1915-03-01

PRIVATE BILLS INTRODUCED.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 62, respecting the Bank of Alberta.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 63, to incorporate the Catholic Truth Society of Canada.-Mr. Macdonell.
Bill No. 64, respecting a certain patent of the Mills Equipment Company, Limited. -Mr. Northrup.
Bill No. 65, respecting the Toronto Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company.- Mr. T. J. Stewart.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. MORPHY (North Perth) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 66, to amend the Railway Act. He said:
The purpose of the Bill is to amend paragraph (e) of clause 34 of section 2 of the Railway Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 37. The Act as it stands includes, under the head of ''working expenditure" of railways ''(e) all rates, taxes, insurance and compensation for accident or losses." The Bill which I ask leave to introduce

extends the language of paragraph (e) to make it read in this way:
(e) all rates, taxes, insurance and compensation for accident or losses, including any such compensation payable under the provisions of any Act of the Parliament of Canada or of any provincial legislature providing for the payment of compensation to workingmen for injuries or in respect of industrial diseases.
The object of the Bill is to extend to the workingman who is injured the privilege of having his claim come under section 141 of the Railway Act in the same way as rates, taxes, insurance and compensation for accident or losses. It will give the claim of a workman who may suffer accident and loss priority as against a mortgage or bonding deed covering the railway's assets in the same way as rates, taxes and insurance now have a prior claim. This will bring the Railway Act into line with the new legislation of the province of Ontario dealing with compensation to workmen for injuries sustained. It is merely to extend the law as it stands, and it seems to be an amendment that is necessary in the case of a railway company which may be insolvent and unable to pay claims for losses. In such a case the workman's claim will have priority over a mortgage deed the same as the other elements now in the law have priority.
Motion agree.d to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W, J. ROCHE (Minister of Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 67, to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act. He said: An Order in Council was passed on the 28th October by which all those who had enlisted for service in the war had their mining rights protected until six months after the proclamation of peace. Inasmuch as this did not apply to those acquiring rights under the Placer Mining Act in the Yukon, the Commissioner of the Yukon was instructed by the department shortly after the passing of the Order in Council that it was the intention of the department to have the same privileges extended to those who had acquired rights of a similar character in the Yukon under the Placer Mining Act. As the Placer Mining Act could not be amended to this effect by Order in Council, this amendment is introduced.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

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

Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What quantity of potatoes was produced on the Portsmouth penitentiary farm in each of the years 1912, 1913 and 1914?
2.	Were any of suclt potatoes sold? If so, to whom and at what price?
3.	From what persons or firms were potatoes bought for use in said penitentiary in the years 1912, 1913 and 1914, and to date, 1915, with the quantities in each case and the price paid?
4.	What quantity of pork has been produced at said penitentiary farm during the years 1912, 1913 and 1914?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	In 1911-12, 517 bushels; 1912-13, 500 bushels; 1913-14, 366 bushels.
2.	No potatoes were sold in 1912 or 1914.
In 1913 the following sales were made, which (with the exception of 1J bushels) were culls-too small for table use and purchased for seed: W. Holland, 9 bushels;
F.	Montgomery, 7i bushels; J. Berrigan, 2 bushels; H. Powell, 41 bushels; R. Mc-Geein, 3 bushels; W. Tatton, 1 bushel; F. Doyle, li bushels; J. M. Platt, li bushels; Total, 30 bushels at 85c. per bushel.
3.	Potatoes were purchased in 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1915, as follows:
Date.		Name.	Quantity.		Price.	
1911.						
April 12.	Alfred Garrett. . . .	73 bags.	$0	80"	28.	Jas. Redden & Co...	170	"	0	90May	19.	"	4	1	10"	23.	C. Craig 	87	"	0	90June	7.	Jas. Redden & Co. . .	56	0	90"	11.	J. M. Stafford . . . .	14	"	0	80"	16.	H. E. Peters	39	41	0	8 0"	23.	J. Munroe	40	44	0	80July	6.	J. Redden & Co	48	"	1	00"	7.	J. Crawford	20	bu.	1	25"	29.	Isaac Fraser	13	"	1	25Aug.	5.	John Henderson. . . .	15	1	50"	12.	D. Boyce	10	1	40Nov.	1.	F. C. Palmer & Co. 1,034	"	0	601912.	Feb.	17.	Alfred Reid	15 bags.	1	75Mar.	7.	W. P. Peters	24	**	1	80"	19.	J. Y. Parkhill	17	"	1	85"	22.	"	125	"	1	7022.	W. P. Peters	190	"	1	75May	6.	M. J. Hill	30	1	65"	14.	Jas. Redden & Co. . .	2	1	90"	21.	F. S. Ferguson. . . .	33	1	75"	23.	J. Y. Parkhill	279	1 771	July	18.	W. P. Peters	10	"	1	60"	19.	St. V. de Paul Penity	50	"	1	35"	30.	J. Y. Parkhill	30 brl.	4	25Aug.	12.	J. R. Henderson. . . .	20	3	75**	24.	W. A. Height	10	bu.	1	00"	24.	Grant Pyke	50	"	1	00"	31.	Geo. Curl	12 bags.	1	00Sept.	5.	Allan German . . . .	20	"	1	00"	10.	J. Y. Parkhill	26	44	i	00Nov.	16.	H. Wallace	9	44	0	95"	16.	Alva Emberly	8	"	1	00"	20.	C. H. Spooner .. ..	102	"	0	9526.	Harris Abattoir Co.	598	"	0	95Date. Name.	Quantity.	Price.	1913.	Mar.	7. A. Maclean . . . .	24 "	1	10"	12. J. Y. Parkhill. . .	30 "	1	00"	18. W. P. Peters. . . .	30 "	1	00"	22. " . . . .	30 "	1	00"	28. A. Maclean . . . .	100 "	0	90April 14. W. J. Crothers &	Co.	100 "	0	90**	24. W. P. Peters. . . .	600 "	0	88July	26. T. D. Creighton..	103 bu.	1	25"	29. J. Y. Parkhill. ..	10 brl.	3	60"	30. J. D. Creighton. .	193 bu.	1	00"	31. J. R. Henderson..	20 "	1	10Aug.	5. J. Y. Parkhill . . .	10 brl.	3	00"	9. Sydney Parks . :	24 bu.	1	00**	9. C. O. Keeler. . . .	10 "	1	00"	9. H. Ball	123 "	1	00"	16. C. O. KeelCr.. ..	10 "	1	00"	16. Bruce Henderson.	25J "	0	95Oct.	18. Elmer Clyde.. ..	40 bags.	0	85"	25. " . . . .	17 "	0	85"	17. W. A. Potter. . . .	29 "	0	85Nov.	1. W. McNeely. . . .	31 "	0	90Oct.	15. Elmer Clyde. . . .	14 "	1	00Nov.	15. " . . . .	17 "	1	00"	15. David Fink. . . .	20 "	0	90"	15. Frank Joyner. . .	15 "	0	90"	20. " . . . .	31 "	0	90"	22. " . . . .	38 "	0	90Dec.	6. Damon Amey. . .	12 "	0	95"	6. J. C. Rogers. . . .	9 "	0	95"	12. J. F. Nolton	30 "	1	00"	18. T. A. Kerr . . . .	71 "	1	00"	30. " . . . .	120 "	1	001914.	Jan.	23. T. A. Kerr. . . .	107 "	1	00"	23. Wm. Gashman . .	43 "	1	00"	23. " . .	44 "	1	00Mar.	18. T. A. Kerr. .. .	300 "	1	00_*.pril 14. J. Y. Parkhill (seed)	50 "	1	25"	15. Geo. Irvine . . . .	15 "	1	00"	- " ...	14 *'	1	00May	4. A. Mac an . . .	30 "	1	00"	20. J. Y. Parkhill &	Co.	75 "	1	45"	27. Hatfield & Scott.	455 "	.1	25Aug.	8. H. W. Stover. .	10 bu.	1	00"	S. Cortland Snider.	10 "	1	10"	8. Chas. Connors . .	161 "	1	00"	15. Alva Emberly ..	29 "	1	10"	20. H. Rcibnson. . .	10 44	1	00"	20. Roy Rose	4 "	1	00"	21. Jas. Redden & Co...	32 "	1	00Dec.	29. Benson Coulter. .	112 bags.	0	75"	M. Mangon . . .	103 44	0	75Aug.	20. R. Clark	11 bu.	1	001915.	Jan.	P. Yeomans. . .	12 bags.	0	75Feb.	10. T. H. Watson. . .	, 79 44	0	7544	T. A. Kerr . . .	168 "	0	75"	- Alva Emberly. .	, 46 44	0	75"	
"	, 14 44	0	75"	17. Thos. W. Kerr .	. 77 44	0	75"	12. M. Truesdale. . .	. 69 "	0	754.	Fiscal year 1911-12, 43,777 lb; fiscal year 1912-13, 38,233 lb; fiscal year 1913-14, 30,115 lb.


Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	When was Mr. Creighton appointed as warden of Portsmouth penitentiary?
2.	In what institutions had Mr. Creighton performed the duties of warden previous to his present appointment, and what are the dates of his service in each case?
3.	Who is the warden of Prince Albert penitentiary and when was he appointed?

4.	What previous experience had he to fit him for the position?
5.	On whose recommendation was he appointed ?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	August 1, 1914.
2.	Kingston penitentiary, June 26, 1913, to August 8, 1913; Alberta penitentiary, December 10, 1913, to April 6, 1914; Kingston penitentiary, July 11, 1914, to August 1, 1914.
3.	W. J. Macleod, appointed March 25, 1914.
4.	Continuous employment in the penitentiary service since January 1, 1896, in various capacities, clerical, administrative and disciplinary.
5.	The Minister of Justice.


Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	By whose order or direction would the act of tubbing insane convicts be carried out?
2.	Are there any guards or other officials at Portsmouth penitentiary who have assisted in or ordered the tubbing of insane convicts?
3.	Was a specially constructed cell prepared for the hosing of convicts at Portsmouth penitentiary?
4.	By whose order was said cell specially prepared for that purpose?
5.	Have convicts at Portsmouth penitentiary been hosed by Inspector Stewart, Inspector Hughes and Deputy Warden O'Leary?
6.	Has hosing and tubbing of convicts been discontinued? If so, when and for what reason?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Bathing (by use of ordinary bath tubs) is imperative as a sanitary regulation of the prison and is carried out weekly by the officer in charge of the ward as a matter of routine, without special orders from anyone. If the officer neglected the duty, he would be reported by his superior officer to the warden. Except in very" rare cases, the convicts comply willingly and appreciate the opportunity. Occasionally, however, a refractory lunatic refuses to comply, in which case the bath is enforced by the officers-due care and precautions being taken to prevent the convict from injuring himself or the officers in charge.
2.	The warden is unable to find any one on the staff of the penitentiary who has any knowledge of tubbing having been used except as before described. The following are the statutory declarations of officers who are still on the staff of the prison and who have been, from time to time, in charge of the insane ward:
Dominion of Canada, province of Ontario, county of Frontenac, to wit:
In the matter of the inquiry regarding the alleged " tubbing '' of the insane at the insane ward of Kingston penitentiary.
I,	Patrick J. Madden, of the city of Kingston,

in the county of Frontenac, guard, do solemnly declare that I was in charge of the insane ward from September 3, 1907, to August 31, 1911, and from September 13, 1911, to September 26, 1911.
During that time there were filthy prisoners who refused to bathe. There was a strap placed round the body of the prisoner and two for the hands and one for the feet. This strap was used for the protection of the convict and the officers. These straps were only used for refractory convicts while bathing and for no other purpose. The water used was ordinary bath water.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of " The Canada Evidence Act, 1893."
(Sgd.) P. J. Madden.
Declared before me at the Kingston penitentiary in the county of Frontenac this 23rd day of February, A.D. 1915.
(Sgd.) J. Russell Foster.
A Commissioner in H.C.J.
Dominion of Canada, province of Ontario, county of Frontenac, to wit:
In the matter of the inquiry regarding the alleged " tubbing " of the insane at the insane ward of Kingston Penitentiary.
I,	Arthur McConville, of the city of Kingston, in the county of Frontenac, guard, do solemnly declare that I was in charge of the insane ward from July 3, 1911, till September 12, 1911, and from September 27, 1911, till March 30. 1912.
During my time the bath was never used as a punishment. The straps were used on a prisoner who was filthy and refused to bathe voluntarily. There was no violence used toward any prisoner. The straps being used for his protection and ours. The water was luke warm, as used for bathing.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously 'believing it to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of " The Canada Evidence Act, 1893."
(Sgd.) A. McConville,
Declared before me at the Kingston penitentiary in the county of Frontenac this 23rd day of February, A.D. 1915.
(Sgd.) Chas. F. Smith.
A Commissioner in H.C.J.
Dominion of Canada, province of Ontario, county of Frontenac, to wit:
In the matter of the inquiry regarding the alleged " tubbing " of the insane at the insane ward of Kingston Penitentiary.
I,	William Ryan, of the 'city of Kingston, in the county of Frontenac, guard, do solemnly declare that I was in charge of the asylum from July 1, 1512, to September 8, 1913. That during that time one or two prisoners had to he strapped for the bath. The bath was never used as a punishment-the straps being used for their protection and that of the officers. The water was not too cold for bathing.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of " The Canada Evidence Act, 1S93."
(Sgd.) W. Ryan.
Declared before me at the Kingston penitentiary in the county of Frontenac this 23rd day of February, A.D. 1915.
(Sgd.) Chas. F. Smith.

Dominion of Canada, province of Ontario, county of Frontenac, to wit:
In the matter of the inquiry regarding the alleged " tubbing " of the insane at the insane ward, Kingston penitentiary.
I,	Charles H. Gray, of the city of Kingston, in the county of Prontenac, guard, do solemnly declare that I was on duty in the insane ward from April 1, 1912, to May 25, 1912.
During that time there was a convict of filthy habits who had to be given a forced bath. Straps consisting of a waistband and two side straps for the hands and one for the feet were used. No unnecessary force was used. The water was tepid, such as used in a bath. This restraint was simply used for his and our protection.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of " The Canada Evidence Act, 1893."
(Sgd.) C. H. Gray.
Declared before me at the Kingston penitentiary in the county of Prontenac this 23rd day of February, A.D. 1915.
(Sgd.) Chas. F. Smith.
Dominion of Canada, province of Ontario, county of Frontenac, to wit:
In the matter of the inquiry regarding the alleged " tubbing " of the insane at the insane ward of Kingston Penitentiary.
I,	Robert E. Aiken, of the city of Kingston, in the county of Frontenac, guard, do solemnly declare that I have been in charge of the insane ward since November 11, 1913.
Weekly . bathing is compulsory in the ward, and sometimes-three times to my knowledge-[DOT] one or two have resisted. The straps are placed round the waist and on the hands and feet. The prisoner is then placed in the bath and washed clean. No undue force is used. The water is never cold. Strapping is never used as punishment. The same straps are used when a prisoner refuses to have his hair clipped.
And 1 make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of " The Canada Evidence Act, 1893."
(Sgd.) Robert Aiken.
Declared before me at the Kingston penitentiary in the county of Frontenac this 23rd day of February, A.D. 1915.
(Sgd.) Chas. F. Smith.
A Commissioner in H.C.J. Ontario.
3.	A cell in the isolated ward was set apart for the purpose and provided with an exit for water, etc.
4.	By Inspector Stewart after an outbreak of several incorrigible criminals, in which several officers were rendered unconscious and dangerously injured.
5.	Twelve convicts in Kingston penitentiary have been hosed-seven by Inspector Stewart and five by Deputy Warden O'Leary, when in charge of the prison. This was done under authority of No. 179 of the Penitentiary Regulations, drafted with the concurrence and approval of Sir Oliver Mow at when Minister of Justice and adopted on the recommendation of
Hon. David Mills, his successor as Minister of Justice, by the Governor General in Council, on November 26, 1898. This form of punishment for defiant and incorrigible convicts was substituted for the " triangle and the lash " previously authorized.
As regards Inspector Hughes. No. He was never in charge of the penitentiary.
6.	The hose has not been used since May 11, 1913.-Since the report of the Investigating Commissioners (April 15, 1914) the regulation Authorizing its use has not been acted on, pending final decision as to modification of regulations now under consideration.


COLE HARBOUR WHARF.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Why has the Government not built a public wharf at Cole Harbour, Guysborough county, N.S. ?
2.	When was the money for the construction of this wharf first voted by Parliament?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Difficulty in obtaining a title to the site on which to construct the wharf.
2.	In the fiscal year 1911-12.


NEW GLASGOW MAIL ROUTE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Who is the mail contractor for rural mail route No. 3, New Glasgow, Pictou county?
2.	What is the amount paid him per annum?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Danford McDougall.
2.	$600 per annum.


CAPTAIN E. FISHER.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. TURRIFF:
1.	Is E. Fisher, registrar of the Supreme and County Courts at Kamloops, B.C., drawing pay from the Militia Department as an officer in the R.M.R?
2.	What is his rank?
3.	What is the rate of pay per day?
4.	How long has he been drawing pay?
5.	Is he still under pay by the Militia Department?
6.	Is it the intention of the Militia Department to continue Mr. Fisher under pay?
Major General HUGHES:: 1.	There is a Captain E. Fisher, 102nd Regiment, doing mobilization duties at Kamloops, and drawing pay from the Militia Department. The department has no information regarding his civil employment.
2.	Captain Adjutant of the 102nd Regiment.
3.	$4.25 per diem.
4.	Since August 10, 1914.
5.	Yes.
6.	Yes, while he is on active service.


MIDDLESEX COUNTY INDIANS.
Mr. ROSS:: 1.	What salary does Dr. Woods receive as physician for the Indians on Middlesex county reserve?
2.	Is he entitled to any fees beyond his regular salary?
3.	If so, on what basis?
4.	What has he been paid since March 31, 1914?
5.	How many Indians were in the reserve in 1910, and how many in 1914?
6.	What was the Indian Agent's salary and allowances in 1910?
7.	What are the Indian Agent's salary and allowances now?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	$650 per annum.
2.	Yes.
3.	He is allowed remuneration for special calls at the Mount Elgin Institute to attend pupils other than those belonging to the agency, and for medicines supplied them.
4.	$829.50.
5.	In 1910, 1,366; in 1914, 1,371.
6.	Salary, $600; allowance, $450.
7.	Salary, $1,200; no allowances. The Order in Council appointing the agent states that he has to give his whole time to the agency.


