1916-02-24

QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]
BLUE RIVER M. & L. CO.

Mr. MACDONALD:: What salary is paid for all purposes to R. jl Smith, as postmaster for Port Howe, Cumberland county?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Salary, $79; rent allowance, $6; total, $85; also the usual money order and postal note commissions, which amounted to $13.75 in the last fiscal year


PORT HOWE R. R. No. 1.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Who is the mail contractor for. Port Howe, R. R. No. 1, Cumberland county?
2.	What amount is paid him yearly under his contract?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	W. H. Dunbar.
2.	$295.


SOLICITOR GENERAL'S OFFICE FITTINGS.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. LANCTOT:
What was the total cost of preparing, fitting up, and furnishing the new offices of the present Solicitor General in the Eastern Departmental block at Ottawa?
Mr. ROGERS:: 
Mr. REID:: 
LOUISVILLE POST OFFICE.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: What has been, during the past year, the total revenue of the Louisville post office?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Gross revenue from 1st January, 1915, to 31st December, 1915, $2,632.42.	,
SUPPLIES FOR 106th REGIMENT.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: To whom were contracts awarded for provisions, meats, furnishings, stoves, coal and other supplies, respectively, in connection with the billeting of soldiers of the 106th Regiment at Pictou, Nova Scotia?


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Contracts for supplies were awarded as follows: Meat, Pope Bros., Pictou, N.S.; bread, James D. McDonald, Pictou, N.S.; groceries, John Munro, Pictou, N.S.; jam and marmalade, E. D. Smith & Sons, Winona, Ont.; soft coal, Peter Brown & Sons. Stoves, fittings and materials for fitting up quarters for the battalion were obtained as follows: plumbing, W. D. McKenzie; tinsmith work, Scott Brown; toilets, Amherst Foundry Co.; 3 cooking ranges, Enterprise Foundry Co.; 14 stoves, J. F. Carson; electric light fixtures, John A. Stalker & Co.; lumber, A. Fullerton & Son


POWDER MILK.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: What quantity of milk can be made from a pound of powder milk?


Samuel Hughes: This question was asked yesterday.


James Joseph Hughes: Might I amend the question, as there was a little difficulty in answering it yesterday. I would like to put the words "good, serviceable," between "of" and "milk." I am informed that a pint of this powder milk would not colour a cup of tea.


Samuel Hughes: That is the answer.
64TH BATTALION.


Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Who is the medical officer of the 16th Battalion, now being formed at Sussex, N.B.?
2.	Has Dr. Burnet, of Sussex, N.B., be'en doing any portion of this medical inspection work?
3.	If so, what amounts have been paid Dr. Burnet since August 1, 1914?


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member was not present when I pointed out that the 64th Battalion were not at Sussex. If the 64th Regiment is. the one referred to, it is at Halifax. If the hon. gentleman will amend the question I will answer it.


Mr. PROULX:: Suppose the question
amended to read "64th Regiment at Halifax."


Samuel Hughes: If that is what the hon. gentleman means let him give notice of it and the question will he answered.


PAYMENTS TO WALLACE SHIPYARDS, LIMITED.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. MURPHY:
1.	What amounts were paid in each of the years 1913, 1914 and 1915, to the Wallace Shipyards, Limited, of Vancouver, for repairs or work of any kind on the dredge Ajax?
2.	What amounts were paid in each of the years 1913, 1914 and 1915, to the Wallace Shipyards, Limited, of Vancouver, for repairs or work of any kind on the dredge Mudlark?
3.	What amounts were paid in each of the years 1913, 1914 and 1915, to the Wallace Shipyards, Limited, of Vancouver, for repairs of any kind to the dredge Lobnitz?
4.	What amounts were paid in each of the years 1913, 1914 and 1915, to the Wallace Ship-
[Stage Direction]
yards, Limited, of Vanoouver, for repairs or work of any kind to the tug Point Ellice?
5. What amounts were paid in each of the years 1913, 1914 and 1915, to the Wallace Shipyards, Limited, of Vancouver, for repairs or
work of any kind on		the tug Hoke?	
	Mr. ROGERS:		
	Plant.	Fiscal	Amount.
		year.	
1.	Dredge Ajax .. . .	.. 1913-1914	None.
		1914-1915	$1,225 00
		*1915-1916	1,160 20
2.	Dredge Mudlark . .	.. 1913-1914	None.
		1914-1915	None.
		[DOT]1915-1916	None.
3.	Lobnitz No. 1.. . .	.. 1913-1914	None.
		1914-1915	None.
		[DOT]1915-1916	None.
	Lobnitz No. 2.. . .	.. 1913-1914	None.
		1914-1915	$2,911 15
		[DOT]1915-1916	None.
4.	Tug Point Ellice. .	.. 1913-1914	$5,523 37
		1914-1915	932 28
		[DOT]1915-1916	None.
5	Tug Point Hope . .	.. 1913-1914	None;
		1914-1915	None.
		[DOT]1915-1916	None.
To December 81.

Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	What was paid the Canada Car and Foundry Company per kilowatt for electric light while the department used their buildings in 1915, at Amherst?
2.	Did said company supply the said light, or did it purchase it from another company?
3.	Is the department aware of the price paid per kilowatt for electric light by the Canada Car and Foundry Company to the electric light company?


Sir SAM HUGHES:: 1.	Nine cents per kilowatt hour.
2.	Yes; but no evidence to show whether or not they generated the light.
3.	No.


MILITIA AND DEFENCE-MORRISBURG, ONTARIO.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Did the Department of Militia and Defence, directly or through an agent, since August 1, 1914, rent an office in Morrisburg, Ontario?
2.	If so, for what purpose was such office rented, and what is the name of the official who occupied it?
3.	What was the rent paid for such office?
4.	Is the office still occupied by the Department of Militia and Defence? If not, when did such occupation cease?


Sir SAM HUGHES:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


FISHERY INSPECTOR FISHER.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Is Ward Fisher employed by the Government in any capacity other than as fishery officer?

2.	If so, in what capacity, and how much is he paid for his services?


Mr. HAZEN:: Yes. In addition to his
duties as a fishery inspector he is for the time being performing services at headquarters, and is being paid at the rate of $2,000 per annum during the time he is at headquarters.


L'ASSOMPTION AND MONTCALM RURAL MAIL.
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	What are the names of the different tenderers for the carrying of the mails from the rural boxes established in the counties of 1'Assomption and Montcalm down to the present date?
2.	What is the amount of each of such tenders and contracts, and what is the name of the tenderer to whom each of such contracts has been awarded, and for what sum in each case?
3.	Were there any contracts given without tender? If so, to whom, and for what amount in each case?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The information asked for by the question is contained in a return which will be laid on the table of the House in due course.


LIGHTHOUSE BOARD.
[Stage Direction]
. Mr. JAMESON:	.
1. Is there a Lighthouse Board for Canada? If so, when was it constituted?
>
2. Who are the members of the board, if there is one, and when was each appointed?
3.	What are the functions of the board?
4.	To whom is the board responsible?
5.	Is any remuneration or allowance for time or expenses made to any member of the board? If so, how much has been paid to each since his appointment?
6.	Of what transportation or steamship companies, if any, is any member of the board an employee or director?
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes. By Order in Council, dated 26th February, 1904.
2.	The Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Chairman, appointed 8th June, 1910; the Chief Engineer of Marine and Fisheries, appointed 26th February, 1904; the Commissioner of Lights, appointed 1st July, 1908; the Superintending Engineer of' the River St. Lawrence Ship Channel, appointed 19th September, 1912] the President of the Shipping Federation of Canada, as representative of the shipping interests in the Atlantic division, appointed 20th January, 1911; the President of the Dominion Marine Association, as representative of the shipping interests in the Inland division, appointed 3rd February, 1916; Capt. J. W. Troup, of Victoria, as representative of the

shipping interests in the Pacific division, appointed 6th June, 1906.
3.	To inquire into and report to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries upon all matters assigned to him under section 833 of the Canada Shipping Act.
4.	To the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
5.	Yes, the members of the board not officials of the department are allowed their travelling expenses for attending meetings of the board, and an honorarium of $5 a day each while attending meetings. Andrew A. Allen, $576.30; J. W. Troup, $768.65.
6.	The department has no knowledge of the connection of members of the Lighthouse Board with transportation or steamship companies, except in the case of Capt. Troup, who is an employee of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and except in the case of the President of the Dominion Marine Association, who is assistant manager of Canada Steamship Lines, Limited.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Macdonald.-For a return showing how many men have been recruited in Canada lor active service in the Navy, either Canadian or British; at what places they were recruited; and for what rank and service they have been recruited, respectively.
Mr. Sinclair.-For a return showing how many employees were in the Post Office Department on October 11, 1S11, in the inside service and the outside service, respectively, including postmasters and other officials of every class paid by the department; also the number of temporary clerks employed in 1900, whose services were dispensed with on or before December 31, 1911; also, how many employees were in the pay of the Post Office Department on December 31, 1915, in the inside service and in the outside service, respectively, including postmasters and other officials of every class paid by the department; also the number of temporary clerks employed in 1915, whose services were dispensed with on or before December 31, 1915.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. VERVILLE:: I would like to call
the attention of the Minister of Labour to the following telegram which I have just received, and which I have been asked to read to the House:
Canadian Vickers Maxim, Ltd., carpenters, joiners, and ship carpenters are out on strike. Read this out to House this afternoon. Four hundred men affected.
J. A. Laflamme.
I call attention to this because it is very important. I understand that the strike is on account of a reduction of wages.


Hon. Mr. CROTHERS:: I received this
morning information to the same effect, and took the matter up immediately with the employers at Montreal. I think there are prospects of an early settlement.


THE BUDGET.
[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) for the Committee of Ways and Means, resumed from Tuesday, February 22.
Mr. H. BOULAY (Rimouski):: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, at the outset I may be allowed to refer shortly to the address delivered the other evening by the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Lanc-tot). There is often wafted over, to us from the opposite side of the House bitter criticism of the campaign made by Nationalists in 1910-11. Apparently our Liberal friends have lost sight of the Nationalists that are found in their own ranks, among them the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville. The other evening he outstepped any Nationalist who has taken part in our campaign. I even felt .sorry that, in the midst of our present difficulties, a pronouncement of such a nature should come from a French-Canadian. Mr. Bourassa himself, although denied by his friends, has certainly never expressed himself in such terms either in his public utterances or his writings.
If excommunication there be for Mr. Bourassa, the hon. member for Laprairie should also be read out of his party.
The hon. member criticised the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Patenaude) for not having restrained his nationalist feelings and followed the dictates of his conscience in accepting a portfolio. Well, I cannot bring myself to see the crime which has been perpetrated by the man in accepting a place in the Cabinet. In a masterly effort he explained his position, and accounted for his having had to modify somewhat his viewpoint. As a matter of fact, he who insists in circumstances such as the present in sticking to his old opinions is' not a true Canadian.	*
The hon. member for Laprairie, speaking on trade and commerce, had another complaint to air. The farmers of his constituency could not dispose of their hay, or at least could not dispose of it at the price they expected. My idea is that the farmers in his county and the hon. member himself, expect too much when they ask twenty dollars a ton, or rather nineteen, with a profit of one dollar for the hon. gentleman from Laprairie. In Rimouski, we have no fault

to find, and yet our hay sells for only fifteen and sixteen dollars a ton. We are quite satisfied to sell it at that price. If the farmers of Laprairie get twenty dollars, they have no reason to complain.
Then, the hon. member thought himself bound to criticise the Government embargo on the export of hay to the United States. My idea is that the object is to prevent Americans from buying Canadian hay which they could then sell at a profit in Great Britain. The Government intended that such profit should remain with the Canadian farmers.


Mr. LANCTOT:: (Translation.) Surely the hon. member is aware that the hay which is being sold in the United States at twenty dollars a ton cannot at the present time be exported to England. The freight charges are three times the price of the hay. At the present time, you cannot ship to England under one hundred and eighty shillings a ton. The drift of my remarks was that since we were prevented by the embargo from exporting our hay to the United States, it was unfair for the Government to import American hay, in competition with ours, to have that hay re-pressed at Montreal and exported to England. Do you think it fair, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of Canada should have to compete with this American hay?


Some MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) In any
case, even after the explanations of the hon. member I agree with the reasons given by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) in his explanation of the embargo placed upon the export of hay to the States the purpose of which he said, was to keep in Canada a quantity of hay sufficient for the army.


Roch Lanctôt: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I insist on my hon. friend not attributing to me statements I have not made. I have not criticised the Government for placing an embargo on the export of hay.


Mr. SPEAKER:: (Translation.) The hon. member for Rimouski has the floor and I should request the hon. member for Laprairie not to interrupt.


Herménégilde Boulay: Mr. Speaker, I am
through with what remarks I wished to make on the speech of the hon. member for Laprairie, and I shall now pass to a consideration of the Budget.
My first care will be to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on his clear

and definite statement of the country's financial situation, as set out in his speech on the Budget. In a masterly manner, he has traced out his policy and the means to be taken to meet the present crisis. The hon. the Minister of Finance is a valuable acquisition. Lie certainly is the man for the position. No one better qualified could be found at the present time to fill the most difficult position of Dominion tax-collector and work out a satisfactory solution of the present economical problem. It is given to nations in critical! times to find among its citizens men capable of coping with great events.
To what has already been said by previous distinguished speakers, I feel I may subjoin my own remarks.
The House has just been told that the long drawn-out investigation on the high cost of living is completed. I am no expert in economics; yet, whatever be the conclusions the commissioners have arrived at, I find it my duty to say that two of the most potent factors in the increase of the cost of living are:-	[DOT]
1.	The excessive immigration of Jews and labourers from other countries;
2.	The lack of farmers and the exodus from country to city.
The Jewish immigration is a real plague. I am told that Montreal alone accounts for 50,000.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Montreal):: And they
are good citizens.


Herménégilde Boulay: No doubt; they likely are electors of my hon. friend; 76,681 of them in Canada, without taking into account those who are disseminated throughout the country. Out of all that number I should welcome any one who would name a single Jew who settled on the land with the intention of improving it. Not one came to Canada with that purpose in mind. On the contrary, every where they are found as dealers, pedlars, real estate agents, etc., not one is of any benefit to Canada. The other day it was said in my hearing in this House that after the war a strong influx would set in. Should that be the case, I should impress upon the Government and upon the Immigration authorities the necessity of barring from Canada not only those who would come here to reside without a family, but also any man who would comes without the avowed purpose of tilling the land.
We have no place for a single foreign labourer; farmers are those we want. We have no further need of foreigners as real estate agents, dealers, shopkeepers, and what not. If it be intended to lower the

cost of living, let us cut out idle people, who live on other people's labour, and let us increase the number of our farmers. The Government should pass some enactment empowering it to deport any person coming into this country who will not settle on a farm. Not only should it be required that an immigrant be the head of a family and undertake to become a farmer, but our agents should keep trace of him to see that he lives up to his obligations.
An energetic move should also be made to induce our farmers' sons to follow their father's noble calling in the great profession of soil and stock husbandry.
I must say that the two hundred and fifty million dollar Budget submitted us this year appears to me quite heavy for the country, although our friends on the other side are prepared to endorse every item. I shall insist on what I said last year in this respect. The countries at war, Great Britain in particular, should see to the maintenance of our soldiers as soon as they leave Canadian soil and all expenditure for munitions and the maintenance of our troops across the ocean should not be borne by us.
I further claim that there is no valid reason why our forces should be raised to
500.000	troops when we have only 60,000 to
70.000	at the front. It is a wise policy 'to train soldiers in advance, but 'why undergo ' excessive expenditure, when our first contingent was trained in five or six months and gave such a good account of itself on the battlefield that it east glory and pride on the Canadian name. My opinion is that we have too many soldiers in training, taking all the place on the railway trains. The reply will be made that we must prepare for every possible contingency. However, I should prefer on the part of the Government a little more foresight here at home. It seems to me that certain individuals who . apparently are acting the part of spies are allowed too much freedom. I inquired lately as to the number of Germans in the Civil Service and on my expressing astonishment at their being kept in employment, the answer was that:
As they fulfil the duties of their position conscientiously, the Government sees no reason why it should dispense with their services.
To my mind, such an explanation will no more satisfy the country than it does me. What a mere certificate of naturalization, the signing of a mere scrap of paper which Germany tears into shreds, and of the kind she has already thrown to the four winds of Heaven, will be sufficient to bind a citizen of the Kaiser and turn him into a
citizen of his adoptive country in time of war! Let us have some sense. Will that certificate of naturalization, without more, change the colour of the blood that flows in the veins of a German or an Austrian? Belgium stands as an example and the international laws trampled under are a clear proof of the stock we should place in a German's signature.
The length of time one resides in Canada does not count for anything when feelings have to be stifled and a man's origin to be eradicated from his memory. I myself am a case in point. In 1632, almost three hundred years ago, my first ancestor settled in this country; we are loyal to our institutions and true to our word; but still we retain our love for our old Mother France. We have wept over its political wrongdoings, but the soil remains the soil of our forefathers and the object of our deep affection, and in a war between England and France, on what side would be found my sympathies? On the side of France. Why should a German be different from any other human being?
Study the past, and you will be readily convinced that I am right, a hundred times right. It is not fair that the Government should keep in its service a single citizen of German origin. Without proof that they are disloyal subjects, we have at least reason to be suspicious of them, whatever the number of years they have resided in this country.
At any rate we have had a striking example only recently, of their way of looking at things, in the case of the notorious Lincoln, a fugitive from English justice, who has just been arrested by the New York police. That clever German had come to reside in England a number of years ago. He was naturalized and then was elected to the House of Commons at Westminster, where he sat during one or two parliaments. As soon as war was declared, he hurried across the Atlantic and did not deem it in anyway shameful to say openly that he had acted the part of a spy.
Let me be allowed at this juncture a short digression. I shall first quote from the speech of the brave Colonel Currie, member for Simcoe:
Our ideas of the French people are in many cases entirely erroneous. The ideas put in books by novelists are often contemptible. There are no finer people, no more casual people, no more cool and collected people under danger-and I have seen them in the fight, in the middle of it-than the French.
These few words pronounced in sincere language by a man who has risked his life on the battlefields of Europe, by a man that

we know to have fulfilled his duty as a soldier and a brave man, who saw so many other brave men falling alongside of him, and to whom death was despised, have made me cry. Why so ? Because I then thought of our own French-Can-adians, descendants of that glorious race referred to by Colonel Currie, to-day victims of uncalled for, senseless and shameful tyranny. We, priding ourselves on our descent from those heroes who know when to die for their country, we also are determined to the last man to do our duty and prove to the world that we are ready to make the sacrifice of our lives when circumstances require. But what stands in our way? The ban which has been placed on our language in almost every province of this Confederation, the treatment meted us by the majority in this country. We whose ancestors have opened the continent to the cross and to civilization; we, whose missionaries have suffered martyrdom at the hands of the heathen on Canadian soil; we, who have been in possession of this soil for over three hundred years, we are treated as trespassers, as Germans and Indians? Why? Because we have remained true to the language of our forefathers.
,We are not understood by our English speaking countrymen; we occupy of right the little bit of land we hold of the creator, the little bit of land we want to cultivate, on which it is our wish to live, respectful of our country's laws; to live in peace, speaking the language of our ancestors, of those same Frenchmen who know so well how to fight and die.
We are prevented from enlisting before we ever attempt to do so; we are deprived of our full share on the death-roll, by the persecution we are undergoing in our schools. We are asked in the face of the treatment we receive to take our place in the ranks of those glorious soldiers who are going to die for their country! It passes all comprehension.
The reproach is cast to us, especially in the Ontario newspapers, that we are not enlisting as we should. I will not admit that such is the case, but the saying is current. Yet after the war, when the count is made, it will be found that the number of Frenchspeaking and English-speaking recruits of Canadian origin will have been about equal and that the proportion of French-Oanadians from now on will have greatly increased. Even at this date, there are many French-Canadian units in English-speaking regiments, and officers have told me that many Frenchmen have enlisted in English regi-

ments, some of whom are even now at Belleville and reckoned among English speaking recruits.
Notwithstanding our grievances, I should like to see recruiting still more active. Yet my county of Rimouski has already given more than two hundred recruits, a fair number of whom are now at the front, and four of whom have already fallen on the firing line. I have no hestitation in stating that if the persecution against French was called off, and that language allowed to be taught untrammelled, a thousand soldiers could easily be enlisted in the county of Rimouski alone, and that in a very short time. The same thing would happen throughout the whole of Quebec. All the harangues of Bourassa and Lavergne could not impede or diminish enlistment, because at this date not two per cent of the population agree with them.


