1916-02-22

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: With the consent of the House, I beg to move that Mr. Carroll be appointed to the Committee on Public Accounts, replacing Mr. Neely.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of , Labour) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 37, to amend the White Phosphorus Matches Act. He said: The Act as it now stands prohibits the manufacture of matches from white phosphorus from and after the 1st of January, 1915, and also prohibits the sale or use of such matches after the 1st of January, 1916. The manufacturers ceased manufacturing on the 1st of January, 1915, but they were unable during the next year to dispose of all the matches they had in stock, and on the 1st of January, 1916, a great many people still had matches on hand, and under the Act they were liable to prosecution if they attempted to sell or use them. This Bill gives the manufacturers six months longer in Which
to dispose of their stock on hand, and it gives those using these matches a year from the 1st of January, 1916, to use them up.
Mr. MURPHY:: Has the minister proof that the manufacturers had actually ceased manufacturing on the 1st of January, 1915?


Mr. CROTHERS:: Yes, I am satisfied as to that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first
time.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) for the Committee of Ways and Means, resumed from Thursday, February 17.
Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is some time since I have had the privilege of addressing my colleagues in this House, for reasons which are well known to us all. It is a great pleasure to be here to-day and once more to address those whom I have met on the floor of this House, sometimes in gladiatorial political combat, sometimes assisting in the various projects before the country. I congratulate the House upon the splendid spirit of unity which it has displayed throughout this great war. There is no question that this House has given to the whole British Empire an example of freedom from political controversy. For, although we here may fondly imagine that there is no such thing as controversy in the British House of Commons, any one who receives and reads the debates of that House, will see that the spirit of politics is still rife. In this House the criticisms have been rather mild, and the Opposition has given every assistance to the Government to carry on the great work that is before us all. The leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has shown great patriotism in seconding the desires of the Government. I congratulate him upon that and upon the fact that he has, as it were, held back the restless spirits behind him, who, quite naturally, I acknowledge, feel a bit anxious to take a fall out of the Government. The conduct of the'leader of the Opposition in this respect has made for himself a name in the political history of this country which will never be forgotten. Of course there is, and must necessarily be, a certain amount of political sniping going on in this House as well as in the country. Any sniping here is done in the broad light of day; but sometimes, I am sorry to say, it is done in the country about the way it is done at the front-by getting behind the

lines and getting in a lick at some poor 'soldier-politician-behind his back. But we have had nothing but splendid assistance on both sides of the House to carry forward all the measures that have come before Parliament in these very strenuous times.
I desire to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) particularly, upon the very excellent Budget speech he made in this House, and the lucid manner in which he explained the financial position of the country. He is to be complimented and congratulated also upon his excellent conduct of the public finances during the last year and a half. There is no question that the situation of this country, when the war broke out, was exceedingly grave. We had undertaken public works, tremendous railway extensions, which had just reached the point where their securities would naturally be marketable and the railways placed upon a sound foundation. Great expenditures had taken place and the resources of the country had been pledged for a number of years. The instant the war came every industry was stilled, every wheel ceased to move. Those who recall the strenuous days of the opening weeks of the war, know that manufacturing in this country virtually ceased. In that we had an example of the state this country would be in should this House do anything that would cause a cessation of manufacturing operations. For, after all, the manufacturing industries of the country are just as essential to the country's success as any other department of our industrial life. A number of these industries, being very strong financially, continued to operate, and very shortly there was a gratifying recovery.
During the past year the country has made some of the greatest discoveries that it has ever made. We Canadians are very much inclined at all times to belittle ourselves, to consider ourselves, perhaps, as not so capable mentally or otherwise as other people. I deprecate that condition of mind among the members of this House or among the people of this country. When the first contingent left for the front a great many people felt that it would have to be broken up and merged with British regular troops. During the past year, however, it has been found that the Canadian soldier is as good a fighting man as any soldier on the continent of Europe.
Another strange thing has occurred. In connection with the tremendous expenditures with which we have been confronted, the Minister of Finance has been able to

raise in Canada, by means of bond sales to the people, the enormous sum of $100,000,000. Two years ago no one would have conceived it possible that in a time of war the Minister of Finance could raise even $50,000,000 in Canada for war purposes; yet the minister got over $100,000,000. If we make the war pay in this country, as Pitt made a war pay in England, I am sure that the Minister of Finance will have no difficulty in getting all the money necessary to meet the requirements of Canada's participation in the conflict, and that not only $100,000,000, but, if necessary, $500,000,000, can easily be raised in Canada.
The Budget contains very few features upon which any remarks could be offered. The new policy of assessing corporations is one that will doubtless meet with considerable opposition. In my study of political economy I have observed that there are two kinds of taxation, direct and indirect. There is no doubt that this proposed taxation of profits is a form of direct taxation. In considering this matter we should always bear in mind that in their legislation the people keep constantly in view two things: they desire, first, that no special interest shall have anything to do with the making of the laws that pertain to the administration of justice; and, secondly, that no special interest shall have anything to do with the laws dealing with the imposition of taxes. We should deal with every business institution and every commercial concern and every individual as being free and equal in the eyes of the law. One feature of this proposed legislation that may create some opposition on the part of members perhaps on both sides of the House is the provision to make it retroactive. I confess that I threw away almost all my books on political economy when I went to the war, and I have not since been able to find them. In those to which I have had reference, however, I find no case in which taxation has been made retroactive. The desire has always been to place the burden of any year's taxation upon that particular year, and I am satisfied that when the Bill comes before the House, the minister will take that matter into his very serious consideration. Retroactive legislation should be resorted to only after we have reached the limit of our taxation. If we had failed by means Of customs and excise taxes to obtain the necessary revenue, it might have been wise to raise money by means of retroactive legislation of this kind. We are legislating