BAIE DES CHALEURS RAILWAY.
Mr. MARCH:: Has any action been taken by the Government on the report of Mr. Plante, Commissioner appointed to report on claims against the Bale des Chaleurs railway, the Atlantic and Lake Superior railway, and the Quebec Oriental railway and what was such action?


Mr. COCHRANE:: Report still under
consideration.


QUEBEC ORIENTAL RAILWAY.
Mr. MARCIL:: Have any steps been taken since the last session of Parliament for the acquiring of the Quebec Oriental railway and the Atlantic, Quebec and Western railway by lease or purchase, by the Department of Railways and Canals, and what are they?


Francis Cochrane: No.


ATLANTIC AND LAKE SUPERIOR RAILWAY.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the Government paid the balance remaining unpaid of the subsidy for the last twenty miles of the Atlantic and Lake Superior railway, from Caplin to Paspebiac?
2.	If so, to whom has the amount been paid, what was the amount, when was the payment made, and on whose recommendation?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1. $18,449.17 of a balance of $20,765.98 has been paid.

2.	C. R. Scoles; $18,449.17 ; 6th July, 1914;
on the recommendation of the Financial -Comptroller.


ST. ROMUALD POST OFFICE.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Why was the post office of St. Romuald,
county of Levis, not erected out of the sum of $13,000 for which provision was made in last year's vote in the Estimates?	[DOT]
2.	To what other purpose was the said sum of $13,000 used, what portion of it was expended, and to whom was it paid?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Instead of constructing a new building immediately, the department is considering the advisability of repairing the building located on the site lately purchased.
2.	For no other purpose than the purchase of site and building thereon: H. La-gueux, $6,000; Adjutor Roy, legal services, $30.40; survey and examination of site, Gustave Gagnon, $6; Xavier Carrier, $6; Donat Carrier, $1.50; I. Lacasse, 70c.; total, $6,044.60.


NATIONIAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAIL WAY
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Have any errors been discovered in the plans or specifications of the Champlain Market Railway Station at Quebec?
2.	For what reason was it necessary to puli down some of the basement work of the said station?
3.	What was the cost of such pulling down of the work and reconstruction, and what was the total loss as a result of the error discovered?
4.	Who was accountable for such error?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	No.
2.	None pulled down.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Answered by No. 2.


Mr. LACHANCE:: 1.	Has the Government purchased a railway from the Canadian Northern Railway Company or from any other company, for the use of the National Transcontinental, in the river St. Charles valley, Quebec? If so, when, and for what amount?
2.	What is the length of the railway so purchased ?
3.	Did such railway, at the time of its pur- ' chase, connect at both ends of said line with
the National Transcontinental railway? If not, how many miles had to be constructed in order to effect such connection, and in what localities or parishes was such connection effected?
4.	Did the company from which such railway was purchased reserve any rights on such railway, and if so, what are such rights or privileges?
5.	What are the gradients of such railway, including its curves and slopes?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes, on June 5, 1914; for $175,000.
2.	Five and one-half miles.
3.	It connected only at the east and near Cape Rouge, and, in order to facilitate operation, an additional "Y" connection is being constructed at the Cap Rouge end. This "Y" connection is 2,481 feet long. At the west end a connection 2-3 miles long has been constructed, in order to effect connection with the Leonard Shops. The east end is in the parish of Cap Rouge. The west end is in the parish of St. Malo.
4.	The company did not reserve any rights.
5.	The grade is 0-5 per oenit. The curves are 4 degrees and less.


GUYSBOROUGH AND CANSO MAILS.
Air. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has the contract for carrying the mails "between Guysborough and Canso expired? If so, when?
2.	Have tenders been asked for? If not, is it the intention of the Government to open this contract for public tender?
3.	Has the contract been awarded? If so, to whom and at what rate?
4.	Has the Department been requested by letters to have this service put up for public tender?
5.	What was the rate- payable in the case of the former contract?
6.	If a new contract has not been entered into, what rate is being paid for the service at present, and to whom?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	No.
2.	(a) No. (b) The department has authorized a renewal of the present contract which was entered into on the 1st of April, 1911, after public tenders had been invited, for a further period of four years from the 1st of April next.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Yes, but they were not received until after the renewal had been authorized.
5.	$2,270 per annum.
G.	$2,270 to William McDougall, present contractor.


DOMINION TRUST COMPANY.
Air. MURPHY:: 1.	Has the Government appointed any person to investigate the affairs and management of The Dominion Trust Company, as provided for under section 70 of the Trust Company Act, 4-5 Geo. V, Chap. 55?
2.	If so, what is the date of the appointment, the name of the person appointed and the scope of the proposed investigation?


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: 1. No. The Dominion Trust Company is
in liquidation, and its affairs are under the jurisdiction and control of the Courts.
2. Answered by answer to No. 1.


COLLINGWOOD SHIP BUILDING COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
*AIr. GRAHAM:
1.	Has the Government awarded the contract for building a barge to the Collingwood Ship Building Company?
2.	If so, is the schedule of wages to be paid the workmen attached to said contract according to what is known as Fair-wage clause in the statutes?
3.	What rates are prescribed by this schedule?
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The contract and specification both contain a clause providing that the wages paid in the execution of the contract shall be those generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen in the district where the work is carried on.
3.	No special schedule included in contract.


EAST ERINVILLE POST OFFICE.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1. Has an application been made for a money order office at East Erinville, Guysborough county, N.S.?
.2. If so, has the application been granted?
3.	If it has not been granted, why not?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	The revenue of the office, which only amounted to $71.75 during the fiscal year ended 31st March, 1914, did not indicate that sufficient business would be done at East Erinville Post Office to warrant the establishment of money order business, but the postmaster was furnished with a credit supply of $100 in postal notes in May last, which serves the same purpose.


GUYSBOROUGH BRANCH RAILWAY.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: Does the Government intend at the present session to make provision for the construction of a branch railway in Guysborough county, N.S.?


Francis Cochrane: It is under consideration.


LEVIS SHELL FACTORY.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Who are the shareholders of the new shell manufacturing establishment at Levis, Quebec?
2.	Has any contract been awarded by the Imperial authorities to the company in charge of such establishment?
[DOT]20


Major General HUGHES:: The Government has no information at its disposal on this subject.


SASKATCHEWAN AND ALBERTA COAL ROYALTIES.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	What amount of royalty lias the Government collected on coal in the province of Saskatchewan in each of the years from 1906 to 1914, inclusive?
2.	What amount of royalty has the Government collected on coal in the province of Alberta in each of the years from 1906 to 1914, inclusive ?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	1906, $249.90; 1907, $428.90; 1908, $358.11;
1909,	$1,273.13 ;	1910,	$2,172.65 ;	1911,
$2,858.81; 1912, $3,128.22; 1913, $2,341.91; 1914, $1,639.72; total, $14,451.35.
2.	1906, $4,206.90;	1907, $8,740.45;	1908,$5,322.39; 1909, $115,151.24; 1910, $202,473.68; 1911. $133,367.55;	1912,	$133,461.74;	1913,$146,195.46 ;	1914,	$122,608.43 ; total,


WAR SUPPLIES-SADDLES.
Mr. BOYER:: 1. Has Mr. J. N. Dueharme of Montreal been awarded a contract to supply saddles to the Department of Militia? If so, for what amount, and what is the date of such contract?


Major General HUGHES:: No.


WAR SUPPLIES-CLINIC THERMOMETERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM:
1.	How many clinic thermometers were purchased from Mr. T. A. Brownlee, druggist of Ottawa?
2.	On what date did Mr. Brownlee deliver these clinic thermometers to the Government?
3.	On what date did the Government pay Mr. Brownlee for them?
4.	On what date did Mr. Brownlee refund to the Government half of the purchase price?
5.	What are the names of the private individuals from whom the Government received offers for clinic thermometers?
6.	On what date did the Government receive these offers from private individuals for clinic thermometers ?
7.	What was the price quoted by these private individuals?
Major General HUGHES:: 1.	1,062.
2.	108, August 11, 1914; 594, August 17,
1914; 360, October 1, 1914.
3.	August 31, 1914, for 702; October 29, 1914, for 360.
4.	February 11, 1915.
5.	6 and 7. Chandler & Fisher, Ltd., Winnipeg, October 9, 1914, at $10 per doz.; W. B. MacDonald Co., Ottawa, November 5, 1914, at $8.50 per doz.


LETHBRIDGE CUSTOMS STAFF.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	When were W. A. Gibbons and A. B. Pipes appointed to the customs service at Lethbridge?
2.	When were they removed, and for what reason?
3.	What members of the staff still holding their positions, were appointed after Messrs. Gibbons and Pipes had entered the service?
4.. Why were Messrs. Gibbons and Pipes removed from the service and more recently appointed officials retained?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 
COAL IMPORTS FROM THE UNITED STATES.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: How much bituminous and anthracite coal was received from the United States through the ports of Fort William and. Port Arthur during the years 1912, 1913 and 1914 respectively?


Mr. J. D. REID:: Entered for consumption during the fiscal years 1913, and 1914, respectively:		ending in 1912,
Fort William-	Tons.	Valued: at
Bituminous.		
1912	. 1,831,349	$3,920,5191913	. 1,847,447	3,832,0801914	. 376,835	1,954,441Anthracite.	1912	. 311,323	1,528,6751913	. 294,162	1,356,1061914	. 37 ,835	1,954,441Port Arthur- Bituminous.	1912	. 1,283,370	2,941,3951913	. 1,048,850	2,308,1011914	. 1,307,939	3,065,769Anthracite.	1912	. 152,588	763,6751913	. 167,705	893,1201914	. 205,380	1,078,450


EMPLOYMENT OF CHAS. NAPOLEON DORION.
Mr. DELISLE:: Is the Government aware that Mr. Chas. NapolSon Dorlon, a practising lawyer of the city of Quebec, is said to receive a Government salary as an employee of the post office of said city?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Charles Napoleon
Dorion, third class clerk, grade "A"; salary, $900 a year, since the 1st July, 1914.
Mr. Dorion has tendered his resignation to take effect as from the 1st of May, and the department has consented to his services being retained until that time, provided he works the regular hours.


EMPLOYMENT OF L. H. FOURNIER.
Mr. MOLLOY:: 1.	Is L. H. Fournier, of Winnipeg, in the employ of the Government?
2.	If so, when was he appointed, what is his salary, and what are his duties?
3.	By whom was he recommended?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: If the hon. gentleman will tell us what particular depart-

[DOT]ment is alluded to, it will assist us in answering the question at an earlier date. Question stands.


PHILADELPHIA IMMIGRATION AGENT.
Mr. PARDEE:: Is James P. Jaffray now employed as a Government Immigration Agent at Philadelphia, U.S. ? If so, at what salary and what are his duties?


Mr. ROCHE:: Yes.	Salary $2,000 per
annum. His duties are to encourage emigration to Canada of desirable settlers and to examine Canadian bound passengers arriving by vessels at Philadelphia.


THE HOME MILITIA.
Mr. EDMOND PROULX moved:: For a return showing the names of all the Dominion Civil Service employees and Provincial Service Employees serving in the Home Militia as guards on bridges, canals or otherwise, and holding the rank of officers and noncommissioned officers; the salaries they receive from their respective governments as Civil Service employees and the remuneration allowed to them by the Department of Militia.


Major General HUGHES:: I shall be glad to bring down the return in so far as the Dominion Civil Service is concerned. As regards the Provincial Civil Service, I shall he glad to bring down the return so far as the information is available.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
LOANS FROM IMPERIAL TREASURY. Mr. A. K. MACLEAN moved:
For a copy of ail correspondence of the Imperial authorities on the subject of loans from ernme'nt6 Treasury to the Canadian Gov-
Robert Laird Borden: I am informed by the Minister of Finance that the larger portion of this correspondence is of a confidential character. There may, however, be something to be brought down, and there is no objection to the motion passing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved:: 1.	For a full statement and description of all lands taken possession of by the Government lor the camp at Valeartier.
2.	For copies of all titles of the Government to the same, whether by expropriation, purchase or otherwise.
3.	For a specified statement of all amounts claimed and still unpaid whether for land or damages.
For a sPecifled account of all amounts pai up to date either for land or damages.
He said: My object in presenting this motion is not to ask for information a-s to

why there was a camp at Valeartier for the first contingent. The necessity for having a camp there has not been made clear to me nor, I believe, to the general public. If a camp was needed, Petawawa was available for the purpose, but the contingent which is now in course of preparation is being assembled neither at Valeartier nor at Petawawa; more properly, perhaps, the men are being assembled at the different stations throughout the Dominion where recruiting is going on. I believe it would have been better if the same policy had been adopted in respect of the first contingent. But what I wish particularly to bring to the attention of the Minister of Militia to-day is that many of the owners of land who were disposessed for the establishment of Valeartier camp -have not yet been paid. I understand that the camp comprises nearly ten thousand acres, and that between forty and fifty men were dispossessed. These men, practically all farmers, were not in circumstances of affluence, and each one needed the crop which he was then expecting to raise, and, of course, the price of bis land upon expropriation. On August 28, the following notice was served upon one of the men so dispossessed -I understand that a similar notice was served on all.
From Lt.-Col. Wm. McBain.
Quebec, Que.,
To Mr. Michael Holton.
Dear Sir:
I have been instructed by -the Department of Militia and Defence to notify you herewith that it is their intention to expropriate the land held by you in Valeartier and described as parts of Cad. Nos 54, 68, 67, 68 and list Cad. No. 71, on the official plan for the parish of St. Gabriel de Valeartier containing in all 240 acres.
I have been further instructed to notify you that it is the intention of the department to take immediate possession of the above described land and to offer you in full and complete settlement therefor the sum of $4,800. If this offer is not accepted by you within thirty days of the date of this notice, proceedings in expropriation will be commenced.
Kindly take notice of the above and govern yourself accordingly.
Yours truly,
(Sgd) Wm. McBain, Authorized agent of the Department of Militia and Defence.
Who was Mr. McBain? For my part I do not know, nor did any of those to whom these letters were addressed. He was not connected with the Department of Militia. He styled himself colonel; I understand that he suddenly rose from a rank of obscurity to be a full-fledged colonel of the first rank. The management of the camp at Valeartier had been placed at first in the

.hands of Sir William Price, a well-known business man of the city of Quebec and a former member of this House, a man holding the highest reputation for business ability and integrity of his character. Why Sir William Price was not continued in the agency of the Department of Militia is not known to me, but I believe that the change does not conduce to the public interest. I think there would have been less complaint than there has been if Sir William Price had been continued as agent of the department instead of Colonel McBain. I do not wish to reflect on Mr. McBain; I do not know him; but I do know Sir William Price very well, and, not knowing Mr. McBain and knowing Sir William Price as I do, and as everybody in this House does, I believe the change was not calculated to promote the public service. Be this as it may, the one fact I make complaint of is this: I have been informed-I have no special information except that which I received by correspondence-that though these men were dispossessed of their lands in the month of August last, yet, with the exception of one or two, these owners, some forty or fifty in number, have not yet received the money to which they were entitled. There may have been some dispute as to price. This was not unnatural. But I desire to represent to my hon. friend that in view of the circumstances an extra effort should have been made to give these people ample satisfaction. These men had their property invaded just at the time when their crop was ready. Some of them could not gather anything of their crop, and some of them are reduced, I will not day to penury, but certainly to stringent circumstances, in consequence of the delay. And, so far as I know, no effort has been made to have these men paid. I understand that the matter has been referred to the Department of Justice. That is to say, all these men have to go to law in order to get their money. If their claim has been put into the hands of the Department of Justice, that department cannot proceed except by due course of law; these forty or fifty owners, suddenly despoiled of their property, will have to go to the court to get the value of their land and also of their crop. I make this motion simply to have the information from the minister. Charges have been made as to the management of the camp. I make no charge; I simply ask for information.


Major General HUGHES:: The leader of the Opposition has dwelt upon the necessity of Valcartier camp; but he says he will discuss that at some other time. I am willing to oblige him and will reply to his criticism of the camp at Valcartier at some other time. But, inasmuch as he went out of his way to discuss it a little, I may point out that the camp at Valcartier stands unique in the history of the world as having produced the best shooting regiment that ever wore a uniform. The object in getting the force assembled at Valcartier- war being a game of shooting-was to give the boys an opportunity to learn practically how to hit the bull's eye. They succeeded; and let me say, without disrespect to the second contingent, which is made up of a lot of as fine boys as ever gathered in any part of the world, that it will take them six or eight weeks' actual practice at the targets before they will be in the same class -I refer to rifle shooting alone-with the boys who sailed on the 1st of October.
The right hon. leader of the Opposition asks, who is Colonel McBain? May I tell him?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Certainly.