Mr. ETHIER:: (Translation.) Things
have much changed.
Mr. BOULAY; (Translation.) Yes, things have changed. I said so at the beginning and gave the explanation. In 1896, you also did change. It has been said that whoever never changes his views is a fool.
We have no wish to prevent the Englishspeaking majority from using their language, we are still more loath to impose ours on them; on the contrary, we want our own children to learn the two languages that are official in this country. Such is our ambition, and a legitimate one indeed. The same ambition is to be found at all periods and among all nations. Why not so with the French who inhabit Canada? We have not degenerated. The qualities that characterize the French of France are to be found in the French of Canada. We have one desire at heart, freedom, yes, that freedom which allows the child in the cradle to breathe freedom which makes one give his life in the defence of his country, of his motherland.
I shall now speak on a subject touched upon by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). He claimed that we should cut short all expenditure for public works, which are not strictly necessary. He insisted particularly on the Hudson Bay railway. It does seem to me that if there is an item of expenditure which should be cut off, it is indeed the construction of the Hudson Bay railway and all works connected with it. As a matter of fact, I never could understand why that construction was undertaken. Is it for the purpose of giving the western grain an earlier outlet?

But we have already three railways that can accommodate three such harvests like this year's, which however is quite abundant. How can it be said as a plausible justification that the purpose is to afford early shipping to western wheat, since, at the time wheat is ready for shipping, navigation has been closed for a long while already, and so, not before the following mid-summer, could the Hudson Bay road be utilized.
Are the millions of dollars now to be expended intended to satisfy the numerous requests made to the Liberal Government and which this Government has promised to grant? There was no obligation on our part to carry out the promises of the late administration. Even the present expenditure fails to satisfy the western farmers. Their representatives in this House show dissatisfaction. They dare not criticise the construction of that railway, but they take hours, days and even weeks of our precious [DOT] time in pressing for the free export of wheat to the American markets. Free wheat is their shibboleth. If their sole ambition is to reach the American markets, why build a new railway at great expense to give a better outlet to their wheat? If our western countrymen cannot be satisfied with the expenditure of millions and millions for their sole benefit, let us do away with those enormous expenses, at least during the war. Let us put a stop to the gigantic building operations on the Hudson Bay railway, and we shall have done something to the country's advantage.
Let us also postpone the work in St. John harbour and the dredging of Courtenay bay. We have a splendid winter harbour at Halifax; why go on with those immense works at St. John? A small trip to Courtenay bay will convince you that we are wasting millions in digging a mud channel. Some justification could at least be found if a shorter route were made for ocean vessels, but on the contrary the ocean voyage by vessels running into St. John is increased by two hundred miles.
I quite understand that the Liberal party and the present Government in turn strive to construct as many public works as possible, and spend as much as possible at St. John. The city of St. John is represented in this House and has always been by Cabinet Ministers, but it behooves the rest of the country to approve or disapprove of all this expenditure.
The hon. member for St. John, I presume, place above the special interest of their city the general interest of the country. To hear
them in this House, they have nothing at heart so much as the welfare of Canada.
I believe that the enormous expenditure in the misty harbour of St. John is a direct cause of the delay in bringing about the winter navigation of the St. Lawrence.
I believe previous experience has shown that ocean liners could with safety sail up to Rimouski or to the Saguenay and even to Quebec during the whole of December every year.
Yet that project of winter navigation has been relegated to the back ground to satisfy the ambitions of our two Atlantic ports, quite legitimate in the case of Halifax harbour, but unfair in the case of St. John.
I shall then conclude with the remark that the real interests of the country require that the works in St. John harbour and Courtenay bay and on the Hudson Bay line be stopped ; that there ought to be enlisted only the number of soldiers strictly required and that steps should be taken to regulate the immigration which will flow into Canada after the war.


Alphonse Verville: The debate on the Budget offers many advantages to members of this House, because we are at liberty to discuss during it many important subjects; in fact, almost any subject. It is not my intention to follow my hon. friend (Mr. Boulay) in all that he has said, because only one or two of his remarks call for a reply. At the outset of his remarks, when he was discussing the question of immigration, he condemned a certain element of our citizens, good, law-abiding people, declaring that they should be refused admission to Canada. He referred in this way to the Hebrews, the Jewish people, in this country. I do not believe it is fair for any member to criticise any citizen of Canada in this way; we have always said that we were a democratic country, that our doors were wide open for good, law-abiding citizens, and it is especially unfair to speak in this way of the Jews, because they are a class of people who will become naturalized as quickly as the laws of the land in which they settle will permit.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Hear, hear.


Alphonse Verville: I belong to a class of people who do not believe in any line of either creed, colour or nationality, and if I am to take the words of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) the other night when he was speaking with reference to conditions at the front, we must believe, in fact he has proved to us, that there were

no questions of nationality, creed or colour among the men on the firing line. So I do not believe it becomes the hon. member for Rimouski to try to throw any slur upon these people as he did when he plainly stated in French that the Jews in this country were a plague. I take issue with this statement. I have no special mission to defend the Jewish people any more than any one else, but as the representative of a city where there are a number of Jewish inhabitants, I say it is unfair, unjust, and uncalled-for for any member of the House to use such language. Towards the close of his remarks my hon. friend reproached the city of St. John for always having the advantage of having a minister of the Crown to represent it. If any one in this House should say nothing on this line, it is surely the hon. member for Rimouski himself. Perhaps at present he has nobody in his family whom he would like to place in any of the departments of the Government; but if I were to take the list of his friends and relations whom he has placed in the different departments and place it before the hon. member, surely he would not attack the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) nor the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), the other representative of that city, to-day.
We have heard in this House, particularly yesterday and a few days before, a full discussion of the wheat question. No family in this or any other country can do without the staple of life, bread. This is a very acute question, not only in the cities but everywhere. The report of the Royal Commission on the High Cost of Living was placed in the hands of the members of the House within the last few days, and, in the short time at my disposal since I have devoted a good deal of attention to its contents. The report undoubtedly contains a great number of statistics, but outside of that I do not like to say much about it. In going through this report, 1 wondered why, even yesterday, during that famous discussion, the Solicitor General, who showed such great sympathy for minorities, yet would not favour the motion that was before the House.
While on the question of minorities, may I say a few words with reference to another question of importance? From what I have heard lately I am tempted to ask if what is transpiring in the city of Ottawa and in this province is not the result of a system

of German espionage established to prevent recruiting in the province of Quebec. I

really believe that even Bernsdorf could not have done better, if he had been trying to stir nationality against nationality, than the system now in operation in the province of Ontario. I just cite that in passing, because I am going to ask members of this House, although the subject is outside of our jurisdiction, to use their good offices to terminate the dissention that now exists. We preach every day patriotism, and patriotism, and always patriotism. I may not understand patriotism as well as some other members, but surely in patriotism there is no question of nationality, or creed, or colour. It seems to me that the members of this House should do all in their power and use their good offices in that respect.
Reverting to the bread question, I wish to place on Hansard some figures showing a comparison between the prices of bread in the different parts of the world. These figures are found in volume 1, at pages 74T and 748, and cover Chicago, Montreal, Liverpool and London. That seems a fair comparison. The report is for the year 1909. One might say that there has been quite a change since, but nevertheless we have to take the report as it is given. We find that from a barrel of flour weighing 196 pounds a bakerican make 280 pounds of bread. We find also that the total cost of everything that he adds to that barrel of flour to make that 280 pounds is $1.13. In Chicago, where the wages received by workingmen are between 20 and 22j per cent higher than in Montreal, 280 . pounds of bread cost $12.76, while in Montreal, for the same quantity, the price was $14.56; in Toronto $11.20, and in Ottawa $12.54; in Liverpool, England, $6.94, and in London $7.61. It sold in Montreal, for twice the price that was charged in Liverpool or London. So much has been said with respect to the price of flour that I desire to quote prices given in this same report, at page 754, in a report from Mr. W. A. Black, managing director of the Ogilvie Milling Company. He gives the figures in criticising some other figures that appear in the paper as showing the difference in the price of flour in different places. He states that the top grade of flour costs in Winnipeg $4.50 and in London $4.18, a difference of 32 cents; patents, $4.80 in Winnipeg, $4.06 in London; bakers, $4 in Winnipeg, $3.60 in London. We can see by these figures, given by this managing director himself, that flour sold cheaper in London than in Winnipeg, and also that bread cost in London not much more than half what it

cost in Montreal. There is something radically wrong somewhere. I have said in this House in previous years that the bread trust organized in Toronto a few years ago was exceedingly powerful, and in that statement I made no mistake. They have spread everywhere. They have extended their operations to Montreal, and the profits which they are making are evidently enormous. It is a question whether these institutions will be covered by the taxation proposals of the Minister of Finance. That will depend largely on the amount of watered stock they have.


An hon. MEMBER:: They will not pay
anything.


Alphonse Verville: My hon. friend tells me they will not pay anything; T take his word for it. If I am to take my hon. friend's statement that these companies are not going to pay any taxes, is it advisable that we should any longer permit companies of this kind to exploit the masses of our people? It is impossible at the present time for any family to do without bread; there is no family poor enough or small enough to get along without the staple of life, that is, bread, and as I have stated it is a very acute question in our city. I go directly to the root of the whole question. If we could get the wheat cheaper we could compel the millers to sell the flour a little cheaper, and then we would have a basis on which to go to .tire baker -and say to him: "You cannot complain about the high cost of flour, because you. are now paying a lower price for it." According to the same report, at page 137 of the first volume, there is a statement	by	the Department of
Labour of what is necessary for a family to live for a whole week, based on an income of $800 during the year.' According to their report, a family of five would eat fifteen pounds of bread per week. You can imagine what that means, always keeping in mind the hundred per cent difference between London and Montreal. When I take the report brought down by the Department of Labour, previous to the report of the High Cost of Living Commission, although the former is included in the latter, I notice that the writer of the report fixes $800 as the amount that it will cost a family of five to live for a year, but he has forgotten a great many things, and - amongst them some of the most important things of life. For instance, he has forgotten sickness, church contributions, the carfare that the workingman must pay to reach his place of employment, furniture, linen, etc. According to the figures contained in this report, $160 would not be any too much to add for these items, and we would reach $1,123 if we were to add all the absolute necessaries of life omitted from the list contained in the report. Every time that a workingman buys something-I do not care what it is-he pays the equivalent of the tariff rate on that article. The tariff tax is applied to every dollar's worth that he purchases. Not only on goods that are imported into this country does he pay the tax, but he pays it on the goods that are Manufactured in the country. You know as well as I do that the tariff is the basis of the prices charged for goods manufactured in Canada. You cannot buy a pin, or anything else, but the tariff will set the price of it. If I take a rate of thirty per cent as representing the rate of tariff taxation, the workingman will have to pay thirty per [DOT]cent additional on every dollar's worth that he purchases during the year.
I have a few figures here which I want to place on Hansard, and which I want to present to the members of this House, showing that we pay far more in taxation than we realize on the goods which we purchase, of which taxation the Government only receive a certain portion under the system now in operation. Taking the population of Canad,a at 7,500,000, and dividing this number by five, you get the number of families as 1,500,000. According to the report of the Department of Labour, it costs $800 per family to live, and on that basis you have $1,200,000,000 as the annual expenditure of these 1,500,000 families in the country. I know that I am far below the truth when I accept the estimate of $800 per family. If you add 30 per cent to that, which means that for every dollar we spend we pay 30 cents additional 'indirectly, you will find that this indirect taxation amounts to $360,000,000 every year. We take no less than $360,000,000 every year from the pockets of the consumers, the poorer classes especially, in taxation. According to the blue-book, 21 per cent is the maximum amount that the Government receive from the tariff, and I doubt very much if they receive that much.
Now, I would like to show by way of illustration the effect of the 7^ per cent duty which was added to the tax on raw material last year. What does it mean? Let us take a value of $100, by way of example, and see what it amounts to with the per cent added. One hundred dollars

worth of raw -material, when it is landed in the factory, is, with the duty added, worth $107.50. I am not speaking of the profit of the person who furnishes the raw material. If you add 25 per cent, which is nothing but fair, for the profit and overhead charges of the manufacturer, you find that the article costs the wholesale house $134.37. The wholesale -man also must make a profit of 25 per cent. When it Teaches the retailer it is worth $177.96. Is it unfair to expect that the retailer -should also make 25 per cent profit? They say that 221 per cent is the minimum amount that a business -man can allow for overhead charges. We therefore add 25 per cent as' the retailer's profit, and when the article reaches the consumer its cost has increased to $222.45. The. article -starts out with a value of $107.50, and by the time it reaches the consumer it has attained a price of $222.45 as a^result .of our present system. I do not want to take the rate of 30 per cent, because I -am afraid that some -members in the House might -say that it was too high.
1-t is because of thi-s excessive burden of indirect taxation that I have always said, every time I have had an opportunity of discussing this subject, that I was in favour of another system of taxation. I do not care whether the Minister of -Finance wants to adopt a new system now or not, he will be compelled by the logic of events to change it. I am not opposed to a system of direct taxation, because I want to see taxes .imposed in such a form as to make an equitable distribution of the burden amongst all. Under the system proposed by the Minister of Finance there are many institutions now in existence which will not -contribute a cent of the taxes* What about the high-salaried men? There are many men in this country who are receiving $10,000, $15,000, $25,000 a year. I know of one who works for the Government who is receiving $20,000 a year, and he goes scot free. There are many others in a similar position. I do not think it is fair. That is why I am in favour of a change in the present system of taxation. If my hon. friend the Minister of Finance would come before this House with a direct system of taxation I would favour it. I do not believe there is any other equitable way unless you are going to tax the land- itself. Suppose' you, Mr. Speaker, purchase a lot for a thousand dollars and build a house upon it. There are two or three vacant lots adjoining your property. Your neighbour

also builds a house and you both put a certain amount of money into your improvements. You wish to make your property attractive in appearance and you make a garden and improve your grounds. A man comes along and buys one of the vacant lots for perhaps $1,000, and, as a result of the improvements which you and your neighbour have put upon your properties, this vacant lot, in two or three years, attains a value of perhaps $5,000. The purchaser of this vacant land has had nothing to do with bringing about this increased value, it being the result simply of the improvement of the surrounding property. Then, if you paint your house, plant shade trees about it and cultivate a garden, thus adding to the attractive appearance of your property, the chances are that an addition of $200 or $300 will be made to your assessment, and your taxation will be increased.
When anybody proposes a system of direct taxation, or of land taxation, the cry goes up that it is too radical. We .are always afraid of radical things here, but in two or three years what are supposed to be radical systems are accepted as commonplace, natural, and obvious. If we cannot have land taxation, let us have an income tax. Why should we not tax hon. members of this House who are receiving $2,500 a year? Why should we not tax the indemnities and salaries of ministers of the Crown? If we had an income tax of -two per cent we could collect in the city of Ottawa alone $175,000 a year from the high-salaried civil servants. I am willing to pay my share if other hon. gentlemen are.
The present, system of taxation imposes a heavy burden on the poorest class in this country. The ba-sis of the cost of living in any country is the tariff. Suppose, for instance, that the labour men of this country succeeded after a long -struggle in raising wages by twenty-five cents a day; -the Government could wipe out -that increase in a moment by simply raising the tariff on the goods -the workmen consume. The moment the tariff goes up, the cost of living increases. Will any one in this House say -that salaries have not decreased during the last two years ot that the cost of living has decreased? According to the report laid on the table a few days ago, the cost of living has increased by five per cent, and wages have decreased-not in the shell industry, of course. We have recent proof that wages are decreasing in this country in the telegram I read to the House a few