in this House with a view to doing the best for our country. If we put aside all partisan considerations, as I think we should under the circumstances, we will agree that the minister did not, perhaps, give wise consideration to that feature of the proposed legislation. However, when the Bill comes before the House, many of its provisions will be discussed, and many of them will be changed.
I desire to congratulate the minister upon placing a duty upon apples coming into this country. Before the war I had the pleasure_of going West almost every year. One thing that has always struck me is that the fruit trade in the West, especially in the Middle West, was entirely under the control of the American Fruit Trust. It did not matter whether Canadian apples were good or cheap, no man selling apples in the West would dare purchase eastern or western Canadian apples if he was getting other fruits from American firms. The American Fruit Trust informed the retailers and jobbers in the Canadian West that if they wanted to get oranges, bananas, and lemons from the United States, they must purchase also American grapes, apples, and other fruits. The result was that our fruit was blocked out of the Canadian Northwest. Great areas of fine ajoples are under culture in British Columbia, and it is necessary to see that this basic industry is properly protected.
Large quantities of oil are imported into this country, and of necessity there must be some form of taxation, particularly in view of the fact that in various sections of the country we have other kinds of fuel, such as coal.
'The tax which we are objecting to, 'that which .applies to companies, will strike quiet a number of the most efficient companies in Canada, while a number of companies owned by foreigners will be entirely free from taxation. There are in Canada a large number of concerns controlled by foreigners; some of them as a matter of fact are controlled by Germans. A large copper corporation in the West is controlled by a German syndicate by means of trustees. We have it on the authority of a statement in the British House of Commons, made last month by men of responsibility, that the nickel industry in Canada is controlled by the Krupp interests through trustees in the United States. When you bear in mind the fact that the nickel mines of Canada alone are sufficiently wealthy to finance the war for five 8r ten years and still leave a dividend, you will realize how important
the control of these mines is to the Germans. Some action should be taken to see that materials connected with this industry are manufactured in Canada; at the very least, they should be subject to some taxation. The same state of affairs existed in Australia, where zinc concentrates of great value were controlled by German syndicates with headquarters at Frankfurt. The Government of Australia took the bull by the horns. They immediately cancelled the ownership of these mines controlled by the Germans, and the British Government is now getting these zinc concentrates from Australia. I 'think it would be wise for the Government of this country to make a thorough investigation into the affairs of the International Nickel Company with a view to ascertaining whether the statements to which I have referred are true. If its affairs are controlled by Germans, we should know it; Germans are not very friendly to us just at this time.
I have, heard the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce make a number of able speeches in this House, but I confess that I never heard him make a more eloquent speech than he did the other evening. The hon. minister is fully alive to the fact that the Germans have decided to carry on after the conclusion of this war a great trade war against the Allies. Possibly the hon. gentleman's position did not permit his making known what suggestions have been adopted or what course is being taken to meet the German onslaught that is sure to take place after this war is over. Hon. gentlemen may say:	how do you know that the Germans
intend to carry on a commercial war at the conclusion of the present conflict? We all know that whether Germany wins or loses, she will at least have Austria included within her Empire.
In Germany they are already looking forward to the carrying on of a further commercial war against the Allies. Early in December a Secret Congress was held in Vienna between the "various interests of Germany and Austria and the various states within the German Bund. At that congress certain resolutions were agreed to that are to govern their conduct after the war. There was but one purpose in those resolutions, to retain their interior trade to themselves and to take trade away from the Allies. We all know very well how Germany has conducted its affairs for a number of years. It might be well for us to take a short retrospect of

of Falkland Islands had not been fought. Nevertheless, a very few weeks afterwards the navy accomplished all that the Empire expected it to accomplish. We must bear in mind that everything in this war depends upon the British Navy. It does not matter how bravely our men may fight; it does not matter how much money the Minister of Finance may have; the fact remains that the products of the farm in this country would not be worth 15 cents on the dollar were it not for the British Navy. I think that the Navy should always be borne in mind, especially by those who farm the wheat fields in the West. We must bear in mind this: that if we want free wheat- and I confess I see no reason why we should not have free wheat, always bearing in mind that whilