1916-02-29

DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Mr. Speaker,
may I make a statement to the House on behalf of the Under- Secretary of State fbr External Affairs in connection with some criticism of the report of the department which appeared in the press? The statement is as follows:
The passport requirements of foreign countries is an appendix to the report, and is an exact transcription of a similar statement in the Foreign Office list for 1915. It does not relate to any regulation of ours. It is, as il purports to be, a record of what foreign countries normally require in the matter of passports.
It is only in a technical sense here for the Information of, the public, as the report is nearly a year old when published, and we provide all people seeking passports with up-to-date information concerning them. It might perhaps have been well to have inserted a note to this table saying that passports were not issued to enemy countries during the war, but the.fact being so obvious, and the Foreign Office not considering such a precaution necessary, led the clerk who made up these appendices to take the same view.



TRANSPORTATION OF GRAIN.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. REID (Acting Minister of Railways) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 47 to amend the Railway Act. He said:	This is a Bill which the chairman
of the Railway Commission has requested me to introduce, and which he recommends ter the consideration of the House. It is applicable particularly to the western provinces. As hon. members know, we had a very large crap in the West last year, and in certain portions of the country the railway lines are having a great deal of difficulty in moving it. Along some branch
[Stage Direction]
lines large quantities of grain are still lying in the fields, and the railways are unable to move it before the spring rains come on. A great deal of it will be damaged unless some prompt action is taken. This Bill empowers the Railway Commission to order any railway company on whose lines grain is located to use its equipment to rush that grain to the nearest elevator, and then to order another railway company to take the grain from the elevator to Fort William. The commission may thus use two railway systems to ensure the early removal of the grain. At present the one railway has to take it from the point, where it may happen to be, in Alberta or Saskatchewan, all the way down to lake Superior, whereas the equipment of the company is not sufficient to enable it to take all the grain before spring. Compelling one railway to use its equipment for the short haul to the nearest elevator, and the other railway to take it from the elevator to lake Superior, will very much expedite the removal of the grain from the fields where it is now exposed to weather conditions. This, it is expected, will gteatly help the farmers of the West.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BLAIN moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 39, (from the Senate), respecting the Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada, and to change the name thereof to The Governing Council of the Salvation Army, Canada East.
Some HON. MEMBERS: Explain.
Mr. SPEAKER:: It is not customary for an explanation to be given w;hen a Senate Bill is introduced in the House of Commons (reading):
When any Bill is presented by a member, in pursuance of an Order of the House, or is brought from the Senate, the question, " That this Bill be now read a first time." shall be decided without amendment or debate.
If it is the desire of the House to have an explanation, I have no objection at all.


Mr. MACDONALD:: I hardly agree with your Honour. A Senate Bill may not be debatable when introduced here, but surely it can be explained.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: No doubt the House is entitled to an explanation, but I am told that it is not customary to explain Senate Bills when introducing them in this House.


Robert Laird Borden: When a Bill is introduced in this House the explanation

is made on the introduction, and there :s no debate on the first reading. If the hon. gentleman desires an explanation I have no doubt it can be giyen.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I just rose to say that I did not agree with the Speaker's ruling.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Bill No. 46, respecting the Algoma Central ,and Hudson Bay Railway Company-Mr. Boyce.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Robert Napper.-Mr. Buchanan.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Sherwood Norman Hill.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Ida May Woltz.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 45,- for the relief of Cecily Ethel Maude Farera.-Mr. Buchanan.


Robert Laird Borden: That on Wednesday, the first day of March next, and subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the session, the House will meet at three o'clock p.m., and that the sittings on such days shall in every respect be under the same rules provided for other days; and that on-said Wednesdays, Government notices of motions and Government orders shall have precedence after questions and notice of motions for production of papers.
He said: This motion is made at a considerably later date than was the case last year. Last year, the House met on the [DOT] 4th of February. On the 16th of February I moved that the Government take Wednesdays and Thursdays, and the motion was accepted on February 25, or just three weeks after the session opened. We have now reached the seventh week of this session, and I therefore ask the House. to adopt the motion making Wednesday a Government day from now to the end of the session.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I am reminded by some friends around me that next Wednesday week is Ash Wednesday, and that if this motion carries there will be no more private members' days this session. I therefore suggest that the motion be amended so that we have to-morrow as a private members' day.


Robert Laird Borden: If my right hon. friend particularly desires it, I am willing to consent, but I would point out that when we were discussing this matter last

year, my right hon. friend himself laid down what had been the practice in the past, namely, that at about the sixth week of the session Wednesday is taken as a Government day. We have gone a week beyond that this year, -and I therefore thought the motion would be accepted. We have not only greatly extended the time beyond last year, but beyond the period during which Wednesday is taken in an ordinary session.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I should like to point out that the burning of the Parliament House destroyed a great many papers relating to matters which hon gentlemen on this side desired to bring before the House.
I have no desire to prolong the session, but I think we could clear these matters off if we were given one more private members' day.


Robert Laird Borden: The burning of the Parliament Building, whatever else it may have accomplished, does not seem to have resulted in any curtailment, of the time usually occupied on public questions. We have really had only two questions under debate this session: the debate on the Address, and the debate on the Budget. In six weeks we have consumed about five thousand columns of Hansard in debating these two subjects, and we are not through with the Budget debate. However, if my hon. friends opposite are very anxious to have to-morrow, I am agreeable.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have no objection to sitting at three o'clock tomorrow, but should like it to be a private members' day.


Robert Laird Borden: What my right hon. friend proposes is that to-morrow the House shall meet at three o'clock and sit in the evening, but that it shall be a private member's day, and that -after to-morrow Government Orders shall have precedence on Wednesdays?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
QUEBEC JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS. On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. LEMIEUX:: In all sincerity, might
I ask my hon. friend the Minister of Justice if any appointment is to be made to the bench of Montreal?


Mr. DOHERTY:: The only vacancies existing in Quebec have been filled.


Wilfrid Laurier: Who are the
appointees?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. L. J. Alfred Desy, K.C., of Three Rivers, and Mr. Victor Allard, K.C., of Berthier, in Montreal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Were the appointments made to-day?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They were approved
to-day.



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 Friday, February 25.
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, the discussion of the Budget has
been carried on at very considerable length, and in order that it may not become too wearisome, I desire to ddal with it to-day from a somewhat different angle-[DOT] to consider rather the condition of the country than that of the treasury, and the effect of the Government's administration, past, present, and, prospective, upon that condition.
I have heard it said in this House upon former occasions that the condition _of the country' was something beyond the control of the- Government; that, as a matter of fact, good times came and went by reason of conditions over which no Government had control; that our conditions in Canada were affected by conditions in other countries; and that if and when conditions were not favourable to the citizens of Canada, the reason was because of conditions elsewhere, rather than because of anything in the administration of our own affairs. However much truth there may be in the contention that we are affected by our environment as a country-and no one will contend that we are not, any more than one can successfully contend that a citizen is not influenced by his environment-still it is a fact that the fortunes of the citizen are largely the result of his own wise direction; and so with the fortunes of a country. The Government of a country, being charged with the disposition of its affairs, is necessarily in large measure responsible for the conditions prevailing in that country. It must, of course, be admitted that a Government cannot compel good crops, nor can it control demand for products in other countries, but a Government can take advantage of a condition of good crops, and it can enable its people to get the benefit of a demand for their t products in other coun-

tries, thereby bringing to its people an advantage which would not exist did not the Government use wise direction in these matters. If it is a fact that the well-being of our country is not in large measure under the direction of our Government, then we are spending an enormous amount of time and wasting an enormous amount of money in carrying on representative Government, because the whole purpose of parliamentary or representative Government is that all parts of the country, and all interests in the country, shall be represented in the councils of the nation, with the view that those in charge of affairs shall give them the best direction in the interest of the people. If ever conditions were favourable in any country, and best calculated to produce prosperity amongst the people, those conditions exist in and surround Canada at the present time. There is at present in progress, as has been said by every speaker, and as, of course, is borne in upon the mind of every citizen, an immense, stupendous and terrible war; and whilst every one must deplore that war, every one must admit that, while it does exist, there is a demand for industry and the results of industry both in the field and in the factory, such as never existed, was never heard of, and was never before dreamed of in this hemisphere.
At the same time, we are compelled to realize that although these favourable conditions exist the results to our people are not at all proportionate; we are not to-day in Canada enjoying that measure of prosperity that the conditions certainly entitle us to. I read in a newspaper the other day that in the city of Toronto there are
9,000	vacant houses,' and in the great buildings on the principal streets of that city offices are to let by the hundreds. In this city of Ottawa, the capital of the Dominion, where is concentrated all the vast and special expenditure of Government, there are closing-out sales on Sparks street to a degree that has not been known for many years. What is true here in the capital of the Dominion and in the great city of Toronto is true in other parts of Canada. I am not familiar with the whole country, but I am terribly aware that throughout a very large part of the country the condition of prosperity that should naturally result from the enormous expenditures that are being made and the phenomenal production of the soil is not at present being realized.
I read a little time ago a history of Canada. The author laid sorne stress upon the 
conditions existing in those periods when this or the neighbouring country was involved in war. The war of 1812, he said, produced an era of tremendous prosperity in Canada as it then was. Those old enough to remember know that the 'Crimean war produced a most remarkable boom throughout eastern Canada-certainly throughout the province of Ontario; every one knows that the American Civil war produced very favourable financial conditions in Canada; and even the Boer war had a favourable effect upon our financial conditions. The historian commented upon this succession of events by saying that it was so thoroughly recognized in Canada that war meant good times that it was, in the province of Ontario, jocularly suggested that there should be interpolated in the Litany a prayer'"for a bountiful harvest and a bloody war." Well, we have had the most bountiful harvest that this country ever saw, as bountiful a harvest as it can ever expect to see; and we are engaged in the bloodiest war in all history, with expenditures being made in respect of that war such as never were dreamed of. Yet to-day we have houses vacant, and business places tenantless, and our country, instead of enjoying the high tide of prosperity, is, at the most that can be claimed for it, holding its own. .
This is a condition that we are entitled to consider. For if, with that magnificent crop and with these stupendous expenditures that we ourselves are making in support of our part in this war and the still more stupendous expenditure being made [DOT] in our midst by Great Britain and her Allies, I say, if, under these circumstances, we secure no better results than we have at the present time, what are we to look forward to when these vast expenditures cease to be made, and when we possibly have to face a crop less favourable than that of last year? I notice that the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) in some measure agrees with what I have said. He says in his Budget speech:
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.... It cannot be too frequently nor too earnestly impressed upon our people that the heaviest burdens of the conflict still lie before us.
And again he speaks of " straightened financial conditions which may prevail " after the war.
The question of how our people are being affected by these conditions of vast expen-

diture is one that may very well engage the serious attention of this House, and inquiry may well be made as to why financial conditions amongst the people at large are not better than they are. The Government of the day has had control of the affairs of this country for some four years. During the first year of their administration they could not be charged with whatever might occur, perhaps not in the second year, perhaps not seriously in the third year. But I do submit that in the fourth year it is time to take stock and to consider whether the promises and expectations that were' indulged in on their accession to power have been realized or not, and, if not, why . not?
It will be remembered that the Government of the day came into power on a very definite policy of high taxation and restricted trade. There is no argument upon, that point. Te former Government went out of power on a declaration for lower taxes and wider tirade, the present Governmeitt came in on the opposite policy of higher taxes and restricted trade. The Government have worked on that policy now for four years. This country now sees the greatest opportunity that it ever saw or that it can ever hope to see for an abounding prosperity, which certainly it is not achieving in any reasonable measure. For that condition the Government must in a large measure be held responsible. Its policy must be judged by the results.
When I have heard the Finance Minister on different occasions place before the House his Budget proposals, involving largely increased taxation, I have been struck by the lightness with which he seemed to regard the imposition of increased taxation. It is true that it was his policy and the policy of his colleagues, but it seemed to me that when he was proposing to add enormously to the burdens of the Canadian people, he should have been impressed with the fact that a burden may be made so heavy that it bows down and renders ineffective the efforts of those who are compelled to bear it.
I must agree with certain remarks made by the Finance Minister as to the natural and proper source of permanent prosperity in this country. He says:
The future of Canada rests with the development of its great resources, of which the greatest and most fundamental is agriculture.
If the future of Canada rgsts on the development of its agricultural resources, does not the present of Canada also rest
in large measure upon the development of those same resources? Perhaps it would be interesting to know just how those resources have been developed under the administration of the Government in power. It will be admitted, of course, that it is to the prairie west that we must look for our greatest agricultural development. It was to the prairie provinces, in the process of their rapid development, that Canada was indebted for that period of increasing prosperity that continued until the year 1911. It was because the prairies were being brought under cultivation and were being made to produce . wealth-wealth which was turned into every line of trade, transportation and industry throughout the whole Dominion. It was because of that yearly increase of wealth that Canada, as Canada, was prosperous. In the year 1910 the wheat area -of the prairie west was approximately 8,000,000 . acres; in 1911 it was approximately 10,000,000 acres, an increase of 2,000,000 acres in one year. The wheat area in 1912 was 10,000,000 acres; in 1913, 10,000,000; in 1914,
9.250.000	acres; in 1915, 11,750,000 acres. It will be observed that from 1911 to 1914 the productive area of the prairie west not only did not increase, but was in the year 1914,
750.000	acres less than it was in 1911. It is true that in 1915 the area was largely increased, the reason being that war prices prevailed in 1914. These prices gave to the farmer the expectation of large profits on his production, and he responded at once by increasing his production to the extent of 750,000 acres over the largest previously cultivated area, and practically 2,500,000 acres over the cultivation of the previous year. If it is a fact, as it is a fact, tin:, the producer of the prairie west vastly increased his production because of the sharp rise of prices in 1914, is it not also absolutely a fact that the reason he not only did not increase his area, but decreased it during the three preceding years, was because the prices did not give him a fair return for his efforts? Again let me remind the House that the present Government came into power on a policy of restricting the farmers' market. They did restrict it. The result was that they restricted production, and the result of restricted production in the prairie west was hard times throughout the rest of Canada. There is no escaping from the facts, because the evidence is that just as soon as an opportunity for higher prices was shown, at that moment the western farmer responded^ and forthwith he cropped a vastly increased area. It

is true that Providence was kind as well, and gave him an abnormal crop, with the result that we have to-day more grain to market than we ever had before. It was Providence that gave him the good crop; it was the war that gave him a good market in 1914; but it was the Government of Canada that kept down his prices during the years 1912 and 1913 and is keeping them down to-day.
The failure to increase the area of land under cultivation was not because there was not an increase of settlement. The facts which I have given to the House are the more striking when it is remembered that there was in each of those years a very la*ge number of homestead entries and that the immigration to Canada was increasing from year to year. It is true that the homestead entries were decreasing, but the immigration to Canada was in- creasing. The result shows that the immigration was not going on the land, and that the man who did go on the land was not using the same exertions to bring it under cultivation as had been done in former years. The reason was that the returns for his labours were not satisfactory, and for that lack of returns the Government and its policy must bear the full share of blame. The rotation of increase is shown in the following table:
Free and
Tear.	purchased
homesteads.
1910..		 41,000
1911..		 44,000
1912		 39,000
1913		 33,000
1914		 31,000
1915		 24,000
It is expected that in 1916 the number will be about 18,000. This shows that the demand for land was decreasing, as the profits from working it were not being realized. At the same time the immigration increased as follows:
Tear.	Immigration.
1910	 208,000
1911..		 311,000
1912	 354,000
1S13	 402,000
1914..		 384,000
I have not- the figures for later years. Thousands and tens of thousands of people took up land, and yet the area of production and the actual production in bushels did not increase. Our hon. friends must take the responsibility for that position, as being the result of the application of their policy of restricted trade to that in-
dustry which the Minister of Finance says contains the future-of the country.
But there was something more in this policy of the Government besides restricted trade; there was the policy of high taxation; because it will be remembered that the reciprocity agreement upon which the late Government appealed to the people provided for a large and substantial decrease in our taxation as well as a widening of our markets. It was rather because it reduced the taxation than because it widened the opportunities for trade that it was opposed. Therefore there is no doubt that our friends came to Parliament on an avowed policy of high taxation, and we are bound, to say that they have lived up to the most ardent expectations.
Looking over the revenues of the country during recent years, I find that the total receipts for 1911-12 were $118,000,000. That was the last full year that the late Government held office. In 1912 they had increased to $136,000,000. In 1913 they had increased to $168,000,000. In 1914 they had decreased slightly to $163,000,000. You will observe that, although the production of the great basic industry of the country was not increasing, the amount of taxation was increasing. It is true that, up to the date I have given, it was increasing on the same rate of taxation; the rate had not been seriously increased up to that time. But the Government was standing to its colours in good shape when, seeing the production of the country standing still, it yet levied all that the tariff would give it. Although the revenue in 1913 was $40,000,000 more than in 1911, still they leyied the taxes and they spent the money. It will be remembered that the war broke out in August, 1914, and the Minister of Finance, in presenting his Budget proposals, provided for meeting the decrease in receipts not 'by economy in expenditure, but by increase in taxation, and
4 p.m so, in the session of 1914, he imposed, taxes, revenue taxes in a large measure, which he estimated would yield $7,000,000 during the remaining half of that year. That is to say, the taxation was increased in the year 1914 to the extent of $14,000,000 a year. As a result of that increase of taxation, receipts in 1915 were $133,000,000. I do not know that it was part of the declared policy of the Government in the contest in 1911 that there should be a policy of large expenditure as well as of high taxatioA and restricted trade. However, in operation that is how it*has worked out; for, although the revenue dropped

from $163,000,000, in 1914, to $133,000,000, in 1915, or, deducting the $7,000,000 extra taxation, to $126,000,000, in 1914, the expenditure was kept up at the good old figure.
Then we came to the session of 1915, and again our friends stood to their guns. No such thing as reducing the expenditure; that would be an economic mistake. I think we have the honourable the Minister of Finance on record on that point, although I do not need to trouble the House by quoting his word,s. At any rate, he decided that instead of reducing the expenditure he would give another boost to the taxation, and so he imposed special and direct taxes, which lie told the House he expected would yield $10,000,000 during the year about to close, and, customs taxes, which he expected would yield about $25,000,000. And, so far as we can judge from his statement in presenting the Budget, his expectations have been fully realized. Thus in this year of grace we are paying an increased rate of taxation over that prevailing in 1913 of- approximately $50,000,000. We are carrying a burden over and above what we were carrying in 1911, in increased taxation, of $50,000,000. At this session my hon. friend comes down with a proposal to add to that increased burden of taxation a further amount of $25,000,000.
When this House rises at the end of this session the Government record in imposing taxation will stand something like this. In the years 1912 and 1913 they changed the tariff only a little; it was increased-I cannot give the details-but we will assume that in these two years they managed, on behalf of their friends, to add a million dollars in extra taxes. Next year, in 1914, they imposed $14,000,000 of taxation; in 1915 they imposed $35,000,000; and this year they propose to impose $25,000,000, which, if I make my calculation correctly, means a burden of $75,000,000 of additional taxation over and above that which was levied on the country when the Liberal Government went out in 1911. As my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) says, when the Liberal Government went out, and the country was almost at the climax of its prosperity, the revenue was something less than $120,000,000. Our friends have added to that $75,000,000, making the total burden to be carried by the people of Canada during the coming 'yeaT $195,000,000. They certainly have lived up to their policy of high taxation. .If the amount of extra taxation that they have imposed is taken from the total receipts, it will be shown that the tax-paying power of the people of Canada stands just where it did in 1911, at $120,000,000. Their extra taxation is an extra burden to that extent. In a country where conditions are far less prosperous amongst the individual citizens than in 1911, we shall carry an additional burden of $75,000,000, or a total increase of about 70 per cent.
It may interest the House to know just how this course of taxation has run, and perhaps it can draw the conclusion that there is some connection between high taxation and haird times. In 1878-9 the total revenue of Canada was $22,500,000, and in 1886-7 it was $35,500,000. In eight years' it had increased by $13,000,000, or 50 per cent. These were the years during which the vast expenditures in connection with the building of the Canadian Pacific railway took place. They were also the years during which the policy of high taxation, the so-called, but miscalled, National Policy was introduced. As a result of the two, a higher rate of taxation and vast expenditure on the Canadian Pacific railway, our revenue was increased by $13,000,000, or 50 per cent in eight years. In 1895-6 the total revenue was $36,500,000. In nine years, under a policy of high taxation, the revenues of the country had increased just $1,000,000. It will be recalled that this period of nine years was a period of anything but prosperity in the Dominion. It will be recalled that this period of high taxation had the effect of making Canada the greatest emigrating country in the world except Ireland-that it had the effect of sending our population to the United States, so that in the United States census of 1900 over 1,000,000 native-born Canadians were enrolled as citizens or residents of that country. That is how the policy of high taxation worked out during Canada's previous experience of it.
But the fathers of the National Policy were men qf great limitations.. They did not realize their possibilities as these possibilities have been realized since. In 1896 the revenue was $36,500,000 and in 1910-11 it was $118,000,000.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Was that taxation?


Frank Oliver: That was revenue.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman almost always calls it taxation when he refers to the revenue since 1911. Why does he not call it the same before that time?


Frank Oliver: I am -willing to call it
the same. Taxation is revenue and revenue is taxation, as I understand it. I will call it taxation if it suits my hon. friend any better. Prom 1896 to 1911 the increase was from $36,500,000 to $118,000,000 of taxation, if my hon. friend likes. But he will have to agree with me, since he insists on the word " taxation," that the increase to $118,000,000 occurred under a substantially lesser rate of taxation than had prevailed before 1896. In those years the increase was $81,000,000. Call it taxation if you like, or call it revenue, but in those fifteen years, under a lower rate of taxation, the revenues of Canada increased 300 per cent. Under this policy of lowering taxation and widening trade, the tide of immigration to the United States was stopped, and was replaced by the tide of emigration from the United States to Canada. The Government of that day desired still further to decrease the taxation, and still further to .widen the trade of Canada. Hon. gentlemen opposite attacked those principles. They triumphed; they have now been in power four years, and they have applied their principles. Am I wrong when I say that the flow of emigration from Canada to the United States that prevailed during the years of the so-called National Policy is again in force to-day, and that Canada is losing thousands of her people to the United States for the very same reason as during the years previous to 1896, namely, a policy of high taxation and restricted trade?
I am sure my hon. friends opposite will have an answer to everything I have said up to this point. First of all, they will declare that the condition of hard times prevailing in Canada was precipitated by the outbreak of war. Seeing that no one has actually made that statement on the floor of this House at this moment, you will not call me to order, Mr. Speaker, if I say that it is not -correct. In the years 1908, 1909, 1911, and 1912, Canada was enjoying a boom, or suffering from a boom, which ever you please to name it, and the boom burst in the fall of 1912. If there is any doubt that hard times did exist previous to the war I can say that to my knowledge, men in hundreds, if not in thousands, were parading the streets of. many of our cities in the fall of 1913 demanding work or bread. In Edmonton I saw the motto carried in procession, " Steal or starve, which?" And they demanded charity, or, as they said, they demanded their rights, and in many cases those rights were conceded. The city of Edmonton spent $25,000

in the winter of 1913-14 in feeding the men who they were satisfied had no other means of support; and what occurred in Edmonton occurred in many other cities, though perhaps not to the same degree. 8o the contention that the present hard times in Canada were precipitated by the outbreak of war is certainly not "correct. It is true that fvhen war broke out there was a momentary disarrangement of financial conditions, and that the hard times then existing were accentuated. But that the war, instead of being a detriment to financial conditions in this country, was really the one thing that relieved those conditions is proved by the statement of the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech; that the present prosperity of our people-and I am not saying that there is not some measure of prosperity-is due to conditions resulting from the war. The war was the one thing which alleviated the unemployment which prevailed throughout Canada previous to its outbreak. How could it be otherwise than that some measure of prosperity should result from the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars because of the war, and only because of the war? The Minister of Finance warned the country of the possible collapse-he did not use that word, but I use- it-of these conditions. Therefore, it is not the war that we should blame for unfortunate financial conditions; it is not the war that we should blame for the empty houses, the shut-down businesses, or the movement of people to the United States. We have no more right to blame the war for these conditions than we have to blame it for the similar conditions that prevailed during the enforcement of the National Policy previous to 1896.
There is another feature of the Budget proposals in regards to which I have no doubt the war again will be used as a justification. I think the Minister of Finance did in his -speech actually cite the war as a justification for the vast amount of- taxation that has been imposed on the Canadian people since the war began. What are the facts? I think his statement was that, up to the end of January, we -shall have spent for war purposes $158,000,000. Assuming that we spend $8,000,000 & -month on the war, we shall spend before the end of the year $16,000,000 more; that is, interest will have to be found during the coming year on $174,000,000 that will have been spent in connection with the war. The interest and sinking

fund payment on $174,000,000 for one year is approximately $10,000,000. But my hon. friend has laid estimates on the table of the House calling for interest and sinking fund payments amounting approximately to $40,000,000 for the coming year. When my hon. friend became. Finance Minister the interest charge against the people of Canada was a little over $14,000,000 a year; to-day it is $40,000,000, and there is no justification for charging more than $10,000,000 of that $40,000,000 to war account. The difference between the interest charge my hon. friend found when he took office and the interest charge of to-day, after allowing for war account, is $15,000,000. This Government since they' took office' doubled the interest charge against the Dominion of Canada, and that is after allowance has been made for war account. The Finance Minister tells us that the Government is going to ask for an appropriation of $250,000,000 for the coming year. Interest upon that amount will, of course, have to be provided. If you add that $250,000,000 to the $174,000,000 that will be expended by the end of March of this year you will have an amount upon which the interest charges will be about $25,000,000; but my hon. friend, since he has taken office, proposes to add to the taxation of the people of Canada, not $25,000,000, but $75,000,000, that is, $25,000,000 on account of continuing the war until the end of next year, and $50,000,000 on account of the expenditures of the Government on civil account during four years of administration.
Mr. MI?IGHEN: Additional interest?


Frank Oliver: Additional taxation. When the Budget proposals of this (session go through the Minister of Finance will, on his own statement, have added $75,000,000 to the taxation of the Canadian people, that is, he will have increased the means of taxation upon them to such an extent that he will take from them $75,000,000 more per year than were being taken from th'em under the rates of taxation prevailing when he took office. To meet the interest charges on the war for the next year my hon. friend needs $25,000,000. There is, therefore, $50,000,000 of extra taxation that this Government is taking from the people because of its methods of carrying on the civil government of the country.


Arthur Meighen: Did the hon. gentleman not hear the Minister of Finance say that
the money is going on the principal war account? *


Frank Oliver: It does not make any difference where the money goes. The Minister of Finance and the Solicitor General can juggle the figures any way they like. The point is that the figures are as I have stated them. The Minister of Finance has said he is going to apply $35,000,01)0 of his surplus this year on civil account to the payment of capital expenditure on war account, and he is going to borrow $35,000,000 on civil account. What is the difference? There is none. The fact is that, because of the administrative extravagance of this Government, he has increased the burden of taxation on the people of Canada $50,000,000 over and dbove the requirements of interest on war account. He said:-
To win the war with the decisiveness which will ensure lasting peace, the Empire will require to put forth its full collective power n men anu in money.
From this viewpoint it is our true policy to augment our financial strength hy multiplying our productive exertions, and hy exercising a rigid economy which reduces to the minimum all expenditures upon luxuries and nonessentials.
Can any one find a form of words that jvill convey the idea of economy more lucidly, more correctly, or more forcibly than those which I have read? But the Minister of Finance, who exhorts the people of Canada to economize and charges them to avoid expenditures on luxuries and non-essentials, is the very man who has laid upon the backs of the people a burden of $50,000,000 of taxation per year, and to pay for what;)


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: To pay for the
mistakes of our predecessors.