minutes ago to the effect that Vickers-Maxim want to Teduoe by 2J cents an hour the pay of their labourers; and that is a firm that is getting big money on its contracts.
Let us look for a moment at the system of taxation in Wisconsin. Speaking from memory, I believe that every bachelor in that state earning over $800 a year is taxed. Why should we not have a similar tax here? Wisconsin also taxes the married man who earns over $1,500 a year, after making an allowance of $200 for each child he has. Hon. gentlemen might retort that these taxes would not yield much money in the province of Quebec. Perhaps so. I am sure that in a great many places in my province very little money would be collected by taxes of that kind. It is only fair that bachelors should be taxed. A bachelor earning $800 a year is better off than a married man earning $1,500. What expenses has a bachelor got? Sometimes he pays his board, and sometimes he jumps it; he has nobody to carry with him when he goes. The Finance Minister saw difficulties in the way of collecting an income tax, but I think it could be very easily collected in the same way that we collect customs duties. The income tax has been very successful in the United States, where $83,000,000 was raised by it the first year. When there was talk of imposing the tax there, all the high-salaried people ran down to Washington and did all they could to prevent the imposition of the tax. But we don't hear any complaints about it to-day; they have made up their minds that it is only fair that they should be taxed.
I -hope that before the Finance Minister brings down his Bill he will give serious thought to the suggestions I have made. I am convinced that this taxation is going to fall most heavily on the poor people of this country; I am positive of that. I hope no one will say that the poorer classes of this country have not done their share as regards recruiting. As soon as the question of recruiting came up amongst the organized labour men of this country, we in quired from headquarters, which are not in this country, what our attitude should be, and they said that as long as the men were fighting at the front they would pay their sick benefit, and that if they got killed they would pay their insurance benefit. It seems to me that the labour men of this country are doing their share in- this war. I told the Finance Minister last year that the taxation he was
then imposing would fall most heavily upon the poor people of this country, and so it has proved. A poor man cannot buy a box of pills' from a drug store without paying from two to five cents war tax. It was said last year that the tax would be paid, not by the consumer, but by the druggist, either wholesaler or retailer. The fact is the consumer pays the tax in every instance.
I should like to say a few word,s in regard to soldiers' pensions. It has been my privilege to see quite a number of returned soldiers, for I have the honour to be a member of one of the commissions appointed to search for work for returned soldiers. I think everybody will agree that in the future we shall have to pay out a large sum for pensions, and it seems to me that we might as well make a thorough job of the entire pension system now. Why not, when we are arranging for pensions for soldiers, provide a general old-age-pension scheme? We are juggling with millions, and a few millions more or less will make no difference.
I am one of those who has declared himself in this House to be against war. I have always been opposed to war-and it might fairly be asked why I am not opposed to this present war. The reason I do not oppose Canada's participation in this war is the same that was given by the president of the American Federation of Labour at the last convention, when he said that he had changed his mind in regard to war since he had seen all the labour men of Great Britain and, France rallying round the flag to fight for civilization. It has been exactly the same with me. I have said in this House before, and I say it again now, that I am willing to vote any amount of money required to carry on the war, provided the money will be spent properly. I hope no one will accuse me for not enrolling under the fag; I am too old for that. I myself would not criticise any one for not enlisting, but I take off my hat to the soldier, and say he is a man. Labour men have done splendidly in this war. A large part of the blood that has stained, the dunes of Flanders has flowed from the veins of the labour men of this country, who have made up their minds that this is a fight for right, a fight for liberty, and the liberty that the workmen of Great Britain fought for so stoutly. When I read of the manner in which the labouring men of Great Britain had to hide themselves in

cellars to safeguard their rights, and how they had to fight for the liberty which they had so, far achieved, I made up my mind that the labour men of this-country, whenever their rights might be menaced, would do all in their power to safeguard the liberty that was so dearly bought by our British brothers.
I hope the Minister of Finance, in framing his taxes, will take into consideration those who can well afford to pay. Let him put a stop to the "get-rich-quick" idea, and change h,is system so that there will be less taxation imposed upon the poorer classes of this country.


Mr. A. L. DAVIDSON (Annapolis):: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, before I became a member of this House, when I learned through the press of the election of my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Ver-ville), over a Liberal nominated by a Liberal convention in that constituency, I thought it a very fortunate circumstance. It struck me as being very appropriate that the great interests of labour in this country should have in this Parliament a representative who could speak exclusively for labour.


Alphonse Verville: Did my hon. friend say that I was chosen by a Liberal convention?


Avard Longley Davidson: No, I do not think that even a Liberal convention would be guilty of that. What I said was that the hon. gentleman was elected in opposition to the nominee of a Liberal convention.
After having obtained a seat in this House and after having had an opportunity of observing the attitude of my hon. friend, I was at a loss to understand just what the distinction was between a labour representative and a hidebound Grit, and I have never yet been able to see in the attitude of my hon. friend anything that has convinced me that he has in his mind any very clear distinction between the two. I did think, however, when this Budget was brought down, that now my hon. friend would have an opportunity, if he really had at heart the interests of the great labour party, to show that he stood for the interests of labour, separate and apart from the principles of Gritism. But after hearing him to-day condemn in the most unmeasured terms this tariff which is very greatly in the interest of labour, and, furthermore, after hearing him speak so glibly about a matter of a few million dollars not amounting to anything,

I made up my mind that there was very little in common between my hon. friend and the labour party which he pretends to
represent.
1 am informed that, in times past, when the Budget was brought down, the Opposition were in the habit of immediately rising to define the attitude of their party in respect to the Budget proposals. In former times, as soon as the Minister of Finance threw down the gage of battle it was taken up; but this year-and perhaps the change has dated back one or two years-there has been a change of tactics. This year two full days were allowed to elapse, with the glove of the Minister of Finance in the lists, before the financial critic of the Opposition could make up his mind whether it was . better for him to pick up the glove or to run away. This I understand is due to a change in party tactics. In the otld days, the Opposition party was led by men having seats in this House, and members of the Opposition were enabled to lay down a policy both for themselves in this House and for their party in the country outside. That policy apparently has 'been changed just as there has been a radical change in military tactics. In former times a commander went into battle at the head of his men. To-day, I am informed, the direction of a military engagement is not in the trenches, but some general, sitting miles back in a little office with plans and despatches before him, directs the conduct of the battle. So it is in this House at the present time. Hon. gentlemen in the trenches opposite do not direct their own movements; as a matter of fact, there is an advisory committee composed largely of persons not having seats in this House, in many instances of persons who have actually been rejected by the people of this country. This committee, which is out side of this House altogether, determines when hon. gentlemen opposite shall march to the attack and when they shall retreat.
Personally, I am not in favour of such a system. It is not democratic; it is not fair to hon. gentlemen opposite, and it seems to me that an hon. gentleman who is entrusted with looking after his constituents, in whose ability his constituents have enough confidence to send him here, should be allowed to act for himself after he is elected.
Further than that, such a system tends to do away with responsibility. I believe that hon. gentlemen opposite have made many wild and reckless statements which

would never have been made had they been allowed to think these things out for themselves, had they not been dictated to by people outside. When the Opposition are not allowed to think for themselves, when they are controlled by an outside party and when they must refer everything to people outside of this House, delay is caused and the debate drags. If hon. gentlemen opposite were allowed to get together and decide for themselves their own policy, they could act with cohesion; but as it is, hon. members opposite from the Maritime Provinces look for guidance to an individual who has not a seat in this House and who resides somewhere down in Nova Scotia, and they follow him and hon. gentlemen opposite from the West look to some one residing in the West for their judgment, and the result is confusion amongst them. It is no -wonder therefore that we have found confusion and contradiction amongst the members opposite who have spoken in this debate. For instance, we have the hon. junior member for Halifax declaring that the duty on apples is a bad thing 'because the apple is a staple article of consumption, and we have the hon. member for Medioine Hat (Mr. Buchanan) objecting to the duty on the ground that apples are a luxury. Again, we have the hon. member for Halifax stating that seven per cent is not sufficient for a business interest to obtain by way of return on the investment of capital, and we have the hon. member for Medicine Hat claiming that it is too much. However, I suppose hon. gentlemen opposite will not attach much importance to my views in reference to the management of their internal affairs, and I d,o not suppose that, inasmuch as this is a domestic matter, I should say much about it. Constitutionally, we are bound to regard hon. gentlemen opposite as the authors of their own work; constitutionally we are bound to regard them as statesmen, and not megaphones. And so when the financial critic of the Opposition rises to deliver his views in reference to the Budget he binds his party in this House and out of this House for weal or for woe-and I think that in this instance it was mostly for woe.
It seems to me that the Budget presented, by tbe Minister of Finance, especially when you consider the conditions under which it was brought down, is the most encouraging and the most courageous Budget ever brought before this Parliament. A Finance Minister who could announce in one Budget the floating of loans at more favourable rates than are secured by the wealthiest countries in the world; could announce that we have overdrafts nowhere and trade balances both at home and abroad; could announce the greatest aggregate trade in the history of the country; could announce a surplus of $45,000,000 and a trade balance in our favour of $200,000,000, it seems to me is a Finance Minister who might fairly expect words of congratulation even from very much less generous people than hon. gentlemen opposite. - But no words of congratulation, no words of commendation, have fallen from the lips of hon. gentlemen opposite, so far as I have heard, certainly none from those of the hon. gentleman who prides himself on his fairness, the financial critic of the Opposition. From him we have not a word that would even savour of congratulation or commendation for the Minister of Finance.
I wish to point out that in his general public uterances there has been a marked change in that hon. gentleman (Mr. A. K. Maclean) in a few years. I have noted in his speeches on successive budgets the development of a wonderful religious spirit. There was a time, when he sat on this side, when he paid little attention to divine agencies and exalted and magnified the human. This sin clung to him even after he went over to the other side of the House. Let me quote what he said in 1912 when speaking on the Budget:
Increased imports and exports, a buoyant revenue, a great increase in our immigration and commerce are all indications to a remarkable degree of our prosperity, and I trust are the tokens of a still greater future for this young country. We upon this side of the House follow with considerable interest the successful operations of the many political programmes or policies initiated by the late Government, and I am glad to observe that the continuation of this programme or policies in the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite is evep productive of good.
You see it was the Government-it was human agency that was responsible for all these benefits, and it was only because the Government followed the practices of hon. gentlemen opposite that the sun shone and the harvests were bountiful. In the next year, in his address on the Budget, he said:
I think I shall be able to show that the Government deliberately and in the face of warning brought about our present financial condition, that they never did and are not to-day making an effort to maintain the equilibrium between revenue and expenditure and place public expenditures upon a sound basis. They are almost entirely responsible for our present financial position.



Again, the Government is responsible. But, apparently, the vicissitudes of opposition have had an effect upon him, they have melted his stony heart, broken down the middle wall of partition; and so this year, speaking on the Budget, he shows almost a Christian spirit, and says-
After the passing of almost a year hon. gentlemen opposite will agree with me that this prediction was idle, as was expected, and that any stimulation that came to Canadian industry or any relief that came to unemployment was not the result of the tariff taxation of last year, but one of the incidents of the world wide calamity, and further that any stimulation that came to Canadian agriculture was due to the efforts of men and the blessings of God, not to the tariff of the Minister of Finance.
The right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition had at one time the same weakness as my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax. He used to claim credit for the very sunshine and for bountiful harvests, and it was only in deference to the religious sentiment of this country that he finally did admit Providence 'nto partnership with himself.
On this side of the House we have never failed in that regard. This Liberal-Conservative party has always recognized its dependence on Providence. But it has always recognized also the truth of that principle that Heaven helps him who is willing to help himself. And if ever there was a Government that had fulfilled that condition precedent to divine assistance, it is this Government; if ever there was a Finance Minister who could claim credit for prosperity, it seems to me it is the present Finance Minister. A Government that, in the first place, started the campaign for greater production; a Government that gave the farmer consideration in its tariff; a Government that^ educated the farmers to produce more, and actually advanced to the farmers in the West $13,000,000 to aid them in buying seed grain -it seems to me that such a Government is in a position to claim some of the credit for the bountiful harvest which has blessed this country. This is a case of a Govern-ernment scattering plenty o'er a smiling land, and of Providence blessing, and bountifully blessing, the work of its handmaid.
I think, however, that the features of the Budget which call for particular satisfaction on the part of the people even more than the splendid indications of prosperity that it discloses, are its tax features. In the past, in this country, it has been the

poor man who has paid the taxes, and the big interests which make and break Governments have been almost exempt. That is so even in our municipalities-the small holder of property is usually taxed to the limit, while his wealthy brother escapes with very -little taxation. For the first time in the history of this country a Minister of Finance has had the courage to put forth his hand upon the great, and to tax the people who had the money to pay and who were getting something out of the country. It required courage, it required sagacity to do that; and I believe the people will give the Finance Minister great credit for what he has done. Hon. gentlemen opposite have a new found solicitude for the business interests in this country. The Liberal party in this country has never been fair to the business interests. They have always referred to them as the mergers, the trusts and the combines. They have even gone so far as to refer to them as porch climbers, and' any consideration which this Government has been able to give to the business interests in protection from their rapacious competitors in the United States, they have been able to give only at the bayonet's point, only after the most severe opposition from hon. gentlemen opposite. I say the Liberal party has not been fair with the business interests in this country, but the greatest injustice the Liberal party in this House has ever done to the business interest is to doubt its willingness at this juncture to pay these taxes. I believe that the business interests in this country realise that they get more out of this country by way of protection than the smaller earner of income, whom hon. gentlemen opposite would tax. I believe it realizes it is up to it to pay more towards the maintenance of this country than does the small income earner, and I believe the business interest will gladly do this. I believe that when the business interests consider the fact that business interests in Germany are paying fifty per cent in order to keep up a despicable and detestable tyranny in that country, they will regard it as a privilege to contribute one quarter of their earnings over seven per cent to keep up and maintain and protect the most glorious and-free institutions that the world has ever seen. The hon. member for Halifax protested that seven per cent was not enough' for a business interest to receive upon its invested capital, and he said [DOT] it was unfair to tax the overplus on seven per cent in order to maintain the institutions of this country. These words of

his bound the Liberal party, as they were uttered by the financial critic of that party, but it is no wonder that my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Buchanan) refused to agree to them and protested his unwillingness to accept that doctrine. The hon. member for Halifax contended that this tax would discourage the investment of foreign capital in this country. I say that apy foreign investor of capital who would be unwilling to invest capital in this .	country with a prospect that he
5 p,.m. be obliged to contribute towards the support of the country only one-quarter of what his capital earned him above seven per cent is a pretty good kind of investor to keep clear of. I think that we do not want that kind of investor in Canada-he has too big an appetite for this Canadian land of ours.
Then the hon. gentleman showed a great deal of concern for the Canadian Pacific Railway. Several of the hon. gentlemen opposite have shown a marked solicitude, a new-found solicitude, for the Canadian Pacific Railway, and once again it strikes me that they are more solicitous for the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway than the Canadian Pacific Railway is for itself. I believe that, owing to causes produced by this war, owing to the fact that they have carried a great many troops and an immense amount of supplies for the Government, that their telegraph systems have earned a great deal more because of these war conditions, and that their railway lines have made enormous profits out of freight rates, the directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway will be the first to admit the justice of their contributing a portion of these extra profits towards the maintenance of this country. No institution in Canada. I believe, has done more to develop the Dominion of Canada than has the Canadian Pacific Railway; and no company in Canada has received more benefit from its development than has this same company. It was not many years ago that the country looked to the Canadian Pacific Railway to perform a great national task, looked with confidence to the Canadian Pacific Railway to perform a task of inestimable importance to this country, and in spite of the sneers and the scorn of the Liberal party of this country, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, the Canadian Pacific Railway went forth and discharged that duty. At the present time the country looks to the Canadian Pacific Railway to do its duty again in a cause only more serious, and I believe they will not look in vain. It is abundantly clear from this debate that the Liberal party in Can-691
ada has decided to throw down the food producers in this country, the farmers and the fishermen. There was a time when hon. gentlemen opposite were on very good terms, or pretended to be, with the producers of foods in this country. They were the great friends of the farmer and, true to their policy of stirring up one class against another, they attempted to stir the farmer of Canada up against the inhabitant of the city, the employee in the industries; and they tried to make the farmer believe that he was being bled white by the manufacturers, by the city men. Fortunately, to-the credit of the farmer be it said, they were unsuccessful in that effort. The farmers and the fishermen of Canada recognized the fact that there must be various classes of people in this country if this country was to strive, that there must be factories as well as farms; and they refused to yield to the appeals of hon. gentlemen opposite, and hon. gentlemen opposite, -in despair, have decided now to change their tactics. The hon. member for Halifax frankly admitted a year or two ago that he had taken a census of the two and found in Canada more consumers than producers of food; and so his party has decided to throw down the producer of food, the fishermen and farmer, and to make a strong bid for the votes of the consumer. So he has discovered that food, farm products and fish, are too expensive in Canada, and too expensive by reason of the taxes and duties, and he says that if these duties were removed these foods would be cheaper. That is the policy that hon. gentlemen opposite now present to the country. In this particular debate it is the matter of potatoes that claims the attention particularly of the hon. member for Halifax. He expressed a great deal of scorn and indignation at the Minister of Finance for not exercising the power which he has of suspending the duty on potatoes and allowing American potatoes to come into this country free of duty, in order that the price of potatoes might be reduced to the consumer. Potatoes are expensive in this country at the present time, particularly in eastern Canada, for the reason assigned yesterday by the hon. member for Prince, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes).
Potatoes are expensive in Canada to-day because of the fact that last year there was an almost -total failure of the potato crop. There were only about one-quarter of the potatoes grown in Nova Scotia last year that arejisually grown there, and by reason

