White: In addition to borrowing
the $100,000,000 from the Imperial Government, I shall have to borrow during the coming year the difference between $120,000,000 and $200,000,000, or raise a part of it by revenue; and I propose to raise a part by revenue, and borrow the balance. Does my hon. friend think that, at a time when I am increasing the national debt by borrowing $100,000,000 for war, I should not have had regard at all to the fact that I shall have to borrow $50,000,000 or $60,000,000 in the open market, and further increase to that extent the national debt of this country? What would my successor in office say if I adopted the weak financial policy of saying there shall be no increase in taxation; we will not face our situation at all; we will borrow all the money? I doubt very much if we would be permitted to borrow on the London market unless we showed as a matter of fact that we were prepared to shoulder a portion of our expenditures for this coming year,
No proposal has been put forward as an alternative to the fiscal measures I introduced here for the purpose of supplementing the revenue. There is the situation which exists, and the facts cannot be controverted. This Government, on account of the war, as I showed conclusively this afternoon, is face to face with a situation in which there is a difference, a gap, between estimated revenue on the old basis and expenditure of no less a sum than $180,000,000, of which I shall borrow $100,000,000 from the Imperial
Government. That leaves over $80,000,000 still to raise. I ask: where is the alternative proposition brought forward by hon. gentlemen opposite? I have shown conclusively that unless we1 are going to dishonour the Government by breaking contracts entered into by hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to large public works in this country, unless we are going to stop all expenditure of money upon public works and turn hundreds, if not thousands, of men out of employment whom wa would have to support afterwards by means of relief work, we must raise additional revenue.
No suggestion of a feasible character is forthcoming from any hon. gentlemen opposite. The only hon. gentleman opposite- and I honour him for it-who came forward with a suggestion-and I now propose to show that it is entirely not feasible-was the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. Mac-Nutt). I did not have the pleasure of listening to the hon. gentleman yesterday, although I read his remarks, and as I understand him he said that we should have raised the additional revenue required by an income tax and a tax upon land. I dealt with the income tax proposition in the Budget, and I ^pointed out conclusively that upon the basis of the American income tax upon individuals we could not hope to raise more than $2,000,000. I pointed out another consideration. Municipalities and provinces assess individuals upon income. I see in the reports in the papers that the province of Ontario and the province of Nova Scotia are imposing a tax upon income, personal property and real property. My hon. friend suggests that we should pile Pelion upon Ossa and Olympus upon both, and add to the taxes of the municipalities and the provinces, by which we would not be able to raise more than $2,000,000. What about the expensive machinery of collecting that amount, and how long before the revenue would come in? There must, in the first place, be an assessment, and there must be an opportunity for appeal against that assessment. There must be tribunals created throughout the country for the purpose of hearing appeals and settling assessments. There would be an appeal from all these bodies, and afterwards there has to be provided the machinery for collection. How much would be left of the $2,000,000 which we would raise from any such tax? Supposing I raised the whole of it, supposing I raised $2,000,000, let us say $3,000,000, let us say $4,000,000, what does it amount to

in Dominion finance? Nothing has impressed me more than the total inadequacy of the suggestions which come from various parts of the country, and which, although the people who make them are not blameworthy, show that they simply do not understand the situation or the futility of the suggestions they make for meeting the financial needs of the Dominion. Their idea is that we might raise $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 in this way. At a rate of expenditure of a million dollars a day how long would it last? Sometimes that amount is paid out inside of half a day. I must cope with my situation, I must take measures that are adequate to meet the situation, and I say that an income tax would'be a broken reed as far as Dominion finance is concerned.
Take the land tax. In various papers the suggestion has been made to tax all unoccupied land. There has been brought to my attention by municipalities for months past this state of affairs. They .have taxes outstanding that we cannot collect. I am not going to specify the parts of the country in which this condition particularly obtains. They say: Will you arrange for us to get credit at the bank, because we cannot collect taxes; they are in arrears, one, two or three years. Let m'e ask this House, this body of intelligent men: How much, would I raise in ready cash, how many millions of dollars could I take from the owners of unoccupied land in this country and within what time could I take it? The obligations of the Dominion must be met on the nail. Bills come in and the cheques must issue. I cannot wait for the slow processes of an income taxation measure. I cannot wait for the slow processes of a measure of taxation upon unoccupied lands. Not only that, but I must always bear in mind the supreme fact that I referred to in the Budget that, under the British North America Act, while it is open for the Dominion to impose direct or indirect taxation, as far as the provinces and municipalities are concerned, they are limited absolutely to direct taxation; and I lay down the principle, and I think it is a sound principle, that unless the national necessities imperatively so demand, the Dominion Government should not invade the field to which the provinces of Confederation are confined. The only suggestion of a constructive character is that made by the hon. member for Saltcoats. No other suggestion has been put forward that is feasible or practicable.

There are three alternatives, three propositions and I will mention them again. The Opposition to be consistent, if they agree, as I assume they do, in our participation
in the war, must say: Cease sending troops; or they must suggest an alternative, a feasible and practicable method of obtaining revenue, or they must agree with the proposals of this Government. They have done, Mr. Speaker, not one of the three- absolutely not one of the three. I await some other suggestion that will solve the problem. This Government is in its present position through no fault of its own. We are not responsible for the enormous expenditure undertaken before we came into office, we are certainly not responsible for the acts of the German Emperor in bringing on this war. Our problem was to devise ways and means. I call attention to what I said in August. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition says: You are taxing the poor man, you are letting the well-to-do man escape, you are taxing necessities and not taxing luxuries. When I heard my right hon. friend say that I wondered if he had overlooked the August session. I taxed practically to the limit, liquors, cigars, and tobacco, and I said at the time that I expected my fiscal proposals would, on the basis of the past year, raise a revenue of about $14,000,000. But I subtracted about one-third from it and I thought we might get an income of $10,000,000 if things were at all as we expected. I pointed out that on account of the situation that existed, with the uncertainties and vicissitudes of a war like this, I put forward my view with the utmost hesitation and diffidence. I am on record as saying that. But I calculated that we might get in the neighbourhood of $10,000,000 for a twelvemonth year and I said that I hoped to get about $7,000,000 for the balance of the fiscal year from August to end of March current. My hon. friend must not overlook that. I taxed there what are known as sumptuary articles, articles which are certainly not necessities but luxuries and which the people can do without. I taxed articles of that kind, and I calculated to raise a large revenue, and now I am confronted with the situation which I have disclosed in full to the House. And, what have I done? It is my duty to devise ways and means to meet the situation, and my only motive in bringing down these fiscal proposals is to enable this country to meet in part the expenditure of this war, and to

maintain the credit of the Dominion of Canada.
I divided my fiscal proposal into two parts: special taxation and general taxation. My right hon. friend had a good deal to say about my special taxation, and he was pleased to treat it with a good deal of levity and some ridicule. I do not believe the right hon. gentleman understands it. My right hon. friend referred to the tax upon railway tickets, and let me ask him a question in connection with that. Is he not aware that it is a fundamental principle of taxation that if you carry a tax beyond a certain point-and it requires very nice discrimination to fix that pqint-you defeat your own purpose? This question of putting a tax on railway and pullman tickets is a matter that gave me a great deal of concern and I inquired into it most carefully. Let me tell my right hon. friend that, had I raised unduly th- tax upon railway tickets the inevitable effect would be that those who live near the border in Canada would travel over the railways of the United States to their destination. It occurred to me at once that there should be a larger tax upon sleeping-car and parlour-car seats, but let us take the case of a person who is travelling from Montreal or Toronto, or from Windsor, or from Chatham, or from London, through to Winnipeg or Vancouver, and what would have happened if I placed a larger tax on railway tickets? Why, they would simply go to their destination via United States railways. I had to give attention to the same thing in connection with my proposal respecting the taxation of tickets upon steamships; I had to consider the competition of the United States steamship lines.
I did not bring down an undigested measure to this House; I thought this thing out. My right hon. friend speaks about the poor man travelling on a second-class ticket; and in that connection let me make my hon. friend acquainted-because I do not think he knows-with the proposals. In the first place, so far as railway tickets are concerned, up to one dollar there is no taxation whatever. It is only when a ticket costs over a dollar, and from -one dollar to not more than five dollars, that there is a tax of five- cents, or a maximum percentage of five per cent. On tickets valued over five dollars for each additional five dollars or fractional part of five dollars which the ticket costs the charge is five cents. Will the right hon. gentleman tell me how any poor man is injured by that? It is a small tax, and it would seem to me that it is
only a five cent matter that the right hon. gentleman wants to talk about. My right hon. friend this afternoon drew a picture- and it seemed to me it was a demagogic picture-of the pampered son of wealthy parents, who he said had never done an honest day's work in his life. Well, there is many a man who is the son of wealthy parents-I never had that advantage myself -who is not dishonest. But the right hon. gentleman pictured this son of wealthy parents, lolling in luxury, with pillows surrounding him, such as the right hon. gentleman is accustomed to, in the pullman, and no doubt he spoke as one having experience. My right hon. friend, no doubt, travels in that way all the time; he travels in luxury, and whether he travels on a pass or not I do not know. I hope he does; I have no objection whatever to his traveling on a pass. My right hon. friend overlooked another thing-as to whether he intentionally overlooked it or not I have very great doubt-but, take a chair car ticket from Toronto to Hamilton, which costs 25 cents. A man pays 5 cents on that, which is a percentage of 20 per cent. The poor man is taxed only 5 cents if he chances to buy a ticket which amounts to one dollar in value, or a maximum of 5 per cent, and the man who habitually takes a chair car, and pays 25 cents for the privilege, is also taxed 5 cents, or 20 per cent, just as he would in respect to a dollar or a two dollar charge for a chair. Adding it all together, you will find . that the man who habitually uses a chair car will be fairly heavily taxed, and that is a factor in the case. Had we increased the tax on the sleeping-car tickets and the chair car tickets-and the same will apply to the ordinary ticket-beyond a certain point every man who lives near the border would in all probability travel by the United States, if he is going to a western point, in order to save any heavy tax that would be imposed on him.
This measure was thought out carefully, Mr. Speaker. I do not like hon. gentlemen opposite to think that I bring down any half-baked or ill-digested measures to this House. Although I do make mistakes, as any man may, and a man who never makes mistakes never makes anything, I feel that I have made no mistake in these fiscal proposals.
My right hon. friend has also spoken about the poor man having to pay an increase of 50 per cent upon the letters he mails. That was not a fair argument, and I will tell you why. Who writes the most letters in this country? Is it the business house or the ordinary man, or the poor man,

speaking generally? The ordinary man does write an occasional letter, but the business houses of this country	are writing
hundreds of letters every day. And that is where that tax is going to fall. It is going to fall upon the men who can afford to pay it, and I would have a much poorer opinion than I have of the people of this country if I thought that the men, on behalf of whom these appeals ad miseri-cordiam are put up, were unwilling to pay their mite in order to assist in this war we are waging for civilization. At the autumn session I exhausted the revenue possibilities on liquors, cigars and tobaccos, and what was I to fall back upon -ullless I was going to put this country in a position in which its finances would be unsound and incapable of sustaining the situation created by the war-except the tariff? The point escaped the observation of my right hon. friend, or he intentionally overlooked it, that in order to raise additional revenue under the tariff as it existed prior to the 12th February last I was obliged to put a tax upon free goods and raw materials. I know as well as anybody knows that when you get beyond a certain point you are not likely to increase your revenues, and of course that is common knowledge to every man who knows anything about taxation measures. Where was I then to meet the requirements of the situation? I had to tax raw material and I had to tax free goods, and consequently I imposed a horizontal increase of 7i and 5 per cent. What followed from that? It followed necessarily from that-and I do not believe any hon. gentleman in this House will get up and say it could be avoided-it followed necessarily from that, that I was obliged to increase the duty upon the finished article. If tounorrow my right hon. friend were a manufacturer in this country, and if the duty upon his coal and his raw material and his partly finished product were increased, what would the position be, if we failed to increase also the duty upon his finished article ? Only one thing would happen to him-he would have to give up business. Therefore, it follows that when I was obliged, as I was, to increase the duty upon raw material and upon the partly-finished product used by the manufacturers and business people of Canada for the purpose of making the finished product, I was obliged also to raise the duty upon the finished product. Any other course would have been fraught with the most disastrous consequences to the busi-
ness interests of this country. No other course has ever been pursued by any Minister of Finance in this country, including the Minister of Finance who preceded me. So far as I know, there never was any increase, if the tariff had been at all properly adjusted before, in which an increase in the duty upon raw material was not accompanied by an increase in the duty upon the finished product. That is trite and commonplace knowledge.
Hon. gentlemen opposite raise the objection that the manufacturers will benefit. Have they taken into consideration the fact that I am trying to raise by these tarift changes some $20,000,000 to $25,000,000; that I am taxing raw material; that I am taxing free goods that the manufacturers had available before; that I am taxing the partly-manufactured product used as raw material by the manufacturers ? If the manufacurers have to pay that increase, as they will have to do, must they not have an increase on the finished product ? Since I have been in this House, hon. gentlemen opposite have never ceased to criticise adversely the industrial interests of this country. If I am right in stating that I was obliged to resort to the tariff- and to impose a duty upon free goods and raw material, and no alternative has been put forward by hon. gentlemen opposite- then is. it an answer to say that the manufacturers are getting an increase upon their finished product ? What will hon. gentlemen opposite do with the manufacturers if I' am obliged to impose this duty? Will they drive them out of Canada? Will they destroy their establishments and thus throw hundreds of thousands of men out of work? If my argument is sound, that I had to resort to the . tariff, then there is absolutely nothing in the contention of hon. gentleman opposite that I should not resort to it by reason of the fact that an increase is made upon the finished product of manufacture.
Let us see what these industrial institutions mean to this country. The Government has a large family to look after. We have not only the farmer, but the artisan, the labouring man, the industries and the business men of this country. We must look after them all. There is no better friend, so far as 1 know, of the farmer of this country than I am. There is no kind of farm work that I have not done in my time; there is no man in a better position to know the needs of the farmers than I am in, and since I have been in this House, I

have never denied to the Minister of Agriculture, and I never will deny him, any sums of money that he considers necessary for the purpose of furthering the farming industry, the great basic industry of this country. Hon. gentlemen opposite have spoken about increases made on Consolidated Revenue Fund. Let them compare the Estimates for agriculture for this year with those of four or five years ago. Yesterday I brought down an estimate for no less a sum that $10,000,000 to relieve, in proper cases, those in the drought-stricken districts in the West, and to assist them in purchasing seed grain for the coming crop. With due respect to hon. gentlemen opposite, I say that these taunts against the Canadian manufacturers and the industrial establishments and the workingmen and artisans of this country should be stopped. Will my hon. friend the member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) share in those taunts that are flung across the floor of this House about the privileged classes; that is to say, those engaged in industrial pursuits in this country? According to the last census returns there was no less a sum that $1,200,000,000 of capital invested in industrial concerns in Canada; there were no less than 500,000 artisans and employees supporting themselves and their families by the products of their labour in those industrial establishments; and those men were paid no less a sum that $250,000,000 per annum. Since the outbreak of war the business interests of this country have not complained; they have manfully borne their burden, and in some cases it has been a heavy one by reason of the cutting off of our borrowings and the diminution of capital expenditure. They have tried to hold their organizations together; they have tried to give such work as they could to their work people, and they deserve not recrimination, not denunciation, but the credit that should be accorded to all Canadian citizens when they are doing their duty to themselves and to those in industrial relationship to them.
Made in Canada! My hon. friend the member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) says:	"Made in Germany." My hon.
friend is an economist:	he has studied
political economy. When I speak about economics, I always feel that my hon. friend understands me, and I understand him when he is speaking about economics. Let me ask my hon. friend this question: when a private individual determines to economize, when he finds that he must curtail his expenditure, what does he do? He does a great number of things for himself which
he formerly engaged others to do; he makes a number of things for himself which he formerly paid others to make. Take the case of a nation. When a time like this occurs and when war dislo" cates the business of the world, what does a nation immediately do without knowing the principles of economics as my hon. friend and myself understand them? The nation says nationally: If we increase our imports too greatly at this time, and if our exports do not increase sufficiently to meet them, unless we are borrowing, what will happen? We must export gold. My hon. friend the member for Red Deer knows that just as he knows the tables in mathematics. That is axiomatic. And what is the feeling underlying the instinct of the Canadian people in favour of this movement? It is that at this time-I do not say another time, because the movement has taken form at this time-what we can manufacture in Canada to advantage we want to manufacture in Canada in order that we may be able to keep our establishments going, maintain our staffs, keep our operatives employed and add to the general prosperity of the country. Is there anything wicked about that?