Frank Oliver: Oh, no. To pay for the
addition of 10,000 civil servants to the paylist; to pay for expenditures where expenditures ought never to have been made. I have heard of my hon. friend eloquently declaiming in this House against the expenditures made by the late Government on the Transcontinental railway.


William Thomas White: 


Frank Oliver: But it will be noted that the increase of taxation by the late Government in order to meet the expenditures made on that railway while they were in office, did not produce an increased burden of taxation, as have the expenditures since my hon. friend came into office. More than half of the legitimate expenditures on the Transcontinental railway had been made before he took office; my hon. friend had to meet expenditures only for the comple-

tion of the work; but when he completed the Transcontinental railway, did he stop there and curtail other expenditures because of the feeling he had that the money of the people of Canada was being spent unduly on that great enterprise? Not so. If there was extravagance in building the Transcontinental, surely there is ten times as much extravagance in the conduct of affairs under the control of this Government to-day, when the Minister of Finance calls upon the whole citizenry of Canada to practise economy-every one is to practise economy except the Government.
I have pointed out that, when my hon. friend's proposals of this year are carried through, he will have imposed upon the people of this country an additional taxation of $75,000,000. When the Liberal Government took office, in 1896, the total revenue was $36,500,000. Therefore, in four years my hon. friend has imposed in additional taxation twice as much as the total revenue of the country was in 1896. If the money was necessary for war purposes, no one would raise any question; but, when out of that $75,000,000, only $25,000,000 is for war purposes and $50,000,000 is for extravagance cn the part of the Government, surely s'-me question should be raised. At this time, when very heavy burdens are being laid upon the people, surely the burdens should be lightened where they can be lightened instead of expenditure going [DOT]on just as it has gone on in the same merry wdy under the belief that, as long as this Parliament has the authority to impose taxes on the Canadian people, it makes no difference to the country at large; the people simply can bear it and it will do no harm. Probably the idea is, as my hon. _ friend from St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) said, in inaugurating the Patriotic fund, it will do good to their souls to pay this higher rate of taxation.
My argument is this, that the Government of to-day, - being^ compelled to meet large requirements because of the war, should, at such a time and under such circumstances, have taken measures to curtail expenditures on ordinary civil account My contention is that they have not done so and are not doing so, for they come down with estimates amounting to $190,000,000 on civil account and ask this House to vote them. These figures are so immense as to be staggering. The ordinary man does not realize what they mean. He can only tell, when he comes to pay, whether his ability to pay is equal to the demands made upon him or not. As my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition said on one occa-

sion, tne ordinary man can tell best by the jingling of the money in his pocket. If we found that our agricultural area was expanding, that our agricultural production was increasing, that the Government of the day was using the money they have taken from the people for the purpose of increasing that production and expanding that area, then we might hope to carry the burden that is being cast upon us.
Let us carefully consider what that burden is. There has been a Cost of Living Commission at work in Canada for some years and its report is before us. While that report does not come down to the present day, still it is very interesting as far as it goes. The Labour Gazette, that useful publication for which we are indebted to our genial friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers), gives information up to date. We find, on consulting the Cost of Living Commission's report and the Labour Gazette, that the cost of living-and that is what we have to jingle the money in our pockets to meet; if we have not the money we must cut down our living accordingly;- we And that the cost of living has greatly increased. A certain figure has been arrived at by consent, representing the average of the wholesale prices of some 271 commodities in general use. This is called the " index number." We find that in 1911 this index number	stood at 131,
and that for January, 1916, it stood at 172. This is a difference of 41, and, as I figure it, it means practically an increase of one-thiTd in the cost of these 271 articles. Does the House realize what the increase of one-third in the cost of living means to the people? The burden of taxation, imposed directly by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance fades into insignificance in comparison with it. Suppose there are 7,500,000 people in Canada. If we assume that these people consume on the average $100 worth a year of the 271 articles-and surely that is below the mark-we find a total consumption of $750,000,000. If the cost is increased one-third, it rneans^ an additional burden of about $250,000,000, or one-half the amount of the present national debt upon the people of Canada in addition to what they had to bear in 1911. Now, I am not making these figures; the Government and its commission are responsible for them. Unless there has been a most grievous error in their calculations, the result has been, as I have stated, that under the administration of this Government there has been an increase of one-third in the cost of living of the people of Canada in a matter of four years, and that

increase has taken place when business conditions were down grade and not on the up grade, as they were in the yeaYs previous to 1911.
Is this the time-when people are carrying that enormous burden of the increased cost of living-to impose $50,000,000 of additional taxes upon them because of the extravagant administration by this Government, in addition to the $25,000,000 of interest on war account that they must pay? And not only so, but consider 'what the Minister of Finance said-and I hope he will allow me to refer thus often to his Budget speech because it contains a vast amount of good material:
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 faithful fulfilment of which our success and consequently our national safety may ultimately depend.
We are not at the end of the conflict. No man can tell how long it may last. The Minister of Finance advises everybody else to hoard their resources, but he heaps on the taxation and spends the money royally. Is there any connection between this enormous increase of taxation and this increase in the cost of living? Whoever follows these figures will notice that it is since, the burden of taxation has been so largely increased that the cost of living has gone up most rapidly The rotation is this: 1911, 191; 1912, 143; 1913, 135; 1914, 136; 1915, 139; 1916, 172. It may be only a coincidence that the cost of living and the increase of taxation have, so to speak, synchronized; but I cannot rid my mind of the idea that the increase in the cost of living is- in large measure dependent upon the increased burden of taxation and upon the tariff changes that have been made in accordance with the Government's policy of increased taxation and restricted trade.	.
In the present Budget there have not been many tariff increases. There have been two-one in regard to apples and the other in regard to petroleum. I have not been able to find out just how far-reaching the new petroleum duties are, but I notice that they are expected to produce a revenue of half a million dollars, and I am interested to know who is going to pay that half million. I do not know whether the prairie West will have to pay it, but there is no question about who is to pay the duty on apples; that seems to be settled
beyond a doubt. The minister proposes to raise the duty on apples to 90 cents a barrel. He says:
We regard this duty as indispensably necessary for the preservation of the apple-gr-owing industry of Canada, and particularly that of British Columbia, which has been most seriously affected since the outbreak of the war.
I have to disagree with my hon. friend in that last remark. I think it is possible to ride this war a little too hard; in this case my hon. friend is putting upon the war one more burden that it is not entitled to carry. I think it would be found that the apple industry of British Columbia was affected in years previous to the war. However, in order to bring this apple question down to a fine point, I wish to quote from the Columbian, which is published, I believe, in New Westminster. It says:
In such circumstances, if the apple-growing industry of British Columbia, in which, it has been estimated, $20,000,000 has been invested, there being 30,000 acres of orchard lands, 40 per cent of which are now bearing, is to be saved from ruinous competition, the additional protection was certainly needed, and those who have at heart the agricultural interests of the province, will be appreciative of the Ottawa decision and congratulate the Fruit Growers' Association on the success of their representations to the Government.
'It is not necessary to urge that the people who will pay the extra price to the British Columbia fruit growers are the people of the prairie West- the people, Mr. Speaker, who constitute that great agricultural industry the expansion and development of which is the future hope of our country. According to the Columbian, the minister is making the farmers of the prairie West responsible, for the profits on an investment of $20,000,000 in the apple producing industry of British Columbia-and 30,000 acres in British Columbia are occupied by orchard lands. Just imagine laying the three prairie provinces under direct tribute for the benefit of 30,000 acres in British 'Columbia! We are to provide the dividends on an investment of $20,000,000 out of forty per cent of the production that that 30,000 acres is capable of. If we are not to do that, then the minister on the one hand and the Columbian on the other, are misrepresenting the facts. In any case there is no doubt as to who pays this part of the *extra taxation.
Let me show hon. gentlemen how absolutely uncalled for this duty on apples is, looked at from every standpoint of national interest, which the minister suggested



should have the first consideration at the hands of this House in the present great imperial crisis. The total import of apples into Canada in 1915 from the United States was 269,000 barrels, of a value of $648,000. The duty was $107,000, and the new duty on that valuation would be $242,000, or an increase of $135,000. If the fruit growers of Canada cannot stand the 'competition of that quantity of apples, either they are not growing fruit in the right way or in the right place. Having regard to the figures of the Trade and Navigation returns, there was no justification for this taxation except the very special interest of the people who are most closely identified with the apple industry, personally and politically-and, I would say, very much more politically than personally. It is the agriculturists of the prairies who will pay the $135,000 a year extra duty, who will pay in increased price for their apples an amount that will yield a profit on an investment of $20,000,000. Given the opportunity, there is no doubt that that opportunity will be taken full advantage of. There is no doubt that the cost of living in the prairie provinces will be increased to that extent; and there is no doubt that that-increase in the cost of living will be to the very great detriment of the people who live there. If there is one thing in the way of luxury that they are entitled to at a fair price, surely it is that fruit that is most abundant and best adapted for transport-apples. If the duty on apples to protect 30,000 acres of orchard land is to have such a far-reaching effect in raising the cost of living in the prairie provinces, certainly my hon. friend's increase of customs duties last year, which he hoped would yield $25,000,000, will have a correspondingly wide effect in increasing the cost of living not only in the prairie provinces but throughout the whole Dominion of Canada. The $25,000,000 that he gets into the treasury is a heavy 'burden. It would pay the interest on the war debt' as it will be next year.
But is that all that the people of Canada have to pay? If it is a fact, and it surely is, that on the average we produce twice as much as we import, then, surely, instead of the burden being $25,000,000 by reason of that general tariff increase, it will be $75,000,000-$25,000,000 to the treasury and $50,000,000 to the friends of my hon. friend and his supporters. But still he says:

The future of Canada rests with the development of its great resources, of which the greatest and most fundamental is agriculture; and this development is in turn hound up with the question of the increase in population of the productive sort and the facilities afforded it for the application of its intelligence and industry.
And so he increases his tariff and he adjusts his taxes so as to lay the maximum burden upon the great agricultural industry.
We have to borrow money, of course, to pay for this extra expenditure, and we have to borrow money to carry on the war. But we have another source from which we derive money, that is, the issue of Dominion notes. I find that my hon. friend, in his address, makes this reference to the issue of Dominion notes, with every word of which I agree:
The Government is resolutely determined to maintain the standard of our currency and not to resort to the issue of unsecured paper money, which is merely a short loan without interest, leading to depreciation and the greatest economical evils which can afflict a nation.
The opinion of no man in Canada is entitled to greater respect than that of the Minister of Finance on matters of finance, and when he made this announcement it was greeted with applause on both sid,es of the House. But on looking into the public accounts I find that, whereas in 1911 the total amount of Dominion notes issued was $90,000,000, in 1915 the amount was $157,000,000, an increase of $67,000,000, or about seventy-five per cent in four years.


Arthur Meighen: Has my hon. friend the figures of the gold reserve against this circulation?


Frank Oliver: I have the figures of the gold. I am merely stating the fact that he has increased the circulation 5 p.m. of Dominion notes to the extent of 75 per cent in four years over what it was when he took office, and that is, according to his own statement, a forced loan, an addition to the money that he would otherwise have had available for expenditure.


Arthur Meighen: How can it be a forced loan when there is gold against it? What is the difference if ten times that amount is issued in four years if there is gold against it?


Frank Oliver: I do not know what the difference is, but my hon. friend objects most strongly to an undue issue of paper money.


Arthur Meighen: It cannot be undue if
there is gold behind.it.


Frank Oliver: It depends on how much
gold there is behind it. It is merely a forced loan without interest; that is what the minister says. He has increased that forced loan without interest to the extent of 65 per cent while he has been in office. He has had that amount of money available for expenditure in addition to the interestbearing money that he has borrowed both in Canada and abroad.


William Thomas White: I do not like to interrupt my hon. friend, but I am sure he does not desire to make such an extremely inaccurate statement. Dominion notes are issued-as a matter of course to the banks against gold deposited to' the credit of the Receiver General. The Government does not spend tne money produced by the notes issued against gold.


Frank Oliver: Who gets it?


William Thomas White: The banks. It is for the convenience of the banks and of the public. The banks are permitted to deposit gold with the Receiver General and get Dominion notes in exchange, but the Dominion Government does not spend the Dominion note issue. It is only for the convenience of the banks and the public and to meet the circulation needs of the community.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend must hold himself responsible for my error, because he speaks of an issue of unsecured paper money as merely a forced loan.


William Thomas White: Unsecured paper money. What I had in mind was that it would be a very great evil for the body politic if the Government should issue unsecured paper money, fiat currency, for its purposes, as has been done in Germany and in the case of many other nations when at war.


Frank Oliver: As a matter of fact, is there gold behind each dollar of this paper currency?


William Thomas White: Over 70 per cent.


Frank Oliver: Over 70 per cent, and therefore 25 per cent or 30 per cent is a forced loan.


William Thomas White: No.


Frank Oliver: Then I have to disagree with my hon. friend. Unless there is dollar for dollar behind it the country is getting
77i
the benefit of that amount. There is no argument on that point at all. As long as gold is the standard and there is no gold behind that paper, that paper is not absolutely secured, and it is to all intents and purposes a forced loan. The minister in his remarks contemplated the possibility of the Government issuing paper money to a greater degree than it had done. At what point in that issue would he consider he had reached the point of a forced loan if he does not admit that when he issues a dollar of paper money more than he has gold, that is, to all intents and pur poses, a forced loan?


William Thomas White: The matter is governed by legislation. Two or three years ago it wag permitted to the Government to issue paper money to an amount represented by 122,500,000. Afterwards, 'by virtue of legislation, that amount was extended to $37,500,000. Then, under the Finance Act, paper money may be issued against securities. But what I referred to was the issue of unsecured paper money, such as is being issued in Germany to-day, and as was done by the South in the great struggle of the Civil War, and by the North also, with consequent depreciation and the resultant evils that.afflicted the nation.


Frank Oliver: If the minister has a dollar of gold in the treasury and issues $2 of paper money, does he consider that second dollar fiat money, or what does he consider it?


William Thomas White: It depends entirely upon the legislation of the country. If the country has legislation under which it is permitted to issue a certain amount of paper money, about equal to the currency" needs of the community, not likely to be' handed in for redemption, I would not consider that fiat money. What I had in mind was that the laws of the land should not be exceeded by the issue of fiat money, as was done by the United States in the Civil War, and as is being done by Germany today, and as has, in fact, been done by most nations engaged in war.


Frank Oliver: It all comes to the same thing, that if the gold is not there there is nothing behind the paper but the credit and good faith of the country. The point I wanted to make is that the Government had the benefit of the increased issue of paper money in adjusting its finances during these past years, in addition to the money which it bor-

rowed, and on which it pays interest. Otherwise, there is no meaning to the paragraph that I have rehd out of my hon. friend's speech.
Now, I want to draw attention to a further feature of this question of the well-being of the country through its agricultural interests and the policy which has been adopted by this Government in regard to those interests. ,1 shall not refer at length to the policy of the Government in refusing the export of our wheat to the United States. We have threshed that out, and the Government has taken its position definitely on that point. I believe that our people, especially the producers of the West, stand to lose a vast amount of money because of the policy of the Government. Our production is being restricted and our expansion is being prevented by that policy. I shall not argue that at length now. But I want to point out that when this war broke out it was the business of the Government to take all reasonable means to secure for the farmers of Canada, both East and West, the maximum advantage that could be derived from the existence of w^ar conditions. Instead of their acting upon that idea, they have at evei'y turn hindered and hampered the farmer, particularly the farmer of the West. Did they not at the beginning of the war place an embargo upon the export of wheat and flour to the United States? Did they not place an embargo upon the export of horses to the United States? Did they not place an embargo upon the export of hay to the United States? Did they not place an embargo upon the export of wool to the United States? Have they not placed a partial embargo upon the export of oatmeal to different parts of the world? Is there any sense or reason, from any point of view, why the farmers of Canada should not have benefited to the fullest extent by the war conditions that have prevailed?


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman say that we were wrong in placing these embargoes?


Frank Oliver: I am trying to say so; I
am sorry that I cannot say it emphatically enough to impress my hon. friend, but I will try. I consider that a Government which has refused to put an embargo on the export of nickel to the United States cannot go before the farmers of Canada and plead patriotism in refusing to allow them to export their products to the United States. Horses, wheat, flour, wool, hay can be bought elsewhere than in Canada; but nickel cannot be bought elsewhere than in Canada. Why should the

Government hamper the operations of the farmer? Did the well-being of Great Britain or her Allies depend on the farmer of Canada not being allowed to sell his horses to Great Britain or to the Allies, or on his being prevented from selling them to the United States? The United States, I am credibly informed, has sold half a million horses to Great Britain and the Allies, and it has sold them at a price averaging over $200 per head. The horses sold by Canada, I see by a recent return, have gone at an average of $162 per head. Is that giving to the farmer of Canada even a reasonably fair chance of making a profit out of his operations? How can the Minister of Finance give his blessing to the agricultural industry in the terms in which he does in his Budget speech and permit his colleagues to hold up the farmer at every turn in all his operations where there might be an opportunity for him to secure an advantage out of the war conditions?
My hon. friends seized 1.3,500,000 bushels of wheat, and they have -not explained yet why they seized it. They have not told us what they did with it; but we have it in evidence that the 5,000,000 bushels which they kept-and they kept only 5,000,000 bushels and gave the rest back-was farmers' wheat on which the farmers stand to lose 25 cents. a bushel. The farmer is a patriotic man, willing to pay his share of the cost of this war, either in Canada or in Europe, and God knows he is dqing it in money and in men. But why should he have to pay 25 cents 4 bushel on 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 bushels of wheat that nobody else in Canada has to pay? Why have the gentlemen composing this Government the right to take a million dollars out of the pockets of the farmers of the West and say to them:	"Oh, patriotism demands that
you make that sacrifice." Let them go to their friends in other parts of Canada and *commandeer their products, take the money out of-their pockets, and see where their patriotism would be.
This Government is able to get transportation facilities on the Atlantic ocean for the benefit of munition makers, those gentlemen who are so very much in need of assistance at the hands of the Government, but it is not able to do anything to overcome the handicap that the farmers are labouring under at the present time. Wheat is higher in London to-day than it was a year ago, but the farmer of the West is getting a less price for his wheat, in proportion, than he

was getting a year ago. What becomes of the difference? It is taken up by the cost of ocean transport. Surely, if ever there was a time or an occasion for the Government of Canada to step in and aid in the expansion of the agricultural industry of the West and increase its production in order that the burden of this may be carried in the future, that was the time and that was the occasion. To-day the consumer in Great Britain is paying an abnormal price for his wheat and the producer of the prairie West is getting less than he should get under the circumstances. Give the man of the prairie West the same conditions as you give the munition manufacturer. If you can do it foT the one you can do it for the other, and if you cannot do it for the one why should you do it for the other? We have had a magnificent crop in the West. It is to that crop that the people of Canada as a whole look for lifting the country out of its present and recent condition of financial depression. Has the Government appreciated the situation and made adequate and suitable provision for getting that crop on, the market in such a manner and form that it will produce the best results? The answer is there-the commandeering of the wheat, or the embargo on the wheat, or the ocean freight rates on the wheat. The Government has no interest in the wheat except to tax the man who grows it, and to benefit those of their friends who supply the farmer with the articles he requires.
Now, this is a serious matter. The farmer has produced an enormous crop. He has not been able to dispose of that crop to advantage; it is in a large measure on his hands up to this moment; and the acting Minister of Railways tells us to-day that a large proportion of that crop is in danger of being destroyed by the weather conditions. Under these circumstances, can we expect the farmer of the West to increase his acreage next year? Is it reasonable to expect him to do it? Is it possible for him to do it? The hope that the Finance Minister expressed of a further increase in agricultural production next year might reach fruition if this Government would give the farmer of the West a square deal. That is all he asks for and that is all he needs. But this Government since they have been in power have loaded the western farmer with taxes and imposts; they have advantaged their own friends in all parts of the country at the farmer's expense; they have hampered his opportunities in connection with the war, as though he were somebody who was doing the country an injury in producing what was required. I say that the farmer of the West has no right to contribute more than- his fair share to the conduct of this war. He has a right, and he is willing, to contribute his fair -share, and if only that is taken from him you may confidently expect that his industry will expand, and that in the end the country will benefit. But the Government of to-day, in regard to the prairies of the West, is following exactly the policy and principles of their predecessors in office before 1896. History is absolutely repeating Itself. The policy of high taxation and restricted trade that was applied in those years prevented expansion, and the same policy is having exactly the same result to-day.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Has not the aggregate trade of the country been greater since 1911?


Frank Oliver: I should hope it has, considering the enormous amount of borrowed money spent in this country on the manufacture of munitions. If it is not greater it certainly ought to be, especially as in the West there has been a two-years' crop in one.


William Cameron Edwards: Apart from the war, was not the aggregate trade in 1912 and 1913 greater than in the years previous to 1911?


Frank Oliver: I could not say. What I am saying is that the production of the West has been decreasing since this Government took office, with the exception of the production of last year, and I say you cannot build up this country on any such programme. The prosperity of this country absolutely depends upon the expansion of the agricultural industry, and it is only in the West that that industry can expand,. Surely, then, the policy of the Government of the day should be to take measures to secure that expansion, rather than to follow a policy of high taxation and restricted trade, a policy that up to the present time has resulted, in spite of our magnificent crop and war business, in keeping our bank clearings down to a 23 per cent increase over last year, as compared with an increase of 50 per cent in the United States. The argument has been made that if times are bad in the United States we cannot have good times in Canad,a. But times are x good in the United States; they were never better, and still we have not good times in

Canada, speaking at large. The Government of Canada must take the responsibility for the administration of the affairs of Canada, and for the results of that [DOT] administration.	.


Arthur Meighen: Charges re national debt-
1915-16	$22,077,009.78
1913-14	 13,353,518.91
Excess	$ 8,663,490.87
Plus pensions,
1915-16	..	..	449,097.70
Extra amount (really a war charge) deducted	$ 9,112,591.57

9,112,591.57

Expenditure 1914-15-
Net (deducting war vote) .. .. 187,348,050.32
Decrease in 1915-16 over
1914-15	$ 25,760,641.83
Decrease in 1915-16 over
1913-14 ($186,241,047.63)	..	24,653,639.14Increase over 1908-09	($133,441,524.29)	
28,145,884.20


Rodolphe Lemieux: How much has this
Government increased its expenditures in four years?


Arthur Meighen: I am coming to that
next, and it will be worse for the hon. gentleman than what I have just given. We have diminished our expenditure for 191516 as compared with 1913-14, aside from the war, by $24,653,639; and the increase since the hon. gentleman was in power-going back to 1908-9, and comparing that with the year 1915-16-is only 21 per cent. That is, this country in seven years has increased its expenditure by only 21 per cent, and the British Government has increased the expenditure in four years by 20 per cent.
The hon. gentleman made a casual reference to the expenditure of the Government of France. The only reason he did that, I fancy, is that he did not know there had been an increase_ by the Government of France. You cannot get the figures for 1915-16; at least I could not; but I apprehend that they would be more to my advantage than those of 1914-15, which I have before me. I find that

the expenditure of the Government of France for 1914-15 shows an increase of 25 per cent as compared with four years before. That of Australia is still more, and that of New Zealand still more. And these are the governments held up to us as an example by the hon. member for Rouville
He was not content, however, to make a general racing charge against the Government of increasing the debt. By the way, the debt had diminished [DOT] until we entered the war. But what was me policy of hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to the debt? The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) says that the late Government went out of power because they appealed to the country on a policy of lower taxation, that is, lower revenue. If they proposed lower revenue, I know another thing tnat they proposed, and that was a great deal higher expenditure. Their proposed expenditure in 1911 was over $156,000,000.	.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman has
not quoted my position correctly. I did not say the late Government were going to collect less money; I said they were going to collect their money at a lower rate.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
said their policy was lower taxation.


Frank Oliver: Sure.


Arthur Meighen: He was going to get
more revenue by a lower rate of taxation?


Frank Oliver: Certainly; that was what we did in the fifteen years we were in power.


Arthur Meighen: And we kept their low rate, as he calls it. He says that they themselves increased taxation from $36,500,000 in 1896 to $113,000,000 in 1916. We charged the same rate that they did, until [DOT] last year, when it was increased by 7| per cent. Up to that time there was no increase, but rather a diminution of the rate.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend must have forgotten about the session of 1914, when this Government imposed duties that he said wbuld yield larger sums during that half year.


Arthur Meighen: Inland revenue duties.


Frank Oliver: No.


Arthur Meighen: All that was done was a very small change in the tariff, but whatever was done had the effect of a diminution in the rate of taxation under the tariff up to the outbreak of this war.


Frank Oliver: I do not agree with that.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
agrees with nothing; but the figures are [DOT] here.


Frank Oliver: I say that an increase was made in the tariff.


Arthur Meighen: Then it was an increase to change from 17i per cent to 121 per cent on farm implements. The tariff was increased in 1915-a level increase of 5 per cent preferential and 7i per cent general. Up to that time we had the old rate. And what does the hon. gentleman say resulted? He says that in the fall of 1913 workingmen were marching the streets of the cities of Canada with banners inscribed " Bread or wages " and " Steal or starve." That was the result of the low rate he boasts of, for it was still in effect in 1913.


Frank Oliver: That was the result of the hon. gentleman's bad administration.


Arthur Meighen: In retaining the low
rate of hon. gentlemen opposite, I suppose. What I was saying before the hon. gentleman interrupted me was that he said his Government went to the country on a policy of lower taxation. I say that they went to the country at the same time on a policy of higher expenditure, because the Estimates for 1911 were in all $158,716,929; their revenue the year before was only $101,000,000; so that they went to the coun-rty on a policy of increasing the national debt annually by over $57,000,000. That must have been the intention of the hon. gentleman in 1911. The people of Canada can hardly help but be grateful that they were turned out of office.


Frank Oliver: Does the hon. gentleman say that we increased the national debt yearly by $50,000,000?


Arthur Meighen: No. But the hon. gentleman says they proposed lower taxation than before. In the previous year their taxation yielded $101,000,000. Their proposed expenditure when they went out of office was $158,000,000. Therefore they proposed,to increase the national debt by $57,000,000 a year. How do you get out of it?
The hon. member for Rouville went through a long array of figures. I should like to know the source of them. I have searched diligently and with care, and I cannot learn where he got them. I have taken a few instances. I notice that he got into an altercation with the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers).


Mr. TURRIFF:: Hear, hear ! As clear as anything in the Budget !