Major General HUGHES :: Col. McBain is a descendant, a great-grandson, of an officer who stood beside Wolfe on the Plains of Abraham. Colonel McBain's ancestors ever since 1759-nearly as long as the ancestors of the leader of the Opposition- have lived at Valcartier, on the very spot where this camp was erected. Col. McBain is a gentleman of whom the city of Quebec and his home district are very proud. Col. McBain is a gentleman who struck out into western Canada years ago and who by honest business industry has amassed a fortune. Col. McBain is a gentleman who, when the call to arms came, volunteered for any position to go to the front. Col. McBain is a gentleman who has given his time and his services freely to the Canadian Government, 1 believe without any remuneration-I am not aware that he has accepted any; and in some ways I know he has refused it-in order to perfect the boys for service at the front.
The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) wants to know why Sir William Price was not given the position. Sir William Price is another distinguished gentleman of whom the people of Quebec and the people of Canada are proud. He also volunteered his services and refused to accept


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the date of the memorandum?
Major General HUGHES; It was given to me to-day; I do not know when it was prepared. Every effort has been made to bring about a settlement, and, more than that, we instructed each of the valuators to give a fair valuation. My right hon, friend may not know this locality well, but the McBain family is one of the oldest in Quebec. Every effort was made to induce these people to accept the fairest possible valuation, and instructions were given to give compensation because the people were being turned out. When some of the people demurred at taking what was considered a good, fair valuation, we used every effort to bring about a settlement, and I understood that in every instance the offer had been accepted until, through some manoeuvring, the spirit got abroad among them to hold for higher prices.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the circumstances arising out of the present war are such as to justify the Government of Canada in exercising supreme control over the quantity

and destiny of our food exports, thereby regulating the prices at which bread, meat and other food products shall be sold for home consumption. while at the same time directing that our surplus food exports should only reach British or friendly countries.
He said: The resolution standing in my name is one which I deem of great importance at the present time. It has no political significance, so far as I am concerned. It has appeared to me that for some months past it was the duty of those in charge of the Government of the country to keep a very good eye upon the food supply of the Dominion of Canada, and also to assist in every way*possible the Mother Country iri the tremendous struggle in which she is now engaged. I am aware that the principle contained in the resolution upsets to a certain extent what has been deemed proper economic law, that is, that the law of supply and demand regulates the prices of all commodities.
At the same time this war has upset a great many business axioms, has upset the calculations of many political economists and has brought to our attention the fact that a world-wide war is not dealt with by ordinary means nor controlled by ordinary circumstances. Supply and demand as a rule is a safe criterion for the fixing of prices of commodities. As far as I have been able to judge, Canada is the only country at present at war that has not given more or less consideration to this very important question. Very early in the war the Government of the sister dominion of Australia, that great Commonwealth, which is also a large producer of food, took possession of all supplies of wheat and arbitrarily fixed the price at $1.25 per bushel. That was done in one of the leanest years that Australia has seen in a long time. Their wheat crop was comparatively a failure. The supplies for nome consumption were away below the requirements of that great country. New Zealand is in very much the same position and has been obliged tp appeal to Canada for its supplies.
Wheat, of course, is not the only item to be considered in a resolution such as this.
I have purposely drawn the resolution as broadly as possible. You will notice that the wording used only asks that the House concur in the opinion that the Government is justified in controlling both the quantity and destination of food exports. There may be those, and no doubt there are a number,' who disagree with the first proposition but I believe that in this House it will be found that no one will disagree with the second proposition in regard to the destination of our food supplies. Surely the people of Canada who are the holders of greater or lesser quantities of food products can have no doubt in their minds that the exportation of these food supplies should be directed towards the Mother Country, friendly peoples and allies who are fighting with her to-day for the great principles that we believe are involved in the present war. Therefore, I assume that there will be no exception taken by any hon. member of the House to the proposition that the export of food supplies from Canada should be entirely to British and friendly countries. I have put in the word " friendly " out of deference to the opinions of some who may not agree with me, but for my part I would have preferred to have confined the resolution to British countries entirely because I believe that in the present crisis all our available food supplies are required by the Mother Country and the sister dominions.
Moreover, those who have studied the condition of this question and have followed it fairly closely, as I have for the past few months, must be forced to the conclusion that we are in rather a critical position at the present time, and in asking the House to give some attention to this very important question I am only asking it to do what has been done in the government circles of the various countries that are engaged in the war at the present time. Only this morning you will notice by the press that Air. Lioyd George has been dealing with the matter and I shall have occasion to refer to that a little later on and also that taere was held in Trafalgar Square yesterday a large gathering of the labouring element protesting against the high prices of food and pointing out that it was necessary in the interests of the workingman that the food supply should be immediately regulated and that prices, if necessary, should be set by the Government. That is a proposition that it may be difficult to carry out in such a country as the motherland. On the 11th of February the British House of Commons passed an entire day in discussing this very important question and further, at the close of the debate, after an amendment had been moved by one of the labour leaders, another day was set for the continuation of the debate. Mr. Asquith, it is true, stated that food prices could not be regulated in the United Kingdom with beneficial results. Let me point out that the conditions in Great Britain are exactly the opposite of the conditions that we have in Canada. Great Britain is a food-importing country; even in normal times the food

supply has to be almost entirely brought from outside sources. Britain's problem is to get enough food to come into the country. Canada's problem is to prevent too much food going out of the country. One perhaps is uncontrollable, but there is no one who can say that the other is uncontrollable, and it appears to me that the crisis at which we have about arrived, and I think more than arrived, is such as to demand that the subject should receive the very best thought and attention of the Government. The wheat supply, particularly of Canada, is in very narrow compass. Probably not 10 per cent of the wheat grown is at present in the hands of the farmers. Far be it from me to propound any proposition that is going to rob the farmer of his legitimate profits. The farmer has had to take too low prices for many years past for his wheat there is not a bit of doubt about that. Personally if the farmer can get $1.50 or $2 for his wheat in so far as the matter of trade is concerned I am perfectly satisfied, but coming from an industrial constituency where there are 7,000 employed in the ordinary way, and where, owing to an ihdustrial stagnation the like of which we have never found before in my time, 2,000 or more have been out of work almost the entire winter, with wheat, bread, oatmeal, meats and various products of the farm bringing prices that have rarely been experienced in the years gone by-


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: When you speak of 10 per cent being in the hands of farmers, do you include seed wheat or only the quantity for sale?


William Foster Cockshutt: I estimate that there is not more than 10 per cent in the hands of farmers for sale. I shall deal with the seed question a little later on, because that is an important factor to he considered at this particular time.


Sir JAMES AIKINS:: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he would reduce the price of wheat to the farmer for the purpose of benefiting his own constituency?


William Foster Cockshutt: I have not made any such statement, and if my hon. friend will wait until my argument is finished I think he will not arrive at that conclusion. I am quite aware that some hon. gentlemen on this side of the House may not agree with my proposition, but at the same time I have the courage of my convictions, and I believe that not only in Canada but in every

one of the countries at war this is a real live question that has to be dealt with on its merits. And, while my hon. friend from Brandon (Sir James Aikins) may think that the farmer is justified in getting $2 or $2.50 per bushel for his wheat, under war conditions, I am not going to say whether or not that should be the price fixed; I have not in my resolution named any price, nor do I propose naming any price to which wheat, and meat, and the food products consumed by the working men should be limited. I point out that while the price of securities of every kind, industrial transportation, insurance, railways, has been going down, and down, and down, in the last six months, on the other hand we have seen the necessaries of life of the workingman rising steadily and rapidly. I have a mass of statistics here, a part of which I can only place before the House, which show that the present condition of the wheat supply of Canada wants very careful watching. I believe that in the next six weeks we shall see a squeeze greater than anything we have yet seen. The visible supply of wheat in Canada is shrinking rapidly day by day, until it is estimated that the visible supply, as I am informed by responsible authority, is down to about
18,000,000 bushels, and that is disappearing at. a very rapid rate. That has come about in Canada on top of a world shortage. The United States is the only country ip the world which had a good crop last year, the world supply being about four hundred million bushels short of the crop of the previous year. We all heard the discussion that took place about two weeks ago, in reference to the seed grain proposition, in the interests of the West, and on that occasion we were told by some hon. gentlemen that thousands	of farmers in
the West have not even the seed with which to plant their land this spring, so that, if this statement be correct, the bulk of the farmers are now buyers rather than sellers, of wheat. I am glad to know that this Government has had the foresight to place aside a large sum of money for this purpose, and that they have already made purchases of a considerable quantity of wheat to supply this seed shortage. The great squeeze, as I see it, will come in seeding time this year. Canadians are now the greatest wheat-consuming people in the world, bar none, for while the people of the United States consume annually about five bushels per head of the population, Canada consumes between six and seven bushels. Taking our population at from 7,000,000 to

7.500.000,	in round figures, our requirements for the bread of the people of this country are between 45,000,000 and 50,000,000 bushels of wheat per annum, and in addition to that we will have, in the very near future, to supply seed wheat for a very large aj'ea. It may be said that should a shortage take place we can import from outside, but from what countries can we hope to get the supply we need? The United States is to-day practically the only country that has'a large visible supply that is available. The world's supply has been cornered and speculators, in Chicago largely, have been setting the price of wheat for the world during the last few months. The United States surplus, and it was a very large surplus, has been disappearing at the rate of eight million bushels per week. Great Britain, France and Italy have been compelled to purchase immense supplies from the United ^States. Italy is not even yet at war, but the Italian Government has taken the precaution to buy
40.000.	000 bushels of wheat from the United States, as the following despatch shows:
Rome, February 28,-Provisions made by the Government to supply Italy with wheat pending the next harvest were defended by the Minister of Agriculture, Signor Cavasola, in a speech yesterday before the Chamber of Deputies. He declared special missions representing the military commissariat bad made enormous purchases in the United States and Argentina, although the largest quantities had been made in New York and Chicago. The total contracted for abroad, Signor Cavasola said, was 13,500,000 quintals, (40,500,000 bushels), which will be divided between several of the largest cities as distributing stations.
About one-third of the amount contracted for already has arrived in Italy. The Minister of Agriculture declared that in view of the precautions taken by the Government a wheat famine would be impossible, because the supply provided for would be ample to last until after the Italian harvest.
After the speech of Signor Cavasola, the Socialists provoked a political test vote and were defeated, 314 to 44.
This proves that even these countries which are outside of the war zone are compelled to take extraordinary measures for the preservation of their food supply. I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that nothing could be more deplorable, than to see the success which has attended the efforts of the Allies thus far set at naught by a food shortage which may cause very serious trouble in the Motherland. I quote from a speech delivered by Lloyd George in Bangor, Wales, on the 28th instant:
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George, made a pointed reference to the United States in a speech here today.
" If Germany is triumphant over this country," he said, " she would be practically dictator. of the world, and where," he asked, 34
" could we then look to a chivalrous country to protect us-to America?"
If countries like France and Russia, with huge armies, and we, with the most powerful navy in the world, could not face this terrible machine, how could America step in? It would be more than America could do to defend herself in her own continent. America is unready more than we were."
The chancellor then took up the liquor industrial questions.
" The Government has wide powers to deal with the drink question, and it means to use them," he declared. He said a small minority of the workmen employed in the armament factories had refused to work a full week because of the lure of drink.
" The government would use its powers discreetly and in a spirit of moderation, Mr. Lloyd George asserted, but " fearlessly." He was sure the public would support whatever action was taken and allow no indulgence of this kind to interfere with the country's prospects in the war.
" The war," he said, " is to be won or lost by the engineers. We need men but we need arms more than men and every day of delay is full of peril to the country. For one reason or another we do not get the assistance we have a right to expect from our workshops. Industrial differences are inevitable, but we cannot afford them now.
" It is intolerable that the lives of Britons should he imperilled for the sake of a farthing an hour. During war, governments should have the power of settling differences so that work shall go on. If men are entitled to more money the government should give it. I do not believe the parties involved will refuse to comply with the urgent command of the government that there should be no delay."
Expressing confidence in the outcome of the war, the chancellor said the people of the country hardly realized yet the importance of the struggle in which they were engaged and warned them that victory could not he won without a long struggle. He declared that while England had enrolled the largest volunteer army ever gathered in any country or in any century it ought to be larger still.
There is also in this paper an article headed: '"Protest the food prices." In it the socialists draw attention to the fact that the Government has not done everything possible to safeguard the food supply of the workingman. There is danger to-day in the Motherland in regard to the food supply. I appeal to the House and to the people of Canada: Is it right or wise for any set of men to endanger the success of the allied forces for the sake of some monetary advantage to the individual citizen? The question simmers down practically to that. We are to-day facing a crisis such as has never before been experienced by the British Empire or by the world. If by a restrictive policy on the prices of our food products we cause any delay in turning out munitions of war and other army supplies, which are just as important in their way as are the men at the front, would it not be to the detriment of our cause, which I am sure


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: My hon. friend from Brandon (Sir James Aikins,) who is an expert lawyer, though I do not know that he knows much more about wheat than I do, says, so it is, or something to that effect. But I have sufficient confidence in my own opinions to tell the hon. member that though he objects I still hold my opinions as strongly as he holds his, and I think I have just as much right to hold them. I believe, even though the hon. member may not agree with me, that the people of this country have a very keen eye on the situation as it now exists, and it is a situation that, I think, cannot be given too much consideration at the present moment. It would be a thousand pities if Canada, the granary of the British Empire, as we have called it, should fail at this critical moment. There is danger of its failing to do what is expected of it in the food supply. The resolution I have placed on the Order Paper is drawn broadly and lays down in very general terms the possibilities that may arise, and asks this House if it does not justify the Government in taking into its hands this position that may require dealing with. I do not ask my hon. friend to subscribe to any particular price for wheat. I do ' not set any price; I do not think it is in my province to do that. If it is thought that $1.50 a bushel is a proper price for wheat, all right; if $2 a bushel even is thought better, all right. I can remember as a boy when wheat was as high as $2.50 a bushel, and it may go to that again. But what I would point out is that there are many workingmen in this country who cannot afford to pa-y this price for their bread unless they have a corresponding increase in their wages. Now, the workman has been up against two propositions-first that his wages are dropping at the present time and that he has been very short of work in all the industrial centres; and second he has been asked higher prices for bread and for the products of the farm that go upon his table than at any time for years past. It may be said that I represent a few manufacturers. I repudiate that before it is said. While I may get ten or fifteen manufacturers to vote for me, I am here by the votes of the workingmen of the city of Brantford. I am here to represent the interests of these men and not the miller or L4i
the speculator, or the man who endeavours to comer the food of the people.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: With permission, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he has made any calculation of the amount of wheat which has gone out of the hands of the farmer into the hands of the miller?


William Foster Cockshutt: I have some figures here dealing with that subject, but not of very recent date. The quantity in the farmers' hands, according to my figures, is about 8,000,000 bushels at present.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Ijow much in the
hands of the millers?	_


William Foster Cockshutt: I have shown that the millers and speculators have bought about ninety per cent of the crop, which was put at 158,000,000 bushels. That would leave about 15,000,000 bushels in the hands of the farmers according to that calculation.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but the point I wish to make is this: Undoubtedly the millers bought a great deal of this wheat during the months of December and January for somewhere about a dollar a bushel. Now, the way in which this question affects the workingman is through the price of flour. What I want find out, if possible, is what proportion of the wheat of the three Prairie Provinces was bought from the farmer at a price of $1 a bushel or less, and whether there is good reason for flour going to the price to which it has gone.


William Foster Cockshutt: I am afraid I could
not give authentic figures on that point. I have stated that I believe that ninety per cent of the wheat of the country has passed from the hands of the farmer into the hands of the miller, who is more or less of a speculator. I d(^ not think the price the millers have paid for wheat justifies the present prices of flour. I think the miller has made a very large amount. Judging by the figure at which milling stocks are selling and the profits the millers are said to be making, it looks to me as if the millers have the big end of the stick. I do not think it would be wise to endeavour to curtail the operations of the millers in the interests of the people, but I think it reasonable to point out that the millers, being a very small percentage of the people of Canada, should not expect to make out of a world-wide disaster a large personal profit, amounting in some cases almost to a fortune. I have here a

clipping from the Ottawa Free Press, a journal which I do not often quote with approval. 1 may be excused for quoting it now inasmuch as this article comes from a Conservative paper, the Montreal Star, something which deals with the question my hon. friend has asked:
With the conditions indicating that the larger milling companies in Canada are likely to have one of the biggest years they have ever known, many local interests are already figuring on the bonuses the companies will he able to pay over and above regular dividends.
The principal companies have only gone five months of their regular fiscal year, but it is admitted that whether peace comes eo-morrow or in a year from now, conditions are going to favour the Canadian companies for a couple of years at least, and on this account the companies are bound to make a very good showing, even though profits are not anything as large as some people have been figuring.
In the case of one of the local companies, it is stated that earnings this year may run not far from 50 per cent on the common stock, -while in the case of some of the still larger .concerns, it would not he surprising to see earnings of from 20 to 25 per cent, even when the statements have been worked out on a conservative basis.
From this it will be seen that the millers have struck a very prosperous time, though most of,the country is suffering in a financial way. As I have said, we have seen all our securities sinking. Every industrial company, every transportation company, every joint stock company of any kind has seen its stock go down, and down, and perhaps has found that stock unsaleable even at a fraction of the original price. Exchanges all over the world were closed on account of the war for several months, and those that did business did it on a limited scale and at prices almost unheard of in, the history of the companies affected. Even Canadian Pacific railway stocks fell from 280 to 155. Almost all industrial companies, except, perhaps, the milling companies, have felt the pressure of the disastrous conditions which are the result of the w'ar.
In the face of all these circumstances, the prices of food supplies have risen. Wheat at $1.50 a bushel in ordinary times would not hit anybody so very hard. I have said more than once in this House and throughout the country that wheat should never sell at less than $1 a bushel. I believe that the farmer either of the West or of the East can not afford to raise it at less than that price, and if the Government should think it wise to establish the price of wheat at $1.50 or $1.75 a bushel, I would make no protest. But what - I want the House to decide is this: has the time come .jvhen the 
export of the staff of life produced in Canada should be controlled? Is the amount of the visible supply a justification for the Government's saying that when a certain price is reached they will step in? I propound this question in all seriousness. I have shown that the visible supply is lower than it has been for a long time, and, in the face of the most extraordinary demands from all parts of the world, is rapidly passing away. On the other hand, sources of wheat supply that were formerly available are now entirely shut off. Great Britain has always looked to Russia for a large supply of the staff of life, and the conditions to-day are such that not a boat has been able to get away from Russia, either to the north or to the south, for many months. Hon. gentlemen may say that the Dardanelles are very soon to be open, but Mr. Asquith himself anticipates that liberal supplies will not come from that source before June-and before June a great squeeze will come in this country. It is true that the allied fleets of Britain and France are operating upon the forts of the Dardanelles, and we are told by the press that they have succeeded in silencing three or four of the outer fortifications. But it is yet a long way to Constantinople, and it is a still longer way to Odessa. For my part I think that those who are anticipating a food supply from Odessa will be pretty hungry if they have not substantial reserves nearer at hand and more easily available. These fortifications may fall, but other difficulties will then present themselves. If the hostile shores are held by the enemy, there will be difficulties of mines in narrow channels, and of torpedo boats; under these conditions is it reasonable to expect that merchant ships will be passing from Odessa to Great Britain in the very near future? I may be pessimistic, but I think not. Then where is Great Britain to obtain her food supply in the future, and particularly during the next few months? Argentina, so far as I know, is the only source of supply outside of the United States, and I have told you that the United States is shipping at the rate of 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 bushels a week. Practically the world supply of this important cereal, the staff of life for nearly all peoples, must come from the United States and Canada. We hoped that in time of stress we in Canada would be able to turn out from 150,000,000 to 200,000,000 bushels of wheat; unfortunately this year we did not do anything like as well as we did in 1913. This we all deplore. While I do not wish to be unduly pessimistic, I say in all seriousness that