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Only stupid.


William Thomas White: The hon. gentleman passes a very serious reflection upon a number of very worthy people in this country in saying that those who are in favour of made-in-Canada goods at this time are simply stupid. I do not think they are stupid at all.
My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), referring to the tax on banks and trust companies, spoke with a great deal of humour about our touching the epidermis of the banks and trust companies. Now, I will ask him, and I will ask the hon. member for Red Deer who is to follow me, a question:	We are taxing the Bank of
Montreal about $150,000 a year; we are taxing the Bank of Commerce about $135,000 a year; we are taxing the Imperial Bank about $60,000 a year; and other banks in proportion. If my right hon. friend the late Prime Minister was of the opinion that that is good legislation and mild legislation as a taxation measure, will he explain to the hon. member for Red Deer why it was that in the year 1904 he raised the British preferential rate on woollen goods from 23J to 30 per cent? If it was a revenue measure, he would have derived more revenue from adopting the course I have adopted.


Robert Laird Borden: Mere titillation.


William Thomas White: He refrained from titillating. Why, he actually raised the British preferential rate upon granite headstones, so that those that a man left behind after he had gone to the grave would have to pay a heavier tax upon their importation from Great Britain.
The right hon. gentleman spoke about our tender treatment of the distiller. Why, he asked, did you put on an increased customs duty without putting on a compensating excise duty? In his airy fashion he had overlooked the fact that we are imposing higher taxes up the distiller for all the raw material he uses, including coal, and also upon the machinery which turns out his product.
The right hon. gentleman talks about the British preference, about the Government and about hon. gentlemen on
9	p.m. this side never having been in favour of the British preference. Who brought forward the idea of a British preference? He knows as well as he knows that he is sitting in that chair that, although we have raised, as I shall show we were bound to raise, the British preferential rate, we have increased the preference or advantage to the British manufacturer. Let me give a simple illustration that my right hon. friend will not fail to understand. Let us assume that upon a certain line of goods the general tariff previous to my bringing down my fiscal proposals was 30 per cent, and that the British preferential tariff was 20 per cent. On $100 worth of goods brought into this country what would have been the preference in favour of the British manufacturer? Ten dollars. Increase the general rate by 71 per cent, make it 374 per cent, and increase the British preferential rate by 5 per cent, making it 25 per cent, and how much now has the British manufacturer by way of advantage over his foreign competitor? Twelve dollars and a half as compared with ten dollars which he had before. Hon. gentlemen will say: You block them from coming into the country. Take the free list alone, amounting to about $25,000,000 of goods coming in from Great Britain. Nobody supposes that a tax of 5 per cent is going to prevent the Canadian people from buying these goods. If hon. gentlemen opposite put forward their contention-and I am not controverting it-that the consumer pays the tax, I say that upon this list of goods formerly free and now subject to this increased duty the people of Canada will pay the tax, and they will pay it gladly because they know its purpose and object.

What-is preference? Preference is the advantage which one nation enjoys in the markets of another as compared with competing nations. Any one knows that who knows anything about fiscal matters at all. Now, the list of free goods representing importations from Great Britain of $25,000,000-take these alone, to say nothing of the others-and what was the position before I brought down my fiscal proposals? The position was that the British manufacturer was competing on even terms with foreign nations in this market. What is the position to-day? The position to-day is that we have increased his preference, and he is in a better position with regard to those goods than he was before February 11, 1915. That statement cannot be controverted. It is absolutely axiomatic; it is the truth, and the people know it is the truth.
There is another fact in connection with this matter that I would commend to the consideration of the hon. member for Red Deer, my fellow economist in this House. We are increasing our exports to Great Britain, and I hope we shall continue to do so. The hon. member for Red Deer will not deny that if we increase our exports to Great Britain, we will necessarily increase our imports. Apart from the dislocation of ocean traffic caused by the war, no man need tell me that the fiscal measures which I have introduced will be any obstruction to British trade with Canada; I say the result will be quite the contrary. It is true that if our merchant marine is not on the sea; if our ships are commandeered or requisitioned, as they were last fall on the Atlantic and on the Pacific, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), there will, of course, be interruption of trade. But that interruption of trade will not be due to my fiscal proposals; it will be due to the war, and primarily to the German Emperor, for whose acts I must disclaim responsibility.
I am going to assume that hon. gentlemen opposite are absolutely sincere in the contentions' that they put forward in this House. My right hon. friend said: why did you raise the British preferential rate? Any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who has studied the subject knows that if we raise the general rate we must raise also the British preferential rate. Take the case of iron and steel manufactures. I ask the attention of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) to this point. They have to pay duty on ore, coal, coke and other materials; I explained to the House why I had to levy a tax on raw

materials. Will tlie hon. member for Pietou rise in his place and say to me: You would be justified in increasing to Canadian manufacturers the duty on ore, coal, coke and other materials, without increasing the British preferential rate also? What would be the effect of this upon the great industry in the constituency of my hon. friend the member for Pietou? It is perfectly obvious that the British manufacturer would get in his coal free, his coke free, his ore free and his raw material free, and if I did not increase the British preferential rate as well as the general rate, I would destroy these Canadian industries. I said once before in this House, and I say now, that I am not here to destroy; I am here to construct and to build up. Take the case of hides and tanning material. Does anybody mean to say that we are not obliged to increase the British preferential rate upon leather when increasing the duties on hides and tanning materials? In what position would the leather manufacturers of Canada be, if, having to pay an increased duty upon hides and tanning materials, they had not the benefit of the British preferential rate upon their finished product in order to put them on a parity with the British competitor in this market? The same thing applies to woollens. If, for the reasons which I have given, I increase the duty upon foreign wool, dye-stuffs and other material used in the woollen industry, must I not increase also the British preferential rate upon the product of the woollen manufacturers? I could give instance after instance of a similar nature. Take the cotton spinning and weaving industry. Could manufacturers of these products afford to pay 71 per cent duty on raw cotton if the yarn and fabrics produced in Great Britain from similar material wmre allowed entry at customs at the British preferential rates in force previous to February 11? I think I have, therefore, sufficiently disposed of the arguments advanced by my right hon. friend with regard to my fiscal proposals in so far as they relate to the British preference.
I have been abused with respect to the action of the Government in the matter of the British preference. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) the other night invoked the Deity; he said: " For God's sake, keep your unholy and disloyal hands off the British preference." He challenged us that night to appeal to the country, and I observed the next morning-without surprise-that the clock in the tower had stopped during the night. My hon. friend knew
his man. He and I are on terms of amity and friendship; if he had addressed that remark to the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), the evening could not have ended without tragedy. He felt safe, however, in accusing me of having unholy hands and of being disloyal. He knew that I knew I was not disloyal; and I knew that he knew that I knew that he was not disloyal, and no harm resulted. But it is not a very desirable thing to be called disloyal.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) said in the debate on the Address-and I adopt the sentiment that he expressed: "Let the Government place itself behind the man in the trenches." That is what this Government has been doing and intends to do. From the outset I said as Finance Minister-and my leader has said it before me-that our first business is war until this war is concluded. Shall we send our flesh and blood to the front and haggle over a matter of taxation necessary to maintain them there? Our object, as I have said, is to raise money for the prosecution of this war, either directly or indirectly, and I believe the people will pay it cheerfully, loyally and patriotically.
The attack upon this Budget has signally failed; and it failed because it was fundamentally unsound. The speech of my hon. friend from Halifax, which he had ten days to prepare-and I should like to know the perplexities of mind that he experienced in preparing that speech-was a case of special pleading. I have often heard that the duty of an Opposition is to oppose. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it. I say it is the duty of an Opposition to oppose in a proper case; and I say that this is not a proper case in which the Opposition should oppose. I have disposed this taxation in such fashion that the people of this country regard it as equitable and just. I have placed taxes upon luxuries; I have taxed liquors; I have taxed tobacco to the utmost it will stand, and there is a point beyond which you will diminish, and not increase, your revenue. I have imposed taxes upon the financial institutions of this country. I have imposed taxes which will fall the most heavily upon those in this country who are best able to sustain that burden; and I have had to fall back upon the tariff in order to raise the larger part of the money required to enable us to do our duty in this crisis. Mr. Speaker, I hope I shall not be taken as disrespectful to the Opposition. Nothing could be further from my thought, but sometimes

it lias been borne in upon me that the debate upon this Budget has been trivial in character. War on a scale unprecedented in all history; some fifteen or twenty million men engaged; the Germans and Allies facing each other upon a front resting upon Holland and Switzerland in the West, and extending from the Baltic to the Carpathians in the East; and there is now proceeding before our very eyes one of the greatest operations in the world, one of the most spectacular, one of the most dramatic -the forcing of the Dardanelles.
What is the expenditure of Great Britain to-day, and how is she facing it? The expenditure of Great Britain herself in this great contest is no less than ten million dollars a day; ten million dollars a day with a population of forty-five million.


Michael Clark: And free trade.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend had better not be. too sure about free trade. The future may hold surprises for many as to free trade. The expenditure of Great Britain is ten million dollars a day; and Lord Kitchener is raising an army of one and a half or two million men. We in this country are raising troops and equipping them and forwarding them with the utmost despatch possible with our limited facilities. Why have we limited facilities? Why? I have never heard any expenditure seriously criticised in the House except the expenditure of the Militia Department. If the Militia Department had, not been starved, if the organization had been better maintained, we should have been better able to bear the strain so suddenly imposed upon us in August last. We should have had more equipment for the trqops, more clothing and ammunition, and we should have been in a much better position to take our part in this war. But there was no vision in the criticism of lion, gentlemen opposite, and where there is no vision the people perish.
The real question is: are we to do our share in this war or are we not? We have taken the people of this country at their word. They say send one contingent, send two contingents, send three contingents, send every man that wants to go. But I want to point out that war is made not only with men, not only with armaments, not only with munitions, but it is made with money. The people must toe prepared to sacrifice not only blood, tout treasure. If not, where is the Imperial spirit? And the people of this country are prepared not only to send money, but they are prepared to pay
:Mr. W. T. White.]
the reasonable measure of taxation which this Government is imposing.
Now, what do these charges of extravagance amount to? Are they not frivolous and vexatious at a time when the Government is struggling, and struggling successfully, with the greatest crisis with which the public men of this country have ever -been confronted? I ask my right hon. friend who occupies a conspicuous position in this House and in this Dominion and in the Empire this question: In view of the fact that he himself raised the British preferential rate, and in view of the facts that I have brought to his attention to-night as to the necessity for increasing the British preferential rate not only on grounds of revenue, but by reason of the necessity of adjustment, was he wise this afternoon in bringing forward his criticism of the Government, and endangering, to some extent, the public credit of Canada because of the weight that may attach to his words? My right hon. friend's words carry beyond the walls of this House; they carry across the sea. And I ask him, has he represented the situation fairly or has he represented it unfairly? With regard to the British preference, I think he has represented it unfairly. And if his words when they go across the sea have any adverse effect upon the credit of Canada, I ask him if that is co-operation in this crisis with, which the Empire is confronted.
My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) made a couple of serious charges against me this afternoon. He virtually charged me with false pretenses. He said that under the colour of a war tax I had deliberately raised this tariff, not for the purpose of revenue, but for the purpose of assisting the privileged classes of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: Hon. gentlemen say "hear, hear." That is to say that all I have stated here to-night is untrue. That is to say that, as Minister of Finance, I have not been sincerely desirous of raising by additional measures of taxation sufficient revenue for the purpose of meeting the increased expenditure due to this war, and maintaining the credit of this Dominion. Hon. gentlemen seem to participate in that charge made against me by the leader of the Opposition. In substance they say, or at least those of them who said "hear, hear " that under colour of this war tax it is my intention, not to raise additional revenue, but to assist the privileged classes of this country. Mr. Speaker, I shall

not do myself the injustice c*f denying if,
I have too much self-respect to deny a charge of that kind if it is pressed home. My right hon. friend has charged me virtually with false pretenses, and he read an article from which I took one phrase because it was the gist of his attack upon me for increasing the British preferential rate. This was the phrase I took: " Suspect bad faith." That was in the article that was read by my right hon. friend this afternoon. That is that if bad faith is suspected it is not to be supposed that the Opposition will agree in the proposals of the Government. What was the innuendo, taking that remark, or utterance, in connection with the subsequent remarks of my right hon. friend? I desire to say this: My right hon. friend has introduced this amendment regarding the British preference condemning this Government for, as he states, placing extra barriers against Great Britain's trade with Canada at a moment when the Motherland-is under a war strain unparalleled in history.
My right hon. friend has suggested my motive in increasing the preferential Tate. I wonder if it would be out of order if I suggested his motive in moving his amendment? I may be wrong, but I have a very clear idea as to the right hon. gentleman's motive in introducing his amendment. Let me ask my right hon. friend if there is anything upon his heart, or his conscience, that induces him to move this amendment? I would ask my right hon. friend to take the drama of Macbeth and refer to the sleep-walking scene in the fifth act, in which Lady Macbeth, looking upon the hand stained with the blood of King Duncan, says: "All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten that little hand." My right hon. friend the Prime Minister, acting upon the prescient advice of the Admiralty, two years ago introduced into this House the Naval Aid Bill, whose purpose was to assist in the naval defence of the Empire. My right hon. friend obstructed and killed that Bill. I say to him now-I say it with great respect, I say it without any imputation except upon his statesmanship, certainly not upon his loyalty-that all the amendments, whether relating to the British preference or otherwise that he may move now or at any other time, will never obliterate the memory of the action which he took in connection with the Naval Aid Bill.
In conclusion, I desire to make a somewhat deliberate statement. I say to my right hon. friend that there are two ways in which it is possible to oppose effectual participation by the Government in this war. Firstly, such participation may be directly opposed. This has not been done. Secondly, participation can be opposed by opposition to measures, such as our fiscal proposals, necessary and essential to the carrying on of the Government of this country, the fulfilment of our contractual and other honourable obligations, the maintenance of the credit by which we are enabled to prosecute the war. It is obvious that we cannot prosecute war abroad unless we are in a position to carry on our affairs at home, pay the interest upon our public debt and preserve our financial credit in international markets. The policy of the Opposition as exhibited in their criticism of this Budget would not permit this to be done. As to their attitude upon this war Budget at tnis the most critical period of the Empire's history, I pass no further comment than to say that the people will know, appreciate, weigh and understand. They desire this Government to. carry on this war with all its heart and all its soul and all its strength. This is what we propose to do. This we conceive to be our mandate from the people of Canada. If the right hon. the leader of the Opposition doubts whether we have this mandate, let him say so. My right hon. friend may rely upon it that we shall not fail to take all necessary measures to ensure that Canada continues with the will of its people to carry out its whole duty to itself and the Empire.