of that fact the price is juist twice as high as it was last year. The loss which followed from a shortage of the crop is made up half by the farmer and half by the consumer. Is that not perfectly fair? But my hon. friends opposite would put the entire burden on the farmers, and wouild compel them to sell the potatoes at the price which they would have got if the crop had been a full one. Is that fair to the farmer?
My hon. friends opposite object very seriously to the imposition of an increased tariff on apples. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) objected to the imposition of this duty on the ground that it will not benefit the fruit growers in the province of Nova Scotia. Even if that assertion were correct, I would conceive that it might still he in the interests of the people of Canada to impose such a tariff, because I believe that, in these matters, there should be no sectional or provincial feeling, but that they should be judged from the standpoint of the greatest good to the whole community. But my hon. friend is absolutely wrong when he says that the imposition of an increased tariff bn apples will not benefit the condition of the fruit growers in Nova Scotia, I am prepared to admit that the fruit grower in Nova Scotia stands in a somewhat better position than the fruit grower of Ontario or of British Columbia.
I believe that apples can be grown more cheaply in Nova Scotia than in any other part of the country, and I believe that they can be grown better. Besides, the apples of Nova Scotia are grown nearer to a great market, the British market, and therefore it' is quite possible that the fruit grower in Nova Scotia does not need protection so much as the fruit grower in other parts of Canada. But the prices during the last few years have gone down, and there is no money in fruit growing at the present crisis, and that fact has convinced them that there is a necessity for some such step as has been taken by the Minister of Finance. I have had a number of letters from fruit growers in Nova Scotia all of whom are entirely in favour of the change and heartily grateful to the Minister of Finance for proposing it.
I think, Sir, that it is a tremendous tribute to the statesmanship of this Government that they have shown so much concern for the farmer. I do not believe that any government in the Dominion of Canada, ever showed as much concern for the farmer as the present Government have shown, and I think that that fact is very

much to its credit, and a very great tribute to its statesmanship at the present time. If this country is to recover from the strain of this war, if it is going to be a great and glorious country, as we believe it is, its greatness and its glory must, at first, be largely achieved by the development of agriculture. We have great agricultural possibilities, and as soon as we can induce our own people to flock to the farms in greater numbers, as soon as we can attract greater immigration from . abroad to the farms, our country will begin to prosper. The Government cannot be better employed than in developing rural mail deliveries and parcel post, and in building good roads and extending the other favours that the present Government have extended to the farmer. They cannot be better employed than in making the agricultural industry popular with the people, because there is a great deal of truth in the statement of the American orator that if you burn down the cities and leave the farms, the cities will spring again as if by magic; but if you destroy the farms, it will not be long before the grass will grow in the city streets.
Hon. gentlemen opposite object to an insufficient reduction of expenditure by the present Government. A Government should keep a level head in respect to such matters at the present time. Often it is the poorest economy to cut down expenditures; there is truth in the saying that too rigid an economy is often the greatest extravagance. The hon. member for Halifax stated that the credit of this country was being destroyed by the fact that the Government were not making more radical reductions in expenditures. I would like to have asked the hon. gentleman, if he had been present, if he really thinks that this country would improve its credit by allowing its public works to fall into disrepair, by allowing them to remain unfinished, or by breaking contracts. I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite if our credit would not be injured by that sort of procedure rather than by going forward in a sensible and courageous manner to finish those public works. My hon. friend from Halifax gave an instance to show that the increased expenditures were affecting our credit prejudicially. This is what he said:
When the Minister of Finance made his loan of $45,000,000 in New York last July, I understand that J. P. Morgan & Company sent their representatives here to investigate the revenues and expenditures of the country. Street rumour has it that they were astounded at the vast sums of money expended in this country for unproductive purposes.

That is what the financial critic of the Opposition, speaking for his party, said in this House. There is no hon. gentleman _ on the opposite side of the House who makes a greater pretense to be fair than the hon. member for Halifax. Had the hon gentleman believed the truthfulness of this rumour it would have been hardly dignified, or patriotic to have quoted to the detriment of his country's credit without careful investigation. But as a matter of fact, the hon. gentleman had under his hand at the time evidence to show that this street gossip, if it existed, was absolutely wrong. What are the facts? After Mr. Morgan, or his agents, had made the investigation which they are reported to have made, he loaned this country money on most favourable terms. The bonds of this country were bought by him at a price, I think, from 99i to 99i, and only a few weeks afterwards, when the Anglo-French loan was floated, the combined credit of France and Great Britain could only command from this same capitalist a price of 96R
That proves conclusively that there was absolutely nothing in the street rumour, and it is a splendid tribute to the credit of this country, and to the way in which this loan was managed, that these Canadian bonds sold at a much higher figure than bonds of two such great financial powers as Great Britain and France.
One of the methods of reducing the expenditure which my hon. friend suggested was to curtail the advertising. He said that too much money was being distributed among the papers supporting the Government. I wish to say that in my judgment advertising is a poor item to practise economy on. I think that every business house in the country will agree that this is the last thing to curtail in. I know of no Government that ever invested money more wisely in advertising than did the present Government last year. How did they spend that money? One item of expenditure was in regard to advertising the advantages of the apple, in order to encourage the use of apples. Will hon. gentlemen say that that expenditure should not have been incurred? Another expenditure was incurred in conducting the " patriotism and production " campaign. Will the hon. gentlemen object to that expenditure? In speaking of unnecessary expenditures, the hon. gentleman says:
For instance, witness the large amount disbursed last year for advertising and printing to the press which supports the ministry.
Why did he confine criticism to the distribution of money to the press which supports the Ministry? I would like to ask hon. gentlemen opposite if money paid to the Government press is any greater strain upon the treasury than money paid to the Opposition press. While hon. gentlemen opposite have no objection at all to money being distributed amongst the Opposition press, they have a great deal of fault to find with the distribution of money amongst the press which supports the Government.


Mr. CARROLL:: How much was distributed to the Opposition press?


Avard Longley Davidson: I am not able to tell the hon. gentleman how much, but it was a very considerable sum, and I can tell him also that the very gentleman who made the criticism, the hon. junior member for Halifax, was one of the beneficiaries of this kind of advertising and that both of the papers owned by him, which are very much opposed to the Government at the present time-whether they are doing the Government any harm or not is another question- have received considerable amounts on account of advertising.
The hon. gentleman also asserted that the Post Office Department should be run in a much more economical manner I want briefly to refer to the items which account for what may be regarded as increases in the post office expenditures. I find that the expenditures for the year ended March 31, 1915, were greater than the expenditures for the previous year by about $3,000,000. I find that this increased expenditure is practically accounted for by four items: conveyance of mails by land, conveyance of mails by railway, salaries by cheques, and rural mail boxes. These four expenditures account for an increase of $3,068,214.73. Let us examine these items. First, there is the conveyance of mails by land. What was the cause of that expenditure? The cause of that expenditure was the introduction of rural mail delivery. Will hon. gentlemen object to that? As a matter of fact, when the proposal was before the House hon. gentlemen opposite did not give it their opposition. The second item is the conveyance of mails by railway. That is due to the introduction of the parcel post. For a number of years the railway companies had been claiming that the basis upon which they were paid was unsatisfactory. That matter went along for quite a while, but with the introduction of parcel post this Government had to

make new terms with the railway companies, with the result that this expenditure was incurred. But hon. gentlemen opposite did not object to the introduction of the parcel post system. Another item is in connection with salaries paid by cheques to outside officials of the department. This increase was due to two or three Acts which passed this House since the change of Government, providing for increased salaries for outside employees, and no member on the other side of the House voted, against one of these Bills. The fourth item is for rural mail boxes, which the Government have purchased to the amount of $450,000, and which sum they will get back again from the users of the boxes. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about being fair. Personally I try to be fair, and I admire fairness in debate, but the brand of fairness that prompts hon. gentlemen to support legislation in this House calling for expenditure, and which then leads them to criticise the Government for making the expenditure under such legislation, is a brand of fairness that will not appeal to this House or to the country.
I am amazed at hon. gentlemen criticising particularly that item of expenditure in the Post Office Department under the head of " Conveyance of mails by land." They contend that these contracts now are let at enormous rates, without competition, and that they are let to others than the lowest tenderers. I can speak but for my own constituency, but in that constituency there is not a case where a contract for carrying the mails has been given to other than the man who agreed to do it for the least money, and I do not believe there is any hon. gentleman opposite who can cite a solitary case to the contrary anywhere in Canada. I believe that in every instance the contracts have been awarded by the Post Office Department to the people who have agreed to carry the mails for the lowest amount. After all, do hon. gentlemen want to make this country believe that the mail couriers are getting too much for their services? If there is one class of people in Canada who are underpaid, it seems to me that they are the people who carry the mails. Hon. gentlemen opposite have a great deal of sympathy for companies with a capitalization of over $50,000 who do not get more than seven per cent on their investment, but I would like them to point out to me in all Canada a single mail courier who gets seven per cent upon his investment. Hon. gentlemen have oceans of tears for interests with a $50,000
fMr. Davidson.]
capitalization who do not get seven per cent upon their investment, but they have not even a sigh fbr the poor courier who, in .rain and shine, in winter and summer, bumps over the rocks in some oases for fifty cents a day. This is not the first time we have heard hon. gentlemen opposite complain of the Government's extravagance, and demand a reduction in expenditure. Only a few months before this war broke out, when the Minister if Militia, with prophetic vision, was trying to prepare Canada for the calamity of war in which we are engulfed to-day, hon. gentlemen opposite from the member from Halifax down, criticised the Government for its militia expenditures. They occupied the time of this House for hour after hour, criticising the Government for introducing the military system into Canada, and protesting against the expenditure on the militia. I do not wish to say that hon. gentleman were disloyal in that course. I do not believe they said what they said with a full knowledge of the seriousness of it; but I think they are bound to admit now that they were wrong; that the words they used on them if they had any effect at all, had the effect of throwing obstacles in the way of the Minister of Militia, who was patriotically going about his duty of preparing the country for the peril. And I think hon. gentlemen opposite ought to reason with themselves that if their utterances on that occasion were so exceedingly unfortunate, there is also a very strong possibility that their words to-day may be equally mischievous.
The other night we listened with a great deal of pleasure to the eloquent remarks made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and it strikes me that what made those words of his grip our very hearts was the fact that they were in agreement with every public act of his, with every public utterance he has made during his long and useful public career. I think hon. gentlemen who heard those words of eloquence and high resolve must have been reminded of other words which the Minister of Trade and Commerce had used only a few months before in closing an important speech in an important debate:
In the event of such a contingency, and if the day of Armageddon came and caught us napping, I would like to have the consciousness that I am free from the remorse which would lie heavily upon me if I had been party to or contributed in that fatal delay.
Mr. Speaker, Armageddon is here, and there is no responsibility on the Minister

of Trade and Commerce, there is no responsibility on this Government, there is no responsibility on members on this side of the House. But what about the other side of the House?


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: What about
Drummond and Arthabaska?


Avard Longley Davidson: Does not the hon. member for Red Deer realize that a tremendous responsibility rests upon him?


Michael Clark: I think a great deal more responsibility rests upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce for his action in. the Drummond and Arthabaska by-election.


Avard Longley Davidson: If in the light of what has taken place, if the hon. member for Red Deer and other hon. gentlemen opposite do not possess remorse, I say the Opposition are a lazaretto of incurables whose sensibilities have been deadened by a leprosy, and I am afraid their case is hopeless.


Mr. TURRIFF:: Why did you dismantle the Niobe?


Avard Longley Davidson: Because, like the opposition that is put up by hon. gentlemen opposite, it was absolutely no good and of no benefit whatever. I am sorry if I have said anything to cause heart burnings among hon. gentlemen opposite. If they would only admit their folly, I would forgive them with a glad heart. Notwithstanding the mistakes hon. gentlemen opposite have made in the past, and which in their heart of hearts I believe they sincerely grieve over now, the country, thank God, is to-day united from the Atlantic to the Pacific, united in consciousness of our right, united in loyalty to the Empire, united in the determination to endure whatever hardships may come before us until the day of victory dawns.
Mr. LUCIEN T. PACAUD (Megantic): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with curiosity, if not with surprise, to the speech of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davidson) who has just taken his seat. I had previously listened to a speech delivered this afternoon by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Boulay), and it is this latter speech which I should like to answer in a few words. It strikes me that, were we to analyse the speech of the hon. member for Rimouski, there would - be perhaps only three observations to make. In the first place, the hon. member was against the participation of Canada in the wars of the Empire before the war started:
to-day, when the war is on, he tolerates its existence, at which I am sure every hon. member will be very much gratified; and thirdly, the observation which seems to crown the other two is that he intends to continue to support the Government as he has done in the past, without any wavering and without any scruples of conscience. As this is the first occasion I have had of speaking in this House on the great issue which overshadows all others to-day, perhaps I may be permitted to lay special, stress on a few considerations which have impressed me still more deeply since the beginning of this debate. In the month of August, 1914, at the very outset of the greatest conflict known in history, the Canadian people, listening alike to the voice of reason and of sentiment, did not hesitate in the course which they intended to follow. Every province of this Dominion came forward spontaneously and patriotically and offered their best in men and in money. They understood, Sir, that if civilization, if justice, if liberty as we have conceived it, were to be maintained as the guiding star of our future destinies, a new and powerful enemy which had challeneged these lofty conceptions of human standard and opposed to them a new creed as hollow as it was barbarous, and which may be summarized in three words " Might is right," had to be crushed and crushed forever. In a word, we knew and felt, as we know and feel to-day, that in entering into this great struggle Canada was fighting not only for Canada, she was fighting not only for the Empire, but, above all, to maintain in this world all the great moral forces menaced, imperilled, and opposed by the German conception of "brute force." But, while from the very first our vision has been clear as to the justice of our cause, and as to the part we must take to insure its ultimate triumph, the speech delivered by the hon. Minister of Finance in this House a few days ago has revealed to us a situation which, if not sufficient in its gravity to deter us from our course-our national character knows not such weakness as to be deterred from the true course -has nevertheless stirred the public mind of this country to demand a radical and immediate change in so far as our national expenditure is concerned.
Let us stop for a moment to consider a single feature of the financial statement. We shall have added to our public debt in the short space of three years the enormous sum of $485,000,000. To understand the true meaning of these figures we can do

no better than to compare them with the public debt of Canada in 1914, just previous to the war. The public debt at that time, which represented all our capital expenditures, which represented the cost of most of our great national enterprises, which covered a period of over fifty years of our national life, reached only $335,000,000. In the space of three years, at the end of the fiscal year 1917, the public debt will, in all probability, have reached $1,000,000,000, with the corollary that we shall be obliged to raise annually nearly $50,000,000 to meet the interest on that debt. In the face of such enormous expenditures is there not good reason for the serious reflection of every member of this House? Are we not justified in pleading with the Government for economy and for still more economy in so far as our civil Estimates are concerned? This appeal was made to the Government last year; it is repeated this year with equal force and with equal justification. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) a few days ago admitted, in his admirable and eloquent speech, that there were expenditures now, that there had been expenditures from Confederation up, which had been put in the Estimates, which had been passed by this House, which had been carried by this country, but which were neither useful nor expedient. If such expenditures, if such waste of the people's money were tolerated in the past, we were surely at fault; but, to-day, in this our hour of trial, when the people of Canada are more heavily taxed than they have ever been taxed before, when the sword of Damocles seems to hang over the head of every business man in this country in the form of new taxation, unjust, unfair and arbitrary, as during this debate it has been proved to be, it would be no less than a crime to continue in the old system which appears to us to-day in its true and hideous colours. Yet the Government continues in its extravagant course. For the coming year the Estimates for our ordinary expenditures will reach the sum of $159,000,000, the largest figures since Confederation. The hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) demonstrated clearly that millions of dollars could be saved. He singled out in the Estimates items which should be set aside; he mentioned others which should be considerably reduced; but there is an old saying which seems to apply to the present Government:
' There are none so deaf as those who will 
not hear." The Government should, in the face of a national crisis, have the courage to rise to a height where the evil influence of party patronage will lose its sway and relax its grip; or, will the Government continue as they have been doing in the past, alternating between a menace and a submission, one day full of fight, threatening the [DOT] Canadian people with a general election, very much against their will, the next day miraculously transformed, having become so meek and mild that they cannot muster sufficient courage to shoulder in whole or in part their responsibility in the creation of our shell committees. May I suggest that this continual vacillation on the part of the Government is not at all in keeping with the strenuous times which we are now confronting.
I now come to another point. I have heard it said and repeated many times that the province of Quebec has not done her share in this war; that she has not lent a sympathetic ear to the appeals of the recruiting agent. This asertion is false; it has no foundation in fact; it was launched and spread throughout this country by a few, fortunately only a few, whose narrowness of mind is a continual danger to our country. In a previous debate we heard what the province of Quebec had accomplished in this war, and it is needless for me to repeat it. It is sufficient for me to tell this House that my province has remained true to herself; that her devotion and loyalty to the British Crown has not wavered; that she is in this war with all her heart and soul. Let us not minimize the part that the province of Quebec has taken in this war. Let us in this country, on the contrary, welcome with pride the part that the old province of Quebec has played. If the facts were known, I think that every hon. member would accept the statement that I have just made.
For six years the province of Quebec witnessed the bitterest of political agitations. The French Canadians were told, day in and day out, that Canada should not. take part in any wars of the Empire, but that the obligations of our country were limited by our own boundaries. This was the language used; these were the sentiments uttered; these were the doctrines of the Nationalist party. This campaign of hatred and prejudice may have succeeded in winning a few more votes, it may have resulted in the downfall of a political party, it may have helped this Government to attain office; but let us take off our hats and be