the present crisis may soon require action by some department of government, probably the Department of Trade and Commerce. I am glad to know that we have at the head of that department a shrewd man of business, a man upon whom we may depend to do the right thing at the right time.
I think it would be reassuring for him to know that this House has provided legislation which he may put into force when it is necessary to take definite steps to conserve our food supply before it is too late.
I cannot conceive of any greater calamity to the people of Canada than that of overexportation of food products at this serious time. The Allies need those exportations.
I have before me a report with regard to the American wheat supply which I think I should place upon Hansard. For this report I am indebted to Mr. John Bunnell of the Chicago Board of Trade, an ex-Canadian. He is an expert in such matters, and is a recognized authority in that great centre of wheat production and distribution. This is the report:
The 1914 wheat crop of the United States was estimated to be 891,000,000 bushels. The estimated surplus carried over from the 1913 crop was about 76,000,000 bushels. There was, therefore, a total available supply of 967,000,000 bushels, and as the normal per capita consumption of wheat in the United States is about 5.3 bushels, 520,000,000 bushels should meet our normal domestic requirements for food. In addition, 90,000,000 bushels are required annually for seeding;	610,000,000
bushels, therefore, should supply the normal domestic demand.
It will be noted that 90,000,000 bushels are required for seeding, purposes only in the United States; therefore the figures which I gave some time ago are quite in accord with the assumption that we would require in this country 20 or 25 per cent of that amount. The report goes on:
This would leave a surplus of 357,000,000 bushels. Of this surplus about 210,000,000 bushels were exported by January 30.
About two-thirds of the amount they had to spare.
This left 147,000,000 bushels, or 40,000,000 bushels more than our average annual export for the past five years, for export between February 1 and the appearance of the new crop, or for carrying over into the next crop year. The amount is sufficient to permit the exportation of nearly 1,000,000 bushels a day until July 1, before which time the new crop will begin to be available. This is about the average recent exportation.
I have already said that they are exceeding the export of 1,000,000 bushels a day; if they continue to export at that rate they will entirely consume their surplus before
July, which is a time entirely unfavourable to the securing of wheat in large quantities
The large demand for our wheat arises from the fact that there was an estimated world's shortage of over 400,000,000 bushels, outside of the United States;
A shortage of 400,000,000 ibushels in the world's supply, coming on top of a world war !
-from the fact that the Russian exportable surplus of 100,000,000 bushels is not available generally and from the fact that the belligerent nations are eager to secure food supplies. If it were not for these things we would be discussing ways and means of disposing of our surplus food products. As has been stated, the new American crop will begin to appear before July. The Argentine crop is now coming on the market. It is estimated that from that source there will be available 100,000,000 bushels. A surplus of 75,000,000 bushels or more from India will be available in May and June. The increase in the fall sown wheat acreage of the United States in 1914 was 11.1 per cent, or over 4,000,000 acres; in fhe| northern hemisphere generally the increase in the wheat zone shows an increase of from three to thirty-three per cent, as follows:
Per cent.
Denmark	 3
Italy	 5
Switzerland	 10
United Kingdom	 10
United States	 11
India	 22
Canada	 33
Canada tops the list with an increase in winter wheat of 33 per cent. That is one of the very interesting items with regard to the outlook for the Canadian crop.
But suppose a shortage in wheat should develop in the next three months, what would .he the situation? There is a great surplus in other food crops in the United States, a number of which can be used as substitutes. Wheat does not constitute more than 12 per cent of the normal diet, about the same as poultry and eggs.
This corroborates what I have said, that there is a very large shortage in the world's supply, and the demands are of such an unusual character that all calculations of the past may be upset by the facts .of the present that the warring nations are more or less nervous, day by day, as to the requirements of their people and as to the food supply. It is not necessary for me to recount to you the horrors which at present exist in some of these countries in order that you may realize wihat a shortage of food would mean to vast numbers of people. In Belgium we have to-day practically 7,000,000 people who are dependent on the outside world for their entire food supply. We are told that it requires 80,000 tons per week of food to keep 7,000,000 people of Belgium from starvation. They

know what war is. We in Canada fortunately, up to the present time, have scarcely realized what war is and we have not realized that we are personally called upon to make the sacrifices necessary for our cause to triumph. I think that every one of us should be prepared to make all necessary sacrifices for the success of the cause. It may be that some of us will be called upon to sacrifice flesh and blood. That is the highest sacrifice that man-can make for man, and I am glad to say that there has been a spontaneity of response throughout the Dominion of Canada where the call has gone forth:	" Your King and country
need you." But that is only part of the battle. We have to send the men to the front, we have to send them equipped, and then we have to supply them with the munitions of war and with the food required to carry on the war satisfactorily. To-day the greatest problem in Britain is to maintain the supply of armaments, shot and shell and rifles and cannons and all those engines of destruction that are required to meet an enemy whose every man is equipped from head to heel, in a way that no army in the world has ever before been equipped, ready, the moment the war bugle sounded, to march forward in the ranks of war to meet any enemy in the gate.
Lloyd George has said, in the speech from which I have quoted, that they are fighting in such a way as no war machine has ever fought in the history of the world, and we are called upon to make all necessary sacrifices in order that our cause may triumph. I want to put it to the members of this House, I want to appeal to their patriotism if mot to their pockets, is it not the part of Canadians, is it not the part of any Britishers to be ready to sacrifice not only their flesh and blood if necessary, but also what is far less of a pang, some of the profits which might go into our pockets as the result of a squeeze which would mean tremendous pressure on others. My hon. friend only laughs. I am afraid that all my shafts are lost on him, but I feel that, *whether he agrees with me or not, he as a patriotic man must say that we are called upon to make some personal sacrifice. Is that not right? He will not agree with me to that extent. I know that my friend from Brandon (Sir James Aikins) is a highly philanthropic citizen and that he has sometimes, if not converted souls, made a good attempt to appear on religious platforms as a man who was attempting to save
[Mr. Cockshutt.J
souls, and I appeal to him now,
5 p.m. I appeal to his Christian charity, I appeal to him as a man who draws out his soul to the hungry and is ready to satisfy the afflicted soul. These are not my words, and I think he will know where they come from. I ask him if he will not draw out the bowels of his compassion and say that $1.50 or $1.75 or even $2 is enough for wheat to sell at. He is still dumb. However, without asking my hon. friend to subscribe to the proposition I am making, I think I can fairly ask the members of this House to let their bowels of compassion be moved for souls who are in want, that those who need the food of which we have, to limited extent, a surplus, may get the benefit of our surplus. But we cannot afford to feed even those who are worse off than ourselves if it is done to the detriment of our own people. While charity begins at home, we want to exercise just'as much of it as we can to those of our kith and kin over the seas; and while I say that the resolution which I have moved may not appeal to all in one respect, that is, in the desire to limit our exports, I believe I can appear to all that the exporting of those food supplies should be limited to British and friendly countries. I would prefer that it should go only to British countries, because I think it is the duty of a man to look after his own household first, to see that his own wife and children are fed; in other words to care for the people of his own nation, his own kith and kin, to whom he is bound by all that is Christian and all that is charitable, to provide for the wants of those who are suffering within the borders of his own country. I believe I shall carry the House with me in that respect, that our food supplies which do go abroad should go only to British and not foreign countries.
A return is in my hand, sessional paper No. 120, showing the countries to which food supplies have been exported since the month of August last; and while I shall not weary you with the fish and the cheese and apples ard minor articles ti nt go to replenishing the table of the workingman, I am going to uraw your attention to the fact that in regard to wheat and flour and some other cereals we are in the humiliating position, to a certain extent, of having fed the enemy while many of our own people were not receiving food in a quantity or at a price that is desirable. That, I think, is something that should be rectified. I find in a return I asked for that we exported wheat to several non-British

countries. The order was for a return showing whether any exportations of foodstuffs have been made since August last to European countries other than the United Kingdom, France and Belgium. In response to that order I have a statement showing that 167,626 bushels went to Gibraltar, and 40,000 bushels to Denmark. It may be said that as far as Gibraltar is concerned, we were feeding the British garrison, and very likely we were; but as far as Denmark is concerned that cannot be said. But it is to the matter of flour more particularly that I want to draw the attention of the House. Since August last we exported flour to the following countries:
Barrels.
Gibraltar	  4,171
Malta	 2,030
Denmark	 34,327
Germany	 356
Greece	 12,382
Holland	 58,338
Norway	 120,954
Sweden	 3,089
We should not have sold one barrel to Germany while our own people needed it. I do not know what Greece wanted with all that flour. I am afraid that she did not use it herself. What did Norway do with 120,954 barrels of flour? I fear that some of this flour has been sent to furnish the sinew's of w'ar to our enemies. We have made mistakes up to date with regard to the exports of flour, but oats is just as important a commodity as flour, as far as the success of our arms is concerned, because there is a tremendous demand for the oats of this country to feed the war horses that are at present fighting our battles in northern France and Belgium. The position of the oat market is just as important as that of the wheat market in that respect, and we must be just as careful in regard to it. We want to see to it that no further mistakes be made in sending food supplies to the enemy or in sending them to those countries that may be friendly with the enemy and which allow these supplies to be sent from their borders into the country tlhat is fighting against the armies of the Allies. I think that has been done; I am afraid it has been done.
I know that there is a disposition to blame the bakers of Canada for the inordinate rise in the price of bread. I am not familiar with the baking industry, but I have had a document sent to me by the bakers who repudiate the assertion entirely and who make the statement that they have gone on furnishing bread at a price that the
present price of flour does not at all justify, that now they are practically at the end of their resources so far as flour that was laid in early in the w'ar is concerned, and that very material advances must be made in all kinds of bread, cake and other things which the bakers furnish from day to day to the houses of workingmen. If that is the case it is a very serious matter, and it is certainly deserving of the consideration of this House because, after all is said and done, fully half of the population of the Dominion is resident in cities- We have close upon 700,000 men at the present time working in the industries of Canada. All of these are dependent for the staff of life pretty much on the bakers' product and I therefore appeal to this House to see that no injustice is done to any of those concerned in debating this question. I am making no imputation agaiqst the good faith of all our citizens. Far be it from me. I have the very highest respect for all classes of our citizens. I believe we have a splendid citizenship in Canada. I am endeavouring to direct the attention of the House to what I conceive to be one of the most important resolutions that will come before it at this session of Parliament: I am asking hon. gentlemen to say that in the judgment of this House the Government would be justified in controlling the amount of foodstuffs to be exported and the destination to which they should go. I am asking you to place no particular price on any product but I believe that when the resources are held in this country that of itself will be a regulator of the prices and that it will result in maintaining a constant supply of our breadsituffs and all those items that go upon the table of the workingman.
What I have said in regard to bread-stuffs applies in a smaller measure to all kinds of products, to cereals and all those items of daily use that go upon the table of the working-man. They all require consideration at the present time and I ask you, as a fair proposition, to see to it that we in Canada, largely a food-producing country, shall not allow ourselves to be impoverished by overexportation until we have taken care of the food requirements of our own people and of the supply of seed grain to those who are presently to go upon the land to sow the crops for the coming year. I am in entire accord with the Government in furnishing seed grain to the farmers. I think it was a wise move, but that of itself may affect the the situation at present existing somewhat acutely. I therefore have much pleasure
53C

in moving the resolution which stands in my name. I thought it was the intention of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe) not the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Barnard) to second the resolution, although I do not think it makes very much difference. I offer the resolution believing that in doing so I am bringing to the attention of the House and the country a question that demands their very best consideration, and whether hon. gentlemen agree with me or not, I ask them to discuss the question free from any political bias or anything of that kind because I have no thought of that in my own mind at the present time and it has no tearing whatever upon the introduo tion of this resolution. I ask simply that this question be viewed upon its merits and I can only say again that I make this proposition believing that it is a wise and just one and that its adoption is in the best interests of the people of Canada and of the British Empire whose cause we have so very much at heart.


Mr. J. J. MEENER (South Huron):: Being a farmer and representing a farming community, I desire to say a few words upon this very important question. I would like to have a little more information on the resolution that has been laid on the table. I would like to know if the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Coekshutt) is trying to get after the farmer or who it is he trying to hit. I believe that if the adoption of this proposition should affect the farmer it would inflict a great injustice upon him. I admit that at the present time the farmer is receiving a fair price for his product, but at the same time I do not believe .that the price that he is receiving represents more than a good living profit. I wonder if the hon. member for Brantford lost much sleep when the farmer was receiving a starvation price for his butter, eggs and other products. I am a farmer and I know that the farmer at the present time is selling his cattle and his hogs at a price that does not pay him, considering the high cost of everything he is using. I believe that the consumer is paying too high a price for his foodstuffs, over and above the price the farmer gets. I know that in August and September last buyers paid $9.75 per cwt. for hogs, and $9.00 per cwt. for cattle, while to-day they are only [laying $7.25 for hogs on the Toronto market and a correspondingly less price for cattle than theypaid in August, and yet they are asking exactly the same price for their beef and pork as they did last fall, when they were paying two cents per pound

more for live stock. There is something wrong there, and if the Government wants to obtain power to get after those fellows. I for one shall approve of their doing so. If the farmer alone is to be detrimentally affected by such action as is now proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. Coekshutt) I believe it would be most unjust. For the last few months there have been people going around the country advocating patriotism and increased production, but if you are going to adopt any legislation in this Parliament which will be injurious to the farmer, how are you going to get increased production. For my part I believe that the farmer requires protection just as well as the manufacturer. I wonder how the hon. member for Brantford would like it if the Government brought in a Bill to stop the shipping of ploughs to the other side, I think he would object to that most strongly. I believe we should not be selfish; I believe we should co-operate, one with the other; I believe we should allow the farmer to live. The farmer is the backbone of this country, and we must have protection for him. A great deal is said nowadays about the high cost of living, and I might perhaps give my experience in that respect. I am a farmer, but I am also a merchant, and I think I am able to deny the statement that the cost of living has greatly increased of recent years. I worked behind the counter in my store for thirty-seven years, and I know from personal experience that thirty-five years ago, with a few exceptions, the cost of the necessaries of life was higher then than it is to-day. Thirty-five years ago I sold tea at seventy-five cents a pound, and I am selling as good tea to-day at forty cents a pound; thirty-five years ago I sold coffee at thirty cents a pound, and I am selling as good coffee to-day at twenty-five cents a pound. I believe that as a whole the price of drygoods is lower now than it was say thirty years ago. That, of course, depends on whether the people are willing to use the same class of drygoods to-day that they did then. If people were willing to use the same drygoods to-day as they did thirty years ago, they could buy them just as cheaply; but nowadays the/ want style, and they have to pay for it. Thirty years ago the mothers on the farm would spin the yarn and the home weaver would weave the cloth; I wore these goods myself and I was content with them; but to-day the boys and girls are not satisfied with that. It is the way the people live to-day

that makes the cost mount up. About thirty-five years ago I remember selling six pounds of granulated sugar for a dollar, while to-day I am selling twelve and fourteen pounds for a dollar. Of course, the cost of living, especially in large cities, is high, and that is brought about largely by the high rents, which are the result of the good times we have been having. In the good times in the past, speculation ran high and rents ran up. Where twenty-five years ago an ordinary man could rent a house for ten or fifteen or twenty dollars a month, to-day he is paying thirty or forty or fifty dollars. We must place the responsibility for that on speculation. I did not expect this resolution to be brought up to-day, and I was not prepared to speak upon it; but it having come before the House, I felt that it was my duty to say a few words on behalf of the farmers. Those who live in the cities imagine that the farmer has an easy time of it, but I am in a position to know about that, and I feel satisfied that the farmer, even in view of the high price he is rceiving to-day, has the short end of it, and that he is not making the money he ought to make to recompense him for his hard work.


James Albert Manning Aikins: It was not my intention to have spoken on this resolution, nor did I think I would until after I suggested a question which perhaps to my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) was somewhat unfortunate. He drew particular attention to the hon. member for Brandon, when that member felt carried away by that inspired patriotic peroration of the hon. gentleman, pointing out how the people of this country should sacrifice themselves for their homes and for the Empire. He apparently misunderstood my disposition and turned his particular laudations to myself. While he was thus considering the member for Brandon, my thought was turned to see how his enthusiastic patriotism was given effect to by the resolution he placed before the House and now being considered, limiting the market and price of agricultural products. By this resolution he asked that some portion of this community should make sacrifices, and that portion of the community which he selects to make the sacrifice is the farmer. I can tell my hon. friend that the farmers of this country, and particularly the West, are willing to make and have made splendid sacrifices for Canada and the Empire. Thousands of the best men, sons of farmers, and farmers themselves, young, vigorous, intelligent and
industrious, having ample opportunity for the development of their life at home, have sacrificed their peaceful pursuits and comforts and are now manning the trenches in a foreign land fighting our Empire's enemy.
But that is not the - sacrifice which the hon. member for Brantford desires the farmers of this country for the love of it to make. When we consider this resolution we find that the sacrifice he demands of them is a sacrifice for the benefit of other people in this land, and particularly for the benefit of the manufacturers and the benefit of the employees of those manufacturers. In my view, Mr. Speaker, if sacrifices are to be made, they surely should be made by those who hitherto have had the benefit of the services of their workmen, and who have received advantages from them.
If any one is called upon to make sacrifices, it should not be those who have constantly paid tribute to the manufacturers of my hon. friend's constituency and the eastern part of Canada. As I understand this resolution its purpose is that the price may he reduced to the agricultural producer so that the consumer may receive the benefit of that reduction. Therefore the sacrifice that the farmers are being asked to make is for the benefit of other classes in Canada.
There are two great producing classes in our country-the agriculturists and the manufacturers. Who should receive particular attention? Certainly those whose production is the natural and not the artificial production of a country. If we look at the returns for the year 1913, we shall find that the value of the agricultural exports was either three or four times greater than the value of the manufacturers' exports. As Canada is	primarily	an agricultural [DOT]
country, the agriculturists, if any protection of the people is given, should first receive that protection. I presume that any economic policy that is wise and sane for one class of producers should be wise and sane for the other class of producers.	We have very frequently seen
pamphlets sent out by the Department of Trade and Commerce-the minister for which deserves all the commendation which the hon. member for Brantford has given him-setting forth the wider market that the Government is attempting to create. For whom in particular? For the manufacturers. Seldom do we see any such pamphlet for wider markets for the fanner. When that subject was before the House, instead of giving wider markets for wheat.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN (Regina):: I must first of all congratulate the hon. member for Brandon (Sir James Aikins) on at length having arrived at a very sane idea of the doctrine of protection in so far as the agriculturists of this country are concerned. If my hon. friend had been of the same view with respect to markets for the farmers of this country last session, and the session before, and, in fact, for the past three or four years, we might have had free wheat to-day for the farmers of western Canada. I do not wish to impugn the motives of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) in bringing this resolution to the attention of the House. I have heard the hon. member on previous occasions get very close to the same doctrine as he has promulgated here to-day, namely, the fixing of the price of foodstuffs. It is quite true that he would not venture to suggest what the value of a bushel of wheat would be. I believe on one occasion, some two or three years ago, he said that wheat should never sell for more than $1 a bushel.