Michael Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think you, Sir, as an old parliamentarian, whom we all very much respect, will agree with me that in the main the discussion upon the Budget has been free from acrimony, and on the whole has been a credit to both sides of the House. I think it possible, Sir, that you may have detected beneath the discussion in the main an underlying sentiment that the average member of this House has no intention whatsoever that the Government or the Parliament of this country shall be diverted from the main business of the Empire and of Canada at this moment. As I did in the short August session, so I have pleasure m doing now. I should like, if I may be permitted, to voice the general satisfaction, which I believe exists in this country, and is reflected in Parliament, at the prompt

and energetic action of the Government in regard to what they have done to back up the flag of the Empire in this war. There has been no holding back on the part of my right hon. friend the leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden), and I have pleasure in bearing testimoney to the fact in spite of the somewhat provocative peroration of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White). The right hon. leader of the Government shows to this country in his own person in no small degree those qualities of doggedness and pertinacity which are the heritage Of our race and which have done much to found the greatness of the Empire, and which will, please God, settle this war as it should be settled. I should like to add, which I do very sincerely, that I am personally glad that my right hon. friend has, if he did nothing else in the public life of this country, secured his niche in the temple of great Canadians.
Having said so much, I must say that I think it necessary to state that there is an inability on the part of some hon. gentlemen on the either side who 'have spoken-and I think on the part of the Minister of Finance-to distinguish between a policy and the method by which that policy is carried out. I really think the Minister of Finance fails to make that distinction. I would rather not have made any reference, even as I propose to do now, by way of illustration, to the difficulties we had on naval defence a couple of years ago, but I am encouraged to draw an illustration from . circumstances into which the Minister of Finance, for purposes best known to himself, has dipped somewhat freely. Two years ago there was a good deal of doubt in this country as to the feasibility of submarines being of any use in naval warfare;, I think there was a great deal of doubt on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite about the feasibility or usefulness of submarines. The advent of war banished that doubt very quickly, because the Government proceeded to buy a couple of submarines, and I endorsed their action, immediately the war broke out. There was a similar doubt two years ago about the possibility of building ships in Canada, but to-day with the blessing of the Government opposite, submarines are being built in Montreal. I do not raise this except ias an illustration of the necessity of distinguishing between a policy and the method by which that policy is put in operation, and I

respectfully submit to the Prime Minister and his followers that if it be good to buy submarines now, and if ifb be good to build them in Canada now, it cannot have been so bad two years ago.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask my hon. friend to what remarks he is alluding when he mentions my opposition, or our opposition, to submarines two years ago P


Michael Clark: My right hon. friend's strong point is perhaps not imagination, but if he will compare our speeches at that time with his policy, I think he will be able to make out where the two parties stood.


Robert Laird Borden: Subject to correction by my hon. friend, I do not remember the question of submarines having come up at all, but I may be mistaken.


Michael Clark: If my hon. friend's memory is bad and he needs enlightenment, I with very great diffidence and deference refer him to an utterance of mine in which I read a whole article from the British journal known as the Economist, pointing out that the German dreadnoughts were a mere delusion, and that when war came, if it did come, their action would be exactly as it has proved to be, and that before risking their dreadnoughts they would endeavour to put British shipping out of commission by submarines. I was dealing with a somewhat dangerous matter-not dangerous from the point of view of argument, because if the events of the war have not convinced hon. gentlemen opposite that there were two sides to this question, then I am sure nothing that I can say would convince them-not dangerous from the point of view of argument, but dangerous from the point of view of having any acrimonious discussion about anything touching upon the defences of the Empire at the present moment. I was proceeding to illustrate the principle I have laid down: that it is necessary to distinguish between a policy and the method by which it is carried out. It is so in regard to this Budget. The Minister of Finance comes to this House and he says: our policy is to raise the necessary money to carry on this war-I ought to say he said " my " policy. We are agreed upon that policy, but does the Minister of Finance suggest for a moment that being agreed upon the policy of raising whatever money we need, we are to stroke every " t " and dot every " i " which his immature experience leads him to put down on a fiscal

measure in this country. Let me give the Minister of Finance one or two illustrations of the foolishness of such an intellectual attitude. Let me suppose that a farmer has sent his son to the front, and many of them have-which is more than my hon. friend will ever do, but that is an accident. The farmer having sent his son to the front, I should say that he is making a sacrifice to help somewhat to carry out this war. But when the Minister of Finance comes down to the House and says to this farmer, or to many such farmers : we propose to raise the money by which your fighting sons are to be kept at the front by making it more difficult for you to buy your agricultural machinery, then I say there are two sides to the question as to whether that is the proper way to carry on the war successfully; and especially so when that difficulty to buy agricultural machinery is created by giving tariff pap to the people who are engaged in the manufacture of agricultural machinery. Red Cross work is presumably helping the war at the front-" help the boys at the front," to use the words of my hon. friend from East Lambton-but when the Government comes down and says: we propose to add to the price of the woollens which the Red Cross workers knit into socks for the soldiers at the front, we say there are two opinions possible about that proposal being helpful in carrying on the war. When a woman parts with her companion in life, who goes to the trenches, presumably she makes sacrifice enough when she gives up her husband of many years and stays at home-and we know many have done it- to look after two or three children; but when a Minister of Finance comes down to this House with a proposition which amounts to going to that woman who is keeping the children at home, and saying' to her: you have given your husband up to the trenches, that is magnificent; we are are a good protectionist Government and we propose that you shall build up the woollen manufacturers of eastern Canada .by paying more for the socks of the children that you are looking after at home, we say there are two sides to the question as to whether that is a proper way to carry on the war.
Having cleared the ground by laying down a principle and trying to illustrate it, I come to the Budget of my hon. friend, and although he said at the opening of his very long speech to-day that he did not mind 55
criticism of the Budget, like every one who makes a speech of three hours' duration, he is liable to foTget at the end what he said in the beginning, and from his closing remarks one would think he minded very much; because, if his closing remarks had any meaning at all, they were a lecture delivered to this side of the House on daring to question his financial omniscience. In the Budget speech of my hon. friend, he produced a speech which was admirable in form, but, in my judgment, execrable in substance, and that is the most I can say for it. The speech that we have heard to-day was execrable both in form and in substance. Despite my hon. friend's having spoken for three hours this afternoon and evening, he has absolutely failed to shake the attack made upon his Budget by the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean). The power of my hon. friend's attack was manifest at the moment it was delivered. My hon. friend the member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) was put up to reply to the speech of my hon. friend the member for Halifax. He spoke for a short time before dinner, and it was manifest to every one that he was so shaky that he would need to get reinforcements during the recess. Therefore it was no surprise to me, when my hon. friend the member for South Toronto resumed after recess, to find that he was flanked by the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), who had moved across a great many benches in order to sit near him. I cannot help reflecting to myself that, when the protectionist lawyer from South Toronto is joined by the protectionist manufacturer from Montreal, the consumers of this country bear a striking resemblance to a certain man who once went down from Jerusalem to Jericho.
Just as the speech of my hon. friend was not shaken by the speech of the hon. member for South Toronto, it certainly was not shaken by the mixture of declamation and sophistry to which we have listened in this House this afternoon. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has come out in a new light to-day. I am told by old parliamentarians that just before the election of 1896, the Prime Minister of that day, of whom I desire to speak with the very greatest respect, was so much in the habit of using the personal pronoun and of relating his own personal deeds, that in the ensuing general election the people of the country were perforce compelled to say to him: You have done so much and told us so much of your doings that we do not want you to do any more. I cannot help thinking that in this case coming events cast



their shadows before, and that our hon. friend will be relegated to the obscurity from which he came. As the first personal pronoun resounded through this Chamber, and as my hon. friend passed from one wave of passionate utterance to another about what he had done, the thought occurred to one inevitably: What a mercy it is, not that we have such a Government in this country, but that the country had such a saviour as my hon. friend. My hon. friend reads Shakespeare. He has referred my right hon. leader to the play <5f Macbeth. I would advise him to read Hamlet's advice to the players again-he has read it before- and to pay particular attention to the phrase, "And tear not a passion to tatters." I do not know whether my hon. friend resents very much any imputation of insincerity, but his mood this evening was so different from his usual good nature and smiling countenance that I wondered whether he was not for the moment playing a part. What was there to make all the sound and fury about? I did not see anything in the beautiful oration of my right hon. leader to have vexed him in that way. There was nothing that was not really of the choicest description.
M*y hon. friend has referred to the right hon. the leader of this side of the House as a demagogue. The two orations will be read with very different feelings by the great majority of intelligent Canadian citizens. What was this long speech to which we have listened? For two years and some months before the war put an end for the time being to political controversy, the Government opposite had as its main argument the tu quoque argument. It is distressing in the extreme, the moment we resume to some extent political controversy, to find that my hon. friend has learned nothing during his period of rest from controversy, but that he comes before us to-day with a tu quoque argument, couched, it is true, in very much stronger language than he has ever used in this House before the war, but I excuse him on that account, because the war does affect people and there is no doubt whatever that the strain to which he has been subjected has acted to a slight extent upon his brain.
My hon. friend spoke of the unbridled extravagance of his predecessors. The question this country is concerned about is the present Budget, not the Budgets of years and years ago. The people are too busy trying to keep body and soul together under this Government to be very much interested in ancient history. I. warn my hon. friend
[Mr. M. Clark. 1
that that is the case. He spoke of the uncontrolled prodigality of the late Administration, and he told us that they had loaded him with obligations and burdens. His were the mighty shoulders upon which rests all the trouble that has descended from the previous Government.


William Thomas White: It is a legacy.


Mr. CLABK:: There is a double answer to my hon. friend's tu quoque argument after all. What was he doing in politics or in private life before 1911? If we can believe what he said during the election of 1911, up to the reciprocity election he was a devoted follower of my right hon. friend. If that be true, my hon. friend was taking part with my right hon. leader in building up those burdens and those obligations. Therefore, there is a certain political fitness that, when he has emerged into his present position, he should have a good share in bearing the burdens which he has helped to build up. That is the first answer. Yet if we impugn his sincerity, he is awfully angry with us. Was he altogether sincere in speaking of the unbridled extravagance of the party of which he was an associate at the time they were in power? Was he sincere in speaking of uncontrolled prodigality? If he was, he was one of the prodigals and one of the unbridled men.
There is another answer to my hon. friend which is perhaps more to the point. If he was aware of the burdens and the obligations to which he became the heir why did he proceed to increase the ordinary expenditure of this country by tens of millions of dollars? When he speaks again he will have something else to do than to put so many questions to me-though I hope not to neglect any of them-he will have something to do in answering the question I have put to him. If he knew that these terrible obligations and burdens had come upon him, he had one duty in the world, and one only as a primary duty, and that was to begin at once by careful economy to cure the evils which had been sent down to him.


William Thomas White: They were inouT-
able.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend tells us
that he was the heir of obligations and burdens. In spite of these obligations and burdens he went on to claim that he had larger surpluses and had reduced debts more than his predecessors had ever been able to do. Does my hon. friend really deceive himself so much in the case of-I do

not want to use a strong word-self-concentration in which he is bound up? Does he deceive himself to the extent of thinking that he had anything to do with these surpluses? Does he deceive himself to the extent of thinking now that his Government in the first two years they were in office, had anything to do in providing surpluses? Is he quite fair in blaming his predecessors for his obligations and burdens and pluming himself upon the surpluses and reduction of debt? Surely it is a fair argument that for the first two years this Government was in power, if they received the obligations and burdens that their predecessors sent down to them, they received from their predecessors the money with which careful financiers would have tackled those obligations.
My hon. friend when he boasts of those surpluses, reminds me of the younger son of a distinguished family who asked that the portions of goods coming to him might be given to him, and then took himself into a far country. I have no doubt that the associates with whom he foregathered there thought that as long as his money lasted, that that younger son was an admirable financier; hut when he got among the husks no doubt they formed a different opinion of him. There is this to be said of the prodigal, that experience in his case was a wise teacher and sweet were the uses of adversity. But the experience which produced in the prodigal son a salutary attack of penitence has had an effect upon my hon. friend which resulted in a lamentable exhibition of ill-humour and egotism.
With regard to the comparison of the two Governments, there is this to be said about the previous Government-that if they were extravagant they had the money to do it with. That is a statement the accuracy of which I think the hon. gentleman will not deny. Now, I am against extravagance whether in prosperous times or in adverse times. I learned some of my finance from the speeches I used to hear from my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) when he was in Opposition. I found him a good financier; I found in his speeches many words of wisdom, following up lessons in finance which I had learned from the greatest financier^ in the old country. I am against extravagance whether on the part of the Government or on the part of an individual, and whether in adversity or in prosperity. But if I have to choose between a Government spending an income which it has and a Government borrowing to spend, I prefer the former. The difference between 55i
the two is that between a successful man of business and a man who is in the hands of the money-lenders and who borrows to pay interest on previous borrowings. That is what I have to say in regard to my hon. friend's tu quoque argument. There are other points in what he said this afternoon to which I hope to refer before I resume my seat, but I do not propose to be drawn away by, what for want of a better word I may call, his arguments from looking at the present conditions of the country as revealed in the Budget, and the proposals for relieving that condition.
i' submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Budget statement of my hon. friend revealed a lamentable condition of finance in this country. And unfortunately it is true that the lamentable condition of finance revealed by the Budget finds a reflection in the conditions of our people outside of
10	p.m. this Chamber. Deficits and debt in Parliament are accompanied by poor trade and a good deal of destitution and unemployment among the people. The Minister of Finance has attributed, or has been very anxious apparently to attribute, this condition entirely to the war. Well, I like to be candid, I like to be fair; and I am bound to say that in my humble judgment conditions have been aggravated by the war. I do not think it possible to deny that the conditions have been agravated by the war. But there is a possibility for two opinions as to how far the war has operated in this direction. The Minister of Finance talks as if there was no possibility of an argument upon this subject. I should like to point out to hon. gentlemen opposite that a very distinguished member of this House, the hon. member for West Toronto (Sir Edmund Osier) has made a public speech in which he strongly states an opposite opinion. And, after all, we cannot brush to one side an opinion on a financial question uttered by the hon. member for West Toronto. That hon. gentleman was an authority on finance in this country before the Minister of Finance had ceased wearing long clothes. The hon. member for West Toronto made a speech in which he said that conditions had been saved in this country by the war, that orders had come to this country which had put business in motion and which meant $200,000,000 to the common people. In any case, I want to point out this in answer to the argument advanced by the Minister of Finance: to prove his point that the finances of this country have been thrown into disorder almost entirely by. the war, what did he do? He quoted the trade figures of