proud that the French Canadians had a loyalty which these gentlemen could not shake.
Who were the leaders and who the followers of that party? Let us go down the long and well-known list. It is hardly conceivable, and yet it is true, that in this list we find two cabinet ministers, representing the province of Quebec in this Government, sharing in the responsibilities of conducting this war, and pursuing a policy which for six years they had openly and violently criticised and condemned- In this list we find at least twenty members sitting in this House, supporting this Government whom they were sent here specially for the purpose of defeating. I touch upon these points, not for the purpose of raising old issues-this is not the time for that-but to show what difficulties had to be surmounted in my province, what prejudices had to be overcome; and to show also what doubts have arisen in the minds of those who live in my province, when they see that the men coming before them are speaking in favour of taking part in this war are now the happy possessors of cabinet portfolios, who when they were ordinary representatives of the people condemned absolutely the very views that they aTe propounding to-day in the province of Quebec. The hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Blondin) has not yet told us in this House by what means he achieved the remarkable feat that has marked him out in our province as a political acrobat of no mean talent. The Minister of Inland Revenue (Mt. Patenaude) on the other hand, has tried to explain.. He spoke, but his words did not convey to us that which we had the right to expect, a full and sincere confession. He preferred to draw a veil over the many political heresies which he had propounded in the province of Quebec; and he concluded his remarks with a plea to the House and to the country for us all to forget and forgive. No, the province of Quebec will not forget, nor will it forgive. The day of chastisement has not yet come. I know the old province of Quebec well enough to know that it will remain true to its past traditions. It will not be turned from its course by any just anger it may have against these ministers who misrepresent it in this Government or against the members behind the Government. The people of Quebec will continue to fight for Canada and the Empire. But the day will come when the cannon's- Toar will cease, when the threat of German
world-dominion will be a thing of the past; the day when Canadians will enjoy peace, liberty and freedom at home, and the people will get together to work for the upbuilding of our common country; when the English and the French languages will be put on the same footing and will be taught freely without difference. And when that day comes, the day when we shall enjoy in this country the blessings of that happy culmination of liberty regulated by law, and law enlightened by liberty,-then, I say, will come the day when just punishment will be meted out to those who so richly deserve it.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Victoria, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, I followed with great attention the speech of the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Boulay) this afternoon, and I must say that I was at a loss to understand his views on the important subjects dealt with in the Budget. The hon. member for Rimouski seems to represent the views of his electors every time he speaks against the Government. When he speaks he finds fault either with the individual ministers or with the general policy of the Government, but when the time to vote comes he gets up and votes for the Government. It appears, to me that when he is speaking in the House he represents the views of his electors, but when he is voting he represents the views of the hon. member for Rimouski. My hon. friend has taken the trouble to state that he visited St. John during the past summer and inspected the port there. He has visited and has seen many things, and there are many things he has not seen; there are many things he has seen and not understood, and no doubt while he saw the port of St. John, he did not understand whether it was a good seaport or not. The Minister of Marine and Fishery may not have understood all that my hon. friend said about the port of St. John, but I feel sure that the hon. minister will be able to look after that port when the time comes. There is one thing that we may always expect from the hon. member (Mr. Boulay), and it is that he will be glad to and ready to vote a big estimate for the development of the port of St. John every time he has an opportunity. I followed closely, also, the speech of the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson). I was amused at his remarks in reference to the hon. member from Maisonneuve (Mr. COMMONS
Verville). My friend from Maisonneuve represents the labour class in this House, and this afternoon he delivered a thoughtful and earnest address upon the subject of the extremely high cost of bread and the hardship it entailed on the working man; but yet my hon. friend from Annapolis said that the hon. member had not obeyed his mandate as a labour man in this House. I can assure the hon. member from Annapolis that the hon. member for Maisonneuve will return to this House next Parliament, and that there is a great probability that there will be more labour members, from the province of Nova Scotia, in that Parliament.
I was much interested in the remarks of the Minister of Finance during his Budget speech, but I shall discuss only a few of the important subjects which most deeply concern the country at this hour. We have lately been spending large sums; we have been sending our soldiers to the front and taxing ourselves for that purpose, and our generosity has no limit. We are again called upon to tax the Canadian people heavily in order to meet the heavy expense of keeping our soldiers at the front. Canada is better known to-day than before this war, simply because in Flanders and in France no nation striving for liberty and freedom has done more than our Canadian soldiers. Soon there will be an end to this great struggle, I hope, and what have we done to prepare for the return 'of our soldiers? Many speeches have been delivered in the country during the last summer by the ministers, and not one of them, omitted to point out the great importance of having a large immigration come to Canada after the war. Before we look for immigration into this country after the war, we should put the country in a good financial position, we should look after our natural resources and prepare to take care' of the widows and orphans of our soldiers on the conclusion of the war. I have been interested since the war began in what I may term national economy. Go into any city in Canada to-day and you find no difference in the way of living amongst the rich class of people, the class of people who have a fair revenue from year to year. It is the poorer class of people who are making the greatest sacrifices during this conflict. It is the poorer people who are really bearing the great burden of the war. We have increased the cost of their living by increasing the tariff, but we have never for a moment thought of increasing their salaries or wages in order that they may bear the increased burden of the cost of 
living. The sons of the labour man and of the farmer are in the majority in the trenches to-day. A great number of them will soon come back, I hope, and what arrangements have we made for them on their return? The attention which is to-day being devoted to immigration should be given entirely to these returning soldiers, their wives and their children. It is the children of our soldiers who will, in the near future, partly decide the destiny of this country. Among the soldiers who have enlisted from my own town there are two who have left families, one of eight children and another of seven. All they have fox their support for the moment is the pay of their fathers and what is given them from the Patriotic Fund. For the present that is very satisfactory; but let us look into the future. What happens to these children if their fathers fall on the field of battle? They will have mothers who are poor, left to look after them, and I say it is a deplorable position for these families if the country does not at once fake steps to look after them. Let us not depend too much on immigration from Europe after the war. The soldiers of Britain, France, Belgium, Serbia, and other countries who have joined the Allies, will not be permitted to oome to Canada after the war. Those who are between the ages of 18 and 45 will be needed at home, they will have to return to the soil and to industrial pursuits. They will have to rebuild the country devastated by the enemy, and I predict' that for a long while we in this country will have a very small immigration. We do not want any one above the age of 40 or 50 coming into the country, not do we want any one below 18. We do not want orphans and widows, and I repeat, that we will be greatly disappointed in out expectations of immigration after the war from the countries now engaged in this struggle. What will be our financial standing after the war? A year from now we will have a debt of one billion dollars.
What is true of the different nations of Europe is also true of Canada in reference to what will happen after the war. I have in my possession the opinion of an American subject. It is given in an article entitled " A Glimpse at the Future," and is as follows:
The demand for capital will not increase (in, the aggregate) in Europe after the war, but' will decline. It will decline absolutely, far more than the supply. For this reason interest rates will more likely fall to a low level and remain there for a long time, rather than rise or even hold at the relatively high levels ex-

isting during the actual hostilities while the government are floating their big loans. A -[DOT] demand for capital " means a producer whose market has so broadened that he can profitably borrow money to increase his producing capacity; or it means that his customers are buying so freely that he needs to carry a larger stock of goods. In short, it means, for business generally, an enlarged demand for goods. Now the direct effect of war is not to increase demand or buying capacity, but rather to impoverish a country to such an extent that people everywhere buy less of everything. In consequence, producer, dealer and transporter all have less to do, and because of this none of them need much or any new capital. Consequently, demand for capital falls flat and interest rates range at low levels.
If this is the case, it is another reason why we should go slowly when we consider what will happen after the war is over and what is now best to be done. Sir George Paish said lately:
The money which has not been saved constitutes an enormous loss. That may be said to be gone for ever. The loss of the greater part of the world's entire savings for even eighteen months is a very serious matter and its seriousness will become more and more intense the longer the war lasts and the period of loss extends.
I say then, Mr. Speaker, that when war was declared, this Government should have given an example of economy. Parties found guilty of handling improperly public money should have been punished. The man found with goods belonging to the Canadian people should be punished. Companies organized for the purpose of manufacturing munitions of war at a profit greater than that of an ordinary business firm should not be tolerated. The high cost of living should be studied, and a remedy at once applied in order to help out those who have not a sufficient revenue to support their families in comfort.
If this war should unfortunately make many Canadian millionaires, it will be a sad page in the history of Canada. The future generation, the sons of our soldiers who are at the front, will be called upon to pay the war debt, and it would be a pity to see them living alongside the sons of millionaires who had made their fortunes out of war munitions.
I read with surprise a report of the failures in the United States during the year 1915. There were 19,035 reported, an increase of 13.4 per cent over 1914. Our big neighbours to the South of us are certainly showing us an example in the matter of preparing for the future and of practising economy. In a country like the United States, which has received from the Allies millions of dollars on war contracts,-and
which had only an average crop last year, it is not surprising that the question of the high cost of living has arisen, and it will have to be solved there in the same manner as in Canada.
The Government have endeavoured to do their duty in every manner possible in reference to helping out the Mother Country and the Allies in this great war. The fathers, mothers, young men, and young women of this country are doing all they can. The Canadian people have shown a noble example to the world, and have done their duty with cheerfulness, and in the true spirit of patriotism. We should, Sir, at this very moment study what is one of the greatest questions in Canada to-day, the question of national economy. We should endeavour to find a remedy to meet the conditions that will arise after the war. We will certainly do ourselves a great injustice if we do not prepare just now for the future. We are not anxious to disturb the public mind, but the public mind has been disturbed, already by the high cost of living, and if a remedy is not applied immediately we will have, in the future, great hardships amongst the poorer classes of Canada. When the times were prosperous a man earning $1.75 or $2 a day could very well afford to pay for the necessaries of life, but now he is earning $1.50 and $1.75 a day and has to face an increase of between forty and fifty per cent in the cost of living. So that, if things go on in the same way, we will be called upon before long to take down the wall of protection an^ to give free entry to foodstuffs into Canada in ordeT to meet the requirements of the poorer classes.
At the beginning of the war the Canadian people were rather taken by surprise when our boys were called upon to take -up arms and to cross the ocean, but since then there has grown1 a feeling of determination, and the people have just one object in view, and that is to see our great armies triumph over our enemies.


Hon. GEORGE GRAHAM (South Renfrew) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I can add anything to what has been said by hon. members on both sides of the House in regard to what is known as the Budget. It is a practice and a right guaranteed to members of a legislative body like ours that in the Budget debate we can roam far afield in the discussion and deal with any question that we think appertains to the welfare of the people of the country.

It is right that that should be so, because on the matter of the speech of the Finance Minister depends the financial future of the country. He is supposed to be the balance wheel, financially, at least, in the Government, and he is. expected to keep in subjection the unruly members of that body. Those who desire to spend money which they have not, and which they see no way of getting except by pressing the Finance Minister to make another loan, are supposed fo listen to the warnings of the Finance Minister, if he gives those warnings, and to keep the expenditure within the limits which he, in his judgment, says the finances of the country are able to stand. I regret that, with the present Government, either the Finance Minister is not sufficiently strong, or the members are too unruly, because he has not been able to keep them in subjection as far as their expenditure is concerned. Even this session they ask to have a statute passed to expend $28,000,000 more than the Finance Minister tells us ought to be spent. We have tried, as each minister presented his Estimates, to induce him to meet the demands of the Finance Minister by telling the House frankly whether he, in his department, intends to synchronize his expenditure with the statement of the Finance Minister. Up to date no member of the Government has agreed, in so far as his expenditure is concerned, with the statement of the Finance Minister. Even the docile Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) refuses to have his Estimates cut down to the extent of $500. When such a quiet-mannered member of the Government as the head of the Justice Department will not agree to have his expenditure reduced even a little to meet the requirements of the Minister of Finance, what, oh what, can be expected of the large spending departments?
The Minister of Finance, in his remarks, dealt briefly and succinctly with questions of vital interest to the country at the present moment, and with the problems that have confronted us, do confront us and will increasingly confront us for some years to come. He spoke of the loan by which Canada borrowed $45,000,000 in the United States. There possibly were two reasons for going to the United States. One reason was to regulate, as far as possible, the difficult question of exchange, and the other was, if I may hint it mildly, that the atmosphere in the Old Land had grown quite cool when it came to borrowing for domestic purposes even by Canada. I 
believe it is not going too far afield to say that at the time this money was required, it was the opinion of the money market in England that Canada should adopt other means in order to finance her own domestic affairs because the burden on the Motherland in financing herself, in granting the aid which she has given to Canada, and in assisting some of the Allies, was already sufficiently great for even that great centre of financial strength to assume. I am not sure that the Finance Minister made a very good bargain in connection with that loan. I read carefully the terms of the provincial loan by the Hon. Thomas McGaa-ry, and, comparing them, I rather think, to put it in ordinary language, that he got a shade on the Finance Minister in a transaction that he made with the New York financiers. The loan made by the Dominion of Canada in New York was ostensibly a short date loan coming due in 1917, but, as a matter of fact, these securities are negotiable for securities having a thirty-five year term at 5 per cent; so that if the New York investor desires, he can convert his short term loan into a long term one at the ordinary rate of interest of 5 per cent, which means that Canada expects to pay not less than 5 per cent for her money for the next thirty-five years. That is not as good an arrangement for Canada, in so far as the interest is concerned at least, as if it were a short term loan.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: Will my hon.
friend allow me to correct him? The bonds mature in 1935, but they are twenty-year bonds.


George Perry Graham: My statement with reference to the term then should be corrected by saying that the bonds are for twenty years. They mature in 1935, but you extend the term of this short loan for twenty years. Then there was the loan of $50,000,000 from the people of Canada. The Finance Minister asked for $50,000,000 but he got $100,000,000. The request that the people should hand into the treasury $50,000,000 met with such a hearty response that they doubled the amount. That shows that the people not only had the money, but they were willing to lend it to the Dominion Government, some of them to withdraw it from the other investments that were paying a higher rate of interest than the Government were proposing to pay which, I believe, is approximately 5J per cent considering the price of the security. I do not wish to criticise the Government on this point especially but I think it was hardly proper that, having

asked the people for $50,000,000, they should impound $50,000,000 more and make it $100,000,000. I know the Finance Minister will say to me: We sent a notice to every investor that we would al.'<:w him to v/ith-draw the amount of his subscription to this loan if he so desired, and thus it might have been reduced to $50,000,000, but that few, if any, did withdraw their subscriptions. One can see at a glance the position in which you place the investor. After having said to the Government: I will subscribe a certain amount, he could not very well, without placing himself in a peculiar position, withdraw that proposition and ask that his subscription should be smaller. I know that no public objection has been taken, and I am not taking serious objection to it, but financial men in discussing it will want to know the next time the Finance Minister asks for a certain amount if he is going to double up on it. They make their arrangements along certain lines and it must be remembered that some of these institutions withdrew investments that were paying a higher rate of interest in order to give the money to the Government at a lower rate of interest.
My hon. friend referred to the balance of trade but I hardly think that he will follow that argument to its logical conclusion. If the argument of my hon. friend be correct, then the longer this war lasts the better off Canada will be. The balance of trade to-day is diie to -the abnormal condition in which we find ourselves. It is not due to the natural development of trade; no person pretends it is. The Minister of Finance himself, I thought, made the wonderful admission-I think it has been practically repeated by every member who has spoken on that side of the House-that Canada, at the outbreak of the war, was in a critical position financially and industrially.
If I wished to say a word politically, I might say that it was a strong admission the Finance Minister made, that, after three years of the management of his Government Canada found herself in a more critical position than she had been since his party was in power before. As a matter of fact, everybody knows we were in a critical condition, both industrially and financially. Then the war broke out, and very large orders came for different kinds of war material. The balance of trade which the Finance Minister pointed to is due to these two things: first, the large crop in the West, and secondly the immense value of The war orders we have received. But my
hon. friend may say to me:	If you have
got the money for the grain and. the money for the war munitions, if your theory be correct, why don't you purchase imports and reduce the balance of trade? Sir, the world knows that the money received by Canada during the past year was not used to buy imports for the reason that, in the first place, they had to pay their debts of three years' standing, and secondly, the balance of the money received had to be devoted to the prosecution of the war; it is on account of these two things that the so-called balance of trade is in our favour. After all, this question of balance of trade might be argued for months and years, and it has ben so argued. Under normal conditions, if we import goods to take the place of a certain amount of goods we have exported to a foreign country, we are prosperous rather than otherwise. As outlined by the Finance Minister, we have this year a balance of trade of $200,000,000 in our favour, while some years ago we had an adverse balance. Now, I should like to ask any business man here which period in the history of Canada he would prefer: the present period with the so-called balance of trade in our favour, or the period of much greater prosperity a few years ago, when the so-called balance of trade was adverse. Theorists may theorize, but the fact is that when trade flows freely to and fro between countries, business is in a healthy condition. I do not think much of this balance of trade theory, because we, as a practical people, have to face in our every-day living conditions and not theories, and the history of our country shows that year after year prosperity has come to the high and the low, to the rich and poor, even when the so-called balance of trade was adverse.
The. Finance Minister gave us some good advice in his Budget speech, and I know he will pardon me if I read a paragraph to the House. On page 847 of Hansard, speaking of economy and economic conditions generally, he says:
From this viewpoint it is our true policy to augment our financial strength by multiplying our productive exertions, and by exercising a rigid economy which reduces to the minimum all expenditures upon luxuries and non-essentials. Only in this way shall we be able to make good the loss caused by the withdrawal of so many of our workers from industrial activities, repair the wastage of the war, and find the funds for its continuance. It cannot be too frequently or too earnestly impressed upon our people that the heaviest burdens of the conflict still lie before us, and that industry and thrift are, for those who remain at home, supreme patriotic duties upon which faithful fu'fliment

our sueess and consequently our national safety may ultimately depend.
Apart altogether from these higher grounds, it is to be pointed out that in so far as our present prosperity is based upon abnormal prices for our produce and upon the production of war material, it is precarious and transient, and dependent upon the continuance of the war and its conditions. On ordinary business grounds alone, the prudent husbanding of resources,- and the wise conservation of profits, are dictated by the plainest considerations of practical wisdom and good sense. It is in the spirit of these remarks that I now approach the consideration of our financial estimates and programme for the coming year.
I agree with every word of that. But the Government do not take to heart the good advice which they and the Finance Minister give to the rest of the people of Canada. They say to us: If you indulge in luxuries cut them out and buy only necessities, be economical; if you have made profits store them away. Now, I will put it to the Finance Minister-but no, I need not put it to him, for be has already admitted the soundness of my argument when he said that present conditions were precarious, and only temporary, and that we should provide for the future. But I will put it to the Minister of Marine, the Minister of Labour, or the Solicitor General: If the ordinary man in Canada ought to take the advice of the Finance Minister and cut out his luxuries would it not be wise for the heads of Government departments to do the same thing, and cut off luxuries from their Estimates? The Minister of Finance has undoubtedly pleaded with them in Council to do so, but they will not take his advice. The Finance Minister tells Parliament and the country that at least $30,000,000 of these Estimates are luxuries. I therefore ask the Government to follow the wise advice of their own Finance Minister, and before they pro' ceed any further with the Estimates to get together for the national good, and cut out the luxuries in these Estimates. As the Finance Minister well points out, it is only by sacrifices that we can hope to bear the burdens of the war, the heaviest of which are still ahead, and in that way only can we hope to retain our position in the world as a country that knows no stopping in its national progress. The Finance Minister, in his Budget speech, estimated the year's expenditure at $160,000,000. We see, however, that the civil expenditure is estimated at $158,000,000, and the capital expenditure at $30,000,000, or a total of $188,000,000. There is, therefore, a chasm between the Finance Minister's Estimate of