Arthur Meighen: The Opposition financial critic said the Budget speech was remarkably lucid. Then what more does he want? I think it was as plainly put by the Minister of Finance as words can ; clothe a thought. But it does not work out in such a way that he can make an argument out of it from the viewpoint of what he calls the " crucified " western farmer, therefore he cannot understand it. The Minister of Finance, referring to this' subject, said:
We also propose a duty of one-half cent a gallon on oils, petroleum, not including crude petroleum imported to he refined, or illuminating or lubricating oils, '8235 specific gravity [DOT]or heavier at 60 degrees temperature.
Now, where is the intellect that can possibly conceive that illuminating oils are included in the duty? "A duty on oils, petroleum, not including illuminating oils." The hon. member for Assiniboia assumed,
prima facie, from that that the poor farmer of the West was going to have to pay on all his oil, and the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) assumed that the little babies were going to have to be sent to bed without a lamp. How could the English language make it clearer that there is no imposition of duty on illuminating oil? If that is not clear I cannot help the hon. member for Assiniboia. There is something else that the duty applies to, but in respect to which it effects a substantial reduction:
This change will include heavy distillates that are now assessed duty at two and one-half cents a gallon and which have been chiefly imported into the prairie provinces.
The duty on heavy distillates now charged is 24 cents, plus 74 per cent, and it is changed to 4 cent on a gallon. Any difficulty about that? It is a reduction of 2 cents. The reduction is really more than that, as the old rate of duty was 24 cents plus the war tax of 74 per cent, so that there is a net reduction of about 24 cents' on heavy distillates, and these heavy distillates are used by the farmers of the West. Anything that is still not clear? Heavy distillates are used in the internal combustion engines in that country to the extent of about 1,000,000 gallons a year, as estimated by one of the officials of the department. So there is a saving there to the farmers of the West of .some $25,000.
Oh, but this apple duty, that is going to ruin him; an increase of 50 cents a barrel on apples. Well, in the first place, there is no increase of 50 cents a barrel on apples, but that is about the closest I have ever heard the hon. member for Assiniboia get to the exact facts when he is using figures. The real increase in duty is about 25 cents a barrel. Surely the hon. member can understand that 40 cents a barrel was the rate before the war time; 74 per cent was added; 74 per cent a barrel on the lowest class of apples brings the duty to 56 cents and on the best class of apples to about 70 cents, an average of .about 65 cents a barrel. That is a net increase of 25 cents a barrel. Twenty-five cents a barrel, they say, is going to be a ruinous burden pressing down these men, some of whom were described by the hon. member for Assiniboia as making $5,000, $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 a year, and who he said were insulted because they were not asked to pay some of these new war taxes. Each of these men will be using a barrel of apples a year, but not jnuoh more. Even if the

whole duty is added, I do not think there is a family that will pay more than 75 cents or $1 in one year in additional cost.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend has a poor opinion of the farmers.


Arthur Meighen: Does my hon. friend mean that four barrels^ a year is not an outside estimate of the quantities of apples to be used by one family? Am I not pretty generous? I know I do not use that. That would be $1 a year, supposing the whole duty were added. What an awful calamity for the western farmer!


John Gillanders Turriff: One more burden,' that is all.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), states that there is $20,000,000 invested in land devoted to the fruit industry in British Columbia. He quotes from a newspaper to that effect -$20,000,000 invested in some 30,000 acres. Now, it is a well known fact that if the cultivators of that land get the benefit of the increased duty to the extent of enabling them to market a larger proportion of their products, it will be a benefit, not to the combines or the trusts or the bloated capitalists or any body of that sort, for whom the hon. gentleman has such a horror, but it will be a benefit to a struggling man, the fruit farmer of British Columbia, admitted to be struggling by every honest citizen of this country. This is doing just what was done in other days for the grape growers of this country, who were protected. The protection first given to them did not prove enough, and a little increase was added. The result has been that we in Canada can now buy the best grapes in the world at about the lowest price. The price is kept down by the competition among the grape growers of this country. It is hoped the same thing will take place in respect to apples.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILL.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Private Bills, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Further consideration of Bill No. 19, re-specting-a patent of James W. Owen.-Mr. Middlebro.
Frank Oliver: What is the article that is being patented under this Bill?


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: The Bill stands in my name more as a matter of form than anything else. The matter came up in the Private Bills Committee, it was thoroughly discussed there, some amendments were made, and the committee thought it right that the Bill should pass. I do not even know what the article referred to is; that shows how much I know about it. There has been an objection from year to year about these Bills which are introduced to renew patents, and I thoroughly agree with that objection, but until we get some uniform law dealing with the question, it seems to me that we cannot make fish of one and flesh of another. The Deputy Minister of Agriculture suggests that after the war is over the patent fee be reduced, as it is in the United States, and that the patent cover a uniform term of 18 years, so that we will not be bothered when a man forgets to pay his six-year term fee and then comes to have his patent reinstated. There is no objection, as I understand, to this patent going through with the amendment which was made to the Bill on the advice of the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, I do not know anything more about the Bill than that; it merely happens to stand in my name.


Frank Oliver: I am not particularly inquisitive, but I think we ought to know what the article is before we agree to it. However, if the rest of the House can stand it, I can.
Bill reported, read the third time, and
passed.



* THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) for Committee of Ways and Means resumed.
Arthur Meighen: The only remark I have to add by way of linking what I have to say with what I have said in regard to the slight alteration in the tariff, is that if this small extra duty results in saving the amount of capital and the years of toil that have already been expended in the apple industry in British Columbia, and in tiding them over the present invasion of apples from the south, caused by the extraordinary and tremendously unnecessary production of the Western States, the cost will be a trifle relative to the great results achieved. Furthermore, the cost, in so far as, for the

time being, it may fall in very slight and almost imperceptible degree on the farmers of the West, will be repaid to them by the service they will get at the hands of their fellow farmers in British Columbia. While I am on the point, it will be noted that the half cent that is now made the duty upon fuel oil, will come entirely out of people other than agriculturists; it will come, in the main, if not altogether, from manufacturers and railways. I am not surprised that we have no comment upon that fact from hon. gentlemen from the West on the opposite side of the House. The taxation in that item alone levelled against these people, against whom these hon. gentlemen are never tired of hurling their diatribes, is many, many times, even pro rata, greater than what is being asked to be paid to save the apple industry of British Columbia. I do not want to be understood as saying that 25 cents a barrel can mean the salvation of a great industry. I am not in a position to estimate just the extent of the benefit that will result. The change in the tariff is not made for the purpose of adding to the price that the British Columbia farmer will get for his apples. It is for the purpose of extending the area of his market and protecting him against unfair and unhealthy competition. I understand that the farmers of British Columbia would be quite willing to enter into an arrangement with farmers' organizations of the prairie country to ship them apples for the coming year, or perhaps more than a year, at the actual cost of the apples themselves, but under present conditions it is argued that their selling price is in no sense fixed by themselves, that they have practically nothing to do with it, and that they are undersold by this tremendous overproduction in the western states, with the result that they are almost helpless.
We are through with that phase of the subject. The large phase of the Budget proposals remains, namely, that portion of its proposals which asks the great industries of this country to give of their surplus profits to help the country to tide over the financial stress of this war. In comparison with these proposals, everything that has been discussed by the hon. member for Edmonton-yes, and by the hon. member for Assiniboia, and others on that side of the House-in the way of taxation pales into comparative insignificance. This great order placed upon the people of this country by the Budget, against the fruits of industry, not against industry itself, represents a toll of between $30,000,000 and
$35,000,000-1 defer to the figures of the Minister of Finance, if I quote them correctly-in a space of three years. There is a large toll exacted from which every farmer in every portion of Canada is exempt, and it is exacted in such a manner that it cannot be in turn taken from the pocket of the consumer. It is exacted in such a manner that it comes from the extraordinary profits of industries, profits that are in a large degree, in many cases, perhaps not in all, caused by conditions brought about by the war. I know just as well as hon. gentlemen opposite that the farmer of this country, be he in the West or in the East, is in no sense averse to paying his share of taxation. I know that he is quite ready to pay his share. I know that an agitation is abroad in our western country, fomented by the hon. gentlemen who sit beside him to-night, an agitation to endeavour to make the farmers of the West believe that they have here at Ottawa some awful enemy, an enemy who is in alliance with the large manufacturers and the controllers of capital in Canada, and who adopts a method of taxation that not only bears heavily upon them, but, in the few words of one hon. gentleman opposite, that " crucifies " them. I do not believe that that is the prevalent opinion among the farmers of the West. I know.it is not the prevalent opinion in Canada, and, what is surer still, I know that it is not a fact. Hon. gentlemen opposite know that that it is not a fact. It sounds very flat indeed-the assertion of my hon. friend from Edmonton and of those lesser lights who sit behind him, that this Government is supported by great interests and is here for the purpose of serving great interests. It sounds very flat indeed in the light of the truth that the great proportion of the taxes required to carry on this war are to be levied against those great interests themselves, while the men whom hon. gentlemen opposite claim to be crucified are to be exempt. And they are exempt, not because they should not pay their fair share of taxation -not at all; they are ready to pay it. But they are exempt for this reason, that the first and greatest burden of taxation should come upon those who are best able to bear it. That is the principle we have adopted. As I said a moment ago, we are not taxing industries; we are not enacting any legislation that is going to frighten capital from this country. Industry is what we want in this country, and capital. But, says the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), capital already is being frightened from Canada; and the financial critic of the

Opposition, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), says that we have not large stores of'capital in this country-that in fact there is a dearth of capital in Canada. How do those statements harmonize with the contention of their friends from the West who sit behind them, that this Government is the friend of capitalists and is increasing capital at the expense of the farmer? We are not taxing industry. We are taxing the extraordinary profits of industry, after those profits have been earned and ascertained, and we allow to incorporated companies 7 per cent before their profits are touched, and only a quarter above that is taken; and to individuals and partnerships ten per cent before their profits are touched, and then again only a quarter is taken. We are not taxing or injuring industry. You cannot injure anything unless you get to its foundation, unless you get to its source. We are not touching the vitals of industry at all. To use the words of Mr. Asquith, we are taxing not the potential germs but the gathered fruits of industry, and by taxing the gathered fruits we shall never strike a blow at industry at all.
It is argued-or at all events it was argued, and a statement of the policy of the Government clearly made and repeated several times' does not seem to deter those who still advance an argument inconsistent with it-it was argued for a time that companies over-capitalized would get an advantage over companies honestly capitalized. That argument, in the first place, is not consistent with the contention of the hon. member for Oxford that we have no right whatever to touch capitalization that is legally made, and he says that all capitalization is legally made, because it is made in consonance with the laws of this country. However, it has been made clear in this House over and over again-and the definition is already in the Bill-that the Government will not allow companies whose capitalization is unfair, unduly disproportionate to their actual assets, to get an advantage by that over-capitalization. It would be a practical impossibility to get at the exact assets of incorporated companies, and to ascertain precisely what their stock should be valued at. That it is impossible and for the reason that it is impossible to go behind the capitalization and effect that exact estimate, we are allowing a larger percentage of the profits of partnership and individuals to escape free, than what we allow to incorporated companies. There might have been added the further reason that incorporated companies are the creatMr. Meighen. ]
tion of the state, and being the creation of the state, they became the beneficiaries of the laws of the state differently and in addition to the manner in which partnerships and individuals become the beneficiaries of the laws of the state. They have certain rights and protections as incorporated companies, and for that additional reason I contend that it is only fair that a larger percentage of profit should be accorded partnerships and individuals than what should be accorded to incorporated companies.
It has also been argued that the process of allowing a revenue upon capital before the tax takes effect will tell against those companies who, though they are incorporated, have a very modest capital, and who by proper business management have gathered up reserves; which reserves have gone into plant and betterment and which in fact are actual capital and entitled to some consideration as such, though not appearing as capital on the books of the company. That point has been covered by the Minister of Finance. On the 22nd of this month he plainly stated to the House that such reserves, in part at all events, and to the extent that they could be fairly called capital, would be so treated; so that to the full extent that it is in the power of this Government to accord equal treatment we propose to so accord it. Those companies that are over-capitalized we shall, as fairly as we are able to do, place on the same footing with companies capitalized more in consonance with their actual assets.
The hon. member for Edmonton came along with another contention, 'and I must say that I was rather surprised that he did. I do not know that there is any use in answering it. I do not know that there is any use in stating the facts to the House, and the foundation of the facts, because it has already been done. It really seems of no value whatever to lay facts before hon. gentlemen opposite. They still come along with flippant fiction; they still flare before us the same old sentences- But I am going to try it once more. The hon. member for Edmonton says that we have been taking great care of the munition men, that we have been guarding them against ocean rates, raised as they have been by war conditions, and that we have left the farmer to take care of himself. It is only about three days ago that the facts in that regard were placed on -Hansard in detail, and placed on Hansard by the very man who has control of those Vessels requisi-

tioned by the British Government. This man has control of all the vessels on which these munitions go. Gou'ld there he any better authority than he? He ought to know. I am going to repeat the facts on the authority of that gentleman. I am quoting from his actual letter, in Hansard of February 23. He stated that in all the vessels that have been requisitioned by the British Government for the carriage of munitions and for the carriage of supplies the products of the farm had occupied on those vessels 78.31 per cent of the total capacity, and that the munition makers had obtained only 7.67 of the capacity. In other words, the men that the hon. member for Edmonton says are favoured get one cubic foot of space, and the farmer who is " crucified " gets ten cubic feet.


Frank Oliver: Since the hon. gentleman is giving information, would he tell us the rate that was paid on munitions, and the rate that was paid on the wheat?


Arthur Meighen: Just exactly on the same basis. They are all fixed by the British Government. We have nothing to do with it.


Frank Oliver: What was the rate in each case?


Arthur Meighen: The British Government has the basis for fixing the rate. We have nothing whatever to do with it. There is no favoritism whatever. Whatever advantage the munition man gets, the farmer gets too. Does the hon. member wish to say that the British Government is in league with this Government in getting after the farmer of Western Canada?


Frank Oliver: I certainly have no information as to any person transporting wheat across the ocean at a favoured rate.


Arthur Meighen: Nor did the munition men get any favoured rate. Why does the hon. gentleman charge us with having requisitioned vessels for the munition men, and not for the farmers?


Frank Oliver: If my ears did not deceive me, some time ago I heard the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) inform the House from a printed or written document that that was the case, that the munitions were being taken across the ocean at a rate that compared favourably with the rate, that prevailed before the war. I know that no wheat is being taken across at such rates.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for
Edmonton has not read what the hon. minister said more carefully than he has read what I said. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries stated that certain vessels of the British Government had been obtained on the request of this Government for the carriage of supplies for the British Government from Canada. The British Government neither requisitioned nor commandeered any vessels except for the carriage of British Government property, and after the British Government had commandeered these vessels, they were placed in charge of a director of transports, who took charge of the transfer of all British Government property from this country, and of that property 78.31 per cent was the product of the farmers of Canada.


Frank Oliver: Will the hon. gentleman
inform the House if wheat was carried in those vessels at a lower rate than wheat was carried in other vessels crossing the ocean under ordinary conditions?


Arthur Meighen: I would rather presume so, but that is not the point at all.


Frank Oliver: That is the point.


Arthur Meighen: I quite understand the hurry of the hon. member for Edmonton to get away from the utterly incorrect and misleading statement he has made to the House.


Frank Oliver: I made no statement to
the House except on the authority of what I heard the Minister of Marine and Fisheries state to the House.


Arthur Meighen: We had nothing to do with the making of the rates and consequently we could give no preference. The British Government had the making of the rates; they had a system for doing it, and the farmer who ships 78 cubic feet on a vessel gets the same advantage as the munition manufacturer who ships 7 cubic feet.


Frank Oliver: All I can say, then, is
that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries misinformed the House, if I understood him correctly, because I understood him distinctly to say that the munitions manufactured in Canada were carried across the ocean at a rate that was either the same or that compared favourably with the rate that prevailed before the war. Now, either he said that or he did not say it.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman
says he said it, he should quote what the

Minister of Marine and Fisheries said. That may be all he has to say now, but he had a lot more to say when he was on his feet, and I am answering what he said then.


Frank Oliver: I am asking a straight
question, and as the hon. gentleman is desirous of entering into a discussion, will he be good enough to give me a straight answer.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that I
am called upon to spend ten minutes here in looking up Hansard because the hon. gentleman has misunderstood the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Frank Oliver: I did not misunderstand
him.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member
understood the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to say what my hon. friend says he said, why does he not quote his statement as a foundation for his remarks?


Frank Oliver: I think I laid a good
[DOT]enough foundation.


Arthur Meighen: Why did he not give
his statement to the House?


Frank Oliver: I am giving it to the
House now.	.


Arthur Meighen: No, my hon. friend is giving only a misunderstanding of it that he himself has.


Frank Oliver: Perhaps the minister himself, as he is so determined on the point, will give it to the House.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps so. It will not be the first time that we on this side of the House have performed services that hon. [DOT]gentlemen opposite should have themselves performed for the benefit of the House.


Frank Oliver: Let us have it.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for
Edmonton also-


Frank Oliver: I do not get my answer,
*eh? I see the hon. minister does not see fit to give an answer to my question.


Arthur Meighen: I have not the speech
of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries before me, and it is the duty of the hon. gentleman from Edmonton to quote from it.


Frank Oliver: The hon. minister has
[DOT]contradicted me. Let him read the proof.


Arthur Meighen: I have contradicted my hon. friend and proved my assertion. The

hon. gentleman may say that I am wrong, but' he says: " I misunderstood the speech of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and "-


Frank Oliver: I did not say that I misunderstood his speech; I deny that I misunderstood it.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend says
he misunderstood it it he was wrong, and he was wrong, so he must have misunderstood it.


Frank Oliver: It is your privilege to put it that way. I did not misunderstand it.


Arthur Meighen: I will show my hon. friend another place where he_is just as flagrantly wrong. In fact, it would be one of the most difficult tasks that I ever attempted to pick out a sentence in his address which is in accord with the facts. He repeated-I suppose on the authority of that most infallible man, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff)-certain allegations about the export of nickel.


Frank Oliver: Yes, I said that the assertion had been made in the House and had not been denied.


Arthur Meighen: It has been denied time without number, and I will read the denial from the returns. There have been laid upon the table of the House within the last four weeks, papers showing absolutely that there is not an atom of fact in the statements of hon. gentlemen opposite-in particular the statement of the hon. member for Edmonton. There have been before the House for over a year papers showing that there is an utter absence of fact in what they say.


Frank Oliver: As to what?


Arthur Meighen: As to the nickel situation.


Frank Oliver: As to their being nickel at Sudbury?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member thinks that all he told the House was that there was some nickel at Sudbury. His argument was: "You pass a regulation putting an embargo on the export of wheat, on the expo'rt of flour "-my hon. friend has for the time being become quite a protagonist of the miller-" on the export of practically all our manufactured goods, on the export of oatmeal also, and you are all wrong in doing so. What you ought to do, if you want to .be truly patriotic, is to put

an embargo on nickel." That is the contention of my hon. friend.


Frank Oliver: I did not say that.


Arthur Meighen: That is not what he said? Unfortunately Hansard is not yet transcribed, but if my hon. friend reads it to-morrow, he will see that is. perilously near what he said.


Frank Oliver: Just as near as my hon. friend usually gets when he quotes.


Arthur Meighen: That is nearly what he said-


Frank Oliver: That is not what I said.


Arthur Meighen: -that we should put an embargo on nickel, and not on wheat, flour, oatmeal, horses, etc. Now, I propose to take that matter up. In the first place, if there is or has been a duty on this Government since it came into power to place an export duty on nickel, it would indeed be interesting to inquire why that duty did not also exist during the fifteen years that hon. gentlemen opposite were in power.


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for Edmonton says, " Hear, hear." The question was put to the hon. member for Assiniboia by the Minister of Finance: " If we are playing false to the best interest of Canada, to allow nickel matte to be shipped out of Canada in order to be refined in New Jersey, how is it that your Government was not false also, because, while it was in office, it put no export duty -on nickel and allowed the same thing to continue for about eleven years during which the nickel industry was in existence." How did the hon. member for Assiniboia answer that question? " Oh," he says, " the old Government was all wrong; they should have put an export duty on nickel. I went to them and asked them, and I pleaded with them,"-and I have' a photograph of the hon. member for Assiniboia pleading with the hon. member for Edmonton to put an export duty on nickel. I wonder what the answer of the hon. member for Edmonton was to the hon. member for Assiniboia. The hon. member for Edmonton was a member of the late Government, and he must be understood as having said that under the conditions that existed it was not in the interest of the country to put an export duty on nickel. Now, I do not contend that it was. For
78	'
myself, 1 do not think it was. For myself, I am quite certain it would not be at the present time. I am quite certain it never has been the proper course, at all events, since this war took place. I am strongly inclined to the belief that it has not yet been the proper course. But it is difficult to conceive the state of mind of an hon. gentleman who will argue that as soon as war began it was the proper course of this Government to put
1 an export duty on nickel. Before I take up the argument in the main, I should like to quote to the House the statements made in this connection by the hon. gentleman to this House. I dwell with some emphasis upon this point, because the situation with regard to nickel involves the very fidelity of this country to British interests. If this Government is guilty of a fraction of what is charged against it by the hon. member for Assiniboia, there is not a member of the Government but should be indicted. For words of a member of Parliament on this subject to go broadcast throughout this country and throughout this Empire, charging this Government with being in league with Germany in nickel production and nickel supply, is a serious matter indeed, no matter who that hon. member may be. What did the hon. member say? At page 1095 of Hansard he is reported:
First of all, we in Canada own 85 per cent of all the nickel that has ever been discovered.
The hon. member for Edmonton, I think, went him one better, and said that we controlled the nickel of the world. In the first place, we do not own 85 per cent of all the nickel discovered; we do produce about 85 per cent of the nickel that is produced. By virtue of the policy pursued, the nickel industry of this country has been developed to the extent of producing the nickel ore from the mine and the manufacture of it into nickel matte; and consequently we have reached the proud position of producing about 85 per cent of the nickel produced in the world. I am very glad to see that the hon. member for Assiniboia is placing Hansard before the hon. member for Edmonton; I hope it is his own speech to which he is calling attention. The hon. gentleman went on:	.
Of all the mistakes that this Government have made during the past year or two this is one of the greatest. I charge this Government with being absolutley unfair to Canada; I charge this Government with standing in with the Huns, our enemies,-
' Mr. TURRIFF: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: -in so far as they have refused to exercise their power to prevent the exportation of nickel to the United States.
That is to say, the Government that would not prevent the exportation of nickel to the United States would be standing in with the Huns of Germany. And the hon. member for Assiniboia, who has not yet seen the record, says "Hear, hear." He goes on:
Here we are supplying our enemies with nickel with which to make their armour plate. Canada has it in her power, and has had it in her power ever since the war began, to prevent the Germans from getting any further armour plate to build their battleships, and the Government have refused to exercise this power. What have they done to prevent our nickel going to Berlin to make guns and warships to kill our sons? Nothing, and I charge them with that dereliction of. duty.
The hon. member nods in approbation. Yet he has not yet seen the record. He goes on:
This Government did not hesitate one moment to stop the farmer and the miller from exporting wheat and flour to enemy countries, and it did not hesitate to prevent others from exporting other articles of commerce in the belief that it would not be to the advantage of the Empire to have them exported to Germany, Austria, or Turkey.
Further on he states:
But all the nickel that is pioduced by the Canada Copper Company at Sudbury goes to the International Nickel Company. It is shipped to New Jersey, refined there, and sold by them to Germany, because the Krupp people are big owners of the International Nickel Company.
The House will remember these words: " The Krupp people are big owners of the International Nickel Company." He goes on:
When war broke out nickel was worth from 20 to 24 cents a pound. This company immediately held up the British Government for fifty cents a pound. Canada allows it to be taken free to the United States, there refined, and sold to our enemies at whatever price they choose to pay for it, because they control it; but Great Britain has to pay fifty cents a pound for it.
He says further:
The International Nickel Company have been making from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 a month, every month in the year, or $25,000,000 a year, and they have been making this huge profit out of the ore that we are supplying them with.
Further on he states, at page 1196:
The worst feature is that it enables our enemies to get all the nickel they want. Those are the plain facts of the case.
It will be noted that the hon. gentleman states that these are the plain facts of the

case. At another point, page 1197, he takes care to observe: "I always speak of things I know."
Now, what are the plain facts of the case? In the first place, it becomes necessary for me to place upon Hansard the correspondence upon this subject that has been upon the table of the House-


John Gillanders Turriff: I read it.


Arthur Meighen: -for over a year. Not all, tout nearly all, of the correspondence I shall read-sufficient to disprove absolutely everything stated by the hon. member for Assiniboia-was laid on the table of this House on the 11th of February last. That correspondence shows that after the out-, break of the war an arrangement was entered into oetween the Government of Canada and the International Nickel Company, with the approval of the Government of Great Britain-and not only with the approval, but with the unqualified approval, and with a special note from that Government, appreciating the conduct of this Government for its action in the interest of Great Britain and her Allies. I should like to ask the hon. member for Assiniboia, who still laughs, whether he accuses the Government of Great Britain of being in allegiance with the Huns? The Government of Great Britain are with us on this nickel policy, not partially, not in principle alone, but in detail. They have approved of every step taken as being in the best interests of this Empire. I ask the hon. gentleman again: Does he say that the British Government are in alliance with the Huns in this matter?


John Gillanders Turriff: Just as much as they
a,re in alliance with this Government in allowing the manufacturers of munitions and shells to charge four prices for each article they produce.


Arthur Meighen: The answer of 'the hon. gentleman is scarcely worth referring to. It is obvious to any man who has the interest of his country at heart that the details of the arrangement which I have mentioned could not be made public. If we were to make that arrangement public, we should be acting contrary to the desires of the British Government; and, aside from any express desire on the part of the Imperial authorities, we should obviously be acting prejudicially to the best interests' of the British Empire and her Allies. The correspondence that took place after that arrangement had been consummated shows

whether or not the steps taken should be acceptable to the people of Canada and of the Empire. The following is a telegram dated at London, December 10, 1914, from Sir George Perley, High Commissioner, to Sir Robert Borden:
Placed your letters regarding- nickel before Hopwood last Monday.
Who Hopwood is will appear in a moment.
Have appointment to-morrow discuss matter with him.
Perley.
Here is another cablegram, dated December 11:
the British Government expressed itself as being satisfied with these arrangements.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, absolutely. The
papers were laid on the table of the House over a year ago. The following cable was sent by Sir Robert Borden to Sir George Perley on December 23, 1914:
We understand tha1 the British Government are quite satisfied w. th arrangement already made and outlined to you for checking export of nickel from Canada, but as complaints are being made in press that such nickel is reaching enemy, we desire to have your confirmation of our understanding before issuing statement to that effect. Please answer immediately.
Hopwood considers present arrangement regarding nickel perfectly satisfactory.
Perley.
On December 15 the following letter was written by Sir George Perley to the Prime Minister of Canada, from 17 Victoria street, London, S.W.:
Dear Sir Robert Borden:
I duly received your letter of November 20, enclosing copy of a report made by Mr. Graham Bell regarding the arrangement for the purpose of preventing the enemy from obtaining nickel, and also copies of other communications on the same subject. I at once communicated with Sir Francis Hopwood, who is chairman of the sub-committee here for the purpose of curtailing enemies' supplies, and with whom X had previously discussed the same question a couple of times. I showed him all the papers, and afterwards met him and talked everything over, after which I cabled you that he considers the present arrangement regarding nickel to be perfectly satisfactory. He kept the papers to show to Mr. Churchill, and has just sent them back to me with a note saying that they think the Bell report quite satisfactory. They expressed themselves as very appreciative of the steps which you have taken to assist them in this important matter.


Frank Oliver: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to explain what the important matter was?


Arthur Meighen: It is stated in their letter. That was the arrangement-absolutely to prevent the enemy from obtaining nickel.


Frank Oliver: Who is Mr. Graham Bell?