Australia to prove that in Australia a similar condition of affairs had come about.
He quoted the trade figures of the United States to show that the war had brought about the same condition of affairs there. I understood my hon. friend to state-I should like his attention upon this point and correction if I am/wrong-that in both Australia and the United States the figures of imports were showing an increase before the war. Has it not occurred to my hon. friend that there is a very striking difference on that point between Canada and these other countries? I should have thought that candour and courage in argument would have led my hon. friend at that point to deal with the unanswerable figures given by the hon. junior member for Halifax. The hon. member for Halifax quoted the figures of our import trade from January of last year down to August of last year, when war broke out, and by those figures he showed that contrary to what was the case in Australia and the United States, month by month, through January, February, March, April, May, June, July, there was an average decrease in the imports into Canada of over $10,000,000 a month. Surely those figures needed to be met. What did my hon. friend say with regard to that argument? Not a syllable. He did not controvert them, because they were incontrovertible proof that bad times were severely upon Canada before the war came at all. My hon. friend shakes his head. Was a decline of over $10,000,000 a month in the imports not a sign that bad times were approaching? It is capable of exact proof that after two and a half years of administration by this Government, when nobody was dreaming of war, there was every evidence that Canada was passing into a condition of commercial depression; and that condition has since been aggravated by the war.
I have on the sheet that is now in my hand some headings of columns which I myself took from newspapers in the month of July last. I took them for a specific purpose. I was going to give an address upon the times, and I took these headings as the best rough and ready evidence I could get of what was the condition of Canada at that time. I find amongst them this heading :	" Canadian Pacific railway stock
reaches a new low level." Canadian Pacific railway stock, worth less, I take it, than it had been for 17 years; less, at any rate, than it had been since it reached its maximum during the 15 years when my right hon. friend was at the head of Government. I find another heading:	"A further large

falling off in customs revenue." Another: " Fifty-three per cent decrease in immigration into the country." Remember that these are all from newspapers published previous to last July. I find another heading :	" Proposed deportation of unemployed." I find in the Canadian Courier, an independent journal, of a date preceding the outbreak of hostilities, a statement to the effect that the most serious problem for Canada at the present is the question of the unemployed. These rough and ready pieces of evidence were found by myself in reading the newspapers of Canada before there was any question of war at all. I take it, Sir, that the hon. Minister of Finance cannot in his light and airy way dispose of that question by saying: in my first year I had a surplus ; in my second year I had a surplus, and in my third year I had the war. Before the war came at all two years had sufficed for this Government to get in its work and they would have proceeded from surpluses to deficits and destitution and unemployment if never a shot had been fired on^he battle field.
It is pertinent, however, to ask hon. gentlemen opposite: why should war produce the bad results in Canada which we all deplore? We still have the home market. As a free trader, I think that is a fair question for me to put to my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George. Foster.) Hon. gentlemen opposite have deafened me ever since I came to Canada about the splendid chance of prosperity we get by nursing the home market. Well, there are no German ships or guns here; we still have the home market. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce used to dwell upon the glories of interprovincial trade. We still have interprovincial trade; why should we have hard times? The real value of war from the fiscal standpoint is that it reveals protection in operation. Protection is the sworn foe of foreign commerce, and for the purposes of restricting foreign commerce gun-boats are far more effectual than tariffs. You have protection put in operation by gun boats, and the results do not seem to be to the liking of protectionists, because they say: we have hard times, and the war has produced them. But if they believe in protection; if they believe in their made-in-Canada propoganda, in the home market and in interprovincial trade as the real panacea for the fiscal needs of a country; if they believe in these things, war has just produced what protection would have produced if carried out to its

*logical issue. As I say, they do not like the result; it would be wonderful if they did, for the result proclaims m characters un-mistakeable, so plain that he who runs may read, that the National Policy is a palpable failure. It is a palpable failure as a revenue producer, because it is a palpable failure as a trade producer. There is one point that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance appealed to me on in respect of which I agree with him; that his failure of revenue is due to failure of imports. There we are at one, though I cannot congratulate him in being equally at one with every one on the other side of the House.
I noticed that my hon. friend listened with very great interest and attention and with frequent applause to my hon. friend for Muskoka (Mr. Wright) when he spoke the other day. My hon. friend the member for Muskoka gave it as his deliberate opinion that this country would be very much better off if we reduced very largely both our imports and our exports; or rather, he said we should be as well off as we are now. 1 submit to the member for Muskoka that we are just as well off as we are now because we have reduced both our imports and exports.
I think that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance might use a little of his spare time to teach elementary economics upon his own side of the House. The National Policy has failed as a revenue producer because it has failed as a trade producer. It is now admitted by my hon. friend that our prosperity was due to borrowing. It was due, as I have frequently contended in this House, to the freest of free imports, and was not due to protective tariffs at all. The National Policy 'has not only failed in these respects; it has failed as an industry builder. For, Mr. Speaker, it is well worthy of remark that for forty years under both political parties-I am not here to defend all that has been done under this head by the Liberal party in the past -we have had the doctrine proclaimed that you must build up cities in this country for that home market to which we are now reduced by the conditions of international trade. We have this peculiar *situation to-day, that the farmers of the country, especially the western farmers, who have never had any real benefit from protection, who cannot have any real benefit from protection because they produce more of their products than are used in the country-they are exporters, and the price of their stuff is as a rule settled abroad-the farmers are reasonably prosperous; not, I think, with all due deference to any hon. friend from Assinboia (Mr. Turriff), as prosperous as he would represent; the price of wheat has gone up; the price of pork at the present moment is very poor in western Canada; the price of beef on the foot Is very poor in western Canada; but still the farmers are getting reasonably good prices; and they are getting them, not by the help of protection, but in spite of it. It is in the towns that we have our destitution; these .towns that have been built up by the National Policy, where industries were to exist, where everybody was to he made prosperous, and upon which the farmers were to depend upon for their prosperity. It would seem, then, that the National Policy is breaking down as a builder of industries. How has this condition been met by v,the Government ? I do not think I have exaggerated;
I should be very sorry to. I hope I am a loyal and patriotic Canadian, though I am only an adopted son in Canada. I do not want to say anything which would hurt my adopted country, any more than I want to say anything to hurt the Empire in the struggle in which she is now engaged. I hope I have not exaggerated.
I have tried to depict fairly what is the condition of this country at the present moment and I turn to ask the question, how has the condition been met ? In regard to the way the Government has met the situation let me quote what the Minister of Finance said concerning our special war expenditures:
I have no hesitation in proposing to the House that we shall borrow the whole amount required under this heading.
Now, that is very -specific language. There was a tendency towards the end of the speech to which we have just listened, for my hon. friend the Minister of Finance rather to qualify and depart from the position which he took in the words:
I have no hesitation in proposing to the House that we shall borrow the whole amount required under this heading.
That is, under the heading of special war expenditure. Very well.
I define absolutely the attitude of hon. members on this side of the House. I say, and not only I say, but it is notorious that we all say: we agree. You are borrowing $100,000,000; we agree. But immediately the Minister of Finance makes that statement, he sets out to give us an account of the whole list of new taxation in the country, the whole series of new taxes, and after

he had got through the description of those taxes he went on in his Budget speech as follows: '
These, Mr. Speaker are the proposals of the Government, having as their object the raising of additional revenue rendered necessary by the war and our participation therein as a belligerent.
Now, it seems to me that these two statements are at variance. Even in the brief speech in which he introduced his Budget my hon. friend was not quite consistent in the two statements he made. The fact is that the case for new taxation is not established. And as I understand the difference on this point between the two sides of the House, I should like to state it thus: the Government proposes to borrow the whole money which they are spending on special war expenditure; we agree. The Government need in addition $7,000,000 for interest and the nucleus of a pension fund. The drain upon the'pension fund cannot be great, fortunately, for some little time to come. As f understand the amendment of my right hon. friend, it raises no objection to getting the money for the interest on the pension fund by some method of direct taxation. I so read the amendment of my right hon. friend, because it would be impossible to speak of direct taxes as burdening the people without giving revenue. I take it, then, that this is the position as between the two sides of the House; with the consensus of both sides the money for the carrying on of the war is being borrowed; the interest and the nucleus of a pension fund are being provided by direct taxation, because my hon. friend only needs $7,000,000 for interest, and the minimum sum he expects to get from direct taxation is $8,000,000, although the Toronto Star has calculated it at $14,000,000. Then where is the justification for the increase of the general tariff and for the obstacles against trade. I hold very strongly-and in this I think we are in general agreement on this utter failure in four hours of talk by the Minister of Finance, and in a great many more hours by hon. gentlemen behind him, to give any justification for increasing the customs taxation at this very serious juncture in the country's history.
. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance rather pooh-poohs the idea of our recommending economy, because when an individual gets hard up or is in straitened circumstances he has to economize. I do not know where my hon. friend learned his l Mr. M. Clark. 1
economics. Personally, I think I can quote very high authorities for the position that a nation's economics should be conducted upon the same principle as an individual's economics. John Bright once said:	" I
make no distinction between the morality that ought to guide a man and that which ought to guide a nation." I take it that moral principles are involved in the way that a man or a nation raises money and spends money. I do not agree with my hon. friend that the nation can learn nothing from the individual in this matter. What is a nation? An aggregate of individuals. Does my hon. friend mean to tell me that a departure from sound economic principles which ruins a man can be undertaken .by a nation? I do not agree wit'h-him for one minute. I stand with John Bright in declaring that the same economic principles in the main which guide a man ought to guide a nation. My hon. friend the junior member for Halifax used a notable phrase in regard to this Government's extravagance. He said that they had exalted extravagance to a virtue. We have had hon. gentlemen getting up in this debate and backing up that kind of thing. They say: The Government must go on spending even if they have to borrow. I wonder when we ever should be economical. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance condemns extravagance on the part of his predecessors who had plenty of money to spend, and he justifies extravagance on his own part when his revenues are falling and when he does not have the money to spend.
I stand in this matter with Cobden. So far from exalting extravagance to the height of virtue, Cobden used the epigram that I remember twice being quoted by Mr. Gladstone, " Public economy is public virtue." If my hon. friend the Minister of Finance had not retired from the House I would have strongly commended that short statement to him. It is very brief, and I have no doubt it has been conveyed to him many, many times by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Geo. Foster), who really cannot view the shortcomings of this mere tyro in finance with anything like equanimity.
Mr. Winston Churchill, who is at the head of a great spending department which might be allowed to be extravagant at the present time if ever a department was-Mr. Winston Churchill, in the midst of the war, making a speech in the House of Commons and

talking of the new departures on the part of the British Admiralty, had this to say:
Everything in our power will be done to avoid extravagance. We shall therefore welcome the advice of businessmen where they can help us.
As my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition said this afternoon, the Government of Great Britain calls to their assistance the Opposition in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords, and Mr. Winston Churchill also has asked that he should have the advice of any business men who could help him to conduct the great spending department of the Admiralty on economical lines. The Minister of Finance, when he was constructing his Budget, instead of calling to his councils the Opposition, and especially my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, whose long experience in Government would enable him to give much valuable information and advice, appears to have consulted with the Canadian manufacturers.
My hon. friend the junior member for Halifax, in arraigning this Government, was interrupted by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister with a question and the question of my right hon. friend reminded me of a celebrated programme called the Halifax programme. I was surprised at my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, because I remember reading that modern evangel promulgated in the city of Halifax, and I remember many expositions of it by my right hon. friend. I do not apologize for quoting the statement which was made in one of these expositions by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister to the effect that an expenditure of a little over $100,000,000 by the late Government was prima facie evidence that the Government was corrupt. When my hon. friend the Finance Minister, or any other hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, turns and asks us where he could begin economizing I think it is a perfectly logical procedure on his part to consult the Prime Minister. He must have had some ideas, if he was sincere, when he promulgated this gospel. I was surprised at his addressing his colleague in the representation of Halifax and putting to him the question as to whether he would consent to begin economizing in the city of Halifax. If he had been as sincere as the early projectors of the original evangel, who began at Jerusalem, Halifax is the very place that he would have begun to put into practice the gospel which he preached previous to 1911.
I appeal to my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the best of good humour, because I am perfectly sure that he has had many a serious interview with this Cabinet. I told him when he joined it that he was a. schoolmaster amongst children, that he was the only gentleman who had had any previous Cabinet experience, and the country is paying dearly for the fact, because he has been utterly powerless either by advice or example to restrain those with whom he is associated. My hon. friend in the year 1908, with an expenditure of about $108,000,000 for current and capital account, made a speech in this House in which he said:
The rapid pace that has been set and the recklessness ot the expenditures that have been undertaken have obliterated all the old rules, all the old lines in reference to expenditure.
If that was the case with an expenditure of $108,000,000 a year what are- we to say about the old lines and the old rules when the expenditure for the same object has got up to $160,000,000? Then, plaintively in that address, after making this statement he asks:	Whither are we
rushing? I wonder if he ever addresses that inquiry to his colleagues in the Cabinet. If not I would strongly urge him to do so and especially to try and enforce the inquiry upon the present holder of the portfolio of Finance. The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister made a fatal error in the original composition of his Cabinet, and I would advise him at once, if he wants to guide this country through to a saner and stronger financial position, to transpose a certain couple of ministers. The Minister of Finance would have made a splendid Minister of Trade and Commerce. Especially would he have excelled in the performance of the duties of the Department of Trade and Commerce which are described as those of the chief commercial traveller of Canada. The Minister of Finance has a smile that my hon. friend without portfolio opposite knows would be valuable in a commercial traveller, but a smile is no good to a watch dog. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has a smile, but he wears it in his heart. My hon. friend, if he had been given the portfolio of Finance and had been entrusted with the proper duties as the watch dog of the treasury, would have kept his smile most effectually when his present neighbour, the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) and others came to him to make the drains for their spending departments which have landed the country in the posi-

tion in which it is in at the present time. But the Government do not see fit to appeal to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce for lessons in economy. They do not wish to have them put in practice at the present time, and they have decided upon other proposals.
Let me say at once that the proposals of taxation which the Finance Minister has brought down for the approval of this House are absolutely lacking in initiative. I congratulate the Government upon their direct taxation; I congratulate them on embarking on direct taxation at all. The imposition of direct taxes is a very joyful spectacle for one who has been preaching the economic doctrines that I have been preaching in Canada for a number of years past. I have heard many men, since I came to Canada, ask: Where would you get your revenues if you established free trade and do awa"y with tariffs? the people of this country would never stand for direct taxation; you will not have it for generations. Well, Mr. Speaker, war is a fine fiscal schoolmaster, and the war has brought us to a position in which this country has gone in for direct taxation, and I congratulate the Government upon introducing it. But the choice of the Minister of Finance in regard to his direct taxes has, as my right hon. leader has pointed out, not been quite fortunate. . He has passed his direct taxes almost in every case right on to the consumers of the country, and to that extent he has failed to carry out direct taxation as it is carried out in the old country where the greatest burden is borne by the people who are most able to pay the taxes.
I think the Minister of Finance offered to the House, both when he introduced his Budget and again to-day, an extremely weak argument in opposition to an income tax. When he introduced his Budget he said that the income tax in Great Britain was mostly gathered upon huge investments. My recollection is that the minimum income paying tax in England is $1,000 a year, and I do not think the Minister of Finance is correctly informed in making the statement he did. I pointed out a year ago, I think in my Budget remarks, that at that time an income tax had been imposed in the United States, an income tax existed in Germany, that an income tax existed in France, and that surely the statesmanship of Canada was not absolutely so deficient that it could not come near the statesmanship of these various countries. I noticed the other day Russia, one of the Allies, had imposed an