$160,000,000 and the $188,000,000 of $28,000,000. When speaking of the Estimates just now I said that, according to the Finance Minister $30,000,000 were luxuries; to be accurate I should have said $28,000,000. I have every confidence that the Minister of Finance intends to keep the expenditure down to $160,000,000; but, if it is true that he intends to do- so, why are we, as responsible representatives of the people, asked to place on the statute book a law which gives the ministers a right to expend $28,000,000 which the Minister of Finance says they ought not, in the public interest, to expend. This is a serious matter in any deliberative assembly, particularly at a time of such great stress, when every man, woman and child in this great land is straining every nerve to do his or her utmost, so that the boys we have sent to the front not only may win glory for themselves, but may help to retain for us the great privileges and birthrights for which our fathers fought. We are not living under ordinary circumstances when a great deal of elasticity might be permitted; we are living in 'a time when we are all doing our best, and if the Government of Canada expects the people to husband their resources and practice the economy which the Government preaches, it ought to show an example and take out of the Estimates the $28,000,000 which there is no need to expend during the coming year.
We have expended more money than we should have expended, and we have had a good deal of discussion about the methods of expenditure in conection with war supplies. I do not wish to dilate on these matters at any great length, because my desire is that we, as a Parliament, should not be divided in the schemes- which we are trying to work out for the nation's good. What I am saying, I am saying in the most serious way to- endeavour to impress upon the Government what I think to be its duty in this trying time. I need not argue that millions of dollars have been expended that might have been saved. The Government must realize that, and I think no person realizes it more than those who sit around the council board and talk these matters over, and have before them	details which we on the outside have not been privileged to -see, and only fragments of which have come* under our notice.	To show that the
method of buying war supplies has not been right, I need only call the Prime Minister and his colleagues as witnesses.

It will be remembered that at the outbreak of the war the Militia Department made the purchases of war supplies. The Prime Minister himself came to the conclusion that that method of purchasing was not satisfactory, and almost at the very outset he was so informed by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Here is just one paragraph from a letter which Mr. Murray, secretary of the association, sent to the Prime Minister:
Stories that are going the rounds may have no foundation in fact, but the persistence with which they are being circulated, and the circumstantial detail with which they are being backed up, is creating a feeling of suspicion and distrust that is doing your Government real harm. I am quite prepared to believe that nothing, or at most very, very little, has been done to justify these suspicions, at the same time it would seem wise to remove all ground for suspicion by throwing the business wider open and by placing it in all instances with manufacturers direct instead of through middlemen.
The Minister of Militia in his recent speech in the House said that middlemen came to Ottawa by the score, and we all know that to be true. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association say that it was true, and, as they could not get at the buying department direct, if what Mr. Murray says is the truth, complaint was made to the Prime Minister. A little later on the Prime Minister must have agreed that there was something wrong with the method of purchasing, because he changed it and appointed a sub-committee of council, thus taking the work of purchasing out of the hands of the Militia Department in which it had previously been. That sub-committee took in hand the purchasing of war supplies and it was not long before some one found out that they were not equal to the task. To prove that, you need not take my word; you can take the word of the Government, practically of the Prime Minister himself, because he disbanded that sub-committee in a short time and appointed another, not confining himself to the members of the Government at all. I find that the Prime Minister had tried them all and found them all wanting, and that he said:	" If we want to do this
purchasing properly, we must go outside of the Government, because it does not seem to be made up of business men at all." Two-thirds or a majority of the board that was appointed is outside of the Government, and the chairman of the board is the hon. member for East Toronto (Hon. Mr. Kemp), Minister without Portfolio. I need not argue that the purchasing for many months was done improperly. The
action of the Prime Minister in dispensing with two organizations which he had formed for the purpose, and in appointing a third, proves my case more conclusively than if I talked for an hour. What has happened in Canada has started the Canadian people thinking, and the news which we received this evening shows that they are thinking. The issue in Peel county was solely on the point of the purchasing of supplies in the way of horse-flesh for our boys at the front, and to-day in that comparatively small county in Ontario a change of twelve hundred votes has resulted on th'at issue alone. What I am trying to convince the Government of at the present time is not of a political nature, but, the fact that the people of Canada have not been satisfied with the way in which the purchase of all kinds of war supplies has been conducted.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: It is a hard pill to
swallow.


George Perry Graham: In regard to taxation; I admit at the outset that we must find some new method of taxation to meet the great responsibilities and to carry the great burdens that are at present resting upon us, and which, as the Minister of Finance says, will become greater in the future. We need not plume ourselves on the fact that we have what is called a favourable trade balance. In the years to come we shall have to face the most serious condition that Canada has ever faced, a much more serious condition than confronts us at present. .We cannot retreat; there is no Canadian worthy of the name who would think of retreating. There must be no retreat by Canada until we gain what we are attempting to gain in this great fight in which we, along with the Allies, are engaged. Our business is now not to act from a party standpoint in the hope of gaining political advantatge, but calmly to try to find how we can get the money which we need and how we can get it from the sources that ought to pay it, - and that we need the money goes without saying.
Taxation is never welcome, and seldom is it distributed with absolute equity. Under our municipal institutions the rate of taxation is the same for every tax-payer in the municipality, but even so the taxes may not be equitable as they depend upon the assessment valuation. In most instances, the man in ordinary circumstances pays a little more than his share of the municpal taxes. Mr. A. owns a house and lot that, all told

is worth $1,200 and if it were to be sold tomorrow it would probably bring $1,000. It is a practical house, with no extra finish and fit for the occupancy of a man in ordinary circumstances and the assessor will probably put down the value of that property at $1,000. But Mr. B has a house which cost $50,000, yet he will probably escape with an assessment of $20,000, on the ground -for which there is some reason-that there are so few possible purchasers for a property of that kind that if it were put on the market it would not bring more than $20,000. But that does not alter the fact that the system results in the ordinary ma^ paying more than his relative share of the municipal taxes. I do not believe that we can expect perfect equality in whatever taxation is imposed, but I do believe that the Finance Minister ought not to consider himself wedded to what he has proposed merely because the Government has proposed it. This is apart from and beyond any party measure and it is proposed under conditions that do not permit of partisan discussion of it. The Finance Minister ought to have an open mind on this subject, and if something better is proposed he ought to accept it and welcome it.
With that in mind, I am going to discuss some of what seem to me the glaring inequalities of this proposed taxation measure. I absolutely believe that the Finance Minister intends to change these things. I cannot conceive that he will adhere to his proposition as laid down after the full facts have come to him, as they must have come to him, if not in mail-bags full, at least in letter-boxes full, to say nothing of various deputations. And I want to impress it again on the Government before I leave the subject, that while they are asking the industries of Canada to contribute of their excess profit, they ought at once to cut off their own excess estimates. Let us get together, one paying and the other reducing expenditure, and then the burden will be evenly divided between the payer and the economist, if such there be in the Government. One objection is, that this is a proposal to tax industry while, to a great extent, it omits to tax. wealth. Wealth and water escape; industry and integrity get soaked.


Mr. CARVELL:: With the water?


George Perry Graham: There is enough water in some of these concerns to soak out a lot of integrity. Let us consider the retroactive principle in this measure. I want it to be 
distinctly understood that I am not now dealing with any institution that has furnished war supplies and made an abnormal profit. I admit at once, and without a word, the contention that if the retroactive principle were not applied the Finance Minister would not get his money, because, if the Munitions Board is up to its business, then, in the year that is ahead of us, these concerns will not make any excess profit; and so, if the Finance Minister is to get from those who have made abnormal profits from war supplies a fair share of those profits, he must make the law 9 p.m. retroactive. In what I- have to say I have no reference whatever to those institutions that have made these abnormal profits as a result of the war. I say to the Government, tax them. It is their duty to contribute, and they ought to be willing to contribute a large share of these profits to further the great object we are striving for. But, in doing that, to use the words of an ancient writer, let no man escape. A good many will escape; but of that later. Let me point out to the minister the case of many industries which are not furnishing munitions or war supplies at all. I take one company as an illustration, without mentioning names. In 1912, 1913 and 1914 business with this concern kept getting a little worse all the time, and, before the war broke out, the company owed the bank quite a large amount of money. But the men who were in it were the kind of men that Canada wants. They were real business men. They did not flee for aid to some unknown source when they found they were coming to a time of stress. They did what the Government has not done, they reduced expenditures; they girded up their loins to face the situation. They had to reduce the time of their men to half-but giving all some employment that their families might be kept together. And they hoped against hope that the tide would turn. During the past year the company has made some money on account of the improvement in conditions. They have paid up the bank as well as they could, and to-day they are in a better position. But if the money they took to pay off their indebtedness to the bank is taxed as profit under this measure, these men will have to go and borrow that money, or at least a portion of it, from the bank again. That is not fair to the industry of the country. We ought to face this question, and so levy taxation that the money shall be paid by the men most able to pay it. Under the conditions which I

have described, the man who carried on the business for years, and who, it may be, has his son in the company with him, may have to go into bankruptcy unless this measure is changed. They have made more than their seven per cent, and they have paid the money back to the bank to which they owed it. They have not got a dollar of money on hand, and if they are compelled to go on their knees to the bank to borrow that money again, it will be unfair to industry, and will be a check to the commercial life of this country.
That is only one sample, and the minister will find that there are quite a number of similarly situated institutions in the Dominion. I cannot think that he has them in mind, and I urge upon him that, in a case of that kind, where a man who has been honestly working and struggling for years has gone to the bank and paid off his indebtedness, or part of it, dpring the last couple of years, thus enabling him to proceed with his business and keep his company together, that the Bill be so amended that some redress may be given to this man, and that he may escape a taxation which he is not able to bear, and should not be asked to bear. Take another class. Some are under the impression that money put into betterments or held in reserve will be allowed as capital. The proposed measure d,oes not say so, except as to small concerns, such as partnerships. In Ontario most businesses are put into the shape of joint stock companies for convenience, and because that ' is a better method of doing business. The men at the head of these companies are real business men; they are not mushrooms. Their business has not been carried on for kite flying in stocks, but has, perhaps, been carried on for years, handed down from father to son, carried on with honesty and integrity and with profit to the development of the whole country. What do these men find,? Year after year, it being their own business, they did not take the profits and put them in their pockets; they took what money they made, whether it was ten, or twelve, or fifteen per cent, and added betterments to their concerns. They bought new machinery, they were trying to fit themselves to compete with all comers. They built new buildings, brought in new apparatus, discarded old steam engines, and in some places put in electric power, adapted all modern methods of doing business successfully. What do we find under the proposed measure? These betterments,
these additions to their business, these improvements that have given employment to men in Canada, and will do so in the future, that have helped to make Canada what she is, a hive of industry; these things will be taxed under the Bill, and twenty-five per cent of the money put into these betterments, if the earnings are over seven per cent, will have to be handed back to the Government as taxes. The people of Canada who have money do not demand that from these people. Those in Canada who are able to pay for the carrying oh of this war are the last men who will demand that these businesses, worked up in the way I have mentioned, shall be taxed to that extent. I urge upon the Finance Minister that his measure be so changed that consideration will be given in the cases I have mentioned in respect to companies as well as to partnerships.
Companies that have head offices in Canada are being invited by this measure, as it now stands, to remove their head offices to another country. There are several businesses in Ontario, and undoubtedly quite a number in Canada, whose head offices are in this country, but the greater proportion of whose business is outside of this country. We are glad to have the head offices of these institutions in Canada. They are working under provincial or Federal charters, and the profits from all these sales, all over the world, come back to the Dominion of Canada and are largely spent here. But the interest, of these institutions, in many cases, lies nearly altogether in another country and the minister, by his present method of taxation, leaves it open to these companies to take out American charters and move their head offices across the line. In this way they will escape the taxation. I say that that is an invitation .to these companies to take away their head offices from Canada, and in some oases these are great institutions and it has been a great benefit to Canada to have their head offices here. I admit that it is easy to give advice to the Minister of Finance, but I am bringing these matters to his attention as strongly as I can because it cannot be worked out in an easy way; it will take time.
I come now to a class of people who escape this taxation altogether. As men get older they begin to retire from business, unless they are harnessed to it. Where do they put their money? They are tired of the risks of business, and so they buy bonds at six per cent or Government bonds at five and a half per cent. It



is not fair to compare the income from a six per cent bond or a five and a half per Cent Government bond with the income from a seven per cent return, from an industrial concern. The man who holds the bonds takes no risk, not a cent. The man who has his money in an industrial concern- at six or eight per cent is taking all the risk, and any day his whole capital may be wiped out. Perhaps a 'Government bond at five and a half per cent is equal, when we consider the element of security, to an income of about twelve per cent in an ordinary industrial concern. As men grow older they get away from the industrial concern; they want something safe and sound. Their chief occupation is to have an enjoyable life and to cut coupons to_keep life going on leisurely; so they buy Government bonds. In this country many vaults are full of municipal and Government bonds. A man may be worth $1,000,000 of Government or municipal bonds and not contribute one farthing under this Bill; while the man next to him may be of the same age but may be harnessed to his business, working hard with his sons in a small company, and he is taxed under this measure. I ask if that is equity. The fact that this is so proves what I said a moment ago that in that instance industry is taxed and wealth goes scot free. I would prefer absolutely an income tax, graded, and not imposed on small incomes where it would affect the living of any ordinary man, woman, or child. But these are abnormal times and we could perhaps hardly adhere to that principle, particularly in cases where large concerns have -made abnormal profits out of the war. '
Let me point out another inequality, and this, I know, will strike the Minister of Finance. We have one dry goods store here with a large capitalization, which is perhaps not taxed under this Bill; but the competitor of that concern, with a much smaller capitalization and not doing nearly the business, will have to pay twenty-five per cent of its excess profit over seven per cent. That is not fair; and there is no system of reasoning by which it can be argued that it is fair. A big concern which ordinarily buys cheaper and does a bigger trade and surely makes more money, will not, under this measure as it now stands, have to contribute a farthing under certain conditions; while its competitor, doing a smaller business, may have to contribute.
Then, take the manufacturing concerns.
fMr. Graham. 1
Under the Bill if passed, as proposed by the Minister of Finance, a boot and shoe concern, which I have in mind, will not contribute a farthing, while a competing boot and shoe company, a few blocks away, will pay, perhaps, $20,000. That is an inequality which the Government cannot afford to allow. I could go on citing instances, but I want to give a few concrete cases, and not at all with the view of criticising any company. I believe that every man in this country is willing to pay his share of taxation, but he wants to know that every other man, who is in a position to do so, will pay; and if the object of the Government is to have equality, they will have to change the Bill very radically.
Let me give a few instances. I think the figures I am about to cite are correct; they have been hurriedly got together, but I think they are approximately correct. Take the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and I am told that they object to the taxation on other grounds which I do not know to be the case, but the Canadian Pacific Railway, under this measure will pay over $2,000,000, while the Canadian Northern Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway, competing transcontinental lines, will pay nothing. If we are going to take into consideration what institutions or industries make out of war profits, I think you will find that every one of those railway companies has made a little out of this war. There are three transcontinental railway companies; one of them will pay over $2,000,000, and the other two, competing lines, will pay nothing. The Minister of ^Finance rather gloried in the fact that the farmers were not going to be taxed. Let me just say this: that every dollar you put on the railways will have to be paid by the individuals who use the railways.
. Mr. MEIGHEN: Out of the taxation of surplus profits?


George Perry Graham: The railways are going to have surplus profits next year just as they have had this year, and my hon. friend the Solicitor General cannot get away with that kind of quibble. When railways contribute anything, they find a way of getting back at the man who uses the railways, just as any payment made out of any concern will add a little to the price of the goods of that concern, and the consumer will ultimately pay.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Then we should never tax the railways at all.


George Perry Graham: You have not done it so far, but when you do tax them, you ought to tax them all; that is my argument.


Arthur Meighen: That would be more
out of the pockets of the people.


George Perry Graham: Not at all; my hon.
friend is not very well versed in how the railways manage their affairs. For example, the Toronto Street Railway has a capital of $12,000,000, and it will pay approximately $88,000; the Quebec Railway, with a capital of $10,000,000, will pay nothing under the Bill as it was outlined by the Minister of Finance in his speech. What I am arguing is, that my hon. friend will have to change his Bill, even if he has to let go a good deal of his speech. The Solicitor General seems to be at variance with the Minister of Finance, for he says the Bill is going to be all right. What I am anxious to do is to impress upon the Government the inequalities of their proposed taxation as I see them. There is plenty of time to change the Bill and to make the taxation as equitable as possible.
The Ogilvie Flour Mills, with a capital of $4,500,000, will pay $201,000, while the Dominion Flour Mills, with a capital of $1,000,000, will pay nothing. The Lake of the Woods Milling Company, with a capital of $3,600,000, will pay approximately $41,000; the Montreal Power Company, with a capital of $18,800,000, or a little over, will pay $320,000, while the Shawinigan Power Company, whose capital is $13,612,500, will pay $29,000. The Nova Scotia Steel Company, whose capitalization is $8,500,000, will pay $254,000, whereas the Dominion Steel Company, with a capital of $44,000,000, will pay nothing.