Arthur Meighen: He is the financial
comptroller of -the Department of Railways and Canals in this country, one of the ablest civil servants in Canada, and so denominated by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways, the member for South Renfrew (Hon. George P. Graham) two years ago in this House.


Frank Oliver: As I understand it, this
Government was making arrangements for the purpose of protecting the interests of the Allies in regard to Canadian nickel, and
78J
On December 24, Sir George Perley cabled as follows:	'
Prime Minister, Ottawa:
Hopwood, Chairman Restriction Enemies' Supplies Committee, charged with such matters, assures British Government quite satisfied with arrangements made by you regarding nickel. Appreciates steps you have taken to assist them in this important matter. Wrote you this effect December 15.
Perley.
Before I leave the central part of the subject, let me add-I am justified in adding this, because it does not go into the details of the arrangement in any way-the following: this same official of the Government has had access to the books of the International Nickel Company, with its friendly consent. He has had all the access that he required or asked for to enable him to cheek to the full the carrying out of that arrangement. Having had that access, and as a result of that inspection, knowing whereof he speaks, Mr. Graham Bell gives me such assurance that I can categorically say to the House that not one pound of Canadian nickel has reached the enemy since the war began.


Frank Oliver: It is thoroughly understood, I believe, that Germany' is using a great deal of nickel. Where does Germany get her nickel?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know how much nickel Germany is using; I do not know whether the hon. gentleman does or not. I do not know whether she is using a great deal or not; I very much doubt it. I do know, however, that nickel can be procured from copper; that nickel is byproduct in the. production of copper and, I believe, of other metals, and that scrap nickel can be picked up the world over. The British Navy has succeeded pretty well in checking the ambitions of Germany with regard to the gathering of scrap nickel, and nickel which is the by-product

of copper and other metals, but I do not think that the British Navy has succeeded in checking the importation of nickel into Germany as fully as we have succeeded in checking, by means of the arrangement with the International Nickel Company, the export of Canadian nickel to Germany. It is a fact that cannot be contravened that by virtue of that arrangement, not a pound of nickel sent from this country, at Sudbury or anywhere else, has reached the enemy since the war began. There is a considerable production of nickel in Sweden.


John Gillanders Turriff: Would the hon. gentleman say how he knows that none of this nickel goes through the International Nickel Company into Germany? It may go to Belgium, Holland, Sweden,. Rou-mania.


Arthur Meighen: I have already explained how I know that; I repeat that the arrangement forbids it. It is true, of course, that the arrangement might be violated, but the arrangement is not violated, and we are in a position to know that through the inspection of an officer of this Government. How better could we know it than through the inspection of an officer who has the absolute confidence, I think, of everjr one in this House?
iMr. TURRIFF: There is no doubt the officer has the confidence of the people of this country, but my hon. friend stated that it was through the kindly offer of the Nickel Company that he was able to get this information. But, supposing the International Nickel Company was exporting nickel that got to Germany, would they show that to our inspector?


Arthur Meighen: They could not avoid it. The system of inspection absolutely covers that point. They could not do it under the system of inspection, and the British Government ratifies the arrangement. Surely the system that is good enough for the British Government might be good enough for the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Frank Oliver: There are many complaints in England that the British blockade is not effective.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly there are complaints that it is not effective against nickel, and perhaps some other things that have got on the water, but as respects this nickel, our blockade is so effective that not
VMr. Meighen.]
a pound has ever got on the water. The British Cabinet does not have to come in at all. When the main statement of the hon. gentleman for Assiniboia is refuted he makes a lot of wild and turbulent assertions as foreign to the facts as his main charge. He stated that the International Nickel Company was controlled by the Krupps of Germany, that Germany could pay just what she liked for nickel, and that Great Britain had to pay fifty cents a pound more than the
9 p.m. price before the war. Controlled by the Krupps? The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), who is a business, man, on the same side of the House as. the hon. member for Assiniboia, said in this House within a week that he himself was aware of the constitution of that company, aware of its personnel, and that he knew that no such people had anv influence whatever in the International Nickel Company. Does the hon. gentleman say that the hon. member for North Oxford did not say that? He shakes his head, but he will not go on Hansard as saying that.


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes, I will go on Hansard a,s saying that the hon. member for North Oxford told me that the Krupp people were the owners of a.certain amount of stock in that company, and I would ask my hon. friend if he thinks the Krupp people would put the majority of the stock in their own name if they owned it.


Arthur Meighen: Here is what the hon. member for North Oxford said:
There was one point made by the hon. member for North Simeoe (Mr. Currie) regarding which I would like to say one word. He said that the nickel industry in Canada was controlled by Germany.
I have read the speech of Mr. Currie and I cannot find any such assertion in it. He goes on:
I know some officers of the nickel corporation and I know that there is not a human being in Germany who has any control, or who has anything to do with the Canadian nickel interests.	.
That is very clear, very definite.


John Gillanders Turriff: That is what they told
him.


Arthur Meighen: He says he knows it.
Why did the hon. gentleman contradict me a few minutes ago when I told him that the hon. member for North Oxford said that?


John Gillanders Turriff: They told him that. I
would not take a German's word.


Arthur Meighen: I think the ministers know that as well as I do. I have been told by officers of the nickel company that they would be willing to have any investigation that might be thought desirable to clear away any doubts as to German control.


John Gillanders Turriff: I would not take a German's word.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for
Assiniboia-and I may say to him that the less he talks on' this subject the better whether from his seat or elsewhere-stated that the Krupps and German-Americans owned and controlled that company. He said further:
It is shipped to New Jersey, refined there, and sold by them to Germany, because the Krupp people are big owners of the International Nickel Company.
Now, this matter has been open for inspection and has been inspected, and the extent to which any stock of that company "is held in any enemy country is clearly known. I wilUread to the House a letter which shows the full extent of that ownership. It is a letter written by Mr. Bostwick, assistant president, to Mr. Graham A. Bell, dated November 24, T9I4-and these facts ' were not only confirmed on inspection later, but remain substantially true to-day, at all events, there is less stock owned in enemy countries now than then. The letter is addressed to Mr. Bell and is as follows:
The statement that the Krupp's are interested in the International Nickel Company has again been made as shown in the attached article from the Journal of Commerce.
To our positive knowledge, the Krupp's have absolutely no influence in the affairs of the International Nickel Company, and it is our implicit belief that they have no ownership of any securities of the company.
Our list of stockholders on record shows that only IDS shares of common and 263 shares of preferred stock are owned by stockholders resident in Germany and Austria. An examination of the list of stockholders on record is open to any one of our Canadian stockholders, and we shall be glad to extend the opportunity of examining the same to you should you so desire.
This constantly recurring and erroneous statement of Krupp's ownership and influence in this company is becoming exceedingly annoying, and we trust that some means can be speedily found by which it can be definitely refuted.


Frank Oliver: How many stockholders?


Arthur Meighen: He says 158 shares of
common and 263 shares of preferred, a total of 428 out of 469,441 shares, or less than one share in a thousand. So the people who the hon. gentleman says have control own less than one share in a thousand
of the stock. There is a sort of nebulous shadow, one one-thousandth part, of truth in what he said. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company would be a German corporation according to the argument of the hon. gentleman, as the stock of that company is largely held in Germany and Austria-I believe more in proportion than that of this company; in fact, I am informed by the Prime Minister that it is very much more. No more absurd suggestion could be offered to the House. But if the word of his colleague is not sufficient to convince him, surely the facts as revealed to an old and reliable official of this Government, and as also revealed in the document of record, should be sufficient to allay any doubt raised by him or any one else in the minds of the people of this country.


John Gillanders Turriff: From whom did our
officer get the information?


Arthur Meighen: From the books of the company.


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: 
Frank Oliver: Did my hon- friend say that they were selling less, or at a less price?


Arthur Meighen: They are selling at about two cents -and a small fraction more, which just compensates, them for the increased freight rate, but with no compensation at all for' the increased cost of material, labour, and expenses of handling in the United States after the outbreak of war.


Frank Oliver: I was asking as to the quantity.


Arthur Meighen: They are selling more. I was not able to get the output to Great Britain, and I do not wish to state it to the House authoritatively, but Mr. Bell informed me that it was 25 or 30 per cent more than in 1915. That makes it clear that by virtue of this arrangement effected by this Government, with the approval of the British Government, the price of nickel to the United Kingdom has been maintained at a rate less indeed to the company selling it than before the war. In face of these facts, which are established as being correct in the only way that facts can be established, a member rises in this House and states that this arrangement permits nickel to go to Germany at any price they want to buy it at, and doubles the price to Great Britain, since the war. But he did not stop there. He told us that we had permitted this company to make a profit of $25,000,000 a year. That is a pretty good profit. He could have had access to the balance sheet of the company: at all events, he could have had access to

the last published on the 31st March, 1915. I have that balance sheet before me. It shows -the dividend paid, it shows the profits made, and the profits, as established by the balance sheet, are not $25,000,000 a year at all, but are represented by the sum which was put aside and added to the reserve, namely, $309,377.71, plus what was paid in dividends, $5,288,693.50, or a total of about $5,590,000, instead of $25,000,000, as stated by the hon. member for Assiniboia. These are the profits of the company which are being paid now, as shown by the balance sheet. I do not think I am saying anything that I should not say in regard to the corporation. Profits are now being paid at the rate of 20 per cent per year, which I think will not be contended to be-I know it will not be by one hon. gentleman who has spoken already in this debate-a high percentage for a mining company which extracts something from its capital every year and embodies it in its profit; that is to say, that some of the capital of the company always appears in the profit that is shown by the balance sheet. So far from having a profit of $25,000,000 a year, they have something like $5,590,000; so far from being controlled by a corporation of peop'e in Germany and Austria-Hungary, they have only one share in a thousand; so far from doubling their upual rate against Great Britain, they are selling at a less rate to themselves than before the war; so far from giving nickel to Germany at any price they want to pay, there has not been a pound of nickel sent by that company, or through that company in any way, to Germany or Germany's allies since the war began.


Frank Oliver: What was the period during which they made that profit of $5,590,-OfO?


Arthur Meighen: The year ended March 31, 1915.


Frank Oliver: Just a year?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but they were not paying 20 per cent before that. They have only paid that for one quarter. Previous to that time, instead of 5 per cent per quarter, they were paying 2J per cent per quarter, or 10 per cent per year, and, on the pret'eired stock, 6 per cent.
There may be said to remain only one feature of this question which I have not covered; tha^t is to say, as to whether or not it would be possible by an export duty on nickel to bring to this country the refineries that are now in New Jersey and make all the profit Canada's, and not merely part of the profit.
If it could be done by the ordinary means, by means not too drastic, and which would not involve other countries in antipathy to us, I certainly should be in favour of that being done. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that the cardinal point of our offence, where we erred most grievously, was in not putting an export duty on nickel after the war began. When hon. gentlemen stand up and ask us to place an export duty on nickel to prevent its exportation now that the war is on, I say that, to put it mildly, they have not a very serious sense of responsibility, if they understand the facts at all. In the first place, to place an export duty on nickel would mean the prevention of a supply of nickel for making the munitions of war ordered by Great Britain and her Allies in the United States. Is that a consideration that appeals at all to the hon. member for Assiniboia? Does he think that this Government should have prevented the exportation of nickel, and thereby prevented the "Allies of this Empire from obtaining munitions of war in the United States? According to his own argument, it would do it.


John Gillanders Turriff: No.


Arthur Meighen: It would not do it? They could still make munitions without nickel?


John Gillanders Turriff: No.


Arthur Meighen: They could not? If they could not %et nickel, then how could they make munitions of war?


John Gillanders Turriff: It could be refined in England, for instance.


Arthur Meighen: How could the United States get nickel if we sent it to England to be refined? Would it be shipped back to the United States,- and used there for making munitions of war?


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Then, this is the proposal of the hon. member for Assiniboia. We should put an export duty on nickel to the United States, compel our nickel matte to go over to England to be refined, have it shipped back to the United States, and there made into munitions to supply the Allies in this war. That would be a decidedly economical arrangement.


John Gillanders Turriff: It could be refined in Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Has the hon. member any idea how long it would take to establish refineries in this country, even if they

were practicable from a business standpoint. What is my hon. friend's idea of the time necessary?


John Gillanders Turriff: Make your own speech.


Arthur Meighen: I think he will let me alone now ! He refuses to answer for the first time. The one in this country who should know best, one who has made a study of the subject and who is unprejudiced, tells me that to establish refineries to the extent that would be necessary for the purpose would take about a year. Does the hon. member think that we should have stopped the utilization ol Canadian nickel for a length of time that at the beginning of the war would have appeared longer than the war would last? Would that have been sensible business? Would it have been sensible for us to have incurred the antipathy, or at all events the possible antipathy, of the United States by denying to that country the only soureq. of supply whereby they could be of real use to our Allies? It is a question that involves the attitude of that country towards Canada, and it is a question that also involves the attitude of Great Britain towards this country; for Great Britain in the course of this war should have something to say as to how we control our policy in regard to this vital asset. And the British Government has stood beside the Government of [DOT]Canada, and has said that the course we are taking is the best course not only in her interests, but in the interests of our Allies as well. I think it is only fair to assume, and I know the people of Canada will assume, that the British Government know their own business in this matter just a trifle better than the hon. membqr for Assiniboia.
I have no intention of further detaining the House; but before I sit down I apologize to the House for reverting to just one phase of the early discussion that I think should be kept in mind by the hon. members when they consider, as every man seriously does, the condition of this country from a business standpoint in view of the tremendous responsibility we are facing now. It has been argued by hon. gentlemen opposite that we pay no attention to the call of economy, that we go ahead throwing away money here and there, employing civil servants beyond number, squandering the assets of Canada, and taxing the people of Canada to make good the loss. All that is said in sentence after sentence, and without very much attempt to ascertain the actual facts. But it is important that the

people of Canada should know the actual , facts, and know what confidence to place in
these wild and rambling assertions^ The assertion has been made in this debate that we have added some 11,000 to the Civil Service since 1910-11. Well, in the first place, the Civil Service of Canada has expanded, not so much in personnel as in extent; it covers a much greater service than it did in 1911. We have services that were never in existence then. We have other services which have been amplified, which are reaching out their good offices and doing more and more year by year for the people of this country. Hon. gentlemen opposite know it. They talk lightly about expenditure in the Post Office Department. But they do not state that the expenditure means that the mails of this country are year by year being carried in greater and greater degree to the very doors of the farmers of this country. That is an extension of the service that involves an additional cost of over a million dollars. Hon. gentlemen do not admit that we have added parcel post to the service of this country, and that by virtue of the parcel post system a large portion of the extra expenditure is accounted for. When they state that about 11,000 have been added to the Civil Service, if they have listened to what has been delivered in this House and have read what has been placed on the table in this House, they ought to know that that is not a fact. It is true a return has been brought down showing that after allowing for resignations and dismissals there have been 11,000 appointments. Does that show that there are 11,000 more civil servants? It does not show it, and the hon. member for Edmonton knows it. He well knows that month after month in this country we make temporary appointments as the demand appears. For instance, as has been shown many a time, in almost all the larger post offices of this country three, four or a dozen extra men are taken on, and sometimes hundreds in the large cities, just for the Christmas season. That accounts for hundreds, yes thousands, of those eleven thousand. The number of civil servants did not increase by reason of those appointments; the appointments were made, but the appointments lapsed with the expiration of the temporary period for which they were made. That applies all through the Civil Service. When you eliminate this factor, the result is not only justified but demanded. The increase that has taken place, whatever it is, was demanded by the

amplification of the Civil Service, and the greater service that is being rendered the people.


Mr. PROULX:: Does my hon. friend believe that the increase of business at Quebec warranted an increase of 180 civil servants in the post office?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman has been informed by the Postmaster General, who I think ought to know, that there has been no such increase at all.


Edmond Proulx: The figures were given by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) the other evening.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman was not in the House this afternoon, or he would never quote the hon. member for Rouville.


Edmond Proulx: He quoted the figures
brought down by the Postmaster General.


Arthur Meighen: No, he did not quote.
The hon. gentleman does not see the difference between a quotation and a mere assertion. He simply made the assertion.
I took up one of those assertions of his this afternoon, and made a few quotations . which did not altogether harmonize with the assertion. It seems to have passed out of the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite altogether that in the expenditures we have made we have been paying the promissory notes made by hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in power. They find fault with us for paying the debts they incurred, for discharging the obligations they fastened upon the necks of the taxpayers of this country. We have spent over $60,000,000 completing their National Transcontinental railway. I hope they are satisfied with the returns that are coming in from that road. We are paying $14,000,000 on the Hudson Bay railway, and we take full responsibility for that ourselves. We endorse that road; we stand behind it. Does the hon. member for Edmonton repudiate that road?


Frank Oliver: Certainly not.


Arthur Meighen: I wish he would convert some of the hon. gentlemen around him. They would like us to stop with the road half built.


Frank Oliver: I repudiate Port Nelson.


Arthur Meighen: Does my hon. friend repudiate the Quebec bridge? We take full responsibility for Port Nelson and for the Hudson Bay railway. We intend, if the
resources of this country are sufficient for the purpose, having regard to all our other obligations, to carry that work through to completion, and to make it of service for our western country; but, besides the Hudson Bay railway and the National Transcontinental railway, we have the Quebec bridge that flutters still like a hideous nightmare before this country, and that has been hanging over us year after year. We have spent on the Quebec bridge alone some $10,810,500 and it is not nearly completed yet. For these items alone we have spent something over $85,000,000 since we-came into power. Furthermore, when the-hon. member for Edmonton speaks about the facility with which the Minister of Finance should be able to raise his money, does he recall that, by virtue of a certain implementing clause, the Minister of Finance has had 'to raise some $34,000,000-I think more than that-in order to redeem the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway?


William Thomas White: Nearly $40,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: Of course, that is by way of investment. I do not contend that that is added expenditure, but there is about $12,000,000 of it which we have had to pay out and which is added to expenditure. On those four items alone there has been added to the expenditure of the country over $97,000,000. Now, who is Responsible for that expenditure? Are hon. gentlemen opposite not responsible? For three-of them the-y alone are responsible and for the other one they are jointly responsible with us. But we do not care about, their responsibility; we take it upon ourselves; we are going ahead with the work, and we hope to make it a success-I refer to the Hudson Bay railway.
Now, I do not know that we are in such a bad position. Let me epitomize our financial statement. We have for next year a contemplated expenditure of $160,000,000, $20,000,000 of which represents added interest next year because of the war and nothing but the war, and $2,000,000 for pensions.


Frank Oliver: And what amount of war debt?


Arthur Meighen: The amount that it would take to make $20,000,000 yearly at five per cent.


Frank Oliver: Yes. You charge up
everything.
/


Arthur Meighen: No, we do not; we charge up war debt only. The hon. member can get a statement of that at any time that he wants it. $20,000,000 for interest charges and $2,000,000 for pensions make $22,000,000 which is, strictly speaking, a charge against the' war, although it does not so appear on the books of the country. That amount deducted from $160,000,000 would leave $138,000,000, the contemplated expenditure for next year. The expenditure of hon. gentlemen opposite in 1909, seven years ago, was $133,500,000 and, in 1909, the revenue was just half of what it is this year. Is that extravagance in Government?


Frank Oliver: Sure.
Mr. MEEGHiEIN: Oh, no, it was seven years ago. I do not think the hon. gentleman understands what the extravagance of his Government was.


Frank Oliver: There is $50,000,000 more taxation now.


Arthur Meighen: $50,000,000 more taxation and, with it we have to pay $85,000,000 that hon. gentlemen opposite incurred, to say nothing of the war.
Before I sit down I feel it my duty to speak on my own behalf-and I know that I can' speak on behalf of the Government of the day-in regard to a remark that fell from the lips of the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Boulay), who sits on this side of the House. I did not understand his remark .at the time, but in his remark, which I will quote as I translated it myself -and, I think I translated it correctly-I do not associate myself and this Government does not associate itself. The hon. member for Rimouski stated that one of the less desirable features of our immigration was the immigration of Jewish people. He further stated that it should be the policy of the Government to restrict that immigration, and that they added nothing to the wealth of this country. In so far as I have come into contact with the Jewish people, they are a creditable people from end to end of this country, and at this time, when hon. members on both sides know quite well how the adherents of that faith throughout Canada are joining hands with ourselves in the awful struggle which we are now engaged, and in doing their full share manfully, cheerfully, and effectively, it is our duty to say that we welcome them to these shores as we have always done, 
and that we hope they will come in larger numbers in future years. I say that with no idea of catching votes, because they would disdain .such a thing at my hands. I know that the same sentiment prevails with hon. gentlemen opposite as does on this side of the House.
Coming from Western Canada, and representing a district that is devoted to, and the prosperity of which is founded in agriculture, and almost in agriculture alone, I am doing no more than justice to the Minister of Finance of the day when I say that the people of that country will regard his Budget proposals of this year as not only eminently fair, but-as eminently generous in respect of the farmers of Western Canada. I know they will take them-and no reasonable man can take them otherwise- as a demonstration that he and this Government have at heart the best interest of agriculture-and the best interest of Canada in general, and that there is nothing more remote from either the intention or the policy of this Government than a desire to do an injustice to'the farmers, whether in the West or in the East. The burden of the war debt is being placed upon the shoulders of those who control large industries in Canada, and who, from those industries, make large profits. Upon no other does this tax fall. It may be that later on other sources of revenue may have to be tapped. For the present, however, we feel that we are raising sufficient money and that we are going far enough when we ask those who should first be called upon to pay this large contribution in order to help this country bear her share of the cost of war. This tax is equitable and just. It is also an evidence that this Government has at heart the best interests of the farmer, and it is also an-evidence of the courage and resource and initiative of the eminently capable Minister of Finance who now controls the financial policy of this country. On behalf of Western Canada, I say to him that his action will be so regarded there. On behalf of the farmers throughout Canada, I believe I can say to him that it is an evidence to them that no wild and reckless assertions will ever controvert, that he and the Government with which he is associated are determined to place burdens upon the shoulders of those who can bear them best, and to offer the utmost facilities and the best possible chance for prosperity to those who are at the basis of our prosperity, namely, the agriculturists of this country.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I always listen with interest to my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) when he assumes a task similar to the one he undertook this afternoon. Whenever a member of the Government feels that he is in a bad way, that he requires some special pleading, some argument for the defence, then my hon. friend the Solicitor General is closely briefed and called in to address the jury on behalf of the defendant. The Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), since he introduced this strange and curious Budget, has been hearing from the country, he has been receiving resolutions from boards of trade and other organizations; and gradually the truth is being made plain that at a time of stress and storm, when we should be conserving our resources, and when -we should have an equitable system of taxation for the raising of larger revenues, the ' Minister of Finance is taxing industry. The Minister of Finance has heard these complaints, he knows that he is being " found out, and so has called upon the Solicitor General to make an argument in his behalf. And the Solicitor General has talked about everything undeT the sun except the new taxation. He has been briefed with regard to the* International Nickel Company, as to who their stockholders are and who they are not, where they sell their product and where they do not, and all the Test of it. He has taken up a great proportion of his speech with the discussion of matters, the information concerning which is entirely under his own hand.
I leave it to his friends to deal with him, as no doubt they will, in regard to that matter. But in regard to the Budget, he descended to what might be called demagoguery, to special pleading, when he said that he would be able to tell the fanners of the West that, although every man in this land ought to bear his share of the burden of taxation according to his capacity in this time of war, yet - the Minister of Finance was giving us class legislation and the favoured class ought to thank him because they are being let off. That is not the kind of statesmanship we ought to have at this time of our history. Let us have the burden of this war distributed equitably and fairly upon those who can pay-not upon one particular class but upon all classes who are in a position to pay. I shall deal with that phase of the question later on, but I propose,
. before going into it, to discuss the reasons
that have been given for the Minister of Finance imposing taxation in the way he is doing.
The Solicitor General argued, with a temerity which was really wonderful even for him, that there had been no extravagance by this Government. Does he suppose the members of this House have not read the public accounts? Do the Minister of Finance and his colleagues believe that this country does not know the story that is writ of their extravagance ever since they took their places on the treasury benches? The keynote of their action since 1911 was given in the statement of my hon. friend from Queens, P.E.I., when he said, " Let us dash away and spend the money." That is what this Minister of Finance has been doing ever since the hon. member for Queens, P.E.I., gave the keynote. Let me take one statement at the close of the Solicitor General's speech. He dealt with the charge made from this side that 23,000 civil servants had been appointed since the Government came into power. He suggested, by a species of innuendo, that no fault should be found with that because the men they had appointed were working very hard. But, after dodging all around the question, he admitted that 12,000 more civil servants are now-in the employ of this country than there [DOT]were in 1911. Every practical man knows that the population of Canada is about what it was five years ago. Will any sane person suggest that a government is economical in employing 12,000 more civil	servants than	we had five
years ago? Will it be pretended that, with no increase in the numbers of our people, we require 12,000 more men to carry on our public business than we- did before?
But this story does not rest merely upon the number of men appointed. Take the statement issued by the Minister of Finance under his own hand with regard to the cost of collecting revenue, a matter which is under the control of the Minister of Finance, for he is the one who is supposed to keep the hand of check upon his reckless colleagues. According to this statement issued by the minister, the cost of collecting revenue in this country in 1910-11 was $24,951,636.34. Now, let me call your attention to what has been done by this economical Government whose eulogy has been sounded by the Solicitor General for its prudent management of affairs. The cost of collecting revenue last year was no less than $42,232,952.94. In other words, these gentlemen paid out approximately