Mr. COCKSHUTT; I never made that statement.


William Melville Martin: You got very close to it to-day.


William Foster Cockshutt: Your imagination is carrying you away.


William Melville Martin: The sole purpose of his resolution is to control the price of wheat, which ithe bon. member himself has said, produces the staff of life which feeds all the people of this country. This is a most peculiar time in the history of Canada for a man to advocate in this House the control of the price of the main product of our farmers. During the past few years I have heard gentlemen of the type of my hon. friend advocating that the farmers of this country should go into mixed farming. When the farmer had about come to the conclusion that mixed farming was a good thing, the war came in August last, and immediately my hon. friend and his friends advocate that people should produce more. And now, I suppose, we have the climax of this campaign of " Patriotism and Production " in the speech of my hon. friend, advocating that the farmer should not be paid more than a certain price per bushel for his wheat. I submit that the hon. gentleman has started at the wrong end of this question. I am informed and believe-and perhaps my hon. friend has the information- that the millers of Canada are manufacturing flour out of wheat bought three or four months ago at prices not exceeding a dollar a bushel at Fort William. I know, and hon. members of this House know, that during October and even September-because our harvest was early last year-and during November, there was no dollar wheat in western Canada. It was the exception if the man got 98 cents or 99 cents a bushel, and from that were deducted transportation charges to Fort William. The farmer got for his wheat on an average from 80 cents to 90 cents a bushel. And I am informed, that the millers fortified themselves with a large supply of wheat which did not cost them. $1.25 a bushel or anything like it. And yet flour is selling at $8.75 a barrel.
There is another reason why the hon. gentleman has started at the wrong end of the question. He knows, as does every other member of this House, that for many years past the Canadian miller has been selling his flour in the markets of the world at a less price than that at which he sold it to the consumer in Canada. What is going to be the result of raising a question
of this kind? I agree with the hon. member for Brandon (Sir James Aikins) that the agricultural business is the maip industry in Canada. To increase the prosperity of this country, to get men on the land in the East and in the West, and to get larger acreage in crops and to get more agriculturists on the land, a campaign of " Patriotism and Production " is undertaken. I saw some figures the other day with respect to the population centering in the cities. While the rural population increased from 1900 to 1910 by half a million people, the population of the cities increased by almost a million and a quarter-or almost two and a half times the increase of the rural population. Of course, the cities are always attractive to a large number of people, but the main attraction has been the comparatively high wages that were paid there, especially by the manufacturers. The manufacturers did not raise wages for philanthropic reasons. They have acted in this matter the same as they have in relation to the doctrine of protection; it was an absolutely selfish proposition. They were forced to raise the wages of their employees because the cost of living has so greatly increased within the last fifteen years. The effect, of course, was to increase the wages of all city employees. The farmer could not compete with these prices, and so the farmer's hired men and the farmer's son went to the city. And now my hon. friend proposes that the price of the farmer's principal product should be curtailed. I would suggest to him, as the hon. member for Brandon said, that he might consider advantageously some reduction in the cost of agricultural implements in western Canada. Let me give an instance that came under my own notice a short time ago, one the facts of which I am ready to substantiate at any time the hon. gentleman wishes. A certain man bought an engine gang plough. I ascertained these facts at Carnduff. I learned that the machine was quoted there at a certain figure. But this man crossed the-line into Sherwood, in North Dakota, and bought the plough there at such a price that though he paid about $100 duty on bringing it across the line, he saved $80 or $90 on the transaction. Does the hon. gentleman dispute that? That was a Canadian-made plough, one that had paid duty on going into the United States. Yet, though it had paid that duty and though it had to pay another duty on being brought back into Canada, the purchaser saved the amount that I have named. It was one of the agricultural implements manufactured by those philanthropic gentlemen of On-

tario, manufactured and sold abroad at 20 per cent less than they charge for it in Canada.
The hon. gentleman wishes to control the price of the product of the farmer, but. at the same time he is arranging that his friends the Government of the day should increase the duty on the implements that the farmer uses, and on everything that the farmer consumes. That is the policy of my hon. friend. I would like to know what the Government think of that policy. Is it in favour of the policy of curtailing the price of all the foodstuff that the farmer produces and to enhance the price of all that the farmer uses?
As I have said, what we most of all require in western Canada, and I believe in the whole of Canada, is to get men on the land. Canada is primarily an agricultural country. We have prided ourselves on that for many years past. But immigration has practically ceased during the last six months, and it has been declining, like our revenue, for eighteen months past. If we are to get the farmers on the land to carry out the "patriotism and production" policy that we have heard so much about, how can any reasonable man defend the position that the price of the main product of the farmer's labour shall be fixed? I say, I believe that the majority of the House will agree that the farmer should be allowed the price for his products fixed by the open competition of the world.


Mr. ALPHONSE VERVILLE (Maison-neuve):: My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) has said a good deal in former years on questions similar to this,' but formerly he argued on the other side. To-day he is very anxious to protect the workingman, not only of his own constituency, but of the whole of Canada. From what the hon. gentleman says, one would suppose that the workingmen of Canada ate bread and nothing else. I am prepared to favour the proposition of the hon. gentleman if he will ask the Government to regulate also the prices of everything that comes on the workingman's table. But I suppose he will not accept that, for otherwise he might be'blackballed by the association of which he is a member. I am surprised that the hon. gentleman has changed from the position which he occupied in former years in this argument. For my part, I have always said that the farmers did not get enough for the goods they grow, yet the consumers always had to pay too much. The hon. gentleman can hardly
[Mr. W. M. Martin.!
deny that. There is a middleman somewhere-there are many of them, and my hon. friend is one. I would ask him in two words also to make some sacrifice, and would ask the trust of which, I assume, he is a member, to make some sacrifices. And I would say to the trust of the millers, which is really one of the biggest in Canada, and which has paid dividends on watered stocks of so many million dollars, that surely they also could do something for the country at the present time. My hon. friend may say that they are not paying any dividends this year. They are very sorry that they cannot pay any dividends, but I may remind hon. gentlemen that when I brought this question up in the House on a previous occasion it was plainly stated that these people were paying no dividends except on common stock. I may tell my hon. friend that I will second his proposition on the condition that the regulation or restriction of prices shall apply to every article of foodstuffs that goes on the workman's table. I may say, too, that I shall be willing to make some sacrifice if the interests with which my hon. friend is connected are willing to make one also.


William Ashbury Buchanan: The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Coek-shutt) spoke of Canada as being the granary of the Empire; I think it will be admitted that vrestern Canada is really the granary of the British Empire. The hon. gentleman proposes to make provision for the regulation of prices of foodstuffs, which would include the larger number of the products of western Canada. Farming in western Canada has not been profitable; that was established only last year by the report of the commissio'n appointed by the government of the province of Saskatchewan to inquire into farming conditions. That was due largely to the prices received for the grain which the farmers produced. This year, when exceptional conditions prevail and there is a prospect of the farmer obtaining a good price for his wheat, the hon. member for Brantford comes Along with a proposition to restrict the prices within certain limits and practically to wipe out the first opportunity for making a profit that the western farmer has had for a great many years.
What will be the effect of the proposed changes in the tariff upon the farmers of western Canada? The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) argues that the price of the protected article goes up just to the extent to which the tariff is increased.

I have before me substantial proof that since the Government increased the protection afforded to certain agricultural implements, the price of agricultural implements has been	raised, and	the new	prices	arenow	in effect.	I	will	quote	the
statement, not of a politician, but of a gentleman who is engaged in the implement business in the city of Winnipeg.
I have here a clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press of Tuesday, February 23, containing the report of an interview with Mr. H. W. Hutchinson, vice-president and managing director of the John Deere Plough Company. Mr. Hutchinson argues that the entire tariff, in so far as it affects tillage implements used upon the farms, imposes a burden upon the farmer of western Canada. We have been advocating, as Mr. Hutchinson points out, increased production, but production can only be brought about by utilizing tillage implements, and upon these the Government, under its proposed tariff arrangements, is putting an extra tax. Let me read what Mr. Hutchinson says in that regard:
The prairie farmers will, of course, be called on to pay the duty. We have been already notified by Canadian manufacturers that prices will be increased to us and we have already begun to prepare a new price list for the sale of our commodities. On every walking plough tin re will be an increase in the price paid of from $1 to $2; on every sulky plough an increase of $4 ; on every drill an increase of ?5.


William Foster Cockshutt: Do these increases apply to ploughs made in the United States or to ploughs made in Canada?


William Ashbury Buchanan: Mr. Hutchinson says, "We have already been notified by Canadian manufacturers."


William Foster Cockshutt: So far as our firm is concerned, there is no truth in that report of an increase. It has been decided by the firm that prices shall remain just as they have been.


William Ashbury Buchanan: I presume that the hon. gentleman, who has dissociated himself from the agricultural implement business within the last couple of years, is probably more familiar with these conditions than I am, but I shall wait until I receive word from some of the farmers in western Canada who are buying the implements before assuming that Mr. Hutchinson's statement is incorrect. Mr. Hutchinson proceeds to enumerate the increases:
On every gang plough an increase of $6 ; on every wagon an increase of ?7, and on every disc plough a nincrease of ?8, with similar advances in the prices to the farmer Of all kindred tools.
Then there follows a lengthy interview with Mr. Hutchinson, in which he says that the tariff increases are discouraging to the farmers of western Canada. In view of the fact that the prices of these articles are to be increased, I submit that even if the prices of grain in eastern Canada to-day rise higher than they ever have been in the past, the additional prices which the farmer will have to pay for the articles which are given additional protection under the tariff changes introduced at this session of Parliament, will reduce his profit and take away from the benefit of the increased price he receives for his products.
The hon. member for Brantford takes a patriotic view of the situation. I wish to tell my hon. friend-not as a boast, but as a statement of fact-that there i& no more patriotic part of Canada than the West; that there is no more patriotic citizenship in this country than that which is found in the farmers of western Canada. I have had the pleasure of attending a great many patriotic meetings in my own constituency, a constituency largely populated by men and women who come from the republic to the south. Those men and women have been interesting themselves in the promotion of every patriotic object, and are prepared to make sacrifices on behalf of Canada until the war is over and victory is proclaimed on behalf of the Allies. They are prepared to make sacrifices on behalf of patriotic enterprises, and they are prepared, if need be, to sacrifice their sons to the Empire. In my constituency a squadron of mounted rifles has just been raised to goto the front with the third contingent, and in that squadron there are six officers, each one of them a native horn American citizen who has only recently become a naturalized citizen of Canada. Any one who is under the impression that our new citizens are not true Canadians lias been entertaining' mistaken ideas.
I believe that this war itself has developed a stronger Canadian citizenship than we have ever had in the past. It has proven the metal, it has proven and established the loyalty, of the people who have gone into western Canada; and they are prepared to make their contributions, but they are not prepared to be limited in the price which may be offered to them for the products of the soil, and then have to pay increased prices for the articles which they use. My hon. friend in his resolution says:
While at the same time directing that our surplus food exports should only reach British or friendly countries.

My hon. friend surely has kept in touch with Britain's attitude during this war. He knows that to-day it,faas been declared that no food of any kind will be allowed to go into Germany or any other country opposed to the Allies on account of the attitude of Germany and the countries allied with her. Why is that? Wie can get food'products to the Allies and the friendly countries because of the existence of a great power within the British Empire, and this resolution, I maintain, is not necessary in that regard, because all our surplus products are more than likely to go to the countries to which we want them to go-to Great Britain and to the allied nations.	-
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia):: My hon. friend the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), has brought forward a resolution that I do not think he can expect this House to approve of. At the present time my hon. friend is engaged in supporting a measure before this House which is to add very heavy burdens, not only to.the farmers in the West, but to the farmers all over Canada. It is bad enough when you hit any class of the people one blow, but in this resolution that my hon. friend presents to the House he proposes to give the farmer the double-cross and hit him at both ends. He adds to the price of his machinery, adds to the price of everything that goes to produce wheat and if, on one particular occasion or in one particular year out of a great many years, the products of the farm are high in price my hon. friend wants the Government to step in and fix the price. I acknowledge that farmers are getting good, high prices for their products at the present time.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Some of them.


John Gillanders Turriff: Well, most of them.


Michael Clark: Pork is very low.


John Gillanders Turriff: Some of the farmers have got good prices and because they happened to have got good prices my hon. friend comes forward and wants to have the prices fixed by the Government. I think the hon. member for Brantford is beginning to learn something, and that is that high protection does not always protect or benefit the interests that he is so anxious to have benefited. Surely the proposition of the Government to increase the price of manufactured goods should be sufficient for my

hon. friend who represents a manufacturing constituency-a	constituency composed
nearly altogether of manufacturers and artisans. If that proposition worked out as they would lead us to believe, the artisans of that constituency should be benefited, but according to the hon. member for Brantford they are not being benefited, he finds the prices of products too high and he comes to this Government and wants to have them regulated.
We have heard a great deal of late years about getting the people back to the land. What I am particularly concerned about is endeavouring to keep the people on the land that we have on the land at the present time. People have been leaving the land steadily and now, when you are placing heavier burdens than ever before on the backs of the men who are trying to make a living on the land, how does any one expect, how does the hon. member for Brantford expect, that we will be able to get more people back to the land or even that we will be able to keep the men on the land who are there now? My hon. friend, with a show of patriotic fervour, declared that we should make sacrifices. What sacrifices are his constituents making? What sacrifices are the manufacturers making under the legislation that is before Parliament to-day? I heard one manufacturer from Montreal make the statement-and he made it knowing what he was talking about-that the added duties that are proposed at the present session would mean 5 per cent additional profit to the manufacturers. These are not my words, these are the words of a practical manufacturer. If these added duties, of which the farmer will have to bear the biggest part, will enable the manufacturer to made an additional 5 per cent profit, I would like to ask my hon. friend where the sacrifice comes in. I have never been able to see any sacrifice that the manufacturer has ever made. The vice-president of the Manufacturers' Association said that they would have to grin and bear the extra taxes, but I notice what the Ottawa Citizen said chiefly grin, and, it i= a case of grin on the part of the manufacturer it he can make five per cent extra money.
I hope the hon. member for Brantford will not succeed in having liis resolution carried into effect, because it would mean that the farmer, in addition to the extra burden that he is going to be called upon to bear, wouid be precluded from taking advantage of good

prices for his wheat, or his cattle, or anything else in the way of food that he produces, at any time that it happened that the prices were extra heavy. I would like to ask my hon. friend if Great Britain has asked for any such action on the part of the Government of this country. I do not believe she has. The hon. member fo'-Brandon (Sir James Aikins) has pointed out the statement, in a despatch to the press to-night, that Great Britain had food enough on hand for the next twelve months. I do not think there is much suffering from the lack of food, and I think it would be a step in the wrong direction absolutely if the Government were to place any restrictions whatever in the way of the farmer getting the very best prices lie can. My hon. friend from Brantford, only a year or two ago, supported very heartily a proposition in this House to prevent the farmer from selling his wheat on the other part of the line if he could get a better price for it. He could not see that there would be any advantage in that whatever, but if my hon. friend from Brantford refused to allow the farmer to sell his wheat in the best market that happened to be available, and that best market was across the line, and if he is supporting the policy of added burdens to the farmer in producing that wheat, surely he does not want to give him a third welt and to say: We must prevent the farmer from getting the market value of his wheat because that is going to make the cost of living too high for my constituents. That is exactly what he says-the cost of living is going to be too high. My hon. friend will find out that when he undertakes to legislate upon all these matters he just gets them going from bad to ivorse, and that it would be far more in the interests of his constituents, as well as in the interests of the whole Dominion, if they would leave matters as they are and not add any greater burdens to the farmer and not give any greater concessions to the manufacturers. He would then find that the cost of living for his constituents would not go up nearly as fast, and that they would be in a much better position than if the Government were to accede to their request anu put a limit on the prices that the farmer could get for his product. If anything were	going	to be	done	in that
line, now is not the time to do it. I can hardly think that the Government would entertain this idea for a moment; but if it were going to be done at all, the time'would be before the grain has largely
passed out of the farmers' hands-it is not altogether out of their hands, but a very considerable portion of it is-and into the hands of the great milling concerns. However, I am not at all alarmed that the Prime Minister will do anything of the-kind asked for by this resolution. It does not seem to me it is a motion in the right direction and I do not think the members on his own side of the House will accord the hon. member very much support.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES (Queens, P.E.I.):: One of the ideas of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) in proposing his motion appears to be that most of the wheat in Canada has been secured by the millers-and other speculators at a low price, and' that these men are taking advantage of the war conditions to charge consumers an inordinate profit, and he seems to think that in some way or other this resolution if carried would regulate the price to the consumer. I do not think it would have that effect. The motion says:
That, in the opinion of this House, the circumstances arising out of the present war are such as to justify the Government of Canada in exercising supreme control over the quantity and destiny of our food exports, thereby regulating the prices at which bread, meat and other food products shall be sold for home consumption, while at the same time directing that our surplus food exports should only reach British or friendly countries.
According to the proclamation issued by Great Britain and the Allies, the surplus products that Canada has to ship will only reach Great Britain and other friendly countries, and, therefore, that part of the resolution is not necessary. And if, by reason of that fact, you control the price of the home grain then there is no part of the resolution that is necessary. There is no doubt that the millers and other speculators are charging a very high price for flour at the present time, and if they have bought this wheat at a low figure before the price advanced, there is no doubt whatever but they are taking advantage of present conditions, and whether they should be allowed to do that is a point worthy of consideration. This is a combine-ridden country-


Michael Clark: Say that again.


James Joseph Hughes: My hon. friend
wishes me to repeat that, but everybody knows it who wishes to know it, and therefore it is not necessary for me to repeat. We have combines to raise the price of food and other products, and if they can be smashed, it would be a good thing for Can-

ada. There are men in this country-we all know it-who are taking advantage of the war conditions to make fortunes of thousands and tens of thousands of dollars out of the food and other products they are selling to the people of this country, and to the Government of this country, which is another name for the people. If the bon. member for Brantford had moved a resolution asking for a parliamentary committee to find out who the guilty parties are, and to try to prevent these practices, I for one would support him. The resolution of the hon. member in its present form would be innocuous and useless were it adopted. Something should be done to prevent the people from being fleeced, and to prevent the designs of the cormorants who are trying to fatten upon the people at this particular time, by taking advantage of the patriotism and loyalty and devotion of the people. These men think that perhaps their raids upon the treasury and upon the people of Canada may pass unnoticed, but we know them and they should be brought to book. Action in this direction taken as speedily as possible and before Parliament prorogues would be in the best interests of the country and of the Empire. If my hon. friend (Mr. Cockshutt) had proceeded along that line, I am sure he would have got support in this House, from independent members at all events, and perhaps some one may yet move in that direction. That is the view I take of this resolution.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (York, South):: I
am only going to detain the House for a moment to loou on this question from the point of view of increasing production throughout Canada, especially farm production, both in the East and in the West. Having regard to the present situation, if I were asked to suggest something to improve the condition of the farmer of the West in the matter of increased production of foodstuffs, I would suggest the adoption of a policy by the Government to valorize or stabilize the price of the forthcoming wheat crop. 1 would be quite willing to see the Government make a price for the first and seconu grades of the coming year's wheat crop, somewhere in the neighbourhood of SI.40 or $1.50 per bushel. Tnat would enable the farmer to hold the wheat until they got at least that price for it. If a better price were obtainable they would get the benefit. Py the Government valorizing and stabilizing the price of wheat, the farmer would get what he does not get

to-day, namely, the large amount which the miller takes away from him. The bulk of the wheat that has been raised by the farmers of our western country has gone into flour, and that flour has been sold, as nearly as I can make out, at a price which should have netted the farmer from $1.30 to $1.50 a bushel. There are always new ideas in economics, ana the suggestion has been made, and I think it is -worthy of consideration having regard to the present conditions, that the Government of Canada could well afford to stabilize the price of the coming crop at least at $1.30 a bushel. If we cannot do that, there are other things we can do to help the farmer. There are two things that could be done in that direction and the Government is doing one of them now in increasing the storage capacity in the West so that the farmer can keep his wheat until such time as the miller wants it, and thus secure a better price. A widespread system of storage throughout the West will no doubt help in that direction. Then we should have a banking system in this country that w-ould enable the farmer to carry his wheat, so that he would not be compelled to sell it as wn as the crop is reaped, If the farmer could store his wheat and if he [DOT]could have a banking accommodation that would help him to carry his wheat, we would accomplish what ought to be accomplished, namely, not a reduction in the price of wheat in this country, but the increasing of the price in every possible way, or at least the enabling of the farmer to get the price which he is entitled to get for his wheat. The Government should enter upon a policy of valorizing the price of wheat, especially of the higher grades; but we certainly can at least provide storage for the wheat and furnish a banking system that will enable the farmer to carry his crop until such time as he can sell it at a fair price. If we had those facilities to offer to the western farmers, farmers would flock to the West and settle, there, and we would see the West thrive as it has never thrived before.
Freight rates also have a bearing upon this question, and there may be relief in that direction. Parliament should find a way to improve the condition of the western farmer and to enable him to get the best possible price for his wheat. If we do that, we shall increase our production in a most surprising way; we shall bring prosperity again to the West, and we shall see a new and greater West in the near future.

Mr: D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton) : I have followed with a great deal of interest the speech of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). I am sure, whatever any one else may have said about the speech of my hon. friend, that he has at least brought a good deal of live information and reliable statistics to the notice of the House. The subject to which he has drawn our attention is .certainly one of the greatest possible importance. During this discussion the hon. member for Brantford has been criticised for propounding a policy. It certainly cannot be said that the hon. gentleman has been propounding any policy. As I understood him, he was propounding a way in which to deal with an urgent condition of things brought about by the extraordinary state of the country at the present time. The resolution is perhaps not as well drafted as it might have been. As I read it, there is only one categorical assertion in it, namely:
That, in the opinion of this House, the circumstances arising out of the present war are such as to justify the Government of Canada in exercising supreme control over the quantity and destiny of our food exports.
There cannot be any objection to the resolution laid down to that point. It may be said that it calls for a great deal of work and that it imposes an unnecessary burden upon the Government; but it is a wise and sane statement to make, that the Government of the country, or any other country situated as we are, should have the greatest possible knowledge of the food supply of the country and that then it should know where it is going. The other phases which follow in the resolution are not necessarily the consequences of the first positive assertion, although they seem to be taken by the mover of the resolution as necessary consequences of it. I do not think that because the Government knows what quantity of foodstuffs there is in the country and their destination, the prices of foodstuffs will be regulated. I do not know much about the movement of wheat; but as far as I understand commercial conditions in this country, I know of nothing that would prevent a combine of speculators from buying up all the wheat that we have for sale in Canada, taking it to the United States and sending it to our enemies in the old land. This may be an absurd statement to make; but I know of nothing to prevent German money from coming into the United States, with which an American company may be formed for the purpose of buying our wheat and ship-35
ping it to Germany, if it can be got in there.


Michael Clark: Germany has
no money.


Mr. McKENZIE:: My hon. friend is an
authority on most things, but I would not care to change my mind with regard to voting for this resolution, because, as he says, there is no money in Germany. I would not care to take the risk of leaving our wheat within easy reach of Germany, even supposing that country has no money.
It is a fair and reasonable proposition that any country that is at war-and we are at war-should have absolute knowledge of tlie sinews of war within its bounds, and that it should have absolute control of where they shall go and how they shall go.
During the session of 1914, when we were only talking about war, which we then deemed to >be far distant, legislation was passed giving control over the export of petroleum oil, because if war broke out, we should have absolute control of the oil so that it should not go out of the country except where thought advisable. If it were right to do that-and the legislation was passed without any controversy-surely it cannot be said that it would be wrong for the Government to have enabling legislation passed at this session to give it power to deal with this wheat question, if it were necessary to do so.
I do not quite understand that it is using very extraordinary powers for the Government of any country to take control of the food supply in time of war. It would be a species of expropriation of property. . Wheat is property and land is property, and I do not think it would be any more drastic to expropiate wheat than to expropriate land.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Does the hon. gentleman not recognize the fact that in so far as the House can give that power, the legislation is already on the statute book?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not saying
whether it is on the statute book or not. In reference to wheat, I am not aware that It is. Perhaps the hon. Solicitor-General will tell me where we have such legislation.


Arthur Meighen: In section 6 of the War Measures Act of the session of last August-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is quite possible. In that case, it is not necessary to legislate; it is a question as to whether it is a wise policy for the Government to act upon the legislation already on the statute book. It does not change the position that I have



taken, which is simply this, that if we exercise the power contained in the 6th section of the statute passed as our War Act of last session, it is ' a certain species of expropriation :	it would be
expropriating wheat instead of, as in other cases, expropriating land. I suppose that it was under that War Act that we expropriated the land at Valcartier. We not only expropriated the land there, but also the grain, the potatoes, and I suppose the cattle in the field. We took everything there was. Surely, if we were justified in doing that, if that was a wise and proper policy, I cannot see that it can be over drastic or unwise to give the Government control of the wheat supply of this country, provided that the owner gets a fair and proper price for it. In view of the suggestion that has been made, what strikes me as possible to happen is that the wheat might go out of the country, and go beyond the border and we not -have anything to say about it. If that happened, I think we should be sorry that we had not adopted laws and regulations to prevent it. I do not think it at all an unreasonable thing to regulate prices of food if a few people are in command of the food of the country and by reason of that food we find that the prices are going up by leaps and bounds.
Speaking for the pait of the country from which I come, the province of Nova Scotia, which is an agricultural country to some extent, also a lumbering, a fishing and perhaps more than anything else, an iron, steel and coal producing country, there are thousands of men there who are dependent for the support of themselves and their families on their day's work. It is a well known fact that for the last eighteen months or more times have been very poor and workmen have not been able to earn the usual amount of money. It is a regrettable fact that it is difficult for these men to feed themselves and their families. It is a startling and discouraging thing for a man who is not earning at all or who is earning but a small wage, and who has seven or eight children to feed, to find that he must pay $9.15 for a barrel of flour. If there is anything the Prime Minister can do to enable that man to pay what is fair and reasonable for flour, and I mention that solely as an example of other things, to see to it that this barrel is sold at a fair profit, so that the farmer will be well paid'' and everybody handling the business well paid, and yet the poor man who buys it will not be robbed, I do not think that, as
	'
guardian of the interests of the people he would be doing anything but what was fair and right. I had the pleasure of hearing the Minister of Finance address a delegation with regard to the price of tobacco. He described the Government on that occasion as the physician of the body politic. I do not find fault with the figure, although I say that the present gang of doctors should never have passed the board and been licensed, still, having been licensed and passed as physicians, they are now in charge of the body politic. And if they now find the body politic suffering with a disease such as hunger, is it not right, from the minister's own definition of his position, that the Government should cause him to take such necessary steps to deal with the disease and reduce such ills as his extraordinary skill in such matters may well bring about? If without injury to the farmer we can keep the somebody who is increasing the prices from doing so, if we can regulate prices so that they should be fair to the poor man, I think that is what this resolution aims at. I do not think that the bon. gentleman is trying to make political capital out of it.
Perhaps I may be pardoned if I go back to somewhat ancient days. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) is fond of quoting history, and he quotes it well, and his comparisons are not always to the advantage of the present day. If we go far back in history we find an instance of a wise man taking control of the wheat of the country. We find him storing it up and selling it out as it suited him. He sold it at proper prices. On another historic occasion there were in the wilderness a tremendous body of men, women and children-twelve thousand. And there was nothing for them to eat except certain small fishes and few loaves of bread. Here was a grand occasion when one man had a corner in the food supply We do not find that the Master told him: This is your chance, my boy; put up your food for sale and you can make your fortune. No, the Regulator and Governor took charge of the whole business. He disposed of the'loaves and fishes, and disposed of them properly. If there is only a little bread and fish to be divided, then those who are responsible for the management of the country should take charge of that food and see to it that it is properly divided so that the country from one end to the other shall be supplied with food so far as that food will go. In my own country, I am sorry to say, the rapid increase in

the price of flour is very embarrassing. When the mines are working, when people can readily sell timber, when the farmers are producing, no particular regulation is necessary. The miner, when he is at work, is a fine customer. In fact he is a little too free with his money, and when the hard times come he is up against it in a very short time.
If this resolution will put power into the hands of the Government that will enable them to say to those who grow wheat that they must not go too high in price, or say to the miller that he must not ask too much for flour, I shall be glad to support it. I have not examined the Bill we passed last August, nor am I suggesting the kind ot legislation we should pass. I am glad to hear the statement of the. Solicitor General that no legislation is necessary because the Government already have the power. That being so, there is no excuse on the part of the Government for not taking action if action is necessary. If this resolution goes to a vote, I shall have no hesitation in voting for it, so far as it goes to carry out the idea that the Government shall know how much food is in the country and where it goes.


Mr. G. W. KYTE (Richmond, N.S.):: It was expected that during the past six months the Government would take some steps to prevent the undue enhancement of the price of foodstuffs; it was confidently asserted in the Government press that such action would be taken by the Government. I did think that the legislation which was passed at the August session of Parliament empowered the Government to take such action, and I quite agree that no further legislation is necessary. It is well known that the price of foodstuffs has been enhanced very far beyond the cost of the ingredients that enter into their production. I saw in the press a few weeks ago a statement that the Bakers' Association of Toronto had made representations to the Minister of Trade and Commerce protesting against the undue increase in the price of the materials entering into the manufacture of their products. It was alleged that the price of these articles had increased by 100 per cent within the last twelve months, and that of this increase the farmers had received only one-tenth.
I think that the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) does not necessarily imply that the farmers should not receive the very best price that they can obtain for their pro-35*
ducts; it is aimed, I think, more particularly, against the middleman, who is taking advantage of existing conditions for the purpose of exacting undue profits. Immediately after war was declared the price of flour in the province of Nova Scotia jumped up $2 a barrel. There was no reason for that increase; the merchants had laid in a stock of flour before war conditions could possibly have affected the price of wheats Nevertheless, without any justification, they added $2, and in some cases more, to the-price of each barrel of flour. I think that is a condition of affairs that ought to be promptly dealt with by the Government. I do not say that the farmers themselves derive too great a profit from their labour and the products of their labour, but I do say that before these products of the farm reach the consumer, the middlemen, through greed and a want of proper appreciation of the unfortunate conditions that confront the labouring men in Canada to-day, unduly increase their profits in respect of these articles. This is applicable to other food products as well as to flour and wheat. I do think that under the circumstances the Government ought not to hesitate to take such steps as would prevent the undue increase in the price of foodstuffs by the middlemen.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE (Lisgar):: The matter of handling wheat in Canada has always been a vexed question, but in my opinion the most important consideration with which we are now confronted is that of seeing that the farmers in western Canada particularly those in the drouth-stricken districts, are supplied with seed grain. I understand that the Interior Department, under the arrangements which they have made, can supply only 400 bushels to each farmer, while many farmers in western Canada need 1,000 or 2,000 bushels of wheat for seed purposes. Some arrangement should be made whereby these farmers can be supplied with the necessary amount of seed grain. I think the Government would be justified in amending the banking laws of Canada so that banks would be empowered to take seed grain mortgages- which they can not do under the present law-thus enabling them to help the [DOT] western farmers to obtain the extra seed grain that they need.
The great difficulty in connection with the wheat question is not the prices the farmers have been getting, but the extent to which the middlemen, or the millers, boost prices after 90 per cent of the wheat leaves the farmers' hands. Ever since I

have been in western Canada the dealers and the millers have manipulated the prices and the market so that the producer of the grain receives the very lowest price and the consumer pays the very highest. Every year a special train leaves Winnipeg with millers, grain dealers and reporters; they travel over the prairie, and when they get back they spread abroad reports of the great crop we are going to have in western Canada. In this manner they pound the price down to the very lowest possible point; then the moment the wheat is sold by the farmer they start a cry about the great shortage of crop-that it will not be nearly as large as expected. Up, then, goes the price to the consumer, and the toll is paid to the middlemen.
Some persons say: why do the farmers not hold the wheat? Because the farmers *owe money to the loan companies, machinery companies and general stores; these accounts must be paid, and they are compelled to sell their grain to obtain the necessary funds. The crop of 1913 was sold by the farmers at an average price of 65 cents a bushel. It costs over 60 cents to grow a bushel of grain, so hon. gentlemen can see that the farmers of western Canada made no money out of that crop. In the past year 90 per cent of the wheat went out of the farmers' hands at an average price of from 80 cents to $1 a bushel, and to-day it is boosted up to $1.65. I submit that this Government should control the gambling in the food products of Canada. To-day a man can go on the option market and buy wheat on a three cent margin. I think we should pass some law whereby speculators would be obliged to pay a margin of 25 cents on each bushel of wheat they buy. This would do away with a gi'eat deal of speculation in wheat. I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion the middlemen-in this case the millers and the grain-dealers-are the persons who are robbing the people of this country. They rob the farmer, the man who grows the wheat, and they rob the consumer as well. The farmers of western Canada have 13,000,000 acres ready for wheat for next spring. If we have an average crop of 20 bushels to the acre, that will mean 260,000,000 bushels * of wheat grown in the prairie provinces for next year. Some 60,000,000 bushels of wheat will be sufficient for bread and seed for the three provinces, which will leave 200,000,000 bushels for export. So that even before we started this great cry of patriotism and production the farmers of western Canada were getting ready to supply the old country markets. I think that it would be a mistake 
for this Government to try to control the price of wheat, but I do think they should control the gambling in the food products of this country.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: I wish to offer a few remarks on this motion. I would not have done so, but apparently there are at least three hon. members in this House who are in sympathy with the resolution. When you allow your imagination to picture the vast extent of this country and our great community of interest, I do not think that you can come to any other conclusion than that this resolution is narrow and provincial in its character. It is an attempt to interfere with legitimate business, and would, as Premier Asquith stated with regard to similar legislation in the old land, cause no end of trouble.
Most of the discussion here to-day has reference to the effect that the resolution would have on the farmers of western Canada. The jnover of it, however, conies * from the province of Ontario. We do a little farming in the province of Ontario. Of course, the farmers there are not just as up to date as they are in other parts of the country, but this resolution would affect them to some extent at least; and I am sure that when the farmers of Canada read in the papers to-morrow the discussion that took place here on a resolution of this kind, they will be very much amused to think that this House has devoted as much time as it has to a discussion of this nature. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. W. H. Sharpe) thinks that the Government should not limit the amount of seed to be advanced to the western farmer to 400 bushels, that some farmers will require 1,000 or 2,000 bushels. I think that any farmer who has sufficient land to require 2,000 bushels to seed it, that is, 1,000 acres, should be in a position to acquire seed for himself without any assistance from the Government. I do not think it is a good thing for any clas's in a community to expect the Government to take up every little scheme and to solve all difficulties for them. I do not believe that that is in accordance with the genius of our people, nor do I think it would result in any benefit to them. I quite agree that the homesteader who may have invested every dollar he had in securing funds to work his homestead and who may have land ready for seed, if he is not in a position to procure seed, should have it advanced to him, as the Government in such case has ample security for the money advanced.

I wish to tell the House some-
9 p.m. thing about the western farmers.
I have heard so much in the House and outside of it about the farmers in Eastern Canada advising the farmers in the West w'hat to do, that I shall not advise them at all, as I do not feel competent to do so; nor am I going to advise the farmers in Ontario; hut I want to tell some of the western farmers what some farmers in western Ontario are doing. They are buying stock in the West, shipping it down here to Ontario and buying feed from other parts of the country and from the United States; they are feeding that stock and putting it on the market, and they are doing that year after year. They are not doing that just for the fun of the thing, but they are doing it from a business standpoint. Two feed merchants in the constituency I represent have sold during the present winter nineteen carloads of cotton seed meal to be fed to stock in that county. This is a feature of Ontario farming. In the West farming is supposed to be wheat growing, but this resolution covers a great deal more than the growing of wheat. It has been read a number of times, but I shall read part of it again:
That, in the opinion of this House, the circumstances arising out of the present war are such as to justify the Government of Canada in exercising supreme control over the quantity and destiny of our food exports, thereby regulating the prices at which bread, meat and other food products shall be sold for home consumption.
I am satisfied that agriculture cannot be carried on in this country, ot in any other country, without stock raising being an adjunct of it, or rather, the basis on which it is founded. We found lately a change in the price of cattle in the cattle markets. I quote from the Toronto Globe of February 18:
The bottom fell yesterday out of the beef cattle market in Toronto, and it may take a little while to restore it. Various causes are given for the almost unprecedented drop in prices, but only one of them seems to have in it any element of permanency: scarcity and consequent dearness of fodder. The combination of this with other causes has produced a situation which is by no means pleasant to pass through, but which is not likely to last very long. It would be a mistake for cattle-owners to hasten to get rid of their stock for fear of a worse thing happening to them; better far hold the animals over even at an undue cost, and take chances of a better market with improved cattle.
We have a solution offered here for the high cost of living in this country. A commission was appointed a year ago to investigate the high cost of living in Canada. The Globe undertakes to solve the beef question, and I shall read its solution:
If it be said there are no lands fit for cattle-ranching purposes the answer must be that there are such lands in abundance in Northern Ontario. The obstacle to be overcome is not the lack of suitable land, but the unreasoning though apparently invincible skepticism of the beef cattle producers. Wherever the deer can live and thrive in a state of nature cattle can live and thrive with a little factitious assistance, and on a woodland ranch they will cost less and thrive better, even in winter, than if housed up and tended with great labour in the most new-fashioned subterranean stables.
We have not yet had a resolution before the House with regard to the land now occupied toy the deer. Possibly something of that nature will develop before very long.
The farmers of Ontario to-day are feeding their livestock at a great loss, yet you never hear a word offered in this House or outside of it in sympathy with them. People are very ready to advise the farmer what to do. We have at the present time a movement on foot throughout Canada called the " patriotism and production campaign." I Shall not say very much about that, but personally I believe that if these gentlemen would devote-their energies to prayer, they might accomplish just as much as they will accomplish by what they are doing. The farmers of Canada are just as alive to their own interests as any other class in the community, and possibly not any more so. I cannot see any reason why they should be singled out at a time like this, as distinguished from any other time, to be made victims for the benefit of others. We have a community of interests in this country, anc^ if we are going to make of Canada a country such as we hope to make it, there must be times when some sections or communities must suffer while others will be in a position to reap greater benefits. I am sorry that the matter has been taken so seriously by the House. I did not think there was any occasion for it and I am satisfied that the mover of the resolution did not fully consider the matter before bringing it to the attention of the House. As far as the farmers of Ontario are concerned- and they have just as great interests at stake as any other section of Canada- they are not asking for special favours, yet they do not want to be hampered in their legitimate business.
I believe that the greatest difficulty that the farmers have to contend with is the transportation problem and the lack of

labour on the farm. These two things have brought about conditions that are detrimental to the whole country. We hear about thousands being out of employment in the towns and cities. No doubt many of them cannot get away from those places; all they have is invested there, they own their houses probably, they are mechanics and they are not accustomed to any other work. In the cities of Ontario there never was a time when it was more difficult to get men to go out and work upon the farm. That has been the case during the whole winter and I repeat that it was never more difficult to get men to work on the farms in Ontario than at the preseent time. That is the position. I went into the immigration office in the city of Toronto on Saturday last and the man in charge there said: Nothing doing here; I just placed one man last week. What do you think of that? Yet the cities are feeding thousands of men who say they cannot get employment in this country. Mind you, this is during the winter months. Some people say: Why does not the farmer build a house on the farm and keep his men the year round? These men will not stay with the farmer more than eight or nine months and then they flock to the cities. If many of the large cities would only exercise proper control over the unemployed they would not find so many people asking for assistance.
The condition that has come about in this country has developed during the last few years. When the farmers got to the stage when protection was of some value to them we found then, and not until then, that the Government of the day were prepared to allow imports of food products into this country free of duty. It was not- until then that the conditions of which I am speaking manifested themselves. The farmers turned down that proposition and if you look over the imports into this country during the past few years you will find that we have in Canada a market that is second to none in the world. If we just leave things as they are and do not meddle with them we will find that a greater number will be induced to go back to the land and a greater development will take place in Canada than has been the case for many years past. I do not think that we need worry about this proposition. Let us see if we can improve the transportation facilities of this country, and I must say that I do not look very hopefully on the prospect. I see great obstacles in the way of doing that. We have altogether too many duplications of trans-

portation facilities for what we have to transport and the result is that it will be impossible to give us the rate that we would have had if we did not have so many transcontinental lines.


Mr. W. F. CARROLL (South Cape Breton) :: If I correctly understand the resolution as proposed by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Coekshutt), I am in perfect accord with it. My understanding of it is that the Government should take some steps to prohibit the enormous profit that middlemen are making upon the food products of the country. It is proposed, as I understand it, that the Government should take some steps to control the foodstuffs of the country, especially flour, wheat and the items mentioned in the resolution. I could well imderstand the sentiment of the last speaker (Mr. Sutherland) if the farmers were making some of the enormous profits which are being made, and have been made, on foodstuffs since June, July and August of last year. My thon. friend -says that the resolution is too marrow and provincial. I take a somewhat different view. I believe that this resolution is calculated to bring to the attention of the Government a serious grievance which the consumers have at the present time. He says that the proposal of the resolution is to make the farmers the victims. The farmers are the victims already. That was pointed out by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. W. H. Sharpe). I would not have any hesitation about expressing the wish that the farmers should get the very best prices they could for -the products of their farms. I would like to see the fishermen and miners getting the very best prices they could for the products of their labour. When these products are cornered by middlemen and speculators, or when products of the farm are cornered by perhaps half a dozen speculators, who hoard them in their granaries, the products of the western farms, as well as the products of the eastern farms and the farms of Ontario, when they take advantage of the misfortune of Canada, in common with the rest of the Empire, in connection with the struggle which we are waging, to force consumers to pay exorbitant and, I might -say, awful prices for their food, it is the duty of the Government, in the interests of the people, to do something that shall prevent these middlemen, these speculators, from making fortunes themselves at the expense of the common people and of the Empire at large.
What is the fact? When we are buying flour in western Canada for $6 a barrel the

farmer on the prairie was making as much money as he is to-day. The farmer, three, four and five years ago, when we in the East were paying $6 and sometimes $5.75 a barrel for the very best flour, was making as much money as he is to-day. Wbat are we paying in eastern Canada for flour? We are paying $9.25 for Five Roses flour, a brand which, I understand, is made from hard w^eat. I do not think that the farmers in the West are making any more money on account of the excessive rise in the price of flour which has taken place during the past three or four months than they were making before. I have been given to understand by many people from western Canada that the wheat of the farmers of the West was sold to the millers and middlemen at not very much over the ordinary rate and that the middlemen and millers took advantage of the misfortunes of the country. We pride ourselves on being loyal to the Empire, and I think it is a proud boast that we are trying to do everything we can to further the interests of our common Empire in this struggle for existence. To-day the wheat market in Canada and the price of the wheat that we are exporting to the old land are controlled by the Chicago market, a market which is foreign to the British Empire. I can point to several milling industries in this country whose stocks have increased eight points since last Christmas, and of course the farmers who raised the wheat derive no profit from that. We have in the world to-day plenty of wheat and plenty of flour for consumption until the next crop is harvested, but it is not supply and demand which controls the price, but speculators who have hoarded the produce of the world and who are waxing fat at the expense of the Canadian and British taxpayer and consumer. The Government would be doing only its duty if it enforced the legislation passed at the special session of Parliament in August. The hon. gentleman suggested that it is possible that some of our wheat has reached the markets of our enemies, and indeed the public press of this country has made the statement that Canadian wheat has been shipped to the United States and thence to enemies' ports. I have no evidence to corroborate that, but if it be so it is all the more reason why the Government should take control of the flour and wheat remaining in this country.
I would not be so pronounced in favour of the idea set out in the resolution, if the workers in the industrial centres of Canada were living under the same conditions as
they were a year ago. In eastern Canada, and that is the only portion of Canada as to which I am thoroughly familiar with the conditions, our operators in the mines and steel plants are working now about half time, and it is an enormous hardship on those who are only earning half the ordinary wages that they should have to pay almost double for the flour, the meat and the bread, which are necessaries of their subsistence. It is not very often I am able to agree with the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), but in this case I endorse most heartily his suggestion that the Government should exercise control over the price and the export of Canadian foodstuffs. This is not the only parliament in which this question is now being discussed. I have no doubt that in a day or two we shall get a very pronounced idea from the Government and Parliament of Great Britain as to what they intend to do with regard to this question. The last reports I have seen in our newspapers, and also in a newspaper published in Sydney, Australia, was that the Australasian Government intended to take over control of practically all the foodstuffs in that country. If it were that the farmers or producers were being made the victoms in not getting a reasonable price for their products, I would not raise my voice in favour of this resolution, but we know that such is not the fact. The wheat has gone from the farmers and they have only received a reasonable price for it, so that the people who are getting these exorbitant profits are the speculators and the middlemen who never ploughed a furrow or garnered an ear of wheat. I believe that the Government will be well advised, should they exercise the power they have and control the prices of foodstuffs, as well as the export of wheat and flour from this country, so that it cannot reach channels where it may become the staff of life of the enemies of the Empire.


Robert Laird Borden: One hon. member on the other side of the House suggested that the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), in proposing this resolution, desired to east some reflection upon the patriotism of the farmers of Canada. I am bound to say that I gathered no such idea or meaning from anything said by the hon. member for Brantford. I know that he realizes, as all members of the House realize, the spirit of patriotism which has inspired the farmers of Canada, whether in the East or in the West, and all the people of Canada, in the great crisis which the Empire now faces. I desire to join in

the appreciation which has been expressed by an hon. gentleman on the other side, of the spirit of those citizens who have come to us from the south of the line, and who, at the present time, as indeed before the war broke out, are discharging in the most commendable manner all the duties of Canadian citizenship.
An hon. gentleman on the other side of the House suggested that my hon. friend from Brantford and those in his community, should be prepared to make some sacrifice themselves. I would like that hon. gentleman to bear in mind that the hon. memoer for Brantford is making the greatest of all sacrifices that a man can make,, in sending those of his own family and. his own flesh and blood to fight fot the Empire.
I deeply regret, as every hon. member regrets, that there are workingmen in Brantford, and doubtless in other industrial centres, who at the present time are not able to find employment to the full extent they would desire, but there is the consideration that conditions in Canada are certainly not worse in that respect, and perhaps not so bad, as tney are in the neighbouring republic. We know from statements appearing in the press of the United States that this war has brought about conditions there perhaps more depressing than anything to which we can point in this country at the present time; but, as far as those men in Canada who lack work at the moment are concerned, it would be more in the general interest, more in the interest of the men themselves, that we should endeavour to turn our energies, so far as the Government may exercise any power at its command, to find some means of providing work for them rather than to undertake the control of the price of food supplies, except under certain conditions to which I will allude a little later on.
I am very glad indeed to hear my hon. friend the member for Brantford say that a certain manufacturing company with which he is understood to be associated has not increased, and does not intend to increase, the price of its products to the farmers or other persons in this country who may desire to purchase them. The allusion made by one hon. gentleman on the other side of the House as to some increase in price in that regard can not have any relation to that company, or to other companies in a similar line of business who are manufacturing in Canada at the present time.
So far as the general question is con-f*s:r Robert Borden.]
cerned, the policy which the Government has endeavoured to follow since the outbreak of war is not to interfere with the business activities of the country, except in so far as this is absolutely and imperatively demanded of it by reason of the war or by reason of conditions arising out of the war. In other words, the less interference by a Government under conditions such as prevail at the present time, the less interference with the business activities of the country, with the sale or the free interchange of products, the better for the country, except in so far as the war itself demands otherwise. If my hon. friend from Brantford had found it convenient to come to myself or to some other member of the Government for information on some points on which he has addressed the House this . afternoon, he might have saved himself the trouble of making some points of his speech. He has spoken in the first place of the desirability of regulating the export of food products, particularly wheat. He has spoken in the second place of the desirability of regulating the destination of such food products, particularly wheat, so that they shall not reach an enemy country. In the third place, he has spoken of the desirability of regulating the price at which such food products should he sold in this country.
Let us take, in the first place, the question of export. That presents itself to us in two aspects: firstly, the desirability of preventing any such export as would leave the people of this country destitute, between now and the next harvest, of a sufiicient food supply. I would like to point out to my hon. friend that the question of food supply, so far as wheat and wheat products are concerned, is not solely a question of the wheat in this country, but a question of the wheat available for milling and of the'flour in the country. I would like to assure him and all other hon. members that this subject has more or less engaged the attention of the Government; that we know something of the supply in that regard, and that we do not think conditions in this country at the present time are such as to make any action by the Government necessary so far as that particular feature of the question is concerned.
In the next place, my hon. friend speaks of wheat leaving this country and reaching an enemy country. In that is involved the question of destination, to which I alluded a moment ago. He has spoken of a return which has been brought down, and he has attached importance to the fact that 368 barrels of flour seem to have reached Germany since the first day of August last.

Every lion, member knows that since the proclamation, which has been validated by Parliament, it is absolutely impossible for any man in this country to have intercourse by way of trade with any citizen of an enemy country, unless he desires to place himself under very severe penalties of the law. Therefore, I would assume that the 368 barrels-which seems a very minor matter to be alarmed about-must have gone between the first and the fourth of August; because my hon. friend asked for a return from the first of August, and there was no declaration of war until the evening of the fourth of August. So far as the exports to Holland and Norway are concerned, they do not seem to be very much greater than those which took place in ordinary years. If my hon- friend had directed his attention to the Canada Gazette, he would have found an important enactment by the Government in that regard, to which I will, in a moment, draw the attention of the House.
With regard to the question of prohibiting export from this country of any article of supply which might be useful to the enemy, we have acted thoroughly in accordance with a committee constituted for that purpose in Great Britain, whose activities commenced almost immediately after the war had begun-a committee which deals almost entirely with the question of prohibiting or not prohibiting the export from Great Britain, or, by co-operation with the Government of any Dominion, from any British possession, of articles which may be of use to the enemy. On occasions when recommendations or suggestions have come to us, we have felt called upon, in the interests of this Dominion, to make certain representations to the committee through the British Government which have always been met in the most friendly spirit, and there has always been friendly co-operation in all such matters between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Canada from the very first. So far as this particular question is concerned, there has never been the slightest difference between the two Governments, and the suggestions of the Government of the United Kingdom have never been called in question by us, nor has our action ever been called in question by it. In accordance with the suggestions of that committee communicated to us, we passed an Order in Council on the 29th day of October last by which we prohibited the exportation from Canada of certain articles to all foreign ports in Europe and on the Mediterranean and Black seas,
with the exception of those of France, Russia (except the Baltic ports), Spain and Portugal. Among the articles enumerated, in a long list with which I need not trouble the House, I find feeding stuffs for animals and all foodstuffs and raw materials for the same. Therefore I desire to assure my hon. friend and all hon. members that this subject has been taken into consideration in the first place by the British Government, and especially by the committee to which I have just now alluded, and, in the second place, upon representations and suggestions from the committee through taie British Government, by the Government of Canada, with the result which I have just now pointed out.
In the next place, my hon. friend suggests that there should be a regulation of the price of foodstuffs, more particularly of wheat. So far as wheat is concerned, I would be very sorry to attempt anything of the kind, and for the following reasons. In the first place, the price of wheat, as has been recognized in this House and in the country ever since I have been a member of the House, is regulated by the markets of the world, regulated very largely by the prices established in the great markets of the Mother Country. Now, if we undertook to regulate the price, what would be a fair basis for doing so? A fair basis would be to regulate it from time to time in accordance with what would be determined by the markets of the world. For, inasmuch as the farmer, when the price of wheat is low, must be limited in the price which he receives by the markets of the world from time to time, in common justice we can only adopt the same principle when the price has been increased by exceptional conditions, and that would leave the matter where it was in the first place. For us to say to the farmer, when the price of wheat is at the highest by -reason of war or other conditions, that we must limit the price which he receives, and that in other years and under other conditions he must accept a price which barely covers what it costs him to grow the wheat, that would seem to me a position which could not be maintained. At all events, it is a position which I would not care to take, nor is it one to which I could give my sanction. Therefore I do not think it would be desirable for the country to attempt any such course as my hon. friend has suggested. We desire in this country that there shall be more production from the land. It would