Arthur Meighen: Do not be too sure.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend says:
" Do not be too sure." If the Government should change the Bill, it will not be in accordance with the speech of the Minister of Finance, and what I am saying will have borne some fruit. The Dominion Textile Company, with a capital of $6,900,000, will pay $186,000, while the Montreal Cottons, whose capital is $6,000,000, will pay nothing. The Maple Leaf Milling Company, with a capital of $5,000,000, will pay $131,360, while the St. Lawrence Flour Company will pay nothing. The Laurentide Pulp and Paper Company, whose capital is $9,600,000, will pay $28,000, while Price Bros., capitalized at $5,000,000, will pay nothing. The Canadian Foundries, with a capital of $1,920,000, will pay $216,400, while the Canada Cement Company, whose capitaliz-
70i
ation is $24,000,000, will pay nothing. The Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company, with a capital of $4,785,500, will pay $193,000, while the Canada Locomotive Company, with a capital of $3,500,000, will pay nothing. The Dupuis Freres (dry goods) with a capital of about $100,000, will pay $30,000, while the Goodwins, Limited, whose capitalization is $3,000,000, will pay nothing. The Canada Sugar Refinery, with a capital of about $1,000,000, will pay $250,000, while the Atlantic Sugar Company, with a capital of $6,000,000, will pay nothing.


William Thomas White: Will my hon.
friend allow me to correct him? His statements are quite inaccurate. I made the statement to the House that the Bill to be founded on this resolution will have a definition of the amount paid on capital stock which will prevent any undue advantage to overcapitalized companies.


George Perry Graham: That is not what was outlined in my hon. friend's Budget speech, What he said was that the capital stock would govern. Common stock is paid up capital stock, and if the Government intend to introduce a clause in the Bill-


William Thomas White: It is in the Bill.
Mr. GRAHAM!: I have not got the Bill; I am referring to what the Minister of Finance said in the House. Parliament can only discuss what the Minister of Finance gives it. He now tells us he is going to change the Bill. When a resolution is submitted to- the House, it gives notice to the members that a Bill is to be introduced based on the principle of that resolution, and the statement of the Minister of Finance, and everything that has appeared in Hansard up to date, certainly gave us to understand that common stock would be called paid up capital, and would count.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman was not in the House when the statement was made.


George Perry Graham: I was, and I heard the statement.	[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: Then my hon. friend is incorrect.


George Perry Graham: I know what I am saying. I say again, that if the Minister of Finance proposes to bring in a Bill differing in this respect from what he stated in his speech, and differing from what is set forth in the resolution, I congratulate him on that great improvement. But he has no -right to expect me to discuss -something

which he has not submitted to the House. What I have befoie me is what he said in his'speech. Here is what he said:
We foupd it a practical impossibility to go behind the capitalization of companies,-


William Thomas White: Read on.


George Perry Graham: -and endeavour to ascertain the precise cash value of their assets as can be done in the case of individuals or partnerships.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: They eannot do it.


William Thomas White: They do not propose to do it.


George Perry Graham: If a Bill is to be introduced along the lines now suggested, it is because of something that has happened since the Minister of Finance delivered his Budget speech, and I am glad of it, because it will clear the air. There has been a good deal of dissatisfaction, and the change will make people pay, who according to the minister's original proposition would have got off scot free.
There is another clause to which my hon. friend will have to give some attention, and, perhaps, make some variation in, and that is the mining clause. I am not here with a brief for the miners at all, but every man who knows anything about mining, as some of our hon. friends from the West and from Northern Ontario do, knows that a mine is a terminable quantity and that the returns from that terminable quantity are supposed to be sufficiently great that when the source of wealth is exhausted the mine will have returned to the owner his capital as well as a profit on his investment. If the Minister of Finance is to adhere to that twenty-five per cent of what appear to be the profits from the mining industry you will see that this industry will not be able to carry out the implied contract with those who have invested in it.	.


William Thomas White: I would call my hon. friend's attention to the wording of the resolution:
The profits shall be taken to be the nets profits.	j
Net profits, not capital.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: On what?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend (Mr. Graham) is speaking of mining companies. There are net profits of mining companies. The total output of the mine includes a portion of the capital, hut it is

possible tq estimate properly the net profits of the mine.


George Perry Graham: In the statements we get the profits are put down as so much. My hon. friend intends to introduce something into his Bill specifying what shall be the net profits?


William Thomas White: No.


George Perry Graham: There would be a grievous injustice, but if the minister intends to work that out in any way, and it will not be too easy to work it out properly, my criticism as far as the mining industry is concerned will be withheld until I see the Bill, which he has and I have not.
Having dealt with that, let me speak for a few moments concerning the great question that is before us; that is the question of why we are asking for all this money, of why we are worrying as to various methods of taxation in order to produce the best results. I fear that what I am going to say will not meet with the concurrence of a good many of my own friends and of many who have perhaps given the subject as much attention as I. In the press of Canada and in the speeches of some public men, the United States has been criticised for not being more aggressive under the circum? stances. Of course, it is none of our affair in a way what the United States may do as a country. As a neutral country they have a perfect right to take whatever action seems to them best, but speaking from the viewpoint of Canada, as I see it, the United States should not be condemned by any one in Canada for the attitude it has assumed. It is a terrible thing to plunge a great nation into war and there are so many conflicting interests, of which we in Canada possibly know nothing, or little, and so many contingencies that may arise did the United States declare war, or join with the Allies, that, I say, any man who carries the responsibility on his shoulders of the welfare of nearly 100,000,000 of people ought to hesitate long before he plunges that people into this great war. But, turning to the other side, as a Canadian, my view is that we would lose rather than gain if the United States should join the Allies as a combatant. What would happen? We are now getting large amounts of munitions and supplies from across the line. Suppose the United States entered actively into the war, the Supply of war materials for the Allies would, in a large measure, be stopped because the United States would have to

begin at once and equip an army of her own. She has no army of any great strength that could leave her shores. With a population of nearly 100,000,000 to-day her army is comparatively small - and it would take time to do what Canada has done-find, drill and equip an army before she would be ready to give us practical assistance in the field. While all this was being done all the great industries would be engaged preparing supplies for this army when it was ready to go to the front and the Allies, in my humble judgment, would be deprived of a great deal of aid under these circumstances that they are now getting.
We are prepared to do our share; we are all agreed on that. I think that one benefit that will come to the people of Canada out of this great struggle will be the fact that we will leave behind many of the recriminations which have characterized the attitude and utterances of some of us during years gone by. We find that everybody, no matter from what country his [DOT]father came, is a Canadian through and through and ready to do his bit for the *couiitry in which he lives. The war has had a great levelling process in the old land. We, who, in this part of the Empire, in days past have looked with some slight degree of comtempt-perhaps that is too strong a word-on what we call aristocracy of England, are learning that the man of aristocratic descent is standing shoulder to shoulder, and side by side, with Tommy Aitkins in the trenches' and doing his bit as *well as the poorest man who comes from any part of the Empire. We are paying dearly for the lesson we are 'Learning, but behind- the dark clouds there -must be a silver lining, and if each part of the Empire does its duty, as it will, the day cannot be far distant when out of this great struggle will come a clarified, a purified, a more thoroughly united people throughout the entire world, and in this great regeneration Canada herself will have done much and will enjoy the benefit thereof. ,


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton):: Mr. Speaker, this question has been very ably and very exhaustively discussed, but there remain a few observations that I desire to make. The question in particular before us is the Budget. There is an old saying that:
Hope springs eternal in the human breast:
Man never is, but always to be, blest.
Last year when we were discussing the Budget we were hoping that before another year would pass a better condition of things would come about. The war cloud is still hanging over us, but we have made fine progress since last we discussed the Budget. We may not be able to put our fingers on the particular advances we have made, but we feel that we are in a much better position to face the enemy today than we were a year ago. We have measured up our own strength, we have mustered our forces, and we have found what we really could do, and what men, money, and munitions we can put behind the mother country in this desperate struggle. That, Sir, is a great advancement. A year ago we were not the organized body that, we are to-day. The great Empire to which we belong had not then found the strength of its various parts, or consolidated its resources. But we have now found the range, we understand the boxing methods of our enemy, and it is only a matter of time and of opportunity until the British Empire and the British people shall give that enemy the upper-cut on the jaw that will put him asleep, and perhaps a little sooner than the Hun expects. We have cleared the seas of the piratical Hun. We are proud to say that on this occasion, as of yore, Britannia rules the waves, and shall continue to do so. Our people have their feet firmly planted on the ground. We have known the worst and have provided for it. We are better organized than when, we commenced the war, and we shall continue until final victory perches on the banner of the Allies. Life is the dearest possession, of man, hut none too dear to be sacrificed on the altar of freedom, security, fidelity, and truth. That, Sir, has been abundantly proven by the Canadian people in their sacrifice of the best lives of the land, and in their sacrifice of money, which is as nothing compared with the sacrifice of the flower of our people. It is not necessary for me to spend any time in going over what has been so well said by many speakers in regard to the stand the Canadian people have taken in .this war. In my observations on the Budget last year I made reference to what was' expected of us by the King, and to what the King himself had declared to be the expectations that he had from the overseas dominions. His Royal Highness the Governor General also declared to us what was expected of the Canadian people, and we are proud to have more than measured up to the highest expectations announced in any of those despatches. Although I cannot entirely approve of the

methods of the Finance Minister and the Government, I am to some extent pleased at the success that has attended their efforts in providing the sinews of war foT the contest in which we are engaged.
The Budget is the real subject with which we have to deal on this occasion, and perhaps it would be well from my Standpoint, as an Opposition member, if I briefly reviewed the financial conditions of the country for a short period before this Government came into power, and very hurriedly from that time down. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier took charge 'of the affairs of this country some years ago, the country was in a very bad financial position, but by his excellent administration, by placing the affairs of the country in the hands of men who understood such matters, men who would exercise economy, and who foresaw the development this country might attain without extravagant use of the means that had been placed at their disposal by the people of this country, Canada was brought into a first-class condition financially. In 1911, when the present Government came into office, the Finance Minister must admit, and did admit, that he found the financial condition of this country to be first-class; he found every obligation fully met and satisfactorily squared up. He found the books balanced, and $40,000,000 of cash available at his hand. The credit of the country was excellent, no bills were falling due, and there was nothing to disturb the equanimity of the Minister of Finance. This happy portion was left to Aim by the Hon. Mr. Fielding, who, for the fifteen years before, had so wisely conducted the finances of the nation. During the very first session after the change of Government, I observed during the course of some remarks in the House that the country had been placed in such a sound	position by	the	wise	andcapable administration of the outgoing Government, that I hoped it would	never again he	found in
the position it was in some fifteen years before. But I reckoned without my host ; I reckoned without having proper knowledge of the spending capacity of the hon. gentlemen who took charge of the administration of this country at that time. I had not counted upon the thousands of hungry hordes that were waiting at the doors, anxious to get their forelegs and whole head into the political trough, and into the treasury of this country. I had not calculated upon the purposes for which the present minister was put at the head of affairs. If

rumor be true, he was put there to provide for a certain class. He was hut one of a number of gentlemen who were returned to power by a certain class wtio were masters of the situation then, masters of the Government then, and who are masters of the Government to-day. In listening to these masters, in giving to Manitoba four or five million dollars to which they had no right; in giving to the Canadian Northern Railway something like sixteen million dollars to which they had no claim; in ladling out dollars by the sixteen millions and twenty millions; it took the Finance Minister but a day, comparatively speaking, to . get rid of the $40,000,000 that he found in the treasury. As the old -saying is, soon he had not a penny to bless himself with.


William Pugsley: And he laughs over it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 1 That is the pace at which hon. gentlemen opposite got back to the old stress and stOTm, to the olid condition of things, with not a dollar in the treasury and with the faces being ground ofE -the people by high taxes. That was the position in which the Tory party found themselves, that was the true condition of the Tory party. I suppose that the Finance Minister, having been taken into the Tory family, felt that he must be even worse than the old Tories themselves in order to show that the proselyte was fully converted.
There are only certain conditions of financial circumstances in this country under which our Tory friends know how to rule, and the story which I was going to tell, and which I think I told some time ago, was about a doctor who went one day to see a patient, and discovered that that patient was in a very high fever. The doctor could not make out what really was wrong, and he asked the people of the house to prepare a tub of ice cold water. They got the tub of ice cold water, but when they saw that the doctor was going to take the patient and plunge him into the tub, they tried to prevent him, saying: "That will be the death of him." "Oh, no," said the doctor, "it won't; I cannot make out what is the matter with him now, but I will put him into this tub, and I venture to say that in a few minutes he will develop fits, and I am the devil on fits." The hon. gentleman who, with great credit to himself, now fills the position of Minister of Finance, never really got his bearings until the country was in the old Tory condition of affairs, and then he said: "I see the smoke; I see the points; I know where

I am." With those conditions he started out, and I must say that things have not been much better since he found his bearings, because it was impossible for them to be so.
Last year the Minister of Finance told us that the ordinary and capital expenditure of the country would be $140,000,000, and the war expenditure $50,000,000, a total of $190,000,000, and we had a revenue of $130,000,000, leaving a deficit of $60,000,000. That was the condition in which we found our-selyes on the 31st of March, 1915. For the current year, the minister tells us that he is going to get $170,000,000 out of the people. Let me remind hon. members that, in the old days when the Liberals were in power, and when the gentleman who is now Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) was the financial critic of his party, he used to sit up at night and bewail the conditions of this country on account of the fact that we were collecting from the people from seventy to seventy-five million dollars. Now, Sir, this same gentleman sits back and cheers, as an extraordinary feat of statesmanship, this squeezing out of the same people of $170,000,000, or more than twice the amount that the Liberal Government was collecting. It is another illustration of the "ins and the outs." Of course, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his friends are now in, and it is perfectly right and proper, in his opinion, that the faces should be ground off the people for $170,000,000, when his heart was bleeding at the thought of $70,000,000 being taken from them in other years. The same cry was abroad when we were spending $87,000,000. The right hon. gentleman who is now the leader of the Government used then to say with emphasis that there was no further nor better evidence required of the extraordinary and unjustifiable extravagance of the late Government than that we were spending eighty-seven or eighty-eight million dollars in keeping up the affairs of this country. Since then there has been a different tune and, a different fiddler, and a first class fiddler for doubling and trebling the expenditure over what it was when we had the reins of power. If the Prime Minister, who was then leader of the Opposition, was sincere and honest in saying that an expenditure of eighty-seven or eighty-eight million dollars was conclusive evidence of dishonesty and extravagance, what does he say as to th.e condition of things that prevails to-day in the Government over which he presides? When we find expenditures of $125,000,000 and $140,000,000 and $145,000,000 within a few years after this Government came into power, with nothing to show for them except the feeding to a great extent of that class of people of whom I spoke before, who have become the camp followers of this unfortunate Administration.
The minister told us last year that in his taxation he expected to provide for - $150,000,000. That, of course, was a guess, and I suppose a minister can do no more than guess under such circumstances. However, when he went to collect the tax from the people he mad,e a fortunate guess to the extent of $20,000,000, which he collected over and above what he had said was necessary. Now, his friends who sit behind him applaud that as a most marvellous feat of statesmanship. In order to get this $170,000,000 that he is collecting for this year the minister had to impose an extraordinary amount of taxation: he had to. levy upon the people an extra duty of seven and a half per cent upon all kinds of goods and commodities that came in free last year, or that were subject to a duty ranging from twenty-five to thirty-five per cent, and an extra duty of five per cent on goods that pame in under the preferential tariff. This is not a light matter to the poorer classes in'' this . country; it bears heavily upon the working classes with small wages, large families, and many requirements, with everything to be bought from the pay received weekly or fortnightly as the case may be. When the minister takes thirty or forty per cent out of the pay envelope of th^Avorkingman he is placing that man in a very awkward position.
The minister was not satisfied with all this taxation, and this year he has come down with further taxation. He comes down with a tax on apples and a tax on oil.. Apples are the luxury of the poor man; oil is the light of the poor man. And now the minister-I suppose unthinkingly, as he has not the experience to make him aware of the difficulties of the poor man's lot-comes down with a policy of added taxation on apples and oil. In jother words, he strikes the apple out of the baby's hand and sends him to bed in the dark. But the hon. minister has indicated that he has experienced some change of heart, and I hope that he will decide to give back the apple to the baby and to re-light the lamp that lights him to bed.
I said a moment ago, and I say it again