$18,000,000 more for the collection of revenue than was paid in 1911-12 by the Liberal Government. And they have collected, not as much but less revenue. According to this blue-book, the increase in the amount of revenue collected in 1914-15 over 1910-11 is just $16,000,000. In other words, this Government pays $18,000,000 in extra expenses under the head of collection of revenue for the purpose of adding to the revenue a less amount, namely, $16,000,000.
Now, let us calmly and quietly examine the history of these gentlemen a little further. In 1914, their deficit was $21,695,224; in 1915, their deficit was $43,997,114; making a total deficit in these two years of $65,692,338.
These deficits have to be provided for; they form part of the debt of the country. My hon. friend would like the people of this country to believe that he is imposing these extra taxes on account of the war, whereas he knows in his own heart that he is using the war as a cloak to cover the extravagance and mismanagement which resulted in a deficit of $65,000,000 in two years.
The hon. Solicitor General made some curious comparisons concerning expenditures, which I shall refer to in detail later. Let us consider for a moment what the situation was in 1911. In that year the consolidated fund expenditure was approximately $87,000,000, and capital expenditure $30,000,000, a total of about $117,000,000. In 1914, my hon. friend the economist spent under consolidated fund $127,000,000, and for capital purposes $37,000,000, a total of $164,000,000. In 1915 he spent $135,000,000 on consolidated fund account, and $41,000,000 on capital account, a total of $176,000,000. This amount was $58,000,000 in excess of what was spent in 1911, with practically the same population in the country. There was no justification whatever for that increased expenditure. In 1911 the total expenditure of this country was at the rate of $16.57 per head. In 1914, based on a population of 7,500,000, the rate was $24 per capita, an increase of $8 per head, the result of extravagance and mismanagement which is clearly apparent to every hon. gentleman who studies the public accounts of Canada. In 1911, we spent $8,000,000 on public works. In 1914-15, the amount spent under this head was $19,000,000. The hon. minister talks about the Grand Trunk Pacific commitments being responsible for deficits. How can the hon. minister have the audacity to say that, when, in one department of the Government alone, the Depart-

ment of Public Works, there has been an increased expenditure of $11,000,000 since this Government came into power? This year, the minister estimates that the expenditure in that department will be $18,685,300, or over $10,000,000 more than was spent in 1911 with practically the same population.
My hon. friend referred to the Post Office Department. In 1911 the expenditure of the Post Office Department was $7,954,000; in 1914, $12,800,000; in 1915,	$15,961,000.
Here we have an increase in five years of $8,000,000 in that department alone, with practically the same population. Yet my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has the audacity to talk about a heritage being left him by his predecessor. The hon. Finance Minister last year, in the most solemn tones that he could command, asked for the imposition of an additional tax of one cent on every letter that went through the mails of this country, for the purpose, forsooth, of meeting war expenditure. Taxes upon patent medicines and upon various things were included, the minister saying that the people should willingly accept the imposition of this taxation in order that we might thereby provide the funds to pay the interest upon the [DOT] debt that we were contracting in order to fight the batles of old England. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the proceeds of not one of the stamps that were put upon letters in all parts of the country were devoted to war purposes. Every cent and every dollar made up from this source was appropriated by the Post Office Department for the purpose of paying the extra clerks in Montreal and Quebec, and of meeting the boundless run of extravagance that was begun by Hon. Mr. Pelletier, and that is being continued by the present Postmaster General.
I should like the hon. Solicitor General to tell the House why this $3,000,000 that was wrung from the people under the guise of taxation to meet war purposes, was appropriated by the Post Office Department for the purpose to which I have referred.
The hon. Finance Minister has the nerve to say to the business interests of the country: you may not proceed along the lines upon which you have been proceeding unless you give us $25,000,000. What guarantee have we that when we meet next year the hon. minister will not apologize to Parliament, or endeavour to suppress the information, as he has done hitherto in making his financial statements, for appropriating a large portion of the $25,000,000 to

some department of the Government in order to gratify the wishes of party heelers who want offices? The Solicitor General, in his special pleading, talked about the rural mail services being extended. Well, if the rural mail service is to be extended, nobody is going to find fault if done on right lines. The idea was originated by the hon. member for Rouville (Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux) when he was Postmaster General of this country; he it was who first established rural mail delivery in Canada. But let me give my hon. friend an example of rural mail service. In the county of Pictou we have a line of railway which runs up the East river to a place called Sunny Brae, a distance of eight miles. There are four-or five stations along this line of railway, and formerly the mail bags were thrown off at the station and taken by the carriers to the post offices. Thus at small expense, the whole of the people in that country were served on both sides of the river by a proper mail delivery. But a political friend of the hon. gentlemen opposite wanted to get a job, Would you believe it, Mr. Speaker, that part of the money that was taken from the people under the guise of a war tax is being appropriated to pay this man a large sum for carrying the mail up one side' of the river and down the other, while the railway trains, which are running back and forth every day in that district, are not utilized for that purpose?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Pelletier and progress.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is not only Pelletier and progress; I think the present Postmaster General is also to blame for these' things. Day after day, unnecessary routes are being opened to provide jobs for Conservative politicians throughout the country. My hon. friends speak about it being the duty of the Canadian people to do everything they can, in the way of men and money, to bring the war to a successful issue. Thank God, the Canadian people will stand by this issue, in men and in money; but they do not want to see their money misappropriated or obtained from them under false pretenses. That is what the Minister of Finance is doing this year, and that is what he did last year.
Previous to 1897, when this country was relieved of the incubus of a Conservative Government, there were being dragged into Canada a beggarly 20,000 people a year. In 1911, under the progressive policy initiated by the Liberal party, 315,000 people came into Canada. This shows where Canada
stood in the estimation of the world, after the policies of the two political parties in this country had become generally known. Then, how many people do you suppose came into Canada last year? Only 144,000 -going down the scale, again. Let us see the figures. In 1911, when we received 311,000 people, there was spent for immigration $1,079,130. Last year, when 144,000 people came into Canada, practically one-third of the number That had come in five years ago, my hon. friend the spendthrift Minister of Finance allowed the Department of Immigration to spend how much money? $1,875,000, or over $800,000 more than was spent five years before, when immigrants were coming into Canada in such large numbers. On what grounds can hon. gentlemen defend such extravagance? As a matter of fact, the results are that in 1911 it cost the Canadian people $3.46 per head for every immigrant that came into Canada, and in 1915 it cost $13.02. If the Minister of Finance thinks he can delude the people of Canada by talking about war burdens and the necessities of war while this spendthrift expenditure is going on, he is mistaken. Does he expect to be .able to hide his head like the ostrich and escape all possible attention from the people of Canada in regard to this matter? It is no wonder he asks his colleague the Solicitor General -to come here to-night and talk about the International Nickel Company, or any other old company, as long as he keeps away from the crux of this question, the extravagance of the Government and this useless expenditure which it. is putting on the country. He is fulfilling the vety apt expression of the hon. member for Queens, Prince Edward Island-he is dashing away and letting all his colleagues dash away and spend all the money, as they have been doing duriijg the lagt five years.
The Solicitor General told us this afternoon that the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) had no business to suggest there being any doubt about prosperity in this country. Well, if he has no right to express any doubt, I should like to know what the Minister of Finance meant when, in the most solemn tones, in his Budget speech he warned the Dominion of Canada that the present prosperity was precarious and transient and dependent on the continuance of the war.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend, I am sure, does not wish to misquote me.

Let him read back a little and he will see that I said in so far as it depended on abnormal prices.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will read all my
hon. friend wishes me to.


William Thomas White: Well, it is pretty good; you might do worse.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He thinks so, anyway. My hon. friend said:
Apart altogether from the higher grounds, It is to he 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.
If he will be good enough to tell me to what other things the conditions of this prosperity in Canada is due besides the abnormal prices of our products-


William Thomas White: I should think
the very excellent government we have been giving.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is
retreating.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He is dashing away.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He is not dashing
away; rather he is retreating very ignominiously, because if that is the best explanation he can give us and
10 p.m. the Canadian people, my hon.
friend has a very poor answer, entirely unworthy of a Minister of Finance.


William Thomas White: I do not think
my hon. friend is serious.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Perhaps my hon.
friend will have occasion to treat me seriously before I get through. If he can controvert a single statement I have made in regard to the expenditures, I shall be delighted to give way to him. He cannot do so, and it is of no use his making a remark of that kind, which emanates absolutely from weakness, because he knows he cannot controvert the assertions I have made.
He suggested this afternoon that he had to pay the debts of his predecessors and that the Transcontinental railway was responsible for the deficits. What are the facts? My hon. friend was carried along with the wave of prosperity initiated under the Liberal rule-and it is well known to every_ business man that from 1900 to 1911 there' was not a day of business depression in this country-and for two years after he took office he was moving on the crest of the wave of prosperity and had no difficulty.

But what occurred to my hon. friend? He first had a reduction of the debt and then it increased again. I find that for 1914 my hon. friend increased the debt by $21,000,000. Previous to that, in 1913 and 1912, he had reductions of the debt.


William Thomas White: How much?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In one instance
$122,000 and in another instance $25,000,000.


William Thomas White: Can you show
any such reduction in the Liberal regime?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We will go down the line and see. I find a series of reductions amounting to 4, 6, 5, 3, 2 and 2 millions of dollars.


William Thomas White: Will my hon.
friend kindly say what was the increase in the national debt of Canada from 1907 to 1911?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have not the
figures totalled, but I can give them in detail.


William Thomas White: The increase in the net national debt.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: From 1907 to 1911 the
increases in the debt were fourteen, forty-five and twelve millions, a total of $71 -000,000.


William Thomas White: That is to say, in four years the Liberal Government increased the net national debt by $71,000,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


William Thomas White: Until this war broke out how much did this Government increase the net national debt?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In 1914-


William Thomas White: In 1912, 1913 and 1914?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend had just better take the result of his operations in regard to the whole matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Very well, we will
take it that way, although I cannot see what assistance my hon. friend gets from it. The decrease in 1911 was our decrease.


William Thomas White: The next year.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In 1913 the decrease of debt was $25,000,000. My hon. friend had a decrease in two years and an increase in the last two years. That is my hon. friend's situation as shown here.


William Thomas White: A decrease of


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Certainly, but my
hon. friend is not going to say that because in one year he had a decrease of debt, that would explain the increase of debt in another year.


William Thomas White: The war explains it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The war does not. My hon. friend will not be able to rely on any such explanation in regard to it. He will find, if he looks at the expenditure, that the expenditure which was chargeable to capital resulted in the increase of debt in 1914. My hon. friend wants to say that this was all due to the Transcontinental railway. In that year $12,000,000 was paid on account of the National Transcontinental railway. That does not account for the $21,000,000 increase of debt. There was $9,000,000 besides that. Then, in addition, in the year 1915-


William Thomas White: The war.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The war? Well, my hon, friend increased the debt-by $113,000,000. The increase of the debt by my hon. friend in 1914 and 1915 amounted to $135,074,457.53. We deduct from that the cost of the Transcontinental railway, which he paid in these two years, and which amounted to $22,502,037.75.- That leaves a debt for which my hon. friend, inclusive of the war debt, was responsible, namely, $112,572,419.78. My hon. friend charges up on account of the war last year $60,750,476.01. I have accounted for the war and for the Transcontinental railway, and still my hon. friend is responsible for a debt of $51,821,943.


William Thomas White: Is my hon. friend not aware that at the outbreak of the war our revenues were cut in half?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Arthur Meighen: I read them out.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes,* with wonderful detail! My hon. friend has a very luminous mind, but if he thinks for one moment that the data which he ventured to give this afternoon contains every item of which the British Budget is made up, his luminosity is not as great as he believes it is.


Arthur Meighen: What I gave was all exclusive of the war. What is the difference how it is made up?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It makes a good deal of difference. I venture to say that fron. one end of the British Budget to the other you have not $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 put in there that the Government say to the people they are not going to spend at all.


Arthur Meighen: That is all that they had spent.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What I would like this Government to do is to come down to this House and be frank and businesslike enough to say what they want and what they are going to spend. We have a right to expect from the Minister of Finance that, when he comes here with the Estimates for this year, he is asking only the amount of money that the Government propose to expend and that he will not come [DOT]down and say: We are asking for so much but we do not expect to spend $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 of the amount placed in the Estimates. The Solicitor General recognized the weakness of the position because he said it is debatable whether that should be in the Estimates or not. But, of course, with a casuistry worthy of himself, he at [DOT]once shifted his position and said that the question was not debatable as to whether this sum would be spent or not. With all deference, it does seem to me that my hon. friend has not submitted a proposition that is absolutely indisputable. To say that the Government would not spend money which was voted by Parliament if they saw fit to do so, or if political pressure required that they should do so, is to say something that is not borne out by what has already taken place in this country* I call to mind a matter on which I put a question to the Government now two days ago. There was an item providing for-the expenditure on a public building in one of the counties of Nova Scotia. It was there last year. It was announced last year that no money was going to be spent. In the meantime they proceeded to spend $2,500 of that in buying a site for the public building for which money had been voted. If you can depart from this principle in one respect you can depart from it in another. If it was right to violate the statement made in the House last year, that these items were not going to be spent, by appropriating $2,500 for the purpose of buying land, it is right and proper to spend the whole amount of money. Why should not the Minister of Finance, when he comes to the people and asks them "to submit to an abnormal taxation measure, put his cards on the table? Why does he not say to them:	We propose to ask the
country to spend a certain, definite sum of money this year? Then the people will know just what the Government are going to do. My hon. friend does not do that. My hon. friend says: It is true I am ask-
IMr. Macdonald.]
ing for so many millions of dollars this year but I want you to take my word that I am not going to spend so many millions of dollars by about $25,000,000. Is that business? What would you think of the directorate of any vast enterprise that would come to the shareholders, if they were proposing to make an extra call upon their stock, and say: Our bill amounts to $160,000,000, here are the items, and we want to tax you on your stock to the extent of $25,000,0000 or $30,000,000, but we are not going to expend the $25,000,000 or $30,000,000? Would not the shareholders say to the directors: Why not save $25,000,000 out of the Estimates and then you would not need to tax us at all? I would like to know what answer these hon. gentlemen can make to this proposition. They put Estimates before Parliament, carry them through the House, make them law, take power to spend this money and yet say: " We are not going to spend it. The only excuse that has been put forward is that possibly the war may come to an end in the meantime, and, if the war comes to an end, it would be nice to have the -money there bfecause we perhaps could spend it. There is nothing-in that pro-[DOT] position. Nobody knows better than the Minister of Finance. Nobody knows better than he that with commitments in the form of debt of nearly $900,000,000 in this country, if the war was over, my hon. friend could not recklessly continue along the course which he began three years ago and keep dashing away with this extravagant expenditure because the people would decline to be taxed any further, and would rise against my hon. friend and see that he had no right to tax them nor to interfere with their taxation again. 'I submit that before my hon. friend proceeds with these proposals he should submit a list of the items to which he referred in his speech the other day, as items that would not be expended. He should let the country know where it stands, and where he stands, frankly, as a man who holds the key to the money chest of this country. My hon. friend is adopting a subterfuge in this matter. He is not playing fair with the Canadian people, and we shall watch with interest for the disclosure later on of his real reason.
The Minister of Finance proposes to tax every industry in this country from Vancouver to Halifax. When my hon. friend first made his proposals he very adroitly led the House to believe-and his press supported him-that he was taxing profits of

an abnormal character due to the war. The Finance Minister said in his speech the other day:
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are in time of war many businesses and industries, which for one reason or another are able to maintain profits above the average return to capital in time of peace. There are others whose profits arise directly from the manufacture of munitions or the furnishing of supplies in connection with the war itself and are in some instances of abnormal character. It has appeared to the Government that persons, firms, and corporations whose profits have been such might well be called upon to contribute a share to the carrying on of the war.
And the word went forth in the Government press next day that the people who were making abnormal profits out of this war were to be taxed. But as a matter of fact it is the small business man in the villages and small towns of this country, who is engaged in a little industry that keeps his community going, whose life is part of its life, that is the man who is going to be hit. He has to pay taxes just the same as the big munition man. Under the guise of a war profit tax the Minister of Finance has gone down the whole line and taxed industry in every department, just as he added $51,000,000 to the debt of this country under the guise of war expenditure, when it was really to cover up his extravagance. The rich man under these proposals is let go. Many rich men are not engaged in industry at all. They sit quietly in their palatial homes, cutting off the coupons from their government and municipal bonds, and escape absolutely scott free under the minister's proposals, and they are the very ones who should be made to contribute first. Why, the Minister of Finance does not even pretend that these - wealthy men should be taxed! He says, look at me, the wonderful Finance Minister, I am no longer under the control of the interests; I am not going to tax the farmer. And then he lets the bondholder, the Croesus in the palatial mansion, the man who is doing nothing for the building-up of the country, but sits in his chair cutting coupons and drawing dividends, go absolutely scott free; he is not made to contribute a farthing. Take the case of a man who made money out of real estate in the boom and people in the big cities all over this country did make money. These people are escaping from the Finance Minister. It is not very hard to escape from him anyway, because he is really not hunting for these people. There are over three hundred million dollars held in this country in American
stocks and bonds. The owners of these securities cut their coupons and draw their interest and say: What a terrible thing this war
is,	and what a great thing that we and the farmers don't have to pay anything towards
it.	It is the poor business man in this country who is going to pay. The men holding securities have to pay nothing. My hon. friend should go to England and take a lesson from Lloyd George. He very soon got after the rich, after the landed proprietors such as the Dukes of Norfolk, Westminster and Rutland whom he made contribute to the extent of 35 per cent of their incomes.


Arthur Meighen: What big landed proprietors would the hon. gentleman recommend us getting after in Canada?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Minister of Finance knows a few. If they have not the land now, they have the proceeds from the sale of the land. Many men became rich in the land boom a couple of years ago. The Minister of Finance in these proposals is shielding the rich, and extorting the war taxes from the small business men of this country, from the prospectors and miners of the Dominion of Canada. Take the case of two brothers, living in one of the smaller towns. One has $60,000 engaged in a local industry, employing men in his own community; the industry is a matter of pride locally. This man may make $10,000 a year and stays at home devoting his energies to building up the community where he was bred and born. His brother is a promoter who struck things right a few years ago and made two or three hundred thousand dollars out of some of his investments in lands or mines. He comes back home with his money and lives in the same town. Under the proposals of the minister he will not have to contribute a cent to the taxation, whereas his brother, - if the $60,000 is invested in an incorporated company, will have to give up 25 per cent of his profits over 7 per cent. If he has an income of $10,000, he will have to give up at least $1,500 to the Government of the country. His brother who was lucky enough to strike things rich will not have to contribute a five-cent piece. That is the situation. The lawyers and bankers and stockbrokers with large incomes, in all the large cities of this country, will not have to contribute a five-cent piece. My hon. friend has been hearing during the last few days from the little vilages and towns where the industries are being carried



on. But he will hear more as the days go by and the business people of this country find out how they are being dealt with. Take mining companies, for instance. The prospects may be the finest in the world, all the indications may point to good results, but you simply have to have capital to develop a mine.
My hon. friend knows the condition of certain kinds of mining in this country. In the first place, capital does not go into mines except for speculative reasons; it does not go into mines for the same reason that it does into a settled business. The history of mining the world over indicates that gold and other mines may run along very well for a few years and then fade away, and in order to get capital interested in the development of mining rights, the first thing you have to get is a man of a speculative turn of mind who has some money and is prepared to take a chance. If you do not get such a man, you will not have your mine developed. The same thing is true of coal mines and of all other kinds of mines. Under the Budget proposals of the Minister of Finance, is a man who has a mining claim in Canada goes to New York and wants to put his mine into proper shape for being operated, he is compelled to say to the man to whom he is looking for capital: "All we can get out of this mine is 7 per cent; the moment we get more, the Government of Canada comes along and takes 25 per cent of the rest of the earnings." The man from New York will say: "Do you suppose that the Government of Canada, if this war continues, will increase the war taxation?" The man who owns the mine is in no position to assure him that his capital may not be compelled to bear further impositions. Under such circumstances, do you suppose it will be possible, under my hon. friend's proposed legislation, for any one in any branch of the mining business to obtain capital for the development of the mine in which he is interested? The result will be absolutely to paralyze the development of the mineral resources of this country.


William Thomas White: Is my hon. friend aware that in the United States there is a substantial income tax on mining companies?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend goes to the United States to speak about an income tax. Why did he not follow the example of the United States and put an income tax on every one? If my hon. friend had put an income tax on all

the people of this country, fixing a minimum income to be taxed, and taxing companies also, then he would have been acting in an absolutely fair manner to every one. What I complain of in regard to my hon. friend is that he has made class legislation in taxation. He is not taxing every one; he is taxing only certain people; and just -as certainly as my hon. friend is going to have class legislation in -regard to taxation for the purpose of this war, he will some day find out that he will have class legislation in regard to other matters. A man will say: " If I am the only person that can be called upon to pay, let some one else do the fighting." Does my hon. friend not see the danger of inaugurating -class legislation in taxation? Unless in all the relations of the Government of Canada with the people there is impressed on all sections of the country the feeling that the burdens imposed on account of this war are to be imposed in accordance with the capacity of each individual to bear them, my hon. friend will, before many years have passed, have trouble on his hands in the attitude of various sections of the Canadian people. When, in justification of his tax on mines, my hon. friend says that there is an income tax on American corporations, I say yes, but there is an income tax on more than mining companies in the United States. That is the way in which the United States went to work to raise money, and that is the course which my hon. friend ought to have pursued when he wanted to provide money for this war or for his extravagance. My hon. friend says to the mining operators to-day: " You may have spent years in waiting, but your earnings for the past two years are to be confiscated, and no matter what reason you may give, no matter what risk the man who has put money into your mine may have undertaken, we are going to make you pay twenty-five per cent of what you earn over seven per cent, and no guarantee can be given that this tax will not be greater later on." .The result of my hon. friend's legislation, because it is class legislation, will be to paralyse the mining industry of this country.
Then, labour will be affected. There are certain industries which, my hon. says, are enjoying a fictitious prosperity on account of the war. There are persons working in those industries who complain that their wages are not satisfactory. Now, my hon. friend puts into the hands of capital-

ists an argument which absolutely bars the right of labour to get an increase. When a delegation of workmen comes to the man who owns the industry and says:	"We
want an increase in our wages, because you are sharing in the general prosperity, and we have been working hard and doing our best," he will say: " Oh, you must remember that we have to pay the Government 25 per cent of everything we make over 7 per cent; we have been having hard years, and, as we have had financial difficulties, we cannot do anything for you. If we did not have to pay this money to the Government, we might do something for your wages; but Sir Thomas White, the Minister of Finance, has barred all that; he has shut the door, and we cannot do anything for the labouring people of this country." That is what my hon. friend has done for labour. On what ground does he defend this legislation? It is confiscatory legislation, for which my hon. friend cannot find any precedent except in the most extreme cases.


William Thomas White: Is my hon. friend not aware that Finance Bill No. 2, introduced by the Right Hon. Mr. McKenna and passed in December last, is retroactive to the outbreak of the war?
Mr. MACDONALD. I was aware of that. Does my hon. friend think his extravagance has placed him in the position in which the British Government is?


Sir HERBERT AMES:: We also are at war.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend from St. Antoine must not think that I forget that we are at war. He has been going aiound the country talking about the'Patriotic Fund. I have a son going to the war, and I do not need my hon. friend to remind me that we are at war.	In Great
Britain to-day, with the commitments of that country, with its enormous expenditures, the methods of taxation pursued in the past involve the principle of direct taxation. The Minister of Finance is introducing direct taxation for the first time in this country, but when the proposal is made for an income tax he runs away from it. If he wants to cite what Mr. McKenna is doing in the way of taxation, why does he not follow him in the income tax?


William Thomas White: It is not necessary.
79 i


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I say that the situation in England is entirely different from the situation in Canada. .


William Thomas White: The hon. gentleman asked me to give him a precedent for retroactive legislation. I met him squarely by citing the Finance Act passed in December last and made retroactive to the 4th of August, 1914. Does he deny that that is a precedent for retroactive legislation?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman may offer that as an illustration. But it is not worth anything unless the cases are parallel. Here he proposes to raise $25,000,000 and to do it by a direct tax, this being the first direct taxation applied in Canada. 'But he declines to put on an income tax that would bear fairly on all sections of the population and would make the people pay who can pay and ought to pay. He is adopting in this country legislation which is entirely unjustifiable, and seeks to justify it by citing the case of England when that case is not parallel.


William Thomas White: 
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman has evaded my question again. I am dealing with a case in which the Government of Canada propose to raise about $25,000,000 by taxation. I say that he could raise that money without confiscatory legislation of this character, by means of an income tax fitted to the situation. But he is not content with an income tax, but proposes to tax industry, and in doing so to go back for two years, with all the chances of tangling up business in every part of this country.


William Thomas White: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Of course he will. He will have to add to the army of 23,000 men that this Government has employed since 1911 a new army of men to send up and down this country from Vancouver to Sydney, going into the books of every firm and corporation to ascertain for the minister's information just what every man's business is, and where he stands, and what he has been doing with his money for the last two years.


William Thomas White: I would point out that that is precisely what I should have to

do if I adopted the income tax, but will not have to do under this Bill.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How is the hon. gentleman going to do it?


William Thomas White: The hon. gentleman will find that out if he will have patience.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman comes down and with a great flourish lays this proposition before the House, but the secret of its working he keeps to himself. When does he propose to tell us? When the Bill is before us? What then is the sense of submitting a resolution? If he raises objection to the income tax on the ground that he will have to employ many men to administer it, I say he will have to employ twice as many for the system of taxation he proposes. He will have to employ accountants. The income tax could be dealt with by the customs officials and the post office officials; but he will not be able to send the ordinary *officials of the country to examine critically the books of the industries throughout this country concerning which he must satisfy himself. He will have to have an army of accountants at work from one end of Canada to the other, going through the small firms of the quiet towns, turning business upside down and wanting to know what those business houses have done with every dollar they received since 1914. Does he think that that is an inaccurate representation of the case? I think the House has not discussed this question as it should be discussed. I am confident it will be impossible for him to put this Bill into operation except at tremendous expense to the country. It will cost him a big percentage of the $25,000,000 to collect the tax in the way he suggests. And he will overturn business. Suppose a man in a small business who has made commitments of one kind or another-has made contracts based upon faith in his financial condition. Once business men realize the full effect of this Bill, they will be compelled to such contracts, probably at great expense. Take the case of men who, thinking their financial position secure, though with small capital, have made contracts for new machinery, or some other engagements which they never would have made had they known that the minister was going to take twenty-five per cent of all the profit, over seven per cent, for two years. The Minister of Finance will have it in his power to wreck many business institutions in this country. That
fSir Thomas White.]
is altogether too much power to commit to his hands having regard to the tremendous expense the operation of the Bill will involve, the disarrangement of business, and the absolute unfairness, while entering upon the realm of direct taxation, of discrediting the fair and reasonable method of an income tax and instead putting on a business tax. The Solicitor General said this was not a tax on industry, but on the products of industry. That is one of those very fine distinctions that the Solicitor General alone can make. The result will be the same in the end.
My hon. friend has singled out this one particular element of the country and is going to make them pay. 1
Then, he is not going to tax the people with the watered stock. I have been trying to follow the remarks he has made in regard to that matter. There is one statement made by him with regard to something that was going to be put into the Bill, but I do not find that he is very definite about it. Here is his statement, at page 1159 of Hansard :
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 overcapitalize companies.
That is a very cryptic utterance, a very cryptic utterance indeed.


Mr. GRAHAM:: And what did he say in
the Budget"speech?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was about to call the attention of the House to the statement made by the Minister on the Budget, reported at page 850 of Hansard, in regard to this very question of capital:
We found it a practical impossibility to go behind the capitalization of companies and endeavour to ascertain the precise cash value of their assets as can be done in the case of individuals or partnerships.
If he found this a practical impossibility for the purpose referred to, has he now found the way?


William Thomas White: Certainly.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then, why has not he told us what it is so that we can discuss it?


William Thomas White: If the hon. gentleman will wait until the Bill comes down, or until the wording of the resolutions is considered, I shall be glad to give the precise wording- The object will be to prevent any undue advantage to over-capitalized companies, as against those whose stock has been fully paid up in cash. I see no difficulty in accomplishing that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then, the Minister of Finance owes it to the House, seeing that he made this definite statement that he "found it a practical impossibility to go behind the capitalization of companies and endeavour to ascertain the precise cash value of their assets," to make the matter clear. But he tells us now that in the resolution which he will submit to the House, he is going to define "capital," which, according to the rules of interpretation of statutes, is a legislative declaration as to what these things mean. This is what his resolutions declare:
That the capital employed in the trade or business of an incorporated company having its head office or other principal place of business in Canada shall be the amount paid up on its capital stock.