be, I think, a very unfortunate initiative on the part of this Government to undertake at the present time and under present conditions the limitation of the price which the farmer shall receive for his wheat.
That leads to quite another aspect of the situation, and that is, the efforts of people in this country to combine for the purpose of raising the price of foodstuffs after they have left the hands of the first producers. We have not been unmindful of our duty in that regard, and have endeavoured to watch the situation very carefully. A great many representation of a general character have been made to me from time to time, and if any good ground can be established to show that people are combining for the purpose of enhancing unduly the prices of foodstuffs in a general way throughout Canada, I am bound to say that the Government would feel it its duty to give consideration to these representations, and to determine whether or not some action should be taken in the early future.
So far as foodstuffs are concerned, the hon. gentleman has only spoken of wheat, flour and meat. I am not disposed, from the information before me at the present moment, to agree that the prices of meat products have advanced. _ My information is that not only has there been a reduction in the prices of some of these products there are many food products in Canada as to which there is a difficulty in finding a market. During the past two or three months we have been endeavouring to find markets in the United Kingdom for food products, which may spoil for lack of people to consume them. For example, there is an enormous quantity of canned goods for which there is the greatest difficulty in securing materials even at cost prices. I understand from my colleague from the province of New Brunswick, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), that in that province there is a surplus of potatoes of about a million and a half bushels for which they would be glad to find a market. We know there has been a great abundance of apples. And we know that at one time-though not so much lately-there was considerable difficulty apprehended in finding a market for the surplus fish product of the country. I understand the situation in that regard has been improved in the last few weeks. So that I cannot see that there is any special reason for us to pass the resolution 
my hon. friend from Brantford has proposed.
I have listened to what my hon. friend from Brantford has said as' to the danger to the Mother Country of a lack of food supplies. I can only say that if there is any such danger apprehended in the Mother Country at the present time, I have given ample notice within the last six or eight weeks of very great stores of food supplies which the producers of this country would be very glad to send to the United Kingdom at not more than they have cost them, without any profit. So I do not think we need have much apprehension so far as the Mother Country is concerned. The authorities of the United Kingdom, if there were any danger or difficulty in that regard, would have found occasion to communicate with us in reply to our frequent communications as to available stores in Canada. On the contrary, when we have communicated with them on the subject, they have in almost every case assured us that there were large stores of the particular articles in question available in the United Kingdom. Naturally, they would be glad indeed to assist us, if they could do so, in finding a market in the United Kingdom for the surplus food products of Canada, but they were not needed there at that moment.
Under the circumstances, while I appreciate the motive of my hon. friend from Brantford in bringing the matter to the attention of the Government, I regret that we cannot find it desirable to accept the motion at the moment. If conditions should at a later day so develop as to make anything of the kind necessary, my hon. friend may feel quite sure that we shall endeavour to keep in very close touch with the situation and take such measures as, according to our understanding of the conditions, may be necessary for the purpose he has in mind.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (South Renfrew) : I had intended making a few remarks before the Prime Minister spoke. I had not the pleasure of hearing all'my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) said on this question. I think the importance of the question entitles it to considerable attention on the part of the House, because people throughout Canada are talking about this matter a good deal. The trouble is that nobody seems to have a real cure for it. I am inclined to agree with the Prime Minister that the great strength of

the British Empire at the present time is that she with her Dominions has plenty of foodstuffs. However long this war may last there will be foodstuffs enough to see the Empire through. So far as the products of our Canadian people are concerned, I do not foresee any danger. As to prices and the high cost of living, I had hoped that the report of the commission appointed by the Government would have been down before this, so that we could have seen what was the cause and what should be the cure. The difficulty seems to be with us in Canada, as elsewhere, that cheap prices to the producer do not always mean cheap prices to the consumer. Between the price received by the man behind the plough and the price paid by the man who consumes the product there is too wide a spread to be accounted for by an ordinary profit, it is argued. I would not say we should not have middlemen. "Middleman" is merely another name for a dealer in articles of commerce. Properly conducted, this is as honourable a business as a man can follow. The business of the world could not be systematically conducted if it were not for the operation of specialists who go between, as it were, other individuals or bodies who are hot specialists. It may be that in Canada there are too many people who handle the goods between the time they are produced and the time they are consumed; I had hoped that the commission of investigation would look into that phase of the question, and, perhaps, have thrown some light upon it. Again, there may be many middlemen who are anxious to make two or three profits; that is human nature, and you will almost have to remodel man before you altogether eradicate that from his system. The man, however, who will take advantage of the patriotism of the people and their loyal devotion to king and country in order to fill his own pockets is the worst kind of traitor that can be found; he is trading on the best that is in people for his own selfish purposes. As to whether that could be controlled, I am not prepared to say; in any case I am inclined-to think that it could not be controlled in the manner suggested by the hon. member for Brantford. It is a big question, and could not be grappled with in a few moments.
Tire question of unemployment is one that comes very close to those who live in industrial centres, large or small. Although many persons are out of employment at present, I think I am safe in saying that in many of our manufacturing centres men
have employment to-day that they would not have had if there had been no war. A. great many of our factories-I speak from personal knowledge-aTe working half-time, some three-quarter time, some full time and some double time, on orders which they have obtained as a result of the war.
I touch now upon a very delicate point: I was severely criticised for referring to this at several patriotic meetings which I addressed throughout Canada. Without going into what I consider to be the duty of the banks at the present time, I submit that it is as important to the British Empire that the whistles should ibe kept blowing everywhere as it is that men should be kept in the trenches. Anything that does not tend to accomplish this does not tend to the best interests of Canada and the Empire as a whole. I think it is fair to the manufacturing interests to say that they have manufactured goods in many instances to the full capacity of their warehouses. They have no sale for the goods; many of them have stock on hand sufficiently large to last a year or more, and unless they have new capital they are not in a position to engage in further manufactures. I think the banks ought to do all they can to enable the manufacturers to go on manufacturing and putting their goods in the warehouse until such time as they cah be sold. That would give employment to the men-if not permanently, at least for a time-and thus remove from the people of Canada and from the Empire as well, one of the greatest difficulties which we now have to face. It has been charged that the banks are not as generous as they should be. I am not sufficiently expert in financial matters to critcise them in that respect, but it does strike me that now is the time, if ever -there was a time, when the financial. institutions ought to take full advantage of the privileges given them by the Government and to do their utmost to see that the manufacturing establishments of Canada are kept going as near full time as possible. That would reduce the seriousness of the unemployment question to a minimum, at least.
I am fearful lest some of our mineral productions may possibly get into the hands of the enemy; I speak now more particularly of our nickel and copper. It has been said that the British Government is perfectly satisfied that none of it is getting into the hands of the enemy, and I am glad of that assertion. The Dominion of Canada, a part of the Britisn Empire, and France, one of her Allies, control practi-

cally the whole nickel output of the world. With the supply from these sources shut off, it is only a matter of mathematical calculation as to how long Germany can find an adequate supply of this material to carry on her warfare. I think it is absolutely important and in the interests of the Allies that we should be perfectly sure that not an ounce of our copper or nickel gets to Germany. She can get her wheat elsewhere, but she cannot get her copper and nickel elsewhere than from the Allies. I hope everything has been done that can be done to this end; if anything can be done by the Government to make it absolutely impossible for our nickel to get into the hands of the enemy, I am prepared to support any steps that they may take to that end. I would not go so far as some hon. gentlemen propose and forbid the export of nickel for all time to come, but I would urge on the Government that all possible precautions be taken to prevent its getting into the hands of the enemy. I am far more concerned about that than I am about the food supply, because I think that under the circumstances, if there are not too many go-betweens operating between the producer and the consumer, supply and demand will usually regulate the prices.


William Foster Cockshutt: charged for his food. Mr. Lloyd George, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, did not belittle the sufferings of the British people who were crying out for cheaper "food. So I might go on and quote the remarks of many statesmen who ha<re given attention to this subject and have thought it well worthy to discuss and give consideration to. Further, I pointed out that Australia, a country quite as democratic as ours, a country ruled by the labour party at the present time, did not wait very long for the action of Parliament. They did not take into consideration all that might happen in the first six months of the war, but in about one month after the war began the Government of Australia took possession of the wheat supply of Australia and arbitrarily fixed the price at $1.25 per bushel. In my judgment they took a wise action. New Zealand is in the same position. Every country in Europe, bar Russia, is short of food. Some are in that position to-day; they have no food at present and no prospects for the future. Belgium, the best tilled country in the world, has been devastated from end to end and no crop is likely to be put in there during the coming season. Seven million people are dependent upon the outside world for their food supply. Eighty thousand tons of food are required weekly to feed the people of Belgium. What is true of Belgium is also true of Poland, what is true of Poland is true of Serbia, and what is true of Serma is partially true of Austria, Germany and France. Try as we may, we in Canada do not realize what the people of Europe are contending with. They know what the scarcity of food means, they know what it means to go to the cupboard and find no loaf or anything else, with a wife and perishing children in the house. They know the effect of want. They know what it means to lack food and clothing. All these things are denied to many of the people of the nations of Europe who are probably just as much deserving at the hands of Providence as we are in this splendid and comparatively prosperous country.	*
What I have pointed out in this House I have done in all sincerity, believing that I was justified by the statistics that I have quoted. I believe that the food supply of Canada should be conserved, firstly, for the British people themselves, and then for the Allies, and the countries friendly with the Mother Country in the cause that we have espoused. I have not heard that part of the subject challenged very seriously. My right hon. friend the Prime Min-
ister has said that probably this amount of flour that went to Germany was sent there before war was declared. Possibly that is the explanation, but I think the explanation in regard to Norway and Holland that are closely in touch with Germany and I have no doubt have been feeding the Germans to a greater or less extent, may be open to grave doubt.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know
whether I made myself clear to my h>n. friend. On the 29th October last we passed an Order in Council which covered Norway and Holland.


William Foster Cockshutt: I did not understand my right hon. friend to make that statement. I know there is an Order in Council, but I am not so sure even here to-night that that Order in Council has been quite as effective as it might have been; at least, there is in the mind of some people,, and evidently in that of many newspapers, the idea may be a mistaken one-that some food from Canada has been reaching enemy countries. There is little doubt of that. Only recently seven carloads of flour shipped to Salonika were held up at the border. I give all credit to the head of the department who did it. I do not know who did it but I understand that seven carloads that were just being sent out of Canada three or four weeks ago bound for Salonika, which is part of the enemy's country, were held up. Flour should be consigned to our own Allies if we have any to spare, or should be kept to furnish the sinews of war to our own cause and for our own people and not be diverted into enemy countries.
I have only issued this as a kind of warning. I have been freely criticised. I am ready for criticism in a fair and reasonable way but when I am criticised I would like my hon. friends to show wherein the statistics and figures I have given were contrary to the fact. If they did not vary from the fact then I have made out a case that is worthy of the best consideration of the Government.' I have no desire to make what is hard any harder for any of the hon. gentlemen who are on the treasury benches who are controlling the destinies of this country. Nothing was further from my mind than that any further difficulty should be put upon them, any single ounce of burden that they are not at present bearing because they have plenty upon their shoulders to deal with in these war problems. I have every confidence that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) has this matter

under very close survellance and that he is prepared to see that everything I have suggested is done. I am sure that the country will feel that the air has been somewhat cleared at least by the reassuring statement of the Prime Minister and others that we in Canada have no cause to worry, that the British Empire has no cause to worry, that food supplies are in abundance and are likely to be and that we are not likely to suffer from any adversity of that kind. I trust that is true, but I feel that I have done nothing short of my duty, and anything beyond my duty, in endeavouring to point out to the House that in my judgment the amount of our exportation and the destination of it should be under the strict supervision of the Government and that there should at all times be available in this country a supply necessary for our own domestic requirements and that if we h'ave anything over it should be kept for Great Britain and the other overseas dominions.
Under the circumstances, I do not desire to press my motion. I have received considerable support and also a good deal of criticism. I presume that the temper of the House is that it would not be -wise at the present time to pass this resolution and in view of the promise of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, who has stated that they will keep an eye upon the situation and if it becomes necessary will act in so far as speculation at any rate is concerned, I do not think it would be wise for me to challenge a division of the House. Taking what the Prime Minister has said as being likely to happen, and accepting his promise that they will watch this question in such a manner as to see that no injustice is done to anybody in Canada, I leave the matter and will be quite willing for you, Mr. Speaker, to call the resolution "lost upon division."
Motion negatived on division.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS,
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Marcil:	For a copy of the report of
the officer in charge of the lobster hatchery at Port Daniel west, and of the report of the inspection thereof for the season 1914.
Mr. Marcil:	For a copy, of the tariff on
flour shipments now in force on the Quebec Oriental railway and the Atlantic, Quebec and Western railway.
Mr. J. J. Hughes:	For a return giving the
names and post office addresses of all persons appointed to positions on the Prince Edward railway from the 1st of October, 1911, to the present time ; with a description of the position to which each person was so appointed.
Mr. Sinclair: For a copy of all letters, documents, telegrams, recommendations, petitions and other papers received at the Post Office
Department since January 1, 1914, relating to the contract for carrying the mails between Guysborough and Canso, N.S.
Mr. Warnock:	For a copy of all telegrams,
letters, papers, documents, evidence and reports, in connection with the dismissal of Charles H. Marshall as postmaster at Nanton, Alberta.
Mr. Copp: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and reports relating to the purchase of the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island railway, extending from Sackville to Cape Tormentine, county of Westmorland.
Mr. A. K. Maclean: For a copy of all correspondence, documents charges, evidence, findings and Orders in Council in reference to the dismissal of John Thomas, postmaster at Hammond's Plains, Halifax county, N.S.
Mr. A. K. Maclean: For a copy of all resolutions received by the Department of Labour, or by any of the departments of the Government from labour organizations, manufacturers' associations or other organized bodies, in reference to the Department of Labour since October, 1911.
Mr. A. K. Maclean:	For a copy of all
advertisements, tenders, accounts, vouchers, letters, documents and correspondence relating to the construction of an extension to the breakwater at Prospect, Halifax county, N.S.
Mr. A. K. Maclean: For a return showing the names and addresses of all persons to whom the Fenian raid bounty was paid in the county of Halifax, N.S., to date.
Mr. A. K. Maclean:	For a copy of all
advertisements, tenders, accounts, vouchers, letters, documents, etc., relating to the establishment of the ferry service between the city of Halifax and Dartmouth, N.S., for the employees of the Marine and Fisheries Department at Halifax, N.S.
Mr. Copp:	For a copy of all petitions, memorials, letters, telegrams, communications and reports regarding the construction of a roadway to the new public wharf at Sackville, N.B., and also in regard to the building of a spur line or siding from the Intercolonial railway at Sackville to said wharf.
Mr. William Chisholm: For a return showing all letters, telegrams, reports and other documents communicating complaints against the manner in which the immigration officials conducted the work of relief to needy settlers in Saskatchewan, and a copy of the instructions issued by the department to the respective employees connected with the work.
Mr. William Chisholm: For a return showing all letters, telegrams, reports and other documents in connection with the appointment, duties, salary, expenses and work performed by W. W. Davidson, lately employed by the Immigration Branch of the Department of the Interior in Saskatchewan.
Mr. William Chisholm:	For a copy of all
petitions, reports, recommendations, letters, telegrams and correspondence relating to the dredging of Antigonish harbour and the opening or improving of the entrance thereto, received by the Government, or any department thereof, since the 1st January, 1912, and not already included in the return presented the 30th of April, 1914, in obedience to the order of the House passed the l*th March, previously.
Mr. Macdonald: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other papers relating to the dismissal of Bruce Wiswell, as sectionman on the Intercolonial railway at Stellarton, Nova Scotia.
Mr. Macdonald: For a copy of all letters,
[Stage Direction]
telegrams, reports, recommendations, Orders in Council, and all other documents and papers whatsoever relating to or in any wise connected with the establishment' of rural mail routes and deliveries from Bridgetown to Granville ferry, county of Annapolis, and especially of all letters, telegrams, reports, recommendations and documents relating to the closing of the post offices at Belleisie, Upper Granville and the establishment of the post office at Granville Centre, all in the county of Annapolis.
Mr. Macdonald: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, recommendations, Orders in Council, pay-rolls, list of expenditures, names of foremen and superintendents, and all other documents whatsoever relating to or in any wise appertaining to the erection and maintaining of breakwaters at Phinney's Cove and Young's Cove, county of Annapolis.
Mr. Macdonald: For a copy of all letters, papers, telegrams and other documents relating to the purchase or lease of the railway from New Glasgow to Thorburn, in the county of Pictou, known as the Vale Railway, from the Acadia Coal Company, since January, 1911, to date.
Mr. Macdonald: For a copy of all papers, letters, petitions and other documents relating to the establishment of a rural mail route from River John to Hedgeville, county of Pictou.
Mr. William Chisholm: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, correspondence, contracts, etc., in connection with the sale of the hay growing or the lease of certain tracts of land belonging to the Intercolonial railway, upon which hay is grown ,and which are contiguous to the properties of Charles Lavoie, Clfophas Leclerc and Joseph Parent, of the parish of Bic, county of Rimouski.
*Mr. Pardee: For a copy of all papers, letters, petitions and other documents relating to a mail contract with David D. Heard & Sons, between Whitby and Grand Trunk Railway station, or with one John Gimblet, Whitby.
Mr. Marcil: For a copy of charges made against J. Herbert Sweetman, customs officer at Port Daniel Centre, Quebec, which brought about his dismissal; and also of charges against Belson Horie, lighthouse keeper at Port Daniel West, Quebec, which brought about his dismissal.
Mr. Copp: For a copy of all petitions, letters, communications and other documents relating to or bearing upon the dismissal of Leonard Hutchinson, chief keeper at Dorchester penitentiary.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, reports and pay-rolls in any way referring to the expenditure ol' public money on the repairs to the wharf at Margaree harbour breakwater; repairs to the Grand Etang piers; repairs to the Port Hood wharf; repairs to St. Joseph's piers; repairs to Pleasant Bay wharf, and repairs to Inverness harbour since October 1, 1911, to date, wif-h, date of each expenditure.
Mr, A. W. Chisholm: For a return showing the number of miles of telegraph lines, and the locations erected in the county of Inverness, each year since 1896, to the present day, with the cost of each line.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm: For a return showing the amount of dredging done in the county of Inverness since 1896, up to the present; where such dredging was done, the quantity of dredging done in each place, and dates on which
[Mr. Macdonald. 1
such dredging was done, also the cost in each oase of such dredging.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm: For a return showing the amount of railway subsidies paid in the-county of Inverness since 1896, to date, and the dates on which such subsidies were paid.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, petitions, reports, recommendations and documents of all kinds in any way referring to the purchase of a site for a public building at Port Hawkesbury, and also referring in any way to the erection of a public building thereon.
On the motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
Tuesday, March 2, 1915.