income tax for war purposes, and the minimum income paying the tax is $500 per annum. If our Allies are doing this, I do not see why Canada should not have put on a good fat tax upon large incomes, and I want to say that while such a tax would have this merit that it followed the example of all other civilized countries of the world, it would have had the approbation of the great masses of the people of Canada. It is a fair tax because accordihg to the first principle of taxation we ought to gather our taxes as much as possible in proportion to the ability of the tax-payer to pay. I am perfectly certain that a good fat tax upon big incomes would have been a popular form of taxation, and a better form of taxation than many of the vqxatious stamp duties which the Minister of Finance has lightly borrowed from the United States. Australia is a country to which we may look for comparison, and sometimes for guidance. Australia is well worthy of imitation in a great many ways. I do not think that hon. gentlemen opposite would be inclined to impugn the loyalty of Australia; I am perfectly sure that they, as we, felt a thrill of joy and satisfaction when the Australian battleship "Sydney" captured the German commerce-destroyer "Emden." What has Australia done in this matter of direct taxation? Australia, for the purposes of this war, has raised $5,000,000 by a federal probate duty, in addition to the probate duty already imposed by the various states.
The Minister of Finance, while commending the courage of the hon. member from Saltcoats (Mr. MaeNutt) for mentioning a land tax, brushed aside a tax upon land values as a thing that was almost unworthy of his consideration. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance knows that Australia, for war purposes, is raising $13,500,000 by a land tax, , in addition to the land taxes gathered by the various states of the Commonwealth. I want to put this
to	the	members of	the	Government,as	well	as	to members	on my ownside	of	the	House,	that	the breakdown of protection in the matter of raising revenue will compel the statesmanship of Canada, sooner or later, as it has compelled the statesmanship of Germany, of the United States, of Russia, of England long ago, to seek direct taxes for carrying on the federal government, leaving the trade of the country free to develop the wealth in the country, which can be taxed as it is in England. Then all your taxation would go to the treasury and none of it to pamper and to feed special interests. I
want to point out tliat land-value taxation is attracting increasing attention in Great Britain and in the United States, where the doctrine of taxation of land values was first promulgated. It has been employed in our own provinces in the West with a very great degree of success, and I want to emphasize the fact which my hon. friend from Saltcoats mentioned: that the grain growers of the prairie provinces, as well as the grange of Ontario and the United Farmers of Ontario have through their delegates in every case unanimously carried a resolution in favour of the taxation of land values in preference to raising additional obstacles against the trade of Great Britain at a time when Great Britain is at war.
Meantime, let me say further about this tariff policy of the Government, that it is a policy lacking not only in initiative, but, I think, lacking in common sense. I will tell you why, because I do not want to use strong language without being able to justify it. The National Policy has failed, else why betake ourselves to direct taxation as the Government has done in this case? The National Policy has failed as a revenue producer, and the policy of the Government is lacking in common sense because they propose to help that failure by more National Policy. I do not think that is a rational procedure. If a medicine is killing every patient that gets it, I do not think it is common sense procedure to administer extra doses of that medicine to the next patient who comes along. It is possible at this juncture to look at the history of tariff in this country. Its history has now been prolonged to such an extent that we can trace the trail of the serpent by the slime it leaves. The National Policy was introduced into this country in 1878. Looking at these years, I have always, since coming to this country, allowed it five years to get into operation, and I have compared the trade of Canada in 1883 with the trade of Canada in 1895, these being the last twelve years that the old Conservative Government was
in power.	.
I have again and again pointed out in this House that in 1895, 17 years after the introduction of the National Policy, the foreign commerce of Canada was smaller by $6,000,000 than it was in 1883, twelve years previously. That is a very significant fact. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, sat in this House at that time, and you saw the trade of the country stationary year after year, until in 1895, after seventeen years of the National Policy, it was lower than it was in 1883,
and the condition of the country generally was in keeping with the trade figures.
The other day I came across a quotation from the News-Advertiser of Vancouver, of February 1, 1895, giving an account of a hoard otf works meeting twenty years ago, in which I read:
Mr. H. A. Ball submitted an elaborate scheme of a poor farm in the Bast End Park where the hungry could be fed and work found for them.
That was after seventeen years o'f the National Policy in Vancouver. That was when the political forefathers of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) were running the affairs of the Dominion. I should think he would recognize a likeness between those times and now. The failure was so evident to my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce that, financier and statesman as he was, he faced the situation. What did he do? What my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is doing now-administer more National Policy? No, he reduced the tariff of this country very considerably, although the reduction came too late to save his party. His party went out of power in 1896; my right hon. friend came into power; and despite statements which I have never considered very fair on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite that nothing was done to reduce the tariff during the fifteen years that my right hon. friend was in power, in 1897, following the example, as I freely admit, of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, my right hon. friend reduced the tariff very largely. One hundred and fifty articles were put upon the free list and the British preference was introduced. It is no wonder that my right hon. friend says, as he said this afternoon, " Here we draw the line."
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance, forsooth, impugned the motives of my right hon friend as if the British preference were a new thing with him. So far as actual legislation is concerned, my right hon. friend is the father of the British preference in this country. The result of his introduction of the British preference was that just as British goods come here, so British immigrants and British capital come here; and the thing that my hon. friends opposite cannot get over at the present -moment is that, for the fifteen years during which my right hon. friend and his colleagues guided the destinies of Canada, Canada was inhabited by a prosperous, wealthy, contented, and happy people. It goes without saying, that with all

due allowance for the war, the National Policy in a much briefer period had brought about in the beginning of last year when there was not any war the very condition of affairs which existed in this country in 1896, when the upholders of the National Policy were sent about their business, because their policy had proved a failure. What is the cure for this depression? Is it to be more National Policy? Is it to be a made-in-Canada campaign?


Mr. SAM SHARPE:: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend the member for North Ontario says, " hear, hear." I would like him to go down to Toronto or Montreal and explain his made-in-Canada campaign to the thousands of unemployed there.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would like my hon.
friend to come to Orillia or any of our towns and say that the made-in-Canada campaign is a stupid policy.


Michael Clark: I would not do so without explaining the campaign. Of course, my hon. friend does not understand how stupid it is, but I will explain that point to him. I would like my hon. friend to go to his own city, in which he has spoken in favour of this made-in-Canada campaign, and explain how the National Policy is going to cure the problem that you have resulting from the National Policy which you have followed so far. Let my hon. friend say to one of those unemployed men, of whom there are thousands in the cities throughout Canada; You are having too many imports because that is the meaning of the National Policy campaign. If it means anything, it means that imports are a curse. I do not know what my hon. friends think about imports. If the made-in-Canada campaign has any meaning, it means that you are going to exclude imports. Yet my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce tells us that the country is depressed because we do not have imports any longer. Let any hon. gentleman opposite go to one of the unemployed in Toronto and say: We want fewer imports into this country at the present moment, and let him explain the economics of the policy. If the unemployed man were thoughtful he would say: When Laurier was in power, we were importing largely and we were prosperous; I was getting three good square meals a day then, and I have difficulty in getting them now either for myself or for my family. I imagine that my hon. friend opposite who was on this mission would have to tell that poor workman that he was getung too 
many imports at this time; that they were bad for him; that he needed dieting. He is getting the dieting all right. The imports were all right-the imports into the country accompanied by sufficient imports into the stomachs of the workingmen of the country. There must be a reason for that fact.
I wish I had time to tell hon. gentlemen opposite of some experiences that I had the last time I spoke on protection in England. When I was in England in 1906, I took part in the campaign there. The agitation was along exactly the same lines when Mr. Chamberlain was trying to impose protection upon the old country. His party was telling the people of Great Britain that carpenters were unemployed there because Britain	was	importing too many
window-sashes and doors from Canada. They were having a made-in-Canada campaign in Great Britain. It does not look so well when we see it from this side, does it? Protection is supported by the same fallacies everywhere.
Where	was	the	fallacy? Why	didnot the workingmen of Britain listen to the argument as it was put to them over there? Because teachers who knew something of economics immediately came along and said to the workingmen of Britain:	It is	very	true that	we are	importing	large	numbers of	doors	and
window sashes from Canada; but the peculiar thing is this, that statistics prove that carpenters in Britain have least unemployment when we are importing the most doors. and window-sashes from Canada. Does my hon. friend the member for North Ontario (Mr. Sam. Sharpe) begin to see some light upon the made-in-Canada proposal? Why was it that carpenters were busiest in Britain when they were importing the most doors and window-sashes? Simply because they were busiest in the building trade, and the carpenters of Britain were making better money at hanging the doors made in Canada than they could make in making the doors.
Is there any wise economist on the other side who will tell me that the people of Great Britain do not know their business? Will the hon. member for North Ontario undertake to go to Britain and teach this made-in-Canada policy to Mr. Lloyd George, and improve the narrow fiscal understanding of Mr. Asquith and Sir Edward Grey? I think not.
How will the new tariff act? According to the minister who is responsible for it, it will not only raise revenue, but also promote agriculture and industry. Well, I

never heard a prophecy that I think less likely of fulfilment than that one. If it is going to get revenue, how is it going to promote the made-in-Canada campaign? It is difficult to tell what the exact result of the tariff will be, but I venture to say'that it will raise the cost of living for every man, woman and child in Canada. It will raise the cost of living as a result of the action of the Government which my hon. friend from Brantford supports, and it will raise that cost of living at a time when he has been engaged in trying to persuade the same Government to fix the price of foodstuffs in Canada. And I commend to him the consideration of the monumental nature of his inconsistency in that attitude. It will certainly raise the price of everything that we buy for clothing, everything that we buy for production, and nearly all we buy for food. That is the one certain result of the tariff as it is being imposed by the Government.
The Minister of Finance gets very angry with us on this side of the House if it is even suggested that that is the object of the tariff. Well, I would only say that there are many utterances of hon. gentlemen opposite that would lead us to beli'eve that that would be the effect of the tariff m any case, and that the effect will be produced, not so much by reason of the price of imported goods, as by reason of the price of goods produced in this country. I do not know how many hon. gentlemen noticed the interruption of my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) the other evening. I think it was when my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turiff) was speaking. He was talking of the tariff upon axle greese, and my hon. friend from Peel very innocently said: Could not we make all that in Canada? Then, as my hon. friend from Assiniboia pointed out, what becomes of the proposal to get revenue by this means? On the one hand, the Minister of Finance tells us that these new taxes are going to give him $20,000,000 to $25,000,000 for the year- and he calls them war taxes, forsooth, though he has told us already that he is going to borrow all the money for the war- and, on the other hand, the follower of the Minister of Finance tells us that he proposes that as much of these goods as possible should be made in Canada. It is impossible that the tariff should at once raise revenue and promote the industry of the country. It never did so. Wherever the protective tariff is introduced it fails as a revenue producer, as the minister told us this afternoon it must do. The real objection to the tariff legislation of this Government is in
this, that by raising prices to the consumer of . almost everything used in this country, it builds up the fortunes of a limited class of our people at a time when everybody else in this country is learning how to suffer patiently. I pictured in my opening remark the
11	p.m. farmer who has sent 'his son to the front and is left on the iarm to make his living there. To complete the picture I need to introduce between the farmer and his son the gaunt and greedy figure of the tariff beneficiary who is prepared to line his own pockets by the financial suffering of those left at home while the son who has gone into the trenches is shedding his blood for his country. The real iniquity of these proposals at this time is in this, that while every man, woman and child outside of the beneficiaries of the tariff is learning to spell letter by letter, and to write in tears and blood, the word " Sacrifice!" the tariff beneficiary is there with his hands out for his subsidy. I am glad that I stand with those who are prepared to sacrifice and not with those who are seeking subsidies. Then my hon. friend from Victoria, and other hon. gentlemen on that side of the House, with unctuous patriotism on behalf of others say that they are quite sure the farmers of the West will be quite prepared to make their share of sacrifice.


An hon. MEMBER:: They will.


Michael Clark: Yes, their share. They make their sacrifices in sending their sons to the trenches; but they do not propose- the workmen of our towns do not propose -to make a further sacrifice in the case of unjust taxation to the Moloch god of protection. That is the issue between us in regard to this question of tariff taxation and of " sacrifice " which falls so lightly from the lips of hon. members opposite, and I am glad to say falls so thoughtlessly also. The policy of the Government is shortsighted. What is the good of sending lecturers on production all over Canada, and at the same time putting these obstacles in the way of production. Production depends on power to exchange. You erect barriers against international exchange and then go to the farmer and say: Produce more but do not seek markets in which to sell your produce. It would be as rational to say to a man: Breathe freely, it is good for your health; and at the same time to put a string around his windpipe. You

prevent yonr foreign trade by tariffs, and then you say to the farmers: For goodness sake, in these serious times, produce more. Short-sighted '
Now I come to the British preference. The short-sightedness, I think, comes out especially in connection with the British preference. The Minister of Finance put some question to me in regard to the British preference, and indulged in that flippant sophistry which usually finds its expression in the columns of the Toronto News, about the preference not having been lowered. The amendment of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition does not say anything about the preference. It says there are additional obstacles being placed against British trade. That is what the amendment says, and that is what the tariff is doing-putting additional obstacles against British trade. No denial is possible to that simple statement.
Of course, my hon. friend comes along with his arithmetical and proportional calculation and says: but we are not doing so badly to Britain as we are to the other countries of the world. But what consolation is that to Britain? Suppose my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works-which God forbid-had fallen into the hands of the Germans, and his family had fallen into the hands of the Germans with him. Suppose they had said that he was so wicked a character that they would cut off both his hands and gouge out both his eyes; would it have been very much consolation to any remaining member of my hon. friend's family if they had taken from my hon. friend only one hand or only one eye? That is all there is to this childish argument. What is the good of talking about Britain still having a preference in the market if you are making the tariff so high that she cannot compete with our own producers? That is my answer to my hon. friend's economic refinements which he makes with such abundance and such a profuse use of the first personal pronoun.
What was the other question my hon. friend put to me? He said: "Were the duties against British goods raised by my right hon. friend for the purposes of protection?" I am enough of a Scotchman to answer my hon. friend's question by asking him another, and the other question I want to put is' this: if my right hon. friend raised the duty on some specific British import to the point that it became a protective duty, how is my hon. friend going to get a revenue by raising it still higher? I trust that some

of my hon. friend's colleagues will draw his attention to my answer to his question. War taxes? How can these be war taxes? If my right hon. friend made the tax protective and barred the goods from the country, or largely so, are they going to be admitted when my hon. friend raises the tax still higher? They know that there is only one answer to that question; it is a protective tax; it is a tax to protect the home producer. Do not let us hear any more about sacrifice just at this point in the argument.
My hon. friend's policy is short-sighted because, inevitably, we are handing over business to the United States. The United States, we are told, have imposed war taxes, but they have been sensible enough to do so not by way of raising the tariff, but by imposing a very large number of direct taxes. They have found out the fallacy of tariffs over there. It is a piece of absolute folly, hurtful to Canada, to put a tax, for example, on wool, at the very time when the United States are admitting wool free into their country, thus freeing the hands of their manufacturers. If you go to almost any manufacturer in Britain to-day and ask Ixim why he prefers free trade to protection, he will say that it is because as a manufacturer he has done better under free trade. If you ask him why, he will say because of the cheap rate at which he can get his raw material. But in the terrible times through which we are passing and which are still in front of us, the highest wisdom of this Government in restoring the manufacturing industries and the prosperity of the commerce of this country is to be found in their following a road diametrically opposed to the road which has led Britain to the commercial and manufacturing supremacy that she has in the world to-day.
My hon. friend's policy is short-sighted, because after this war every one of us knows that we shall need British capital again. My hon. friend says that the present depression of trade exists because we cannot get capital. I want to call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that he has in his Budget taken the best way to debar British capital from this country. Just as when the British preference was first introduced, goods came and our goods went in payment, which is the basic principle of all international trade, so the people came, capital came and prosperity came. My hon. friend has reversed all this, with the zeal of a pervert.