with regret, that this Government seems to be to a great extent controlled by the big interests. It was the theory of the National Policy that it would conserve for our own people the trade of this country and that local competition would keep down prices. That was the view expressed by Sir John Macdonald, Sir Leonard Tilley, Sir Charles Tupper and others who agitated for the adoption of the National Policy. They used to say: It is true we put a duty of 30 per cent on boots and shoes, but boots and shoes will be no dearer because the competition within our own borders will prevent an advance in prices. That is a plausible presentation of the case, and the people accepted it, and so the National Policy was adopted. But in those early days we had no knowledge of mergers and combines; these things have developed since that time. But they are with us to-day-the flour trust, the beef trust, the pork trust, the grain trust, the shoe trust-everything is a trust, and with it all we have a trust Government. What is the good of talking of local competition? The people in these industries get together and say: let us not fight each other, but let us combine and we can fleece the poor man. And I was sorry to hear the Minister of Finance the other day, when metaphorically speaking, he threw off his coat and rolled up his sleeves in defence of the millers-the poor millers of this country who are making only fifty or sixty per cent on their capital. The minister feels that he must stand behind these poor orphans, lest something should be done to cheapen flour in this country. But he had nothing to say for - the poor man. In the part of the country that I come from' the labouring man earns from $1.45 to $1.75 a day, and he has to pay $7 to $7.50 a barrel for his flour. On the other hand, the farmer in the West says that he gets hardly anything for his wheat; wheat is so cheap out there that they let it Tot on the ground, for they think it not worth while to carry it to the mill. We have 370,000,000 bushels of wheat in this country this year. There are 8,000,000 people to feed. We have plenty of cheap power to grind the wheat. Will anybody tell me that it is reasonable that the people of the Maritime Provinces, *under these conditions, should pay $7.50 for a barrel of flour? Yet the other day, when the Minister of Finance was asked by an hon. member on this side how it was that the price of flour had gone so high, the answer 
of the Minister of Finance was: " Three years ago we appointed a commission to inquire into such matters, and we expect that in a short time they will'bring down their report." And he might have added: " That report will consist of two or three volumes, and if you want to find your needle in that hay stack, you are welcome to search for it." Is it not most extraordinary that, when such a question is asked, such a reply should be given? I would not have believed it, had not I heard it myself. We have a Government, one of whose members is Minister of Labour, with a large staff, part of whose duties should be to collect such information as this. We have a Minister of Trade and Commerce, with a great Department of Trade and Commerce that might well be engaged in considering matters of this kind. Yet the Minister of Finance, who1 should be the reservoir of all such information, and ready at any time to give it to the House and to the country, was not able to tell us why the poor man's flour has jumped from $4.50 a few years ago to $7.50 to-day. The minister could not answer a plain question, but he could declare his determination to protect the millers' trust regardless of #what became of the poor man. I trust this* condition of affairs will not continue, but that such conditions may be established that when we have an abundance of wheat, or an abundance of any other great staple commodity, the Government will see to it that that commodity gets into the poor man's house at an honest price. I am proud to say that in the province of Nova Scotia, from which I come, though we do not raise a great deal of wheat, our provincial government is endeavouring to meet this problem of the high price of flour. We have two mills built by the provincial government and we will take the wheat from Manitoba and grind it in these government mills, and so will create a competition which will keep prices at a reasonable level. That is what we are doing in Nova Scotia, where we have not the grain that they have in the West, and where we have not the money and the facilities controlled by this Government.
I hope that the time will come when the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce will throw off the shackles with which they are bound and will fell these trusts that they must do an honest business; fell them that, in a country where wheat is abundant and power is cheap, we must have cheap flour.
We have heard a great deal about the

immigration that is to be expected. We hope that, where.as we have room for one hundred million people in this country and have only eight million, the day is not far distant when we shall have a large influx of people into this country who will develop it more and more, in proportion to our means of providing for them. If there is one thing that more than another will make it easy for us to get good people into this country, it is to show that this is a good country in which to live, that this is a good moral country, that it is a country in which children may be brought up in the fear and admonition of the Lord, in which there is a good system of education, absolute freedom for every man to bring up his children in whatsoever^ religion and form of education he wants, and that they will be taught their own language if they want to be without any question or any trouble; that we have abundance of everything necessary for the sustenance of life; that we have no combines and no trusts that can control the necessaries of life and make it hard for the people to live comfortably, and that our Government does not permit or encourage . anything in the nature of combines. But when you tell the poor man in England that a. barrel of flour will cost him fifty cents or sixty cents more in Canada than in London, that is not an argument to induce him to come to this country. I am earnest in pointing out that the best immigrant agency for Canada would be to make Canada a good, comfortable country in which to live, to make the dollar go further than it is going to-day, and to show the poor people that with such wages as they can get they and their families can live in comfort and happiness. I have pointed out that the monied interests of this country have more power and more concessions than they should have, and possibly I need not further enlarge upon that point. I am proud that we provided for the war in 1914 $50,000,000, and last year $100,000,000; and that this year we will provide $250,000,000 without any hesitation. That is, we have now provided about $400,000,000 for the purposes of the war; and I am sure the Canadian people will support any Government in furnishing that money. The regrettable feature is that after this money has been furnished a certain laxity appears to have been permitted to crawl into the administration of the affairs of this Government, so that much of the money does not find its way to the proper spot. We are voting this money for the purpose of buying guns
and munitions and making our soldiers comfortable; in fact of doing everything necessary in order to convert the raw recruit into a first-class soldier and send him to the front to fight with our friends in Europe. It is regrettable to find what a very large percentage of this money has found its way into the pockets of profiteering leeches who have got into the good graces of this Government, which we on this side have no means of preventing. It cannot be denied; it is happening every day. So this money is not producing the fruit it should if properly handled. The minister has the responsibility of collecting this money; let me urge him to see that it is properly expended and expended in such a way that it will bring forth good fruit. This money should be expended with the greatest possible scrupulosity, yet men are permitted to come into this field, where this $400,000,000 is, with no other shibboleth or passport being required than the recommendation of some Borden club or other Tory club in any part of the country. I hope that what has occurred in our political life in the past is sufficient to impress on us that henceforth better conditions must prevail in this country? I am sure that the Minister of Finance would like to see all of this business done in a better way, but he does not seem to have any control over certain factions of the Government of which he is a member.
I was astonished, on re-reading1 the speech of the Minister of Finance, to see the reasoning by which he supported his claim that we have a surplus of $45,000,000 this year. He says that we collected $170,000,000 of money, that our ordinary expenditure was only $125,000,000, and that therefore we have a surplus of $45,000,000.
When the minister started to collect this $170,000,000 what did he say? He said: This is war taxes, we are getting this money on postage, on patent medicines and from the banks; every cent of this extra money we are getting as war taxes and this money is for the war, you are paying it for the war. If you ask any Tory newspaper editor in my part of the country why Sir Thomas White went over to these horrible Yankees for $45,000,000, he will say he went there on account of tho war. Everything you criticise, from Dan to Beersheba, it is nothing but the war. But what does the minister himself tell us about the $45,000,000 he got from the Yankees? He says he paid some of it to strengthen the premier of Nova Scotia in the county-of Halifax and some of it out in the frozen regions of the northern ocean in connection with the

Hudson Bay Railway, and some other works which he would not mention. Not a dollar of it went to the war. That $45,000,000 and the $100,000,000 collected from the Canadian people by the recent loan, was collected, not for the purpose of the war, but for other purposes. Of the loan, one-half - went, correctly enough, to pay a part of our obligations to the Mother Country. I [DOT]care not what the minister may call it, but we are certainly under a huge debt to the Mother Country for expenditures in connection with this war; and if $50,000,000 of the $100,000,000 borrowed from the Canadian people last year went to the credit of the Mother Country, it is not a gift, it is nol given >as an accommodation to them; we owe them at least five times, that much money and we are only paying back a part of our debt. When the minister tells us that we have a surplus of $45,000,000, it is certainly wide of the mark, we have nothing of the kind. How does the account stand? He tells us himself that we paid $158,000,000 on war account .apart from this $50,000,000. We are paying $208,000,000 in connection with the war, and we have a capital and ordinary expenditure of $125,000,000, making a total of $333,000,000. Against that we have the $170,000,000 which we collect, leaving a deficit of $163,000,000. What is the good of juggling with figures and telling the people of this country that there is a surplus of $45,000,000 when, as a matter of fact, taking all expenditures into consideration, there is a shortage of $163,000,000. That is the position in which we stand to-day, and it is a position which was well known to the Minister of Finance when he told this House that we had a surplus of $45,000,000.
I" do not wish to encroach upon the good nature of the House in dealing with this subject. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has dealt with the new taxation proposals in such an effective manner that I do not propose to waste further time upon them. I am afraid the Minister of Finance will find that the machinery he will have to provide for collecting those taxes will eat up the whole of the money and there will be nothing left.
I am afraid, also, that it will afford the Government another field for displaying their great aptitude for increasing the Civil Service of this country. When they came into office they increased the Civil Service by 12,000 men, which meant an addition of $12,000,000 to the expenditures of this country. Now it would appear

that another field has been opened to the party heeler, and that another bright day is about to dawn for him, when perhaps
12,000	more civil servants, at an expenditure of $12,000,000, will be found by the Minister of Finance. I venture to say that the minister will have to shell out in connection with this new collection of taxes, and, if so, there will be very little left. I fear, indeed, that he will have nothing left, and that he will create another institution like the post office, that will be prolific in producing deficits and in squandering the money of the people.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance is also going to create new courts. He is going to create a board of arbitration. He is going to furnish machinery by which there will be no end of law suits in the Exchequer Court. I can see here another field opening up to barristers from the Atlantic to the Pacific who will be at the heels of the minister looking for positions. I believe that the officers of the Department of Justice would do this work if they were asked, but they will not be allowed to do it. It would not do to scatter the patronage or pelf among the officers of the department. It must be peddled out to barristers from the Atlantic to the Pacific who will do nothing for it. We had an illustration the other night of what had been done and will be done, in connection with the Justice Department. We had a shocking condition of things revealed. We have a first-class Minister of Justice, a Deputy Minister who is second to none as a lawyer, a first-class Solicitor General, and seven or eight lawyers in the Department of Justice; and yet we had the extraordinary and sorrowful spectacle here the other night of the Minister of Justice explaining that he had had to send to Halifax or to Montreal to get three lawyers to draft some little Bill that had to be submitted to this House.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What did that cost?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Something over $5,-
000. Of course it would have been beneath the dignity of the^ Minister of Justice to do anything of that kind, and the Deputy Minister is not supposed to interfere in matters of patronage, while perhaps it did not come within the purview of the seven or eight lawyers in the department. As for the Solicitor General, he was quite prepared to spend fortnights and months in framing legislation to shut our mouths in this House by means of the closure, but he had

no time or inclination to draft a few lines of a Bill a few months ago.
I would like to make some reference to some of the speeches delivered in this debate. There was a very wild and enthusiastic-I would almost say sarcastic	speech this afternoon from
the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson). I do not propose to pay very much attention to it. It reminded me of the story of the old Scotchman who was sitting by the side of the house on a fine sunny afternoon. His wife, who was a small woman, was most unmercifully beating him about the head and face with her hands. Somebody said: " Why do you allow that [DOT] little woman to throw you about in that way?" and he replied: "Oh, well, it pleases her and it doesn't hurt me." If the delivery of such speeches as that pleases the hon. member for Annapolis it does not hurt us in the slightest degree. He spoke about giving us a portion of his mind in his' own speech. These are things with regard to which he ought to be careful and conservative. Nature did not give him a measure pressed down and running over of that excellent commodity and if he has yet any of it and does not d,esire to part with it I would ask him to put it in his wife's name so that it may not escape him. So far as we are concerned on this side of the House, we will try to get along without robbing him any further of that commodity.
I must give some attention to the veTy excellent speech that was delivered here a few evenings ago by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). That speech was taken seriously evidently by some of the newspapers of the country. I find an editorial reference to it by a newspaper known as the morning Citizen, of this town, a paper which seems to be well edited, and is held in very great respect in this community. I have not the honour of being acquainted with the editor, but I presume, from his excellent editorials, that he is a man of education, strong common-sense, and good moral qualities. He was moved to say in the Citizen, of February 22:
Looking Facts in the Face.
Sir George Foster's splendidly patriotic address of Thursday night last in the House of Commons will probably remain the outstanding feature of the present session, as it deserves to rank. The address of the Minister of Trade and Commerce serves to remind Canadians that the present Administration contains at least . one really great man-great in the sense that he can divest himself of the habiliments of partyism-
Think of it; this gentleman is going to cut himself out from the habiliments of his party.
-whenever occasion offers and that he possesses the courage of his convictions. It takes political fiber of a quality above the ordinary nowadays to take the attitude which Sir George Foster is apparently ready and willing to assume when called upon.
That is the impression which the Citizen formed of his speech. Now, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said himself, and we will take his own words for it as quoted in this paper:	-
I have been for thirty-four years in public life. I have been a pretty close student of administrations and I cannot point to a single instance in which patronage has helped the status of the bench, the status of the civil service or the public administration or has helped a member of Parliament in reality or a government in reality, but almost always brings the dry rot which breaks up a government. I would wish that in the white heat of this struggle we could speak from the heart and make an agreement between the parties that patronage should have no influence in regard to our public works. If there is any laxity in the public virtue of this country to-day, in 99 cases out of one hundred you can trace it to the baleful effects of political party feeling.
There are other parts of the same speech quoted here, but what I want to refer to is this dry rot which the minister has discovered. It may be remembered that a few years ago he made other discoveries in connection with the election" of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), and I will have occasion to refer to that a little further on.
The speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce deserves more than ordinary attention. The occasion of the conversion and confession of the hon. gentleman should be held as a red letter day in the life and history of the Tory party in Canada. The Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke with the zeal and ardour of Saul of Tarsus after he had been transformed into the new man and had entered upon the new life of Paul the Apostle. It was clear that he was convinced of the iniquity of the practices of his party and of the immediate necessity of the complete abandonment of the life and course of political depravity and corruption, blindly pursued by his party ever since they could distinguish between the right and the left, and that henceforth, whatever others might do for him and his House, he would aspire to higher and better things and, having put his hand to the plough, he would never look back to the Lot possessions of his former days and associations. It is clear that the spirit

of confession and the spirit of penitence were upon him. It is to be hoped that the spirit of perseverance to the end will crown a glorious finality to this notable conversion. As this conversion, at least the confession of it, followed immediately after the able address of the hon. junior member for Halifax, (Mr. A. K. Maclean), he must share some of the honours of this notable incident, and be regarded as the sower who went forth to sow. In this connection we cannot forget the experience and fortunes of a sower of other and more ancient days. The experience of the ancient sower was that some seeds fell by the wayside and the birds picked them up. I could not help fearing a like result the other night as I noticed such birds of ill omen as the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid), the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), and the hon. Minister of Marine, Fisheries and Naval Affairs (Mr. Hazen), hovering around the head of the earnest and unsuspecting convert. Let us hope, however, that he may break away alive and well from his threatening environment and bring forth fruit meet for repentance.
What are some of the fruits that will be looked for by the Canadian people? First, the Conservative party in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is such a leading and important factor must be purged of the concubinage of the Nationalist alliance; second, the development of a clean, sound, free public opinion and the expression of it at the ballot box immune from the blasting and damnable influence of the money bags. If the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce will accomplish these reforms Of and for his party he shall have conferred upon them and his country a boon greater than anything that "science can devise or money can buy." But here let me quote and adopt the language of the immortal Bums:
I backward cast my eyes on prospects drear,
And forward, though I cannot see, I guess and fear.
For we heard some such speeches from the hon. gentleman more than once on former occasions and no corresponding reform, or any reform at all, in the Government to which he then and now belongs. But the hon. gentleman is wise and experienced enough to know that he cannot fool the people all the time and that he has now reached the stage where he must do one of two things-show some fruits of his reform in the life and conduct of the Government of which he is so prominent a factor, or 
come out from among them and separate himself from them and have no further part or lot with the evil works of darkness. Some years ago he feared the inoculation of poison into the veins of the Government and he stated that the electing of the honourable member for South Renfrew would be in fact the absorption into the life blood of the Government of that malignant and deadly element and now he has discovered this condition of the political constitution of the Government has developed into a dry rot permeating the whole fabric with no possible results but annihilation and death. The change of heart of the honourable gentleman in face of the facts as stated by himself cannot but remind us of the belated conversion of the covetous prophet of old who, for filthy lucre, attempted to curse the chosen people of God, and discovering his failure and moral collapse, called out: " Let me die the death of the righteous and let my latter end be like unto theirs." I said at the beginning that Saul of Tarsus had become Paul the Apostle, and indeed the great Paul and Sir George Foster (the Minister of Trade and Commerce) - have many points in common, although differing in sufficient particulars to make them easily distinguishable. Paul was a citizen of no mean city, and in that he has nothing on the Hon. Sir George-as Toronto the Good, the Athens of America, bears more than favourable comparison with the metropolitan home of the aged philosopher, author and preacher of other days. Paul tells us that he was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, and in that role let me emphasize that he will find in the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce a foeman worthy of his steel. Paul says that he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews. Well, if my hon. friend is not a Hebrew, his attainment would justify the presumption, and if a love of the good things of this world characterizes the Hebrew-tell it not in Gath, but it was hinted that the hon. minister was not averse to the accumulation of wealth, impatient of the slow, glacial progress of honest poverty. Paul was a clear-cut, incisive logician, diplomat and scholar; in all those most excellent talents he breaks but even with the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. But, with all his excellences, Paul had his moments of weakness, and by actual confession we have it that the hon. minister himself is subject to like infirmities. Paul expresses an overwhelming desire to be " freed from

the body of this death." The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce expresses a longing desire to be liberated from a body that bears in its members the disintegrating influences of slow poison and malignant dry rot. Paul tells us that he had to fight with wild beasts at Ephesus, and that he encountered a spiritual wickedness among principalities and powers; in all this, Paul had but light affliction, indeed, compared with the experiences of the minister, for has not the minister attended meetings of the Borden Cabinet, when one-half of that noble band were dismantling and scuttling the Canadian Navy, rending and punching the British flag, and the other half exchanging compliments, 'not of the Sunday-school brand, about Manitoba graft, unclean political records, glue-pot military horses, boots and binoculars. Amid scenes like these it seems I hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce cynically soliloquizing:
How beautiful a thing it is,
And how becoming well,
Together such as brethren are In unity to dwell.
Paul and Sir George, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, had other mutual experiences, though of perhaps less note. Paul tells us, in penitential mien and tones of self-condemnation, that he was present at the death of St. Stephen and that he held the clothes of the rioters. The Hon. Sir George, Minister of Trade and Commerce, "from his nest beneath the rafters," viewed with calm complacency and approval the slow torture and ultimate decapitation of that venerable nestor of the Tory party, Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell. I shall not follow the comparison any further, and hope that the common good in the contrasted characters will deserve and enjoy common rest and felicity "where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest."
Those are the observations I have to make on the Budget.
On motion of Mr. J. J. Hughes, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.
Friday, February 25, 1916.