William Thomas White: Assuming that there is a definition in the Bill of amount paid up on stock, does the hon. gentleman pretend to say that that provision of the Bill will not have legal force and effect? In other words, if the Bill says that amount paid up on stock means a certain thing, does my hon. friend as a lawyer say that it will not mean that thing?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend knows enough about law to know that there is not much use in giving a legal opinion on a hypothetical case, particularly when we are dealing with a concrete Act or a specific situation. My hon. friend, during the course of his Budget speech, told the House that he could not find any way of dealing with that question of capital except the way in which he put it in the resolution. There he defines capital simply and solely as amount paid up on the capital stock. Now he comes along and says: Although I did not know, when I brought down the Budget on February 17, how to deal with companies having watered stock, I have found a way since. My hon. friend has not told us what that way is; if he will tell me what it is, I will express my opinion upon it. I think my hon. friend ought to do that.
Sir . THOMAS WHITE: My hon. friend is at present discussing the principle of this proposed legislation. A$ I have stated, when the House goes into committee on the resolutions, I shall be glad to lay the provisions of the Bill upon the table, and give the definition of amount paid up on stock to which I have referred. I am quite sure that it will meet the situation, and prevent any undue advantage to over-capitalized companies.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is still an enigma. It is just as well that the House and the country should understand that on February 17, when my hon. friend brought down his Budget, he told the House that these companies would be taxed on the basis of their capital, which was defined as the amount paid up on the capital stock, and that he also stated that he found it to be practically impossible to go behind the capitalization of a company and ascertain the precise cash value of its assets.


William Thomas White: I say so still.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon, friend says, notwithstanding that, that he has found some way by which he can get at the value of what is called watered stock. However, I understand the hon. minister to say that when the Bill comes down he will propose an amendment-what it shall be he does not tell us-which will deal with this question of watered stock. All we can do is await the arrival of the Bill.


William Thomas White: I will inform the hon. gentleman when we are discussing the resolution.


George Perry Graham: The new resolutions will not be like the ones the minister had in his Budget speech.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No. To summarize. I submit that the Minister of Finance, in dealing with the question of the present financial condition of Canada, has not been frank in his statement to the House and to the country. He is responsible for a debt of $51,000,000, which was incurred under his administration by unnecessary extravagance and mismanagement of the affairs of the country. The debt was contracted entirely over and above any money spent in connection with the war or in connection with the National Transcontinental railway. The Canadian people are ready to fulfil their obligations and to bear the burdens imposed upon them, but they ought to know where their noney is going and why these burdens are laid upon them. Let us not have any misrepresentation about the matter. We have had misrepresentation, though I trust that it was not wilful, so far as the Financial Minister was concerned. As for the extra tax on letters which everybody in Canada has been paying since last year, not a cent of it was devoted to war purposes; it was appropriated absolutely, for the ordinary affairs of the Post Office De-

partment. In view of the fact that we are, for the first time in the history of this country, to have direct taxation, a frank, fair and plain statement should be given to the people, so that they will understand the matter properly. My hon. friend will have to bear the responsibility sooner or later for this debt, of the existence of which there can be no question. If my hon. friend would start fairly, he would find the people all the more willing to bear the burdens when they realize that the person who is the custodian of their treasury for the time being has given them an accounting which may be audited by any auditor in the country and found correct. That is not the condition just now. I submit that the only way to raise the $25,000,000 or $30,000,000 that the minister says he requires is for everyone to pay according to his ability to pay. A line should be drawn between the man whose earnings are so small that he cannot be expected to pay and the man whose receipts are quite sufficient to enable him to pay. If you make everybody pay according to his wealth and income, there will be an abiding sense of responsibility on the part of the whole of the Canadian people in regard to the carrying on of this war. Any different course breeds discontent and evasion of the burden of the war, which gives rise to discrimination which makes for disunion. As it is now, only certain persons are required to pay, and, under the nefarious system of patronage which was attacked by the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other night, only certain persons can sell to or be employed by the state. Let us do this thing fairly and squarely. Shall our people assume a portion of this burden and leave a portion of it to posterity, as my hon.
[DOT] friend proposes? Why should we not all do our part to-day, and let everyone bear an equitable and fair share of the burden?
I direct the attention of the House to this statement made by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. After dealing with the' question of patronage, he says:
X wish now, in the white heat and light of this great contest and struggle and the selfsacrifice that we are called upon to make, that we might speak from the heart out, and make an agreement in this country between both parties, that hereafter patronage shall not be applied, by political parties in the construction of our public works. Now, that is a frank admission. Some may say to me that X have no right to make it. I presume upon my grey beard and thirty-four years in public life, and I make that statement for what it is worth. I will just append to that one single sentence,

and it is this: that if there is any laxity in the public virtue of this country to-day, if there is any canker of public corruption, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you can trace it to the baleful effect of political party patronage.
An opportunity has come to hon. gentlemen opposite which has never come to any political party in this country since Confederation. Everyone who has had the honour of sitting in this Parliament, whether on the Government or whether on the Opposition side of the House, must agree in his heart that those conceptions of duty with which the true public man in this country ought to be inspired are seriously debased when they are interfered with by the party patronage system.
I make that statement having had experience while I supported the Government of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). Every hon. gentleman who sits behind the right hon. the present Premier knows the same thing. We endeavour to hold up to the young men of this country the highest possible ideals in urging them to take their part in this great struggle. Do you mean to say to me that the intelligence of the youth of this country is of such a low order that they do not reason with themselves as to whether the men who make these appeals are sincere? Do you mean to tell me they do not ask themselves whether these men are actuated by the ideals which are held up to them, when they see this system of patronage in regard to public affairs, by which only a certain person can sell to any department of thd Government, only a certain person can be appointed to this office or that post in this country? Do you mean to say to, me that the ideals of the youth of our country are to be maintained at a high level by the operations of this nerfarious system of patronage? This Government has been given the greatest opportunity in the whole history of this country, when the hearts of our people aTe stirred by this grave issue, to endeavour, by conference or in some other way, to arrive at some system by which the public men of this country, on both sides, will -agree that some substitute shall be found for the patronage evil. I venture to say the lesson of Manitoba, the lesson of Vancouver a few days ago, is one that ought not to be lost upon them. The result in these and other elections, including Peel, is directly traceable to the patronage system, against which the Canadian people are rising in revolt. They are thinking more deeply than ever before, and they are stirred by greater emotions and higher

ideals. They will look for these ideals in public men, and if the Premier and those associated with him fail to take advantage of this opportunity in this time of our history, the same fate that overtook these men a few days ago will be the fate of this Government when they come to face the people of this country.


Herbert Brown Ames: Mr. Speaker, it may be a relief for the members on both sides of the House to desist for a short while from the debate on partisan lines and to deal with a subject on which we have all thus far worked in harmony.	(
As my remarks proceed, and they will not be long, I think the reason why they are interjected into this debate will make itself apparent. It is a marvellous
11 p.m. thing, when you think of it, that the people of Canada, during the first twenty months of the war, have raised and expended for its prosecution $175,000,000, and that if the wa*r continues another twelve months they will have raised from $250,000,000 to $350,000,000 more. Were this every dollar that Canada was raising for patriotic purposes it would go down in history as a remarkable action on the part of a people of our numerical size and out comparative wealth. But this does not entirely encompass Canada's activities and financial gifts in connection with this war, for if one makes an estimate of the voluntary gifts that have been made since the war broke out, it will be found that they will total between $20,000,000 and $25,000,000, and probably in another year that sum will be doubled.
Principal among these benefactions is one which you all know of, the Canadian Patriotic Fund. It has been referred to in this House on several occasions, and because it has been referred to in a certain way, in an intimation on the part of some members that the fund should not longer rely upon voluntary support but should come under the aegis of the Government and should ask the aid of the Government to finance it, I wish to lay before this House some information regarding that fund with a view of satisfying members that, at least for the coming year, we have no intention of asking the Federal Government to assume this burden 'in addition to those which they already carry.
The Patrio ic Fund and the Government co-operate-. They each have their function to perform; but they work together with
one common result. The Government deals with the soldier as a man purely and simply. There are two classes of soldiers -the married and the single soldier. The single soldier receives his $1.10 a day and the married soldier his $1.10 a day plus $20 a month separation allowance. With an auxiliary Patriotic Fund it is possible to provide adequately for the dependents of those who have gone to the front. At the present time it is not necesary to appeal to the Canadian Government for any assistance for this fund. If the war be prolonged indefinitely, the time may come when the people of Canada will have exhausted their ability to give, or may no longer be in a position to deal as generously as at present with the dependents of soldiers; and possibly then, as a last resort, we shall have to fall back on the Dominion Government. Should the time ever come when we needed to do this, I am sure that the Dominion Government would not permit the Fund to go into default and allow hardship to come into the homes throughout Canada which to-day are being assisted by that Fund. But it is desirable, I think, that that time be deferred as long as possible, and I sincerely hope and firmly believe that unless the war be of very long duration it will not be necessary for us to appeal to the Dominion Government for assistance.
As I said a moment ago, the Dominion Government at the present time is doing a great deal for the soldiers' wives; that ought not to be lost sight of. There are about 50,000 families which are already receiving $20 a month from the Dominion Government; so that the Dominion Government is directly giving the wives and dependents of soldiers $1,000,000 a month, or more. That, it should be remembered, is the primary and basic contribution on which other grants follow. The difference between the Government and the Patriotic Fund in the treatment of the soldiers' dependents rests altogether on the point of view. The Government looks upon the wife purely from the soldier's viewpoint. The Patriotic Fund looks upon the wife and family from the point of view of whether they need additional help to live decently while the husband and father is away at the front. Between the two, the Government and the Patriotic Fund, the family is adequately provided for.


Mr. CARROLL:: Does the Patriotic Fund make provision for the father, say, of a

boy who has gone to the front and who is the sole support of the father?


Herbert Brown Ames: If the father is unable to work and is over a certain age, so that he is entirely dependent on the man who has gone to the front, the father is assisted from the fund, not by the Government.
I want to point out, first of all, how exceedingly difficult it would be for the Government to do the work which the Canadian Patriotic Fund is doing. The Government cannot discriminate. That is the first reason why the Government cannot become the Patriotic Fund or take over its work. The Government looks upon the woman only as the appanage of the soldier. The man gets $1.10 a day, and if he is married his wife gets $20 a month. The $1.10 a day and the $20 a month are given without any reference to what that man's financial position may be.
If a millionaire and his coachman enlist as privates in the same regiment, each gets $1.10 a day and the wife of each gets $20 a month. In the case of the millionaire's wife $20 a month is a mere incident to her; she has no need of it at all. In the case of the coachman's wife, provided she has a family of four or five children, she cannot subsist on $20 a month. Consequently the Patriotic fund comes along and says: " How much is needed for you and your children to live decently and comfortably?" The Patriotic Fund brings that $20 up to a sum necessary to enable that family to live as a soldier's family should live. Thus we are able to provide for soldier's families who are left behind.
But sometimes we hear it said: "Why not increase the separation allowance and thus make it unnecessary for the Patriotic Fund to exist?" What would be the result? There are 44,105 separation allowances being paid from Ottawa and 8,000 or 10,000 more being paid by the local paymasters scattered throughout Canada. There are in all
53,000	families receiving separation allowance from the Government. The Canadian Patriotic Fund at the present time is helping about 30,000 families. If you add to that the independent Manitoba fund and one or two other local organizations, you account for about 5,000 more families. We are helping many families that get no separation allowance, so there are at least 20,000 families in Canada that receive all the money they require from present separation allowances and what soldiers
IMr. Carroll.]	[DOT]
send home by way of wages. The Government are assisting 20,000 more families than we are. If you propose to increase the separation allowance from S20 to $30 a month in order to obviate the necessity of a Patriotic Fund, you will be paying an additional $10 a month to at least 20,000 families who do not need it, and it will involve very large expenditure on the part of the Government to families who have not necessity for it.
I wish to speak here in regard to remarks which have on several occasions been made in this House, particularly by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), in which it has been affirmed that our voluntary system should pass away and that the Government should take over the Fund.
It is because the question has to be met, and because it is raised in other debates in the House of Commons that it becomes a pertinent one when the Budget is under discussion. At the outbreak of the war there was held in Ottawa a sort of informal conference, and there was an attempt made to determine the various spheres of activity that the several governmental bodies should occupy. It was felt that the Dominion Government should assume all the cost that was necessary to raise the army, to train, equip, transport, and maintain the troops, and all the expenditure necessary to provide for wounded men, and for the pensions of widows and disabled soldiers. That was distinctly the act of carrying on war and that was entirely taken on by the Dominion Government and the necessary funds raised by taxation imposed on the people of Canada. It was felt too that the provinces, each in the particular products that it was famous for, should contribute from their wealth to the Mother Country and to others .and thus take their share of the burden. It was also felt that municipalities should look after the local out-of-works and the local needs incidental to the war but not directly arising out of the war. These three different governing bodies assuming each their different -functions are in a general way, I feel confident, meeting the needs as they arise.
There was then left something for voluntary activity, and voluntary effort has found its outlet in the various funds that have been raised-the Patriotic fund, the Red Cross fund, the Belgian Relief fund, and other funds of that character. Thus we found the men of Canada undertaking to look after the women who had been left behind by the other men who had gone to fight; thus we found the women of Canada

undertaking to collect money, to make supplies for sick men in hospitals and elsewhere, and to raise money for ambulances and the like; thus we found all Canada uniting in sympathy with the Belgians and other oppressed peoples; thus it has been found that voluntary action has co-operated in supplying the needs created by the war, with the Dominion, provincial and municipal governments.
As to the work, the way in which it turned out, and the response that the people have made, I wish to say just a word. The response in respect to our Canadian Patriotic fund certainly has been one of which we all have reason to be proud. I was to-day handed the figures by our treasurer up to the 28th day of February.
I find that in cash there had come to the Patriotic Fund, under the control of the Finance Minister, who is the treasurer, a sum slightly exceeding $8,000,000. I also made to-day a careful calculation to see what might be expected to come from the generous giving of the people of Canada during the next twelve months. (As you know, an appeal was issued on the 1st January by His Royal Highness the Governor General, the figures being set at $8,000,000.) I am pleased to be able to say that in pledges and assurances for the term which will be covered in the next twelve months, we are practically certain of $10,000,000 more; so that, if the war lasts until, we will say, the 1st March, 1917, there will have been $18,000,000 or $20,000,000 contributed voluntarily by the people of Canada for the care of the dependents of the men who have been left while they have gone to the front.
During last year there have been many periods that tried our faith, because necessarily the income and outgo have almost paralleled each other for the last twelve months. In February, 1915, we had an expenditure of $156,000, but in February, 1916, our expenditure was $573,171.50, an expenditure nearly four times what it was a year ago. Our revenue in February, 1915, was $346,000 and our revenue during February of this year has been $754,632.56. Whereas, a year ago we had a surplus in cash in the banks of $1,977,418, we have today a surplus of very nearly the same amount, namely, $2,161,063.78, showing that during these twelve months, month by month although, our expenditure has increased, has doubled, and has finally more than trebled, we have been so generously supported by the people of Canada that we
have not run behind, but are in a slightly better position than we were a year ago.
Sometimes we are asked why we deem it necessary to keep a surplus of $2,000,000 in the Patriotic Fund. I do not think I need waste time in explaining that to the members of this House. If peace should be declared to-morrow it would probably be all of six months before those who went across the seas could be brought home again and passed back into their ordinary civil employments.
The executive of the Canada Patriotic Fund realize that this Parliament will be prorogued in probably a month or six weeks, and that if we have any request to make of Parliament it must be made now, or otherwise we must hold our peace for twelve months. Consequently, it is a matter of serious consideration to us whether the outlook is such that we shall feel justified in saying that for another year at least we shall require no help or assistance from the Dominion Government. I think the outlook does justify us in making a statement of that kind, and I want to put on Hansard a short statement of the expenditure last year, and the probable demands for the next twelve months. Running over the provinces briefly, we find that Nova Scotia has sent us in cash about $300,000 to date, and we expect $500,000 in the next twelve months. Halifax raised $260,000 in their campaign, and we are assured that as much more will come from that province in the next twelve months. New Brunswick has already sent us $300,000, and we have every reason to believe that $350,000 more will be forthcoming in the next twelve months. Prince Edward Island has given us $38,600 in the past year, and we are counting on $40,000 in the next twelve months. The province of Quebec has given us $2,000,000 in the past year, and we are counting on $2,750,000 in the next twelve months. Ontario has sent us $3,500,000 in cash, and we have pledges and assurances that we shall receive over $5,000,000 from that province in the next twelve months. Manitoba has an independent organization working in the utmost harmony with us. They have raised over $500,000, and will probably raise within the next twelve months another $500,000. Saskatchewan has raised $400,000 in cash, and is pledged to raise $500,000 in the next twelve months. Alberta has raised $428,000, and is pledged for the coming year to raise $500,000. British Columbia has raised $490,000 in cash, and we have assurances that she will raise in the next twelve months

$600,000. Victoria has raised $200,000, and Greater Vancouver $300,000. Yukon raised $20,000 last year, and they will raise a like amount this year. "So it will be seen that notwithstanding the increased demands, there is enough .money in sight to obviate the necessity of our approaching the Government in any way at this time.
Now, looking over our probable requirements and estimating them very carefully, 1 should like this statement to be recorded. At present Nova Scotia is spending about $30,000 a month. Allowing that within the next six months that will have to be added to by 50 per cent she will then spend per month $45,000 or $540,000 a year. I am estimating that during the next twelve months every one of our provinces will double its requirements, and that consequently the average for the next twelve months will be 50 per cent greater than the present expense per month. If that be carried out, the figures will be as follows:
Present	50 per	Twelverate per	cent	month.month.	increase.	Nova Scotia. . .	. $ 30,000	$ 45,000	$ 540,000New Brunswick	. . 28,000	42,000	500,000Prince Edward	Is-	land	. . 1,500	2,500	30,000Quebec	. . 80,000	125,000	1,500,000Ontario	. . 250,000	375,000	4,500,000Saskatchewan. .	. . 35,000	50,000	600,000Alberta	. . 65,000	90,000	1,000,000British Columbia	. . 65,000	80,000	900,000This seems to us a very generous estimate. We have allowed for recruiting and for soldiers returning should	there	beserious casualties to our boys at the front. We should be able to carry on the work for the next twelve months with $9,500,000, and we	have	in
sight $10,000,000; consequently, I think I may say to the Minister of Finance that as far as the Patriotic Fund is concerned he need not fear that in the Budget for the next twelve months he will have to provide for our needs or requirements.
Sometimes the argument is made that a fund of this kind should be kept up by taxation instead of by voluntary subscription. It has been stated that we are receiving a certain portion of our fund from taxation; that is perfectly true. We have received some contributions from Provincial Governments, a great many from county councils, and I should like just here to bear tribute to the unanimous generosity with which the county councils of Ontario have contributed to the fund. Our expectations for the coming twelve months from county council grants are $1,250,000, and this, of course,
[Sir Herbert Ames.l
will be raised by taxation. Townships and municipalities are also taxing themselves. ' We find that during the first nineteen months of the war, while only $500,000 was raised by taxation, $7,500,000 was raised by purely voluntary, giving on the part of a generous and patriotic people. Of the $10,000,000 which we expect to 'be raise^ within the next twelve months, not more than one-fifth will be raised by taxation.
Probably the ideal method is a combination of taxation and voluntary giving. In many cases we find that a rural community, widely scattered, prefers to give its contribution through a tax on real estate, and where the money is unanimously voted that, perhaps, may be regarded as a voluntary contribution. I have had the privilege of going before nearly every county council in Ontario, and I was pleased to find that ' whatever was given was invariably given unanimously. On one occasion, when a discussion arose in a county council as to the amount to be granted, and it was apparent there would be a division, and that the result of the division would be a more generous amount for the fund, I told them . that we would prefer to have a smaller . amount unanimously voted. Consequently we may really consider the unanimous grants of county, township, and municipal councils as practically on the sagne basis with purely voluntary subscriptions.
It is quite true that there are some people who will not give to any good cause. They are pointed to in every community, but I am glad to say that they are very few, and are becoming constantly fewer. We cannot force them to give. There might, of course, be an income tax which would force everybody to give in a way, but the number of people who attempt to shirk this matter of patriotic giving is very small when you come to analyse it, and I think the force of public opinion directed against those people at this time brings with it obloquy and scorn to such an extent that they suffer from their deliberate refusal to help a good cause. Our slogan throughout the country has always been "Fight or pay." We call upon the people to enlist or help others to enlist. We sometimes say: "If you cannot put the 'I' into fight, put the 'pay' in patriotism," and that serves as a slogan on many a platform. We have no conscription in Canada, and probably never shall have. We do not conscript the men's bodies, neither, as far as the Patriotic Fund is concerned, do we

conscript their money. We expect to get it by voluntary subscription, and we think that method preferable. We say to the man who stays at home: "You have a ransom to pay for the privilege of staying here; if you stay at home and have other men fight for you, you should contribute." We think that from this voluntary giving there comes a moral uplift which is its own reward. The sacrifices that the people of the this Dominion are making, from the richest to the poorest, that every class in the community is making-the contributions of the rich as well as the contributions of the poor, the contribution of the farmer as well as the contribution of the artisan, the contributions of the British-born as well as the contributions of other nationalities-all go into one common purse, and all represent self-sacrifice on the part of our people; and that self-sacrifice serves as a tonic, because we find that a community which gives in money is always willing to give in men. It would be a genuine deprivation and the taking away of an uplifting influence from the people of Canada if opportunities for voluntary subscription were removed or were replaced by compulsory taxation for purposes such as these.
Before I take my seat, I wish to bear tribute to the fact that, while we may spend considerable time in this House in discussions along partisan lines, as far as the Patriotic Fund is concerned, it has been loyally supported by members on both sides of the House.	It has been to
me a source of the greatest pleasure to appear over and over again upon the same platform with hon. gentlemen whom I see opposite to me to-night and hon. gentlemen who surround me on this side of the House. We have no politics whatever in the Patriotic Fund, and I trust we never shall have. That is one of the great compensations that I have in my connection with it; and since the war broke out every, hon. member, and almost without exception hon. members, each in their own locality, have taken the necessary leadership in doing what is necessary to keep this fund alive.
At present we have on the fund about
30,000	families. In 30,000 homes the supplementary assistance that we give represents the difference between bare subsistence and decent living. In the East the sum paid averages from $15 to $16 per month; in the western provinces it averages
from $18 to $20 a month, because the cost of living is estimated to be higher there.
30,000	men are on their way or have gone to the front feeling certain that their wives and families will be cared for, and, although the months go by with the same amount going out as comes in, each month we are able to meet the current needs of the fund, and I hold the belief that the people of Canada will keep faith with the Patriotic Fund.


Mr. G. E. McCRANEY (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, we are indebted to the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) for the illuminating statement that he has made with regard to the Patriotic Fund. The country is to be congratulated upon the fact that the hon. member has given of his time and of his means to the administration of that fund, and that it has the approval and the support of all the citizens of Canada.
In returning to a discussion of the Budget, I wish to congratulate the people of Canada on the result in the county of Peel, which result I claim not as a victory for the Liberal party alone. If I thought that such a great result was brought about simply by the transference of a few Conservative votes to the Liberal party, I would not be so hopeful of the political future of this country as I am at this time. I believe that the result in Peel is indicative of the sentiment of Canada as a whole. An attempt was made during the campaign to have it appear that only the people of Peel were interested, in that contest, but I am very glacjl to say that the people of Peel were only representative of the rest of us, and that, while the voting was done by the electors of that county, the result was to our credit, and it would have been to our great shame had any other result been brought about. I have no desire to discuss the sordid circumstances which caused the contest, nor to dilate lipon the imperfections of Mr. Fallis; but one aspect of this matter, to which I have already called the attention of the Minister of Finance, is as to the disposal of the sum of $1,880 which Mr. Fallis received by his intervention between the farmers of Peel and the Government purchasers, and which he later on paid into the Patriotic Fund. In a question which I asked in this House on the 10th of this month, I ' suggested that the Government might apply to the person in charge of the Patriotic