William Thomas White: Don't you believe it.


Michael Clark: Don't believe what? Is my hon. friend not putting on these taxes?


William Thomas White: Do not believe the theory that you are putting forward.


Michael Clark: I am not dealing in
theories. My hon. friend is the theorist for this Government, and the theory he puts forward to-night in this very connection was the most extraordinary that I ever heard come from a man who professes to be an economist. I hope he will not include me in his class any more; he is in a class absolutely by himself. My hon. friend puts forth the theory to-night that these tariffs of his will not bar out trade. Then what becomes of the " Made in Canada " propa-gandism? I said it was stupid, but it is worse than that if the tariff will not bar out trade. I will have to correct myself and call it wicked as well. Trade, as a rule, is not founded on sentiment. When the Investors' Review and the Economist, both journals of very high standing, animadverted to the disadvantage of the increased obstacles which my hon. friend has put on against British trade, they did not do so on the ground of the effect on Britain. They know something about trade and finance over there, and both these trade journals lamented the increased obstacles against British trade on the very grounds which I have now been bringing before the House; because of their hurtfulness to Canada and the Canadian people. They both support the fiscal policy which has made Britain what she is to-day in the hands of Mr. Lloyd George and his colleagues, who were in Parliament and preaching sound economics at the time when my hon. friend had scarcely escaped from the schoolmaster's rod. These papers lament the fiscal legislation that my hon. friend is introducing because of its hurtfulness to Canada. But I will say that if ever sentiment entered into relations of trade I would have thought it would do so at the present moment in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite. This is a view that is being held by large numbers of British people in this country. I have a couple of sentences that were written to me by an Englishman in Winnipeg the other day; the writer will be recognized as an Englishman by the straightforwardness, honesty, sincerity and strength of his speech. He says:
Every one I hear talking thinks it is nothing less than a stab in the back, a real piece of treachery, helping the enemy. To borrow the
whole cost of the war from England and then turn round and tax her goods extra, ostensibly to find the money to repay her, but really to give the tariff hogs a little more swill, is rotten.
That is how Britishers in the constituency of my hon. friend (Mr. Rogers) are talking about this tariff.
Hon. ROBT., ROGERS:	That gentlemen
is not acquainted with many people out there.	/


Michael Clark: My hon. friend' may be
mistaken on that point. In the last election Winnipeg gave a popular majority against the Government of which my hon. friend was once an ornament of about 8,000. My hon. friend should not be too sure about what he knows of the people of Winnipeg. My friend, Mr. Dixon, who was elected en that occasion by the biggest majority ever given, I think, a provincial candidate in Manitoba, is a free-trader and single-taxer, who came originally from the city of Nottingham. There are more people there who have fiscal light than my hon. friend dreams of. The last trial of strength was not very strong in support of the view which has just been expressed by the hon. gentleman, for whom I have a very great regard, so great a regard that I would not like him to live- in a fool's paradise in this matter. Instead of spending his time studying electioneering politics I would recommend that he study economics, and then when he runs up against a propaganda like Dixon's he will be able to deal with it with arguments of a different kind to what are used in practical politics.
I wish the Government even now would repent on this matter of the British preference. I say it sincerely, I would not put a tax on British goods just now; and a man is always sincere when he commends others to take the course he would have taken himself. I would not put an additional obstacle against British goods at this time. I would have been too fearful of linking up myself, even in thought, with what has been done by the enemies of my country. If I may repeat what has been said by my right hon. leader this afternoon: "I would not fight British trade with tariffs at the time that the Germans are fighting it with submarines." It would be most impolitic to do so when British trade is doing so much for the world as it is doing. My hon. friends will tell me it is not Britain's trade, it is the Navy. Of course, it is the Navy. But what built the Navy? Protectionists will never build a navy. The last thing protectionists want is ships. If you

go in for the home market and interprovincial trade, which have failed you so lamentably sCt the present moment, and for the made-in-Canada propaganda you will never build many ships. The Navy is the direct result of trade. It is the final outcome of the commercial and the colonizing and civilizing qualities which are the glory of the British race. British trade is to-day the chief support of the Allies, Mr. Speaker, it is more than that. It is itself the chief ally. It is British trade which is bringing succour to the poor and needy Belgian refugees. It is British trade which is enabling Britain to finance her own outlying dominions and the smaller belligerents states. It is British trade which is keeping open the ports of the North American continent and of all neutral states. It is British trade which is saving to-day the civilized world. Hon. gentlemen opposite think the time fitting to obstruct that trade, and at the same time propose to throw extra burdens on our own people. We on this side of the House most confidently believe that in this most serious crisis it is not wise either to obstruct your commerce or to burden year people.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer a few remarks with regard to the motion now before the House. After listening to the addresses on the Budget that have been delivered here this afternoon and tonight, I can imagine that at this late hour hon. gentlemen are pretty well loaded up with the subject, and that nothing new or interesting can now be said with regard to it. It is just about a month ago that the Budget was delivered in this House. For nearly two weeks we were living in expectation of the Opposition's taking up the discussion of the Budget; hut adjournment after adjournment took place, until finally the financial critic of the Opposition replied. To-day we have listened to an address from the right hon. leader of the Opposition, who has moved an amendment dealing with one phase of the Budget. I believe that at this particular time in our history we should consider the questions that come before Parliament in a sober, serious manner, that matters should not be considered lightly or with levity. I regret to have come to the conclusion that that has not characterized all the addresses that have 'been delivered in this House.
I have listened with a good deal of interest to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Michael Clark), after rMr. M. Clark.]
addressing the House for an hour and a half. I have heard him on previous occasions dealing with public questions in this House, and I must say that I have often listened to him with a good deal of interest. But the very fact that to-night he lias not been up to his usual standard is an indication that he found the subject a very difficult one. We all recognize in the hon. member for Red Deer a keen debater, a man with a logical mind who is quick to detect and reach the weak joints in the armour of his opponent; but to-night, if we are to judge by the vehemence and lung power which he displayed, I think he was sadly lacking in the arguments he is usually able to find. I shall attempt to deal with just a few of those he has advanced. We have listened with interest and sometimes with amusement to the arguments he has advanced in favour of that old hobby of his, free trade. We have heard him denounce protection to-night in a manner that would indicate that he was thoroughly sincere in that respect. But the hon. member for Red Deer is somewhat like the parrot that once found himself in difficulties, and who, after coming to a sober realization of the plight he was in, came to the conclusion that he had talked too much. I have heard the hon. member for Red Deer deal with protection from a different standpoint to that which he assumed to-night. I remember that he had made a speech on protection two years ago, and I took the trouble to find out whether he was always the ardent free trader that he is to-day. When I heard him denounce this made-in-Canada propaganda I could not help thinking that I had heard him on a similar subject in the past, and on looking over the records-and you can find his name displayed on almost every page of the records of that year-I found that the hon. gentleman did not always denounce the made-in-Canada movement that we heair so much about to-day. In fact, he championed it, and a very able and eloquent champion he was. I wish to quote a few remarks that he made in this House in March, 1913, which will be found in the Unrevised Hansard, page 4648. He said:
The simple fact is that Canada cannot afford these dreadnoughts, sending money out of the country without recompense in the shape of developing industries within the country.
That was the attitude of the hon. gentleman at that time. Is that the song he sings to-day? No, he preaches an entirely

different doctirine. He was a made-in-Camada man at thalt time.


Michael Clark: Is there anything inconsistent between defending my own house against a burglar and buying something from a neighbouring store ?


Donald Sutherland: No, but I am inclined to think that if the people of the British Empire had been of the same opinion as the hon. gentleman on that occasion the burglar would be in possession to-day and we would be paying tribute to our neighbours. We would not be sending our men over to help Britain in the fight that is now engaging the attention of the civilized world. He goes further; he says that of the $91,000,000 of an increase in our trade of the previous year, only $9,000,000 represents the increase in exports. That means that we increased our borrowings to such an extent that our increase in production will barely suffice to pay the interest on our increased borrowings. To-day he says: Buy in the cheapest market and sell wherever you can. He denounced protection and he cited figures down to the year 1895. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that down to the year 1896 when the Liberal Government came into power, they had denounced protection and they had proclaimed what they would do with it if returned to power. Was it any wonder that the manufacturers of the country, that the people who desired to invest money in industrial development, were nervous at the possibility of those gentlemen being connected with the Government of this country? We know as a matter of fact notwithstanding the professions that were made at the time, the manufacturers were privately assured that if hon. gentlemen opposite came into power they would not repeal the protective tariff. Is it to be wondered at that capital obtained confidence after the late Government had been in power a few years? People realized that the protective tariff had come to stay, and that hon. gentlemen opposite were not sincere in their professions when they said they were going to repeal the protective tariff. Confidence having been established in the minds of people interested in manufacturing industries that protection was the policy of both parties, a great development took place between the period to which I refer and the present time. Year after year we have seen industries springing up, and we haye secured the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in different lines of manufacture. I know that the hon. gentleman from Red Deer does not like to
hear this and in order to get away from a conscience that is troubling him he has, I believe, walked out of the House. I do not intend to devote further time to that subject.
The protective tariff that he has attacked to-night has been attacked also by hon. gentlemen opposite. They still sing that old song that we heard so much of in 1911-[DOT] unrestricted reciprocity. The hon. leader of the Opposition said to-day: In 1911 you debarred us from selling to the United States and now you are going to prevent us from buying from Great Britain. Does he not realize that the markets of the United States are freer to us to-day than they were when reciprocity was an issue? Is it not a fact that we can sell more freely to the United States under the conditions that exist to-day than we could have done had reciprocity come into effect? I have the best of authority for making that statement and I am going to quote my authority. After the Wilson tariff had come into effect, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) was in the United States, and he was calling upon the President. The Globe of November 27, 1913, contains the folowing allusion to this subject:
Representative James R. Mann, the Republican floor leader of the House who has followed Canadian tariff matters closely, was asked what trade relations might be discussed between the Canadian Premier and President Wilton, Mr. Mann said : "I do not see what object Premier Borden could have in discussing trade questions with the President or the present Administration. I cannot understand what more could be obtained by Canada by way of trade benefits than the Dominion can now have under the Underwood tariff law. The United States gave Canada much more in the Underwood tariff reductions than the Canadian reciprocity proposed to give. While the latter Act was intended to be reciprocal, the Underwood Act is not, and Canada does not have to give .anything in return.
That is pretty good authority. Yet in face of that we find that on March 7 of last year the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Le-mieux) who, I am sorry to find, has not been able to attend during the last few days on account of illness, made this statement in a public address delivered at Buffalo:
" If an appeal were made now to the Canadian people," said Mr. Lemieux, " there would be an overwhelming majority in favour of the reciprocity pact.*'
That is also taken from the Globe of March 7, 1914. We had a similar statement from the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon), who is an ardent advocate of reciprocity. I can imagine what the condition of affairs would have been if at the

present time reciprocity had been in existence. With a war in progress in the old land and tariff entanglements that woul(J be bound to create differences between us and the United States, the situation would have been one full of embarrassment. I have not admired the course of the United States during the whole progress of this war, and I am pleased that we have no entanglements, no alliances of any kind, but that we are able to assist the Empire in whatever manner we choose.
I want to call the attention of the House to a remark made by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition in his address this afternoon. He was referring to the truce which he claimed had not been observed on this side of the House. I have heard this question during the past few days discussed in the House. I have been quite of the opinion that there was no truce for some time past, if ever. I heard my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) make a statement that he and the leader of the Opposition had cancelled some meetings which they had intended to hold and that they had observed the truce. I can quite understand why they would cancel meetings at the time the war broke out. I can imagine what sort of a reception the leader of the Opposition would have had if he had gone out through this country holding political meetings at that time in view of the record which he established for himself in preventing Canada from doing her part to assist Britain in strengthening the naval forces of the Empire. He well might withdraw, but the Liberal press in this country, day in and day out, have continued to discuss political questions not at all as if a truce existed but as if they were going to avail themselves of every opportunity of gaining a political advantage. 1 want again to quote from the Toronto Globe which, as the House well knows, is the organ of the Liberal party in the province from which I come. In its editorial column it says:
" Our policy," said Sir Wilfrid, speaking of the attitude of himself and his supporters during the long session, " was that we should have two fleet units, one on the Atlantic and one on the Pacific, to take the places of the British squadrons which had been removed from these waters. . . . We on this side of the House are as ready to bear our burden, to discharge the duty we owe to the Motherland as British subjects, as any others can be; but we want to do it in the manner which was adopted by all parties at one time, when this question was approached free from party bias, by the organization of a Canadian navy on lines compatible with the autonomy of Canada." The

reference here is to the naval debate that grew out of the resolution of Mr. Foster in 1909.
Sir Wilfrid pointed out at some length, and with great clearness and emphasis, the effect of the removal of the North American squadron from the North Atlantic Ocean: all Canadian exports would, in the event of a foreign war, have to pass into and through the United States, to be carried to their destination under the flag of that country. The present war has made plain the prophetic character of this presage. The presence of a few German cruisers meant for a time serious derangement of British commerce, not merely on the Atlantic, but also on the Pacific and Indian Oceans. If Canada had, under the Borden Administration, carried out the Canadian naval policy, in co-operation with Australia and in accordance with the terms of their agreement of 1909, these German cruisers would never have produced a tithe of the alarm and destruction they caused.
This is the Liberal policy as outlined by the Liberal leader in Parliament. It purports to provide for the defence of Canada on both oceans, and also of Australia and New Zealand.
That editorial was contained in the Toronto Globe of November 25, 1914, and other editorials of a similar nature have appeared in that and other papers, all of which goes to show that the Liberals have not been keeping the truce. The Winnipeg Free Press also contained similar statements, one of which I shall read:
Among the nations of the Empire, Australia stands higher now in the sight of all the world by reason of the achievement of the cruiser Sydney of the Australian navy. Canada in 1909 adopted the Canadian navy policy by unanimous vote of the Dominion Parliament, on a resolution moved by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and seconded by Mr. Borden. This Dominion entered into an agreement with the Commonwealth of Australia to co-operate on the Pacific with Dominion navies. That agreement was abandoned by the present Government of this country. Would it not have been a fine thing if a cruiser of the Canadian navy, say the Winnipeg, had chased down and destroyed the Emden?
I would point out to hon. gentlemen opposite that they have not observed the truce, when their press contains such articles as these by which they are deliberately attempting to mislead and influence the people of this country. In 1909 the three Dominions, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, decided to share the burdens of naval defence. All three Dominions started even and Australia built a whole fleet unit and New Zealand built a battle cruiser in 1909, but down to nearly the end of 1911, when the late Government went out of power, we find that Australia and New Zealand had completed their part of the contract and Canada had not done anything. The Liberal Government did not attempt to do anything with regard to naval defence; it was a matter of procrastination with them. Not a ship was

built, not a keel was laid, not a contract was given by the Liberal Canadian Government during till the time they were in power. To-day they say : why we were just on the verge of doing something when the change of Government took place. I say, Sir, that tenders called for by the late Government were received on the 1st of May, 1911, and shortly after that, on the 12th day of May, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and two of his ministers, went to England to attend the Imperial conference, there to throw cold water on Imperial matters. They arrived back in Ottawa on the 12th of July, the dissolution of Parliament took place on July 29th, and the election was held on the 21st of September. During all these summer months the tenders were lying in the office pigeon-holed, and the Government never made any attempt to let a contract. This showed that they were not sincere in what they were professing to the people of this country; it proved that they had no intention whatever of carrying out the policy they were preaching with regard to naval defence: I believe that the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) gave us an insight into what was the custom and habit of the Liberal party, not only when in power, but when in opposition, when the other day he stated in this , House: that he had come to the conclusion that political parties are justified in certain instances in not keeping promises which they never should have made. Is not that a nice doctrine to preach? That political parties should not keep promises which they should never have made. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Nesbitt) did not go so far as to say that if it was going to have any political effect it might be a good thing to make these promises and to not observe them afterwards. Later on, in his speech, the contention of the hon. member (Mr. Nesbitt) was that the present Government should not only ignore what the late Government had done with respect to the building of the Hudson Bay railway, but be done with the whole thing. He indicated that the late Government, although they had made extensive and expensive surveys, and had made a careful estimate as to the resources of the country through which the railway passed, were not absolutely convinced they were justified in building that road. The impression he would leave on the minds of the people is, that this was one of the promises that the late Government would be justified in breaking. In contrast to that, let me point out that at a political meeting at which I was present not very long ago, during the South Huron by-56
election, the right hon. the leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), late Minister of Railways, were present, and if I remember corectly, and l think I do, the hon. member for South Renfrew said:	the
Tory Government we now have in power in this country have done nothing; they have not put any practical legislation on the statute books; it was not they who initiated the Hudson Bay railway, I signed the contract for the building of that road, and all the credit should go to the Liberal Government and not to the present Government. What are we to think when we find a member of the Opposition getting up in this House and asking us to denounce the building of the Hudson Bay railway now, and to disregard the contract that had been entered into by our predecessors? Is that the kind of honour we want to see on the part of governments and political parties in this country? I say no, and I hope that such a damnable doctrine as that will receive the treatment it ought to receive from the people of Canada. That is not the kind of honour we want to see inculcated into the youth of this country? 1 may say that a more pernicious doctrine was never preached by any political man in this country than that which fell from the lips of the hon. member for North Oxford on that occasion.
I want to make a few further references to this truce, which has been violated by the Toronto Globe, by the Winnipeg Free Press, and by almost every Liberal candidate who has been nominated during tho past few months. The most offensive partisanship has been displayed by these gentlemen at these conventions, and it has been published broadcast in the Liberal press throughout Canada. I want to say, Sir, that the record of the Opposition with regard to the construction of the navy is just exactly in keeping with the doctrine that was preached by the member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). I want to say, further, that only on January 19 of last year we had a statement from the leader of the Opposition in this House, which gives a pretty fair index of what was in his mind, and, indeed, the same idea was expressed by many hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. The right hon. gentleman said:
Emergency? Who speaks to-day of emergency? Twelve months have passed since my right hon. friend the Prime Minister introduced his measure. Twelve months and more have passed since that time when he saw the German peril. He saw Germany almost ready to jump at the throat of Great Britain. He saw clouds



on the horizon; he saw these clouds rent by lightning; he heard the murmurs and rumbling oi distant thunder. But my right hon. friend to-day lives in peace. The atmosphere is pure, the sky is clear.
Those were the predictions of the right hon. gentleman just one year ago. Two years ago he succeeded in defeating the proposition introduced by the Prime Minister of Canada to render some assistance to the British Empire, and to remove the stigma and reproach standing against us to-day that we have never done anything for the Empire; that we have been receiving favours at the hands of Great Britain, and that we have never displayed the manliness to assume a share of the burdens of Empire. When the Prime Minister brought down that measure it was defeated by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition and those who sat behind him in this House and by his followers in the Senate. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), who was heartily in accord with the policy of his leader, on the same day, January 19, 1914, made the following statement:
The whole case of contribution was a case of emergency, and the emergency disappeared when the fleet went to Gibraltar. And if it disappeared at that time, where is the emergency to-day? My right hon. friend knows, and every one of his supporters knows, that the fleet has been dispersed to the seven seas and the German fleet with it-and every lover of civilization is very glad to see that come about. And that dispersal of the fleet is the second absolute ' justification of all that the Opposition did last winter, whether it was in the House of Commons or in the Senate.
That shows where the influence exerted in the Senate came from.
The right hon. leader of the Opposition says:	" In Great Britain the Government
have called the Opposition in ' and have consulted with them as to conditions in regard to the war; they have taken them into their councils. He complains: We have not been taken into the councils of this Government; consequently, you need not complain if we criticise you to-day. Let me tell the right hon. gentleman that the attitude of the Opposition in the old country was not the same as the attitude of the Opposition in Canada. They have not displayed the same disposition that has been displayed here year in and year out by hon. gentlemen opposite. During all the years that my hon. friends were in power and during the few years that the present Government has been in power, my hon. friends opposite day in and day out have exerted themselves to prevent Canada from assuming her part

of the burden of the Empire. Is it any wonder, with a record such as that, that the hon. leader of the Opposition was not called into the councils of the Government. He says: Do not complain if to-day we are criticising the course of the present Government. Is it pique that influences the right hon. gentleman? Is he so sensitive because he has been left out that he finds it necessary to criticise the Government on a question of this kind with the Empire engaged in the most serious war that has ever taken place in the history of the world, with millions of men armed to the teeth, with the contesting parties locked together to-day in a death struggle, each realizing full well what defeat or victory will mean to them? Is this a time for a political leader to\ exhibit a disposition of that kind and to complain that because he has not been consulted by the Government, he will criticise it?
The right hon. gentleman occupied most of his time in picturing the grave injustice which would be done to the poor man, and how the wealthy man was going to escape practically scott free. He referred to the tax on railway tickets. He did not tell hon. members that the wealthy man was taxed twice to the poor man's once. The wealthy man is taxed when he purchases his ticket and also when he takes a seat in tile Pullman car. I could not see any force in my right hon. friend's argument. I have taken the trouble to look the matter up, and I am still of the same opinion.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Would my hon. friend not consider it a reasonable proposal that a second-class ticket should bear a smaller rate of taxation than a first-class ticket bears?


Donald Sutherland: I do not see that there is very much difference. As a matter of fact, I think most people travel first-class in this country.


John Howard Sinclair: You would get all the more revenue, then.


Donald Sutherland: were wearing the uniform. I would call attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Caleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell). These remarks were made on the 1st of June, 1914, just two months before war broke out:
The principal cause of the trouble with the minister-
That is, the Minister of Militia.
-and his top-heavy militia is the report of a general by the name of French, who came to this country some years ago, and in my judgment his visit was one of the greatest misfortunes that has befallen Canada.
I told the late Minister of Militia publicly and privately that in adopting the ridiculous and unreasonable report made by this gentleman, he had committed a great mistake. It might be all right if General French was reporting on the conditions in Bulgaria, or Russia, or Germany, or even Italy, but when it comes to a country like Canada where there is not a possibility of trouble, his ideas are ridiculous. There is no more possibility of a war breaking out between Canada and any country in the world than there is of the Minister of Militia or myself, committing suicide between now and to-morrow morning.
The department brought over a man like General French and he lays out the country in divisional areas. That was not enough and they had to increase the divisional areas and get more officers. That was not bad enough, although the Lord knows it was pretty bad. Last year they brought over another of these gentlemen, General Sir Ian Hamilton. I do not think we have suffered so much from his report as we did from that of General French, because the most of the damage had been done already f perhaps I am not voicing the sentiment of every one in this House, and I presume I am not; but I want to give the minister credit for getting rid of this foreign-
He heard a hiss pass through the House at that, and so he said:
-I will take that word back. This English General Inspecting Officer, or whatever you call him. When I was in Germany, I admit that I could see the result of the military training there: you could see it as the men walked alcng the street. In Canada you do not get enough military training for it to be of any benefit physically. All you get in the militia of Canada is that you teach about 25 per cent of the men in Canada how to get drunk.
This was the hon. member for Carleton's estimate of the men who belong to the militia of this country. I say that a more contemptible insult was never hurled at the men wearing the King's uniform. These words are on Hansard, and they will remain a reproach against the hon. member for Carleton as long as he lives and does not volunteer for service in order to remove the reproach that stands against him. And what did we hear from another hon. gentleman, also very close to the late Government, and now one of the chief whips of the party of hon. gentlemen opposite?
The Minister of Militia has not been hoping to bu'ld up a militia which may be and which ought

to be useful; he has been simply building up a militia which may be called out ait any minute. His idea is absolutely wrong, and it is not a good idea for the young people of Canada to grow up with. I am in favour of the militia, but a minister who is in charge of the Militia Department of the Dominion of Canada and who is building up a militia day in and day out along the lines that to-morrow we may be at war with somebody, has not got the right idea in mind and is imbuing the spirit of war into the souls of the people of this Dominion. There Is no question about the necessity of a militia, but why should we spend in militia the enormous sum we are spending to-day is more than I can understand.
Numerous criticisms of this kind were hurled against the militia expenditures and the Minister of Militia. Hon. gentlemen opposite to-day contend that we should reduce the expenditure of this country. Is this one of the items that they want reduced? Have they the hardihood to say: We do not approve the enormous war expenditure you are making? No; they say: We are heartily in sympathy with the voting of $100,000,000 or whatever sum may be required. I ask the hon. member for Bed Deer: Is it not well that the Government should be prepared for the situation which has arisen? If hon. gentlemen opposite were sincere in the professions which they have made during the course of this debate; if they were anxious to unite with the Government of the day in rendering whatever aid they could to the Empire, they would not have made the flimsy criticisms which they have made in connection with the proposals of the Government.
On June 1 last, just two months before the outbreak of war, the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) made the following remarks:
I agree that according to his own judgment he has been doing his best.
That is, the Minister of Militia.
But he is far too enthusiastic in the course he is pursuing. He is far ahead of his time; in fact, the time will never come in this country when the- expenditure he proposes will be justifiable.
Mr. Sam. Hughes:	Take care; do not be too
sure.
Mr. Guthrie: I do not take much stock in these warnings given by the minister at Victoria and Toronto as reported by the newspapers in those cities. We must realize and I am sure his colleagues do realize-that this is a country of peace and not of war.
These are the sentiments of hon. gentlemen opposite as expressed before war was declared. They criticised with all the vigour which they could command the estimates of the Militia Department. What do they say to-day? The hon. member for South Well-

ington said that he did not take much stock in the statements made by the Minister of Militia at Victoria and Toronto. Have they not turned out to be correct? Is there a man in this House or in this country who will say that the Minister of Militia from the outset has not displayed wonderful foresight and organizing ability in connection with the mobilizing of the troops at Valcar-tier a few weeks after war was declared? After the troops had been drilling, shooting and undergoing strict discipline for a few weeks, a murmur of impatience arose from many hon. gentlemen opposite because the troops were not being hurried to the front. I believe it would have been better if the men had remained at Valcartier longer than they did; the training that they were undergoing there was hardening them for the work which they will have to do. The unfortunate weather conditions which they encountered when they crossed the water were such as even the authorities in Great Britain could not be expected to foresee, and I believe that the men were not physically as fit when they went to the front as when they left the Canadian shores. But it is to-day a standing compliment to this Government and to the Minister of Militia that these troops were mobilized and sent to the front in such a satisfactory manner. I want to say that if there is a man in the country who objects to the war tax, the best thing he can do is volunteer for service at the front. The men who are prepared to pay the taxes realize that they are not making much of a sacrifice compared with that which is being made by the men who have gone to the front.


John Howard Sinclair: The hon. gentleman says that gentlemen on this side of the House or anywhere in the country who oppose this Budget ought to volunteer for active service. May I ask the hon. gentleman why he does not volunteer himself?


Donald Sutherland: I am not objecting to the sacrifice that hon. gentlemen opposite are objecting to; that is just the point I want to emphasize. The man who objects to contributing by way of taxation to the defence of the Empire ought to volunteer for active service and thus show that he is prepared to make some real, actual sacrifice.


John Howard Sinclair: No one is objecting to the war tax, so far as I know. I never heard of any objection.


William Pugsley: It is the so-called war tax to which we object.


Donald Sutherland: That brings me
back to the matter that I thought had been effectively cleared up by the Minister of Finance this afternoon.


John Howard Sinclair: There are two resolutions on the Order Paper, one relating to a war loan, and the other to domestic affairs. I should like to hear my hon. friend's opinion of the one relating to domestic affairs.