Fund for this sum of $1,880, and the reply of the minister was:
The Government is not aware that it has any claim to the sum of money referred to.
That may have been the attitude of the minister and of the Government at that time, but this election has been held, and, by it, two things have been made very clear. One is that Mr. Fallis did not claim the money, and the other is that the people of Peel do not think that the money belonged to him. Now, if it did not belong to him, it belonged either to the farmers whom he cheated out of the money or it belonged to this Government, who should have bought their horses cheaper. I am not bothering so much about the amount of money, but I would like to see this Government apply to the treasurer of the Patriotic Fund for the payment of that sum to this Government, because this Government is entitled to the money, either in its own right or id the right of the people out of whose pockets it was taken. I do not wish to see the Patriotic Fund deprived of the money, because I am satisfied that, if it were given back to those farmers, they would say, " We will let the Patriotic Fund have it;" but I would like to see this Government, although they may have no right to go into court and sue for it, ask for the money, and then give it back to the Patriotic Fund. My reason for suggesting that course is that every grafter and every scoundrel in this country, and every man who gets his hand into the public till, becomes a patriot by paying into the Patriotic Fund the money that he has taken. I would like to see this new principle laid down and properly understood, that whenever a man is found with the goods on him, he cannot, by claiming that he has done a virtuous act, get out of such opprobrium as comes to such a man.
I know of an instance in my own province where funds to the amount of thousands of dollars were taken from recruits by improper entries in paysheets and that kind of thing, and the money was turned into the regimental fund and went to pay off an old indebtedness. There was a trial and one of the officers was indicted for theft. But the jury came to the conclusion that it was all right because the accused had not kept the money himself. I say that that is a condition Of political morality that men like Fallis encourage, unless we take some strong stand against them. I bring this to the attention of the Minister of Finance who, I believe, wants to see clear-

cut political morality and does not want to see the flag and sound patriotic causes besmirched by men of the stamp of Mr. Fallis.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) spoke in the name of the West and declared, in the name of the farmers of the West, that they were satisfied with the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance. He spoke with such an air of sincerity that I cannot but believe he was sincere. I do not doubt his sincerity, but that is the tragedy of it. There was a very eminent Conservative family in France who went out of power more than a century ago because they learned nothing and forgot nothing. But when a member of Parliament declares in this House that the farmers of Western Canada are satisfied with this Budget and with the Conservative party, I am afraid he is following in the steps of the Bourbon house, and that the result which the Bourbon family got will be theirs at the next election.
While that is the attitude of the Solicitor General, I do not think for a moment that it is the attitude of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers). That hon. gentleman is a Winner of Elections. He has seen the province of Manitoba turn over last summer and he has seen the result last Saturday in the province of British Columbia. He knows that there are two seats open in the province of Manitoba, where the farmers are very anxious indeed to express their opinion of this Government. While the Solicitor General is very sure as to the attitude of the West, I do not think there is any such certainty in the mind of the Minister of Public Works. When the Minister of Public Works wanted an election he beat the drum, he made speeches, he gave interviews, and his party papers were echoing his thoughts. He heard the cry for an election in tones louder than thunder, and the cry for free wheat as only a still small voice. The Minister of Public Works has not been of certain mind on this question of free wheat. Last November a deputation from the Dominion Council of Agriculture called on the Minister of Public Works at Winnipeg and made a strong request for immediate action by the Government in this matter of free wheat. The Minister of Public Works expressed his sympathy with this desire and said that he would press upon the Government at Ottawa the farmers' representations on the subject which, he said, was one of the utmost importance. Such an expression of opinion would lead

the farmers to expect that he was in sympathy with them. At the same time, his own organ, the Winnipeg Telegram, and most of the Conservative papers in the West, including the Saskatoon Star, in my own riding, and most of the Conservative candidates, were expressing the same kind of sympathy with the people as did the Minister of Public Works. That brought criticism. The Hamilton Spectator, which is one of the straight-line Tory papers of the province of Ontario, chided the Minister of Public Works on his attitude on this question and on his attitude towards the farmers, and pointed out that under cabinet government there must be unity, and that it was not the place of one member of the Government to express views which were contrary to the view of the Government as expressed by the Minister of Finance. It spoke of the Minister of Public Works as indulging in the artifices of Absalom. Absalom was the son of King David. His father had reason to expect the support of Absalom in the administration he was giving the country- But when the King's subjects came to Absalom with their grievances, Absalom in a quiet way gave out to the people that he would if he could redress their grievances. The words in which he expressed himself have their parallel Mi the words of the Minister of Public Works to-day:	" Oh that I were made
judge in the land, that every man who had any suit or cause might come unto me, and I would do him justice." No one in the Canadian West believes for a moment that the Minister of Public Works, who holds such a prominent position in this Government, and who knows the needs of the West better than any member in it, has to-day anything but an open mind on the question of free wheat, and that he would have it adopted as one of the policies of the Conservative party were he able. The change in the attitude of the Minister, I understand, has been brought about by some articles which appeared in some magazine published by the London Corn Exchange, and also the circumstances of the last sixty days in Canada. We shall hope that some new article will be published which will induce the Minister of Public Works to change his mind again. When the minister spoke about people demanding an election in tones of thunder, he quite overlooked the fact that some persons might take him seriously. In the constituencies of Brandon and Lisgar some farmers have taken the minister seriously and have not forgotten what he said about
the people calling in tones louder than thunder for a contest. Poker is not their game, and they are not accustomed to bluff. A political truce has been entered into by members of the parties which are represented in this House, and I am sure that these parties will do all they can to preserve, that truce. But in Western Canada there are those who do not give adhesion to either party, and in Brandon and Lisgar there are those who take the minister at his word, and speak in tones of thunder on the question of free wheat. Many people say that it is not patriotic to have an election during war, but evidently the mind of the Minister of Public Works is open on tfiis subject. Contrary to the view of other public men whose opinions are highly respected, the Minister of Public Works has declared that there should be an election. He opened two seats to serve the ends of the Conservative party, and he endeavours to meet the situation by appearing to speak with an open mind on the question of free wheat.
In reply to the demand of the western farmer for free wheat, the statement has been made that we are like spoiled children; that seed grain has been given to us in large quantities. This Government has security for every dollar which was advanced for seed wheat; if they have not got it, it is because of their own negligence. The Dominion Government has a first lien on the lands which received seed wheat last season, and, as we have had the largest crop in the history of the West, there is no reason why this money should not ultimately be paid back. There is this to be said about our people: when they are in need of assistance, they give security and pay interest at the rate o.f 5 per cent; when almost every other industry in the country wants help it gets it by way of bonus, and the money is never paid back. We do not mind paying taxes, but we want to see the country rid of the protective element of the tariff. I must commend the Budget of the minister for one thing,' and that is that it does not increase the customs duties. We have a suspicion that the customs duties were increased in 1914 for the purpose not so much of raising revenue as of fastening upon the country a protective system which it will take as many years to shake off as this Government shall be in power.
I want to endorse what has already been said in this debate, that the farmers of our country are ready, willing and anxious to

boar their share of the- burdens which are necessitated by the war. I do not advocate an income tax upon the farmers, because they are paying more than' their share of the taxes which go into the public treasury. For my own part, if I have any influence with my farmer friends, I shall ask them to do what they can to have the duty on wheat removed, Jt is of no use in itself; it merely operates to help the millers in getting higher prices for their flour and a cheaper market for their wheat and to keep the farmers from getting a better market. The ministers of the Crown are reasonable men, and one would almost expect them to give reasonable reasons for what they do. But, to me, the attitude of the Government on the question of free wheat is not a reasonable one. They have not taken the pains to familiarize themselves with the attitude that the people in the West take. This tariff imposes, as the hon. Solicitor General points out, an extra duty on the apples that they use in the West. If there is one thing calculated to educate our farmers to the adoption of a clear, straight free trade policy, it is the example of this Budget in its endeavours to protect the miller and the apple-grower at the expenses of the farmer, and to deprive the farmer of a free market. Some people express the hope that conditions may be changed, but for my part I have no hope that conditions will be changed under the present Administration.
Since the last general election this Government is to be congratulated only upon its success in the county of Chateauguay and upon the inclusion in the ranks of its followers of some twenty members of the Nationalist party.
I congratulate the Liberal party on the fact that these Nationalists have found more affinity in the Conservative party than in the Liberal party. Those are the only cases in which the Conservative party may claim success. On the other hand, in Prince Edward Island there has been a very decided and encouraging change in favour of the Liberal party. The same thing has occurred in the province of Ontario in the last provincial election, in the winning of South Bruce, and also in the recent contest in Peel. In the province of Manitoba, the results have been so overwhelming that I should think that if the ministers from that province have a good night's sleep over it, they are very good sleepers. In the province of British Columbia the results are encouraging also arid as my hon. friend

asked, what about Saskatchewan? I can assure him that the province of Saskatchewan will take care of itself.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take only a short time of the House to-night. In the first place, I wish to deal with the nickel question which was brought up by the Solicitor General. He has made a defence of the present condition of affairs in Canada, but I do not think the last word has been heard in that matter and I believe that the opinion of the people in this country will express itself before very long in the direction of Canada controlling the nickel production, using it as a means of revenue for the country and also as a means of building up a great industry. I know something of this International Nickel Company and of the nickel question. I have brought it up in this House on several occasions and I have discussed it in the press. The conclusion I have reached is that it is high time there should be a reform in our nickel policy. As regards the International Nickel Company I must say that I have no confidence in that company or in the statements it makes. It is on record as doing its best to centralize the production of refined nickel in the United States instead of in this country. It went so far in this policy that it actually succeeded in inducing the Congress	of the United	States	to	puta duty on pure nickel coming into that	country, and	especially	whencoming from Canada, whence they draw	their supplies.	They	did	thatby legislation which was put through at Washington. A company which does this is not entitled to the confidence and the support of the people of 12 midnight, this country in regard to nickel.	I	have	not	any
confidence in the statements they have made as regards their profits. I believe their profits are much larger than those published in their statements; I believe that for the current year they will be in the neighbourhood of $10,000,000. I also know that, besides the profits they have distributed, they have. made a bonus distribution of stock to their shareholders and that their stock now is quoted away above 200 and will probably go much higher, unless something is done in this country to control this industry and that company.
I do not like the way that company has had its agents here in Ottawa and in Toronto and all- through this country. I do not like the way they have been able to

influence public opinion in Canada, in order to place themselves in the position which they have attained, and I think that therefore it is high time that Canada should change its policy. Perhaps we can- ' not do it just to-day, but I think it is high time that we assumed control of this industry, which Canada ought to control by reason of our National Policy and of the fact that the greatest store of nickel in the world is in Canada. I have said in this House, and I repeat, that the greatest store of mineral wealth in all the world is in Ontario, in Sudbury and that district. No place else is there such a collection of mineral wealth, neither of gold, nor of diamonds, nor of silver, nor of iron, as is to be found at Sudbury and some of the ' districts thereabouts. If that is the case, especially if that nickel is an essential of war, at a time when the world is engaged in the greatest struggle of history and when at this very moment the greatest battle that was ever fought in the world is being fought, I say it is high time that Canada, which has that wealth of nickel, and can control the product of that company, so essential in war, should see that the absolute control of the industry is in Canada and not in the United States. The United States might be at war with Canada to-morrow.	Judging by what
you see in the	United States, a
situation unparalleled in the history of that country exists there to-day on account of the war which is now devastating Europe. The United States may be in the war, the United States may be our enemy to-morrow. We do not know what will happen in the * United States after twelve o'clock to-night, when this new German policy goes into effect. And yet the control and production of our nickel is in the hands of a company located in the United States. That company is making enormous profits out of this industry, and is not treating Canada quite properly in the matter. This same company has not paid its just dues to the province of Ontario, which for some years has had a law under which, if it was fully lived up to, that company would have to pay a percentage of all its earnings. So far it has not paid it. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if by the Bill which he now has before the House he can reach the profits of this company, which the Solicitor General admitted this afternoon amounted to $5,000,000 last year. Does he propose to make that rich company pay a
share of those profits as a war tax to the people of Canada? I rfead the statement the other day that Mr. Delmar, who is connected with the company, had said that they would pay their share of the taxation, but, it would be very little; that they had two companies. There is the Canadian Copper Cliff Company, which is supposed to own or work the mines, and that company will show little or no profits. The laTge profits will be shown by the International Nickel Company, an American corporation. I hope the Minister of Finance will be able, by the means in his power and by the inquisitional powers which he has taken, to reach that company and make them pay their just share out of their profits towards the war taxes of this country. They have offered a compromise in a way, and this compromise is based on a proposal made to them by the Prime Minister of this country. He asked them, in substance, when they proDOsed to manufacture Tefined nickel in this country. I do not quite like the idea of the Prime Minister speaking to that nickel company by a letter addressed to them. I think this country should have addressed the International Nickel Company by legislation and have said: After a certain day you must refine your nickel in this country. But they said to the Prime Minister: ,fWe will grant your request," and refine in your own country at an indefinite date enough nickel to supply the requirements of Canada and the Empire. The people of Canada will demand that the International Nickel company refine all the ore they raise in Canada, and that these people shall not be allowed to take out of this National Policy country a product of which we have the monopoly.
I agree with what the Solicitor General said this afternoon, that it may be necessary, by reason of complexities which have arisen, to allow them to take the ore out at the present time and refine enough for the requirements of the Allies. But, concurrent with permission to continue for a short time the refining of this ore out of Canada, I would insist upon a declaration that after a certain date all of this product must be refined in Canada. I have taken a great deal of interest in this question. The people of Canada are in favour of a new policy in regard to nickel, and they have been in favour of it for a great many years. I am going to delay the House for a few moments while I read a statement made by Sir Charles Tupper a good many

years ago. It is a good many years since nickel was discovered in this country, and since scientists came to see the important part that nickel plays in the industries not only in regard to nickel steel, but in regard to the armaments of nations. Sir Charles Tupper, long ago, when these discoveries were first made, saw the importance of having a National Policy in regard to nickel and the necessity of concentrating the industry in Canada. Here is what he said:
Why then should not Canada utilize these iron ores and these nickel ores and make this nickel-steel and armour-plate upon her own territory? If the Government takes the proper action there is no doubt that the best skill and the strongest financial backing in England could be had to carry it on and it really looks as if it were possible for Canada to control the character and efficiency of the guns and the navies of the world. I am led to say this much from the statements of every expert with whom I have talked.
Sir Charles Tupper went fully into the question a great many years ago, he collected a lot of information and the conclusion he reached was that Canada, by reason of her monopoly of nickel, could control the output and should control it for the benefit of the steel industry and the armament of the Empire. That has not been accomplished. For some reason or other, in consequence of some influence-what it is I do not know-any movement in that direction has been frustrated from time to time and this industry has not been located in this country as it should have been. Now the time has come when it must be established here and the people demand that it shall be. Not only must we make them refine the nickel in this country, but I believe that this policy should be extended in the direction of producing in Canada all the nickel steel required in the world in so far as we can control one of the essentials to the production of nickel steel. Nickel steel is bound to play a more important part in the industry of the world and especially in the construction of armaments. Nickel steel is entering into everything, but if it is entering into everything, Canada has little or no share in its production. We have to import from the United States and pay duty on all the nickel that comes into this country for nickel-plating and similar purposes. That should not be. We should have the whole of that industry in Canada. We should supply the Mother 'Country with all the nickel she requires. It should not go by way of the United States- In the present emergency I will not take the word of any official of the United States in regard

to where this nickel goes. It is impossible for a Canadian official to trace or control the immense output in the United States. It can be mixed up in every way with other things and it can be sent out through all kinds of ports and I believe it has been sent out through all kinds of ports. I am not making any charge against the Government but I am impressing upon them the necessity of changing their policy and getting the situation in such shape that they can regulate the output of nickel. There is no way to do it but by putting a prohibition on the export of the matte. You do not know what goes out in the matte? I have reason to believe that we do not know all of the products that go out in the matte such as platinum, polonium, irridium and some other kinds of valuable metals which are being recovered in the United States, and in regard to which no return is being made to this Government. For some reason that company has been able to check and paralyse every effort to secure the location of that industry in this country; how I do not know, but we see their agents all over this country. I have seen them in Ottawa, I have, seen them in Ontario and they are everywhere in this Dominion. We ought to control this industry; we ought to get it in Canada. There is enough royalty to be taken out of the production of nickel to pay the whole national debt of Canada. I do not make that statement on mere hearsay or without consideration. I have considered it very fully. I have talked with people who know about it, I have read the opinion of scientists and of metallurgists and their conclusion is that the nickel deposits are enormously valuable. It would be a great advantage to Canada if we had absolute control of them. Sir Charles Tupper tried to get control of them and other people have also tried. But we have always been put off and now we are told that we are to be satisfied with an undertaking, to be carried out later, to put a refinery in the province of Nova Scotia, or one of the Maritime Provinces, where Canadian nickel will be refined in sufficient quantities for the use of Canada and the Empire. That is not satisfactory to me. We want that industry here, and while for the present we are compelled to allow the nickel to be refined in the United States, in order that the American factories can continue to make munitions for the Allies, there ought to be a further announcement here by Act of Parliament that on and after a certain date no more nickel shall be exported from this country, or only under

such terms as will give this country absolute control of the nickel.
But perhaps there is some relief for Canada in this matter. This company has strengthened itself; its capital is now in the neighbourhood from $40,000,000 to $60,000,000. I forget the exact figure, but it is a great capitalization; some of it, of course, is water. The people who control this company are rich in other metals mined in this country. They own the Dome mine in Porcupine, for instance. They say they have no German alliances. I should like to think that that was true, but the greatest trust in the world to-day is the metal trust which centres in the city of Frankfort, in Germany. That city is the centre of the metal industry of the world. This metal trust is so well backed by the German Government that, to use a vulgar expression, they got their hooks into Australia and got control of their metal. The organization probably controls the zinc output of the world. I do not care what has been said, there may be official denials, but I have no confidence in these denials. I do believe the Germans have a large interest in this International Nickel Company. That is the impression I have. I perhaps cannot say exactly how I gathered it, for you cannot get at Prussian methods these days. They hide things up so well, and humbug and delude everybody. And they can always get people in other countries to assist them. Germany has three or four of the biggest trusts in the world; one is the metal trust, and another a trust in regard to chemicals. By reason of the far-reaching character of these two trusts, and the way the Germans have of making all the world pay royalties, and by reason of the patent laws of various kinds protecting metal products, the Germans today dominate the world in regard to metals, and they dominate to-day in connection with the nickel industry in this country. It is time that it should stop. It is time for Canada to fix a day when nickel shall no longer go to the United States to be refined. We must find a way of locating the industry in this country.
I mentioned a moment ago something to the effect that relief might be in sight.
I cannot pass judgment on certain infor-mationj which has come before me in the last few months, and which has reached its culmination here in Ottawa in the last few days, but I believe that a process of refining not only nickel, but every other metal, has been developed in this country, and most of the work has been done in this 80
city. A wonderful revolution in the process of reducing ores has been worked out, and demonstrated in the city of Ottawa, and with this result: whereas, heretofore, the International Nickel Company had to collect its ore in great heaps at Sudbury and roast it for a period of ninety days, the matte having then to be sent over to New Jersey, by this new method the process can be carried out within forty-eight hours. Instead of the International Company taking 100 pounds of their ore, and roasting it into matte which produces less than five pounds of nickel, by this new method they will be able to get 70 pounds of alloy, in a powder, from the 100 pounds of ore. That powder is then put in a crusible, and gives 50 pounds of metal, which, for convenience's sake, is called after the name of the inventor, Professor Burrows; and that 50 pounds of metal is the equivalent of 50 pounds of nickel in making nickel steel. There is the revolution. It has been effected in our own country, and I believe that it is a fact that out of 100 pounds of our nickel ore we shall get '50 pounds of Burrows metal, which is the equivalent* pound for pound of the nickel that is used in making nickel steel. And not only will this process apply to nickel, but to every other ore. The process is largely based on the making of hydrogen gas in a very cheap way out of steam. Any kind of ore can be treated in this hydrogen furnace. I have been following this process now for some months, and I 'know others who have followed it and who are more competent to pass judgment on it than I am, and the impression that has been made upon me is that this invention will revolutionize metallurgy. This great discovery has been made in Canada. If we have this discovery, as I believe we have, and if the requirements of the Empire call for the control of the nickel output as an essential in this war, this National Policy Government, knowing of the vast stores of nickel in this country, should not delay a single day in making the announcement that the dependence of this country on a foreign corporation must cease, and cannot cease too soon. We ought to give this company notice that on a certain day they must begin to put up their plant in Canada, so that this country may control the entire nickel output. We should then know exactly what our ore was producing. We know this company gets 4 pounds of nickel out of 100 pounds of ore. They also get a little copper out of it, but we do not know how



much of platinum and other metals they get. We do not know where these metals go. It is all very well to say that this nickel can be traced, but it is very hard for any one who knows the ramifications of the metal trade in the United States to believe that the nickel can be kept track of. The metal industry in the United States is one of their greatest industries, and with their scrap and junk dealers, with all the ports of the country from which to ship, with the possibilities for concealing the nickel in ships' cargoes, there are numberless opportunities for getting the metal out of the country. We know that people have been found carrying contraband rubber within the past few months.


Rodolphe Lemieux: By parcel post?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes. It is absolutely impossible to check this nickel ore.


Arthur Meighen: Is it impossible to check the amount of nickel ore that goes out of Canada?
Mr, MACLEAN: No.


Arthur Meighen: Is it impossible to check the amount of nickel ore that goes into Great Britain?


William Findlay Maclean: No, you can check that.


Arthur Meighen: If the two agree, then, is not all the ore going out of Canada going to Great Britain?


William Findlay Maclean: Does the hon. gentleman tell me that all the nickel that has been sent to the United States has gone to England?


Arthur Meighen: All that has been shipped.


William Findlay Maclean: Has none of it gone into nickel steel?


Arthur Meighen: That has not been shipped.


William Findlay Maclean: Shipped where?


Arthur Meighen: All that has been shipped from the United States has gone to Great Britain.


William Findlay Maclean: How does the hon. gentleman know that?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman just admitted that we could check it off.


William Findlay Maclean: I said you could check what goes to England. Has the Solicitor General information that all the nickel that was produced from all the nickel ore 
that we sent to the United States went into Great Britain?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I have the report that shows it went to Great Britain or our Allies.


William Findlay Maclean: But an immense amount of it is used in the United States.


Arthur Meighen: All that went out.


William Findlay Maclean: But you cannot trace
what goes out, for instance, what goes out at Galveston, because it can be put into steel rails and other things.


John Gillanders Turriff: You have to take the
Hun's word.


William Findlay Maclean: I am not saying that;
I am not trying to put the Solicitor General in a wrong position.


George Perry Graham: He is trying to do that to you.


William Findlay Maclean: You cannot trace all the nickel ore that goes out of this country once it gets into the United States. England has her agents there and we have our agent, who is a very competent official, but ,onee the nickel gets into the United States-and foundry after foundry is in need of it for making steel-it cannot be traced. In the United States Congress the other day the question of preparedness came up and it turned largely on how the navy of the United States could be strengthened. The Government there proposed to buy their armour plate from certain foundries who have the control of it, and the control of the production of armour-plate in the United States turns on the monopoly which the International Nickel Company have in regard to nickel, and the two monopolies together having control of armour-plate, they held up the Government of the United States, who were trying to solve the problem of preparedness, by telling them: " If you do not buy all your armour-plate from us, you will get none of it or else we will double the price which will make it $400 a ton. Now, the same thing might happen to the Empire of Canada, and we cannot afford to have such a state of affairs any longer. We must have control of our nickel and with it the control of nickel-steel and armour-plate, and it is time that Great Britain, if she is to maintain her position among the fighting nations should, along with Canada, control all the nickel output, I believe that all the people of Canada are in favour of such a policy, and there is an opportunity now of recovering our position. Even supposing that the

new process that I have mentioned may be overstated and that those who control it may be over-enthusiastic, the time has arrived when we must serve notice that on and after a certain day the control of this monopoly, which is in our hands, must remain in our hands, because such a course is in the interest of the Empire. It has been said here that the officials of England endorse what we have done. I have not the greatest faith in the way in which the war has been handled so far by the British officials. They have been humbugged by the Germans, and from my place on the floor of the House I tell the Admiralty that they have badly managed this matter of nickel and that they did not take the advice of Sir Charles Tupper when ten or fifteen years ago he urged them to take control of the output of nickel. It is very hard to convince British officialdom what it ought to do in certain matters and especially in matters of high policy, and the following criticism was passed upon them recently by the scientists of Great Britain who asked the British Government this simple question: Why are not the best scientists in the British Empire not in the service of the country? A gentleman asked: " Why do you want that?" One of the scientists answered: " Well, we would have told you about lard and we would have made Jard contraband." " Well," said the gentleman, " what has lard got to do with the matter? " This scientist was able to tell the Government that lard was used largely for the production of glycerine and that glycerine was one of the important elements in explosives. Germany has the advice of the best scientists that she possesses and she breeds scientists for the service of the state. England, on the other hand, has not in her service the scientists that she ought to have, and that is the reason why she was found unprepared, and she is still unprepared, and the charge of the British people against their own Government is that they have not been prepared and that they have not had the advice of the scientists and of the best trained men of their own country. That being the case, and Germany having these scientists at her service and being resourceful in queer methods, with the aid of her scientists and her business organizations, she has been able to get all the nickel she wants, and during the last fifteen years, while she was preparing for this war, she was getting unlimited stores of nickel from Canada for the making of her 80J
armour plate, munitions and great guns, and to-day she has the largest guns, every one of which is strengthened and reinforced by Canadian nickel. If we had had a live imperial policy, based on scientific knowledge, that would not have happened, and we would not be in the position in which we are to-day. That being the case, the Empire must call her scientists to her assistance and we must have an Imperial and a national policy based on the absolute control of nickel, of which we have the monopoly. I think Norway produces a considerable amount of nickel, and France, through New Caledonia, also produces a considerable amount, but their supplies are not to be compared in richness, in ease of mining, or in ease of extraction of the ore, with the Canadian nickel. If that is so, we have not taken advantage of the possession of this great wealth of nickel to further the defence of the country and to build up new industries in Canada. Just think, Sir, of the requirements of the world to-day in the way of nickel steel for rails; think of the mononolv that we could have, the control that we could have of the commerce of the world and the influence that we would exert in the United States if we had control of our nickel.
I am not here to blame any one. Perhaps every one is to blame for the present position of affairs. But the Canadian people, just as sure as the sun will rise to-morrow, expect that the Government and Parliament will change that condition of affairs. We have drifted into it. Able men have manipulated us into the position. I have seen these so-called able men and have been surprised at the things they have done and the condition of affairs which they have brought about. While I attribute no blame, I appeal to Parliament to put an end to this state of affairs and to keep this industry, build it up, for the use of Canada and the Empire, and to tax it. What is the characteristic of the new con- , dition of affairs to arise out of this war? It is organization to the highest degree of our great industries and of the * conservation of our resources. We cannot go on after the war in the old way of allowing private interests and foreigners to control our great resources. The country that is to survive must be organized economically and industrially, as Germany has been organized. It cannot keep up the battle otherwise. The new democracy is based on this, that the state and not individuals jit

to control these products and regulate these industries. It is in the interests of humanity that such concerns as the great Krupp industry of Germany and the armament trust of Europe and the United States should be managed by the State. These interests have been charged with encouraging war, with actually having emissaries and newspapers for the purpose of promoting war in order to secure a profit for their shareholders. But under the new condition of affairs, the most prominent thing you will see is that the State will organize and control such an industry as the nickel industry-which we have not yet got in this country, but ought to have. We should take effective means to change our policy in this matter. We should go at once to the British Government and ask what they are prepared to do; ask if they are satisfied with a condition which results in Germany having the supply of nickel that she has and the armament she has, made out of Canadian nickel. If there is a new invention in this connection, I would advise the Government to try to get control of it. If by this new process our Government could control the nickel industries and direct what things shall be made from nickel, including nickel steel rails, we should have the leadership of the world to-morrow. And now that we are seeking revenue( and proposing to tax the various industries, I would point out to the Minister of Finance that here is one industry that could be made to pay by royalty or otherwise a very large portion of the war debt of Canada and be a permanent source of revenue to the country.
Not only must we conserve the metal industries of this country, but we must conserve other natural resources, such as waterfalls for the production of hydroelectric power; also the petroleum and other resources of that kind. We should not allow them to be alienated even to our own people, but should keep them in the main for the benefit of the nation and of the Empire. And the sooner we begin a policy of that kind the better will it be for this country. I hope the Government will make some inquiry forthwith, and not be satisfied to take the statement that has been put on record; not merely say to these people that we will let them establish the nickel-producing industry where they direct. Let us be the judge of what we want. We want to know what is in that ore, and we want to know how it is got out and where it goes. And if 
there is in this a great monopoly of unparalleled wealth, we want to make it share the expense of carrying on Government in Canada. And we cannot do that unless wre locate the industry here. My talking here to-night to a small House may not have very much effect, yet I think that even mv feeble voice will be heard outside this House and throughout this country. Since taking up this question two or three years ago, I have been surprised at the correspondence I have received from all over Canada, especially from those interested in our northern mines, asking why we have not established this industry in this country. I find that in Sudbury, near which these mines are situated, they regard it as of moment and as giving a great deal of work to them. I want to see that strengthened and the completing work done by this industry carried on in Canada. It may pay us to take it over tomorrow by some form of expropriation with fair payment given. But we ought to be considering the matter. The attempt is made to shove it over to the future and take the promises of the company. That will not do for the people of Canada. This is one of the most vital issues in the country to-day, and some solution of it needs to be found. I hope the Government will find it and that Parliament will take it up, and that Canada will find herself in control of one of the greatest monopolies in the world which can be used for the welfare of mankind and especially for the defence of the Empire.
I had intended to discuss in this debate some of the other questions involved in the motion now before the House. But I will leave that over to the committee stage of the measure. I wish to add a word to give credit to the Minister of Finance for his boldness in the revolutionary policy which he has introduced.
The Budget is subject to criticism in re. spect of- certain points, hut it is certainly subject to commendation for its good points, and for the manner in which it seeks to make certain people in this country pay their portion of the war expenditure. The minister deserves great credit for that part of his Budget; as the Solicitor General said this afternoon, those who are well able to pay will have to pay. There are other ways in which he could get the money and make the tax more equitable, hut probably he will come to that, or, as the Solicitor General said this afternoon, perhaps that will come later. The minister has con-

ducted himself in a very praiseworthy way in financing the affairs of Canada. But there is a still greater question yet to solve, and that is how we are to finance the Canadian people as a people, having regard to war conditions. Are our currency laws, our banking laws, our methods of lending .money to t'he farmers, all of the best possible character? The minister has promised to consider and introduce legislation that will establish a system of agricultural credits in Canada; that is a step in the right direction. A little later, perhaps in committee, I intend to take up the banking and currency question, and to discuss whether we are doing everything we can to finance not only the Government as an organization, but the business of the country as well. In closing, I trust that some new departure will 'be announced at a very early date with regard to the nickel monopoly, which we have allowed to pass out of our hands.


Mr. J. A. C. ETHIER (Two Mountains):: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the Budget resolutions have occasioned quite a number of speeches, aiming at propounding the best possible settlement of the question which the tariff and the financial heads of the country are striving to solve, in an endeavour to tide over the present crisis.
Every newspaper in Canada discussed their contents; business men gave their opinions and made suggestions; and when the end of this lengthy debate has been reached, I am sure the hon. the Minister of Finance will have come to the conclusion that his proposals must be further reconsidered, and modified, in their most drastic essentials.
I do not claim to be a financial critic or expert ; so my object is not to demonstrate how imprudent it would be to adopt the Budget proposals as they stand, but merely to inquire into their general drift and give some of my views on the question.
Three features of the new Budget have given rise to objections and protests: the-system of i^axation, its unequal distribution and the retroactive clause; and I do think that in all three respects the new Budget is inconsistent and objectionable.
As I view the matter, the hon. Minister of Finance has made an unfair distribution of the new taxes, by taking no account of the difference between the big and small concern. The part that is most objectionable and was chiefly aimed at in the criticisms made by the business men of this country, is that which puts a premium on watered
stock and imposes a burden on legitimate corporations. Thus, a company with $1,* 000,000 of preferred stock fully paid up and $1,000,000 of watered stock may realize a profit of 14 per cent on its stock and yet evade the new tax, because its dividends would amount to only 7 per cent of its entire capital.
As to the retroactive feature, it also came in for severe criticism and I will draw the minister's attention to the opinion of an eminent banker:
My opinion is that there were two ways ot meeting the war expenditure; first, by an income tax and secondly by effecting a loan on future revenue. Yet Sir Thomas White makes an onslaught on past revenue, which comes near to confiscation. The difficulty increases once dividends are paid over. It would be easier to take a bone away from a dog than the dividends paid over to shareholders.
And then, how far back will the tax apply. The retroactive clause mentions " every fiscal year ending after the 4th day of August, 1914." So that, if a company's fiscal year comes to end on the 31st day of August 1914, it would follow that the profits of that year would be subject to the tax. Sir Thomas White's speech seems to show that only the profits earned after the 4th day of August 1914, would be subject to the tax, but the resolutions do not warrant that interpretation.
Moreover, certain sections of the Budget, dealing with the taxing and collection, are so vague and ambiguous, that they are bound to give rise to disputes and discontent that will work prejudicially against the good management of public business.
I think the proposed taxation should be apportioned amofig all citizens according to their status, their financial standing and their income; as well as upon, the real estate and even, as suggested by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) on bachelors, if the needs of the war become still more burdensome.
I am of the opinion that the hon. the minister, when draughting the Budget, made a grievous mistake in not imposing a special and substantial tax on the profits resulting from the manufacture of war munitions. No one could have objected to a tax of 50 per cent on profits of that kind, nor to its being made retroactive.
It is unfair to put on all business men identically the same burden as on people who have made excessive profits in the Empire's hour of peril.
Take as one only of the cases in point, the Maxim-Vickers firm highly bonused, I am told, by the Montreal Harbour Com-

mission and the City of Montreal. It secured big contracts from this Government for the manufacture of munitions, reaping large profits; that company has now locked out on the street a large number of workmen whom I saw yesterday parading in the streets of Montreal, as a protest against a decrease in their wages now barely sufficient to enable them to support their families.
Thus is the people treated by those powerful corporations, with the Government standing by and not even daring to tax them, much to the prejudice of smaller industries and particularly the workman. Those very firms take advantage of the exceptional circumstances through which both the country and the Empire are passing to heap millions on millions, without giving a thought to the common misery.	,
The whole question may be summarized in the opinions which have been expressed by men high up in the financial world, such as Lord Shaughnessy and Mr. Henry Miles, [DOT]ex-president of the Montreal Board of Trade. It is right that this House and the electorate should be given the views of those eminent financiers, and I believe I ought to have them recorded in Hansard for the Government's and the country's information.
Lord Shaughnessy, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, gave out to the press the following interview:
The war has, as we all know, added and will for some time continue to add, important financ al burdens to those that the country was already carrying and the Minister of Finance is compelled to resort to drastic methods of taxation for the purpose of the situation. -
The measure now before the House would appear to be about the most feasible means of providing the additional revenue required, but it strikes me that it has some features requiring elucidation, and that Sir Thomas White would be inclined to amend before the Bill becomes law.
It may be pointed out that if " the amount paid up on its capital stock" needs to be determined by the share capital actually issued as fully paid, some of our Canadian companies, although making large profits just now, will have oceans of water between their net revenue and the proposed tax, while others, like the Canadian Pacific, for instance, have outstanding capital stock less in amount than the money actually paid for it, without reference to appropriations from revenue for capital expenditures.
Every good citizen and reasonable man will loyally stand back of the Finance Minister if he adopts a plan of taxation that they find may finally be considered best in the circumstances, but in return the people of the country will demand probably more emphatically than ever before, that expenditures in connection with war shall be without wastefulness or extravagance, and that the Minister of Finance, with his colleagues, shall see that the country's money is neither pilfered nor squandered.
(Mr. Ethier.J
As to making [DOT] the tax retroactive, Mr. Miles published on the 22nd of February last, the following letter:
22nd February, 1916.
Mr. George Hadrill,
Secretary, Montreal Board of Trade.
Dear Sir,-I observed the other day that the Council of the Montreal Board of. Trade had discussed informally the proposed war taxation scheme placed before Parliament by the Finance Minister of Canada, and that the council had expressed the conclusion or opinion that the measure in question was satisfactory to the business community. I have learned to-day that a committee has been appointed to look into this matter-more carefully I trust.
There is one feature in regard to this proposed taxation that cannot be maintained as equitable or just. I refer to the principle of retroaction. Retroactive legislation has been disapproved the world over, and is of extremely rare occurrence. There have been occasions where retroactive enactment has been for the specific purpose of affording relief, but I cannot find record of one deliberately passed by the representatives of any people calculated, or that can be clearly shown to convey hardships, injustice, and in some directions even misery.
I do not criticise the rate of taxation, nor do I wish to take up the question of the multitude of people that escape the taxation altogether. There escape makes it no better for those who are included. I wish to put before you simply a few words in regard to making this taxation apply to the year 1914. In the abstract it can be readily argued that taxation of this character will prove the greatest blow to the commercial interests of this country that has ever been inflicted by Act of Parliament.
It has evidently been estimated along the lines of its effect upon the large companies- the smaller companies and individual interests have not been considered-these are totally different from the larger companies. It will be the act of a government, and of a large majority of the representatives of the people in Parliament, should the measure not be amended. The commercial people of the Dominion are intelli-. gent enough to ultimately appreciate and resent this application to them of a drastic, unfair, unequal taxation of business. If the measure had been made applicable to munition supply and manufacturers who have profited enormously by the war, it would not be possible to find probably other than approval. The profits in those directions have been abnormal, and in many directions a matter of public scandal. At first sight the appearance of making the law retroactive, and to cover the entire year 1914, one would say, perhaps, the only question is that of getting back from shareholders a small percentage of what has been distributed to them in 1915.
In the first view of the matter, the ordinary man in the street has in mind that business has gone along about the same, or has been vastly increased by war orders. When one analyses a bit it can be quickly seen that vast numbers of business houses, individuals, firms and companies doing a good profitable business up to the time the war broke out in 1914 and who made a very good showing of profit for the whole year 1914, found their business totally changed by the war, or through its effects.
Any number of houses who did a profitable business in the ordinary spheres of commerce in U14 did little or nothing, or at the best a very

poor business in 1915. Their profits of record for 1914 have been distributed or made use of, and now in 1916 this class, or perhaps the majority in number of the business houses in Canada, when making little or no profits, are called upon to pay back as a tax the money made in 1914, already, as above stated, distributed or dissipated. I know personally of several business concerns that came under the provisions of the proposed tax, who made excellent returns, in fact, some of them remarkable returns, for the year 1914, principally attributable to the first nine or ten months, and since that period have made nothing, or a bare operating expense. To meet the provisions of the Act thousands of business houses will be obliged to borrow the money for this tax to pay to 'the Government the percentage of money made in 1914, and which has been paid out and used by the shareholders or individuals.
I believe the only fair method of taxation to reach a scale of result, such as is aimed at, would be the "Income Tax," but if this is to be applied for only two or three years, the cost involved in the organization would appear to be a grave objection. Montreal has met the calls for the Patriotic Funds on two occasions and each one, and every one in our city, filled with loyalty, is willing to make sacrifice, and do everything that could be asked by the Government of the country.
It is presumed that the scheme placed before Parliament will be carried into effect, but it is certainly not too late to seek some amendment. I believe that the Council of the Montreal Board of Trade should not have expressed an informal opinion on this subject without further and more serious consideration.
Unless some definite action is taken we will see the name of the Montreal Board of Trade utilized on the floor of Parliament to justify making these taxes retroactive to the definite injury, from an unjust and inequitable point of view, to the commerce of Montreal and to commercial interests of the Dominion. I think the energy and influence of the Board of Trade should be directed to the obtaining of an amendment against this drastic retroactive feature of the measure, to the end of making it applicable to the present and future lor a term of years. Should it be made applicable from, and after the first of January, 1915, it would probably be found open to less objection that as at present, because in most instances disposition of any profits made in the year 1915 has not taken place. It is in regard particularly to the year 1914 that you can find the most absolute objections to this retroactive feature.
Some of the leading bankers of the country have been astute enough to withhold their opinion on the Finance Minister's proposal to the House of Commons, but it is regrettable to notice that many bankers have expressed approval just, in the same way as did the Council of the Montreal Board of Trade last week. It is surely a time for us all to be serious. No individual or body has any particular monopoly in respect to loyalty to the Empire, and it seems lamentable to me that the names of so many well know staid bankers can be coupled with that of the Montreal Board of Trade, as expressing approval as to this measure of taxation, particularly so long as it includes going back two years to a time when no one even thought of war, and having effect of making third parties pay in taxes, profits of a peace period, already dissipated or paid out in other directions. It is wrong to mislead the Government in this* way as well, and more seriously
unjust to business people all over the Dominion of Canada, To this latter it costs money, it costs trial and tribulations, it is unjust and Unfair, while to the former it is a question of political life, and reaches only individuals instead of entire commercial communities. The company that makes very narrow profits on a watered capital, readily joins in the chorus of bubbling loyalty to approve, for the very good reason that the measure does not touch these people. The house that runs its business on a capital that is represented by gold dollars, dollar for dollar, makes a bigger percentage of profit, and is thus not upon an even basis with the watered undertaking. But hardest of all is the position of the house using only real capital, whose business was excellent in 1914, and almost done away with as soon as the war commenced in 1915 and 1916- and who find that with no business return there is obligation, according to the law of the country, that he borrow or procure money from some source, to pay back the ante-war profits of 1914.
The retroactive principle of this taxation measure cannot be justified, and never will find justification if it be finally carried out, and j. beg to express the opinion to-day that it is th duty of the Montreal Board of Trade to inter, vene energetically towards securing amendmen in that sense, and if the Council of the Montreal Board of Trade still hold to their informal expression of opinion to the public, I believe in justice to the membership and to themselves, under the circumstances they should not hesitate to call together a general meeting of the Montreal Board of Trade to help guide them in the action that a majority of that incorporate body desires in this matter.
Yours truly,



HENRY MILES,

[Stage Direction]
Ex-president of the Montreal Board of Trade.
Neither of those two opinions need be commented on and I would draw to them the minister's attention, in the hope they will be of some use to him in framing the Bill which will be submitted after the adoption of these resolutions.
Instead of the usual title " Budget for th<>
fiscal year ending on such a date," the hon. the Minister of Finance's report might b* called " The War Budget."
On the 4th of August, 1914, when war wa

' declared, the national debt amounted ttf $330,000,000. In December last, 1915, it exceeded the half billion mark. According to the estimate of the Minister of Finance, it will reach $830,000,000 by April, 1917, and I claim that before the war is over, it will be a billion, and after the war, what with the pensioning list providing for the families of the victims, for the wounded and invalids, * it will reach the billion mark.
I do not feel sorry for having given my support to the vote of fifty millions asked for at the short war session of 1914, nor for the one hundred millions we voted last year, as I shall also vote for the two hundred and fifty millions asked for by the Government this year, as Canada's contra
[Stage Direction]
bution to the cause of the Allies, in the" tremendous struggle before which the entire world stands terrified, dismayed and appalled.
It was Canada's duty, and it still is, to extend its help to the utmost of its resources, to the Empire, for the sake of its past, the glory of its present and to insure its future security. But ought we not to stop to think on the consequences of an enthusiasm and a so-called patriotism worked up to fever-heat, which may drive the country to bankruptcy; as was put by the Solicitor-General (Mr. Meighen), and inevitably to imperialism, which we have in the past condemned and shall not now countenance.
On the 1st of January last, the Prime Minister thought fit to make a gift to the Canadian people, and, while expressing his wishes for the coming year, he stated that his hope and wish was to see the people of Canada enlist to the number of 500,000 men. At the same time, he had his colleagues give the country at large the assurance that military service would never be made compulsory ; and the hon. the Solicitor General has again this evening made the same declaration. Well, up to date, the recruiting , has brought 250,000 men to the colours, only 50,000 of whom are said to be at the front, the rest being found in the various training camps throughout the country. The cost of maintenance, together with the salaries of those 250,000 men, would amount, according to the money votes submitted to about $400,000,000, and if the number of soldiers be doubled, we shall of course have to expend $800,000,000, entailing a yearly payment of interest to the extent of $40,000,000.
It is stated that military service will never be compulsory in Canada. But in view of the desire expressed by the Prime Minister and his War Minister to reach 500,000 men, we are really coming, by a back doorway, to compulsory service.
According to the census statistics of 1911, what was the male population of the (Dominion from 19 to 30 years of age, and from 30 to 40 years inclusively? The first class comprise 756,349, and the second 568,214, a total of 1,324,563; one-third means 448,053 men. So 500,000 men would be not less than one-third of the male population between 19 and 40 years, fit for military service. Could any more men be enlisted by means of compulsion? I think not. And when you take into account the means taken for enlisting recruits, consisting of intimidation and misrepresentation, you are quite right in impeaching the good faith of the Government in their statement that no

compulsion will be resorted to. We need only mention the stand taken by the Dominion Bridge Company, of Lachine, where as we are informed, work was refused to those employees holding back from enlistment. Everywhere in the country, agents and officers of the Militia Department urge, in many cases quite unduly, our young farmers to enlist, and thus deprive our farmers of the help necessary for keeping up the tilling of the land.
I shall insist on this question of farm help as it should be cohsidered of prime importance by the Government. It is all very well to wear khaki, handle a gun and a bayonet, but in the present crisis there is more profit for the future in not leaving to rust the plough and the reaper, and in preparing to till the soil and take in the harvest; and without the required farm-help what will happen to the produce needed by the army and the country. And since the Government will not raise the embargo on American 'Wheat, which we could utilize if there were a failure of the Canadian harvest, we must at all costs see to enlisting our farmers' sons in the great army of tillers of the soil, and keep them in the country.
I noticed in the February bulletin of the Conservation Commission, published at Ottawa, a report of an investigation made last summer. They found that out of 400 farmers 15 per cent employ help the year round, 11 per cent by the month,. 34 per cent by the day and the balance occasionally; 64 per cent employ men born in Canada, 13 per cent men from the United Kingdom and 2 per cent employ aliens. Those figures go to show the great scarcity of farm hands who, by what I claim is excessive recruiting, are withdrawn from the farm and the city.
The present must be taken care of, Mr. Speaker, but the future must also be anticipated, and we must give some forethought to the fields of activity that after the war will call for development in order that the country may recover from the stress, namely, our public works, colonization, railways, harbours and canals, etc. Has this Government administered the moneys which have been entrusted to it as an honest and conscientious trustee? I claim not.
Since the 4th of August, 1914, they have taken an undue advantage of the political truce, of the good faith of the Opposition, of the generosity of the Canadian people. At a time when all true citizens of all races and creeds, are making untold sacrifices for the destruction of our common foe; when our daughters enlist as nurses, go to the front, and swell the ranks of tlje valorous

and heroic Red Cross; while our wives are vieing in zeal, patriotism and devotion to send aid to the French and Canadian soldiers, what were we given to behold in this country? With the Government's open protection and consent, or at least tacit toleration, dishonest politicians are known to have manipulated the war funds to suit themselves, gorged themselves with enormous profits obtained through political patronage and Reaped millions of dollars over the corpses of their fellowmen stricken by German shrapnel while defending their country.
One need only recall without going into details the scandals which under this Government have blurred the pages of our parliamentary history since the 4th of August, 1914. Think among others of the shameful transactions concerning the purchase of submarines in British Columbia, the purchase of hay, horses, motorcycles, trucks, field glasses, drugs, even such as were required for dressing the wounds of our martyred soldiers; also the orders for boots, uniforms, blankets, shirts and slippers.
The exchange of communications between the hon. the Prime Minister and the Manufacturers' Association, as to war supplies shows the iniquitous deals which have been put through and of which the Government will be answerable to the people in due time.
Is not the punishment making itself felt already in Peel county? The hon. member representing that county in the Dominion Parliament (Mr. Blain) could tell us something about it. Does he not see the writing on the wall warning himself and the Government of what the country has for them in store? The lesson may be profitable to the Garlands and Fosters, partners of the late Peel poltician, Mr. Fallis.
Moreover, the provinces of Prince Edward Island and Manitoba had already sounded the signal, and in the late by-elections British Columbia has been seen to fall into line; the future will take care of the other parts of the country. A very eminent citizen -an ex-Minister of Justice in the Conservative Government-has been heard in condemnation of the present Administration, and is siding with the Liberals in their policies; such is Sir Charles Hibbard Tupper. True it is that the hoh. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) is said by the papers to have sfated that he would never have thought a Tupper could be any other but a Conservative. But the minister must know that we are never too old to learn; such is now his painful experience.
To the long list of scandals which I have given must be added the contracts for shells and other war munitions and requisites entered into by the notorious Phell Committee, a creation of our too famous Minister of Militia. In spite of the charges launched by the member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), in spite of the intimation given by even the press of Canada, will the Government refuse the investigation called for in no uncertain terms by the Ottawa Evening Journal and the Montreal Star? I will quote first the Evening Journal:
Mr. Carvell's speech in the House of Commons, Wednesday, was the most extreme indictment ytt uttered or published of alleged shortcomings in the Canadian case. It contained! all of the complaints and none of the explanations or compensations, nevertheless, it was forcible because it cited what seemed illustrations of the Shell Committee having sometimes unfairly ignored some would-be shell manufacturers, while extending patronage to others; also because apparently sometimes prices were paid which circumstances could hardly justify; also because there appeared sometimes to be political interference and corresponding profit to middlemen. The Journal is under the impression that the whole subject has been' so messed up now that an inquiry and report would be desirable, made by some tribunal not liable to be suspected of being under partisan domination. There may be technical difficulty in regard to the Shell Committee being of Imperial appointment, but we think the public wants some independent report in the matter and that is worth the Government's while to try to supply.
Let us now see what the Star has to say in the same connection:
Now that Sir Wilfrid Laurier has put down a formal notice of motion calling for an inquiry into the work of the late Shell Committee, it is earnestly to be hoped that the Government will not hesitate to join heartily in launching the unpleasant task. Sir Sam Hughes gave us some figures, during his fighting speech on the subject, which were distinctly reassuring. But the public mind has reached such a condition of doubt and suspicion touching the matter that nothing short of sworn testimony and a chance to bring out all the truth will satisfy it. Both sides in the House have now quoted figures. Let both sides now submit their figures and their facts to expert analysis and searching investigation.
The honour of Canada is at stake. This is more important than Canada's money. As for the attitude of the British Government, they cannot, of course, ask for an inquiry. They cannot even seem to encourage one. They still regard Canada as "the spoiled child" of the Empire, and must perfunctorily pat us on the head for offering to make shells at all. But the British Government will undoubtedly and joyfully consent to an inquiry' if asked to do so by a unanimous vote of the Canadian Parliament.
After such denunciations, the hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has thought fit to submit the following resolution, now on the Order Paper:
That a special committee of members of this House be appointed to inquire into all pur-
[Stage Direction]
127-*
chases of shells Or other munitions or goods by the Shell Committee formed by the Minister of Militia, as stated to this House by the Prime Minister on the 15th April, 1915, together with all contracts made or orders given by the said committee for any shells or other munitions or goods, with authority to the said committee to examine witnesses under oath and to require the production of any documents, books, letters or papers; and that such special committee be directed to report from time to time to this House in such manner as it may think advisable.
I trust the resolution will be carried unanimously and that, for the good repute of the Canadian Parliament, the investigation will be ordered, so that the guilty may be unmasked before the people and be dealt with by the law of the land.
And, moreover, while all men of good will unite and concentrate all their best energies in an endeavour to secure the welfare and safety of the Empire and to crush the Germans, the Government entrusts to those very Germans the most important functions in the country's public service. Thus I have been surprised, amazed to hear the hon. the Minister of Militia boast that he was employing as brigadier-general in the Canadian army a German by the name of Kahn. In the course of a recent debate in this House, the Minister of Marine (Mr-Hazen) eulogized another German, Mr. Heidmann, his private secretary. Another German is said to be assistant private secretary to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), at the Ottawa post office, there is another German employee by the name of Dohlmann, in the dredging service another German, with his father and brothers fighting for Germany, is now employed at examining our harbours and has charge of the dredging of our rivers and lakes. The head of the Mines Branch is also a native of Germany, Dr. Haanel; the head botanist for the Government at the Ottawa Experimental Farm, Dr. H. T. Giissow, is another Ger-'man; and in the renowned Gutelius in whom the Minister of Railways has full confidence for the management of the Intercolonial, we have another German. In this very building, the National Museum, where the House is now in session, many offices are filled with Germans, who belong to the Civil Service. And to get this building ready for Parliament after the conflagration and disaster of the 3rd of February, the Minister of Public Works went to the extent of giving employment to German labourers, to the detriment of British citizens of Ottawa.
I will not say, nor even insinuate that the persons I have mentioned are spies, but
fMr. Ethier.]
now that we know German kultur and its elaborate spy system throughout the world, it is the Government's duty to take all measures necessary to safeguard State secrets. If those employees realized their position, their first care, after the declaration of the war with Germany, ought to have been to hand in temporarily to their minister their resignations, as did Mr. Brandt, of German birth, a homestead inspector for the Interior Department. The Prince of Batten-berg, also of German birth, and allied to the Royal House of Great Britain, saw fit, and it is to his credit, to hand in his resignation to the Imperial authorities at the beginning of the war. That is another example the Germans in our Civil Service ought to follow. And as they refrain from doing so, it behooves this Government in the very interest of those civil servants themselves, to discharge them and put in their places competent Canadians of Canadian birth.
In Great Britain, the same leniency was not shown for Sir Edgar Speyer and Sir Ernest Cassell, two Germans, who were asked for their resignation as King's Privy Councillors. And in Germany, Mr. Speaker, could there be found in the public service a British subject, having access to the secrets of the several departments of the Reichstag?
Indeed not, over there they go to the extent of expelling from German territory women of British and French birth, when indeed they are not' incarcerated, as happened to our hon. friend, Dr. Beland, exPostmaster General, referred to by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) and notwithstanding all the requests and diplomacy of the Canadian Government, helped by the Imperial Government, Germany persists in her refusal to set at liberty our friend Mr. Beland. A base exchange was *offered for our friend's liberty, the condition being the release of a mean spy incarcerated in the London Tower; the offer was proudly refused.
In certain quarters, despite the common danger, it is sought to pit against each other the two races that live in this country under the protection of the British flag, and in that connection, I may say to the people of Ontario, as years ago was said by the Hon. Honore Mercier to the people of Quebec, " let us once for all stop our fratricidal feuds," because in Ontario as well as in Quebec English-Canadians and French-Canadians should live in a'common brotherhood. I join in the appeal framed so eloquently by the hon. member for Bonaven-ture (Mr. Marcil) to those of our English-
[Stage Direction]
speaking fellowmen, who believe in justice, broadmindedness and true British fair play, to put an end to this unfortunate school' question and bilingual embroglio, which threatens the peace and safety of our country. Leave to such fanatics as the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) the monopoly of sarcasm, and gross and unwarranted insults with which that worthy scion of the followers of William of Orange must on every occasion bespatter everything Catholic and French-Canadian.
I am sorry the hon. member is not in the House at present, because I want to take this opportunity to read to the members the report of a meeting held at Kingston, as published in the Ottawa Free Press of the 25th of February, at which meeting that gentleman has vented his malice/ against the province of Quebec. I quote the whole article:
Says Quebec not doing its duty-Dr Edwards in Hot Speech at Kingston-Sees Traitor Influence in Lack of Recruits.
Kingston, Feb. 25.- (Special.)-Dr J. W. Edwards, M. P., gave some red-hot stuff to the members of the Frontenac Conservative Association in session for their annual meeting here yesterday afternoon. He declared that he had voiced the opinion of both Liberals and Conservatives in making an attack upon Bourassa and Lavergne in the Commons recently.
With the motherland of Quebec province attacked, Dr Edwards said, it would have been expected that the province would have sent at least 100,000 men overseas, it had not sent one-quarter of that number. While Ontario sent 14 per cent of its available men between the ages of 20 and 45, Quebec sent but 6 per cent, and, according to Mr. Le-mieux, only 9,000 of these were French-Can-adians.
Continuing, Dr Edwards scornfully exclaimed :	"These are the people parading the
streets of Ottawa, and who have certain public men as heads making demands for equal languages, and telling the people not to go to war until Ontario has given them what they want, and also telling them not to contribute to the war until they get what they want. Vile as the Germans are, they have no use for a person who is a traitor to his country."
I throw back with scorn at this fellow his vile and mean language, spoken outside of this House; let me tell him that the province of Quebec will not have him as its spokesman in denouncing to the people of Ontario Messrs. Bourassa and Lavergne. If Quebec requires defenders against demagogues who would put us in a false light before our fellow citizens, we shall not have this business done for us by any insulters
from the ranks of the Frontenac Conservative Association. We have in our fciidst men who can go to the very heart of Ontario,. to Toronto, as was done only lately by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Bflivin) to convince even Orangemen of the stamp of the hon. member for Frontenac that the province of Quebec is as loyal as Ontario may be.
Vile fellows and traitors are we, according to the hon. member for Frontenac! Traitors indeed, those *ho in the space of five days have in Montreal subscribed to the Patriotic Fund the sum of $2,378^854! Vile fellows and traitors indeed those Sul-picians who have contributed to the Patriotic Fund the round sum of $35,000! Vile and traitors those Canadians who have shed their blood at the battles of the Marne and Ypres! Vile and traitors those brave French-Canadians of' the 22nd regiment, who, at the very moment they were being insulted at Kingston by the hon. member, were giving their lives in the trenches under the walls of Verdun. I much rather accept the testimony of the officers of the British army, of the hon. the Minister of Militia himself, of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) and of eminent citizens of Ottawa, such as Sir Joseph Pope and Mr. Cameron, Registrar of the Supreme Court,
After such evidence, the only place for the diatribes the hon. member for Frontenac may give vent to, is the waste basket.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have kept the House until such a late hour in the night but I had at heart to set in its true light, and such as I understand it the present situation. A last appeal I would make, Mr. Speaker, let us extend the hand of fellowship; let us be fair to the minority and respectful of our constitution, our treaties and acquired rights; let us prove to the whole country, and to our fellow-countrymen of foreign birth, our good public spirit and the generous and broad culture of the Canadian people.	-
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee of Ways and Means.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 1.40 a.m. Wednesday.
Wednesday, March 1, 1916.