Donald Sutherland: During the course of his remarks the junior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) said:
I understand hon. gentlemen opposite to contend that the falling revenue and the fresh taxation imposed is due to the war. If I am not correct in this, let the correction come now. At any rate, this point is worthy of investigation. I personally do not believe that our loss in revenue is in any substantial degree attributable to the war.
The hon. gentleman does not believe that the falling revenues are in any degree attributable to the war. Yet the revenues of the United States, a country which is in a position to reap enormous benefits from the war; a nation which has shown no inability to take advantage of opportunities to make financial gain, have been galling to such an extent that they have been obliged to resort to war taxes. Some months previous to the war large financial concerns in this country suddenly began to experience a condition that was somewhat unusual.
Several months before war was declared one of the largest transportation companies in the world, with most of its assests in Canada, experienced a condition of affairs that to many seemed unfathomable. How was that? It was owing to the fact that for months previous to the declaration of war, early in August last, it was decided by those responsible for the war that the war should take place in the near future, if the date had not actually been fixed. We find that the stock of the Canadian Pacific railway, one of the greatest corporations in the world, had fallen from $280 per share to as low, recently, as $155 per share. What was the effect upon the other large transcontinental lines in this country which had not developed traffic to the same extent as the Canadian Pacific railway, and which did not possess the wealth of that company? The condition of these other lines was such that they had to come to the Government for assistance; and in order to prevent these roads from going into the hands of a receiver the Government found it necessary to do something in order to carry them over for the time. Hon. gentlemen opposite are well aware of that. They know perfectly

portation. I said that there were three transcontinental railways nearing completion, with the Hudson Bay railway also under construction, with nothing like sufficient traffic to keep them busy, and that under these circumstances it would also be impossible for us to have low rates. We have pursued a most reckless iand extravagant policy in regard to our railway construction, and the question is one that [DOT]requires to be most carefully considered by Parliament and the people. I do not envy the task which confronts my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) in regard to these matters. We know that as a matter of fact the eastern portion of the transcontinental railway should never have been built, and that if the policy that the present right hon. Prime Minister had at that time in mind of extending the Intercolonial, upon which this country has expended enormous sums of money, westward to the lakes, had been adopted, it would have been more in the interests of Canada. That would not meet with the approval of hon. gentlemen opposite. They did not wish to encourage the Government ownership of railways. No, they would prefer to give some rich corporation advantages in that respect. Previous to the election of 1911, hon. gentlemen opposite who were then in power, guaranteed the bonds of the Canadian Northern railway for that portion of their line from Montreal west to Port Arthur, to the extent of $35,000,000. Their action on that occasion made it necessary for the present Government to again come to the assistance of the Canadian Northern railway, and everything that has since been done in that respect is a sequence of the course of hon. gentlemen opposite previous to the election of 1911.
We have heard considerable criticism of this Budget from hon. gentlemen opposite, who have declared that the proposals contained in it are not in the interest of the people generally and the farmers particularly. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) was very strong on axle grease. He said: They are going actually to increase the British rate on axle grease. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) was very strong on squid. He thought it was a terrible thing to increase the duty on squid. It seems that fertilizer was what he had in his mind.


William Pugsley: I think it is out of order at half-past twelve o'clock for the 
hon. gentleman to indulge in untruthful remarks.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Pugsley: I made no reference to the duty on squid. What I called attention to was the fact that squid had been made free, and the Government was boasting as to that. They had put a duty on fertilizers and many other things, and they were claiming credit for making squid and one other article free.


Donald Sutherland: It is quite evident, judging from the last remarks of the hon. gentlemen, that he is a little bit hazy yet as to what he did say. I have a distinct recollection that he associated squid with the fertilizers, and I think other hon. gentlemen who heard him will bear out my recollection. I want to say, Sir, that the increase in the duty on raw materials and free imports made it necessary that the tariff should be increased on the finished products. That is quite clear to every one who looks at the matter with an unprejudiced mind. So far I fail to have received a single objection from any one of my constituents against the Budget proposal, and indeed I have failed to see even a serious criticism of the Budget in the press of the country. I think it is a great compliment to the Minister of Finance that his proposals have been received in the manner in which they have by the people of Canada, and I deeply regret that hon. gentlemen opposite have not displayed a different spirit towards the policy of the Government at this particular time in the history of the Empire.
I could understand them if they said: We do not approve of what you are doing, hut in view of the seriousness of the situation, and in view of the fact that it is necessary for us to present a united front to the enemy and to assist the Motherland in every possible way in this crisis, we will defer our criticism for a future occasion. Had they done that, I think their action would have commended itself better to the people of this country. Let me commend to these hon. gentlemen opposite the patriotic words of Kipling:
Oh, East is East and West is West,
And never the two shall meet,
Till earth and sky stand presently At God's great judgment seat.
But there is neither East nor West,
Border, nor breed, nor birth,
Where two strong men stand face to face, Though they come from the ends of the earth.

Had the right hon. leader of the Opposition met the leader of the Government in this spirit, he would, in my opinion, stand much higher in the opinion of all Canadians than he does now.
Mr. JOHN H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough): It is a very late hour for me to ask the indulgence of the House for a short time. My great difficulty in answering my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) is not on account of the argument he has put before the House, but on account of the tact that he has been speaking to the wrong resolution. If you will refer, Mr. Speaker, to the order paper you will find there are two resolutions, one which relates to ways and means, and which concerns altogether our domestic affairs, and the other which relates to the borrowing of $100,000,000 to carry on the war. The resolution that is before the House is that relating to our domestic affairs, and the second resolution has not even been moved yet. When that resolution is called, I am quite sure it will pass without a dissenting voice; but it is a curious thing that my hon. friend has made a two hours' speech on a resolution that has not yet been called. Why should we have from him a long speech about dreadnoughts and about war, on a resolution that is not yet before the House? I think I can suggest a reason, and I think that reason is that this domestic resolution which we are discussing involves some explanation from Government supporters which my hon. friend is not prepared to give. For example, there is a deficit of $80,000,000 in connection with our domestic affairs, and it was due to the House that the hon. gentleman should have endeavoured to explain that. He did not do so, but he treated us to a long dissertation about dreadnoughts and matters that have no concern at all with what we are now discussing. My hon. friend must not think that he can answer criticisms of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House by telling us that the British and Allied fleets are pounding their way through the Dardanelles. That is a fact, and we are glad to know it, and we join with my hon. friend in wishing them Godspeed, and I may tell him that we are doing just as much to help them along as he or any other member on that side of the House.
I do not want to say anything at this stage that will open up old sores, but if I did venture to make a remark I might say that if my hon. friend and the Government
that he supports had not made a football of the Canadian navy for party purposes, we would have at least four light cruisers of the style of the Australian light cruiser Sydney which did such splendid work in this war, to keep the trade routes open for British commerce, and to assist the old land in the struggle.


Donald Sutherland: Why did you not
build them?


John Howard Sinclair: The dreadnoughts
which my hon. friend is talking about could not be ready for use at the present time. The contest in this House in regard to dreadnoughts took place in 1913. Perhaps it will be news to my hon. friend that the Queen Elizabeth, the newest dreadnought of the British fleet, was launched in 1912 and that it has taken the mechanics of Great Britain from that day until a month or two ago to prepare her for the work she is doing now in the Dardanelles. The dreadnoughts spoken of by my hon. friend would be to-day on the stocks in some shipyard in Great Britain, even if the Government had got their policy approved of, whereas if the Government which he supports had gone on with the Canadian navy proposed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, we would have at least four ships to assist the old country in the fight which is now raging.
The question as to the truce between the two parties has been discussed a good deal in this House. My hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) has made the statement at a meeting in his city that there is no truce, and that there never was a truce. I beg to differ from him. No hon. gentleman who listened to the discussion which took place at the special session in August last, could come to the conclusion that there was no truce. My hon. leader on that occasion stated the position that the Opposition took in regard to this matter, and it was accepted very kindly by the leader of the Government and he complimented the leader of the Opposition on the patriotic stand he had taken in declaring that we should show a united front to the world in this awful struggle. They both acted on the truce that was then entered into, the proof of which was seen in the case of the by-elections. No candidates were put up in any of the constituencies in these elections, showing that it was well understood by both the leader of the Government and the leader of the Opposition that there was a truce between the parties at the time. This side of the House never had any notice from

the loader of the Government that the truce was broken, until we saw the speech of my hon. friend published in the newspapers. The question the people of this country are asking is: Is this Government really desirous to devote their# whole attention to the war, or do they regard it of more importance to score another victory against the Liberal party than they do to defeat the Kaiser.
Is that the position they take? In Great Britain it is well understood and well known that there will be no election until after the war is over. As a result there is no party strife. Mr. Speaker, what would you think of the British Government if you were forced to the conclusion that they thought more of their salaries and of their places than they did of the fate of the Empire at such a time as this? I would like to have the same opinion of the Canadian Government as I have of the British Government, but if there is to be a truce, it ought to be a fair and honourable truce, and it ought to apply to both parties. There were indications in October last that the Government was preparing for an election. Large quantities of Conservative literature were sent out from the Conservative headquarters at Ottawa. A number of Conservative conventions were called in the West at the same time. The word was passed around to the faithful in the country. In the maritime provinces there was straws showing how the wind was blowing. It has been the custom in the maritime provinces for many years that the repairs to the Intercolonial should be done in the summer time, when the days are long and the weather fine; but to the astonishment of every one, the order came in the month of October, as I understand, to start out the working gangs on the Intercolonial.


Mr. COCHRANE:: That is not true.


John Howard Sinclair: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.
Mr. SINCLAIR; I should like to know from the hon. gentleman who says " hear, hear," what claim the Tory party has to the title of the Imperialistic party? What did they ever do to entitle them to the name? If anybody knows anything that the Conservative party ever did to entitle them

to that name, I wish he would stand up and tell us about it. There has been one step and only one taken since Confederation that had imperialistic significance, one step that touched the imagination and won the applause of men of British blood the world over. That step, as you will remember, was greeted with enthusiasm by England's great Imperial poet and by Her great Imperial statesman, the late Joseph Chamberlain. You will understand that I refer to the British preference. And this " Imperialistic " party supported by my hon. friend from North Ontario voted against the British preference.
There are two incidents of recent Canadian history that everybody remembers. The Tory party four years ago hitched up with the National party of Quebec. Now, it is a matter of history that the leader of the Natonalist party dictated the names of three members of the first Cabinet of the right hon. leader of this Government. Why did the leaders of the Nationalist party leave the Liberal party? The reason given in the province of Quebec is that the Liberal leader was too British for them; and in searching about for some party that .was less British than my honoured leader, they allied themselves with hon. gentlemen opposite. I hope they feel at home there. We have a saying in our part of the Dominion, and I have no doubt that you have it in Ontario, that birds of a feather flock together. This "Imperialistic" party took to their bosom the gentleman who said it was necessary to shoot holes in the British flag in order to be free. They showered honours upon him, first making him Deputy Speaker, and then taking him into the Cabinet and giving him a seat at the Council board. I suppose that is regarded as an Imperialistic move by my hon. hot-air friend from North Ontario (Mr. Sam. Sharpe). That is incident number one. Number two is this present proposal to add 5 per cent to the tax on all British goods. Is this a time to strike a blow at the trade of Great Britain, when the old country is engaged in a struggle for her very 1 a.m. existence? With the enormous increase in freight rates and war insurance this 5 per cent is a heavy addition to the expense of doing trade at present between Great Britain and Canada. If hon. gentlemen will go to the reading room and turn up the files of the New York Herald, they will see that four or five months ago grain could be carried from New York to Liverpool at 2s. 6d. a quarter, and to-day it takes 7s. 6d. a 
quarter to carry the same grain. Hates of insurance have gone up enormously. So the handicaps against British trade are so great that it is almost impossible to carry on business with Great Britain at all. And on top of all this hon. gentlemen opposite come in with a 5 per cent additional tax on British goods. One can imagine the astonishment with which the news was heard in London, especially when a few months before the British Government had agreed to advance to the Canadian Government the whole war expenditure to be made by this country. I think I can see the blush on the face of the Canadian High Commissioner when he handed in the news to the British Government. One can imagine the feelings of the Kaiser when he heard the news that he had another ally in addition to the Turks, when he learned that he would not need submarines to stop trade between Canada and the old country, but that the Canadian Government would see to it that British trade would be crippled. One does not like to speak of it. Tell it not in Vienna, publish it not in the streets of Berlin, lest the daughters of the enemy rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised Hun triumph. Does my hon. friend from North Ontario regard that as an imperialistic move ? I am glad to say that the Commonwealth of Australia has taken a different course; it has taken the patriotic course and is not interfering with the tariff on British goods. Australia, like Canada, found it necessary to raise money, and in December they made a new tariff. They increased their general tariff from five to ten per cent on a large number of imports, hut almost without exception they have left British imports without an increase. There is no flag-waving party in Australia. Australia is British in the true sense of the word. As has already been remarked in the House to-night, there is more than one way in which Canada can take a lesson from the Commonwealth of Australia.
We all recognize that Canada is passing through a period of hard times. We may differ about the -cause. Statesmen on this side of the House saw the depression coming prior to 1911, and they endeavoured to provide for it by opening new markets for Canadian products. Their efforts were frustrated, and Canada is having a taste of the depression that existed prior to 1896. There is -a disposition on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to attribute the hard times to the war. Everybody who

has a good memory knows that that is not true. It will not be denied that real estate began to decline early in 1913. The receipts of the great railway corporations fell off long before the war. The Customs revenue began to decline about twelve months before the war broke out. In December, 1913, some of the large industrial concerns in Montreal closed their doors and thousands of men were turned out of employment.


Mr. GLASS:: Is it not a fact that the financial conditions prevailing in 19i2 were directly due to the war which was then taking place in Europe?


John Howard Sinclair: What war was that?


Samuel Francis Glass: The Balkan war.


John Howard Sinclair: face like a flint against extravagance; when he got over on the other side and secured a seat in the Cabinet his face was not in the least like flint-it was rather like pudding. He has been one of the greatest sinners in the matter of extravagant expenditure.
Hon. gentlemen opposite promised a reduction in expenditure. Some hon. gentlemen have had the hardihood to deny this, but we can produce the proof. The leader of the Conservative party on August 15, 1911, published in the Montreal Gazette the manifesto of the party, upon which the election was run. It was headed:	" Conservative Policy; what the Party is Pledged to carry out." I quote the first paragraph:
The Liberal Conservative party gives its pledge to carry out the following policy if returned to power:
1.	A thorough reorganization of the method by which the public expenditure is supervised. The increase in what is known as ordinarily controllable expenditure from $21,500,000 in 1896 to nearly $74,000,000 in 1911 is proof of extravagance beyond all possible defence.
A long list of other pledges and promises follow, and the whole is signed " R. L. Borden." There is the pledge, Mr. Speaker, but where is the fulfilment? Upon what occasions have the Government made any attempt to live up to that promise? Has there been any attempt to effect a thorough reorganization of the method of supervising expenditure? I venture to say that never since the days of McGreevy and Connolly has there been so little supervision of expenditure as there is to-day.
The Auditor General is supposed to look after grafters and persons who are trying to rob the treasury, but he is now busy looking after the ministers. The Auditor General recognized that in times of war, the Government must have a freer hand; accordingly, he arranged with them that Orders in Council would be issued authorizing special expenditures. But the Government did not adhere to that arrangement. For months the Department of Militia spent money right and left without any supervision whatever, and after the illegal expenditure had reached the sum of about $5,000,000 the Auditor General had to step in and refuse credit to the Finance Minister. This is what the Auditor General said:
This is a clear violation of the War Appropriation Act, and also of the understanding on which X consented to the issue of a letter of credit. I have, therefore, to request that you will inform the Department of Militia that their letter of credit is no longer available for payments on account of war appropriation, and to further cheques may be drawn for the purpose
[Mr. Sinclair. [
until the provisions of the Act are complied with.
1	regret the necessity for this action, but I have no other course open to me. I know it is a very serious matter to place any obstacle in the way of the Militia Department when the country is at war, and with this in view I consented to an arrangement which could not in any degree hamper the department. In return I had every right to expect that the Minister of Militia and Defence would not only carry out the agreement of his officials, but that he would also respect the direction of Parliament
(Signed) J. Fraser,
Auditor General.
So far as I know, the Finance Minister made no reply to that statement. But there you have the practice of the department; and I submit that that is supervision with a vengeance. I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 1.15 a.m. Thursday.
Thursday, March 11, 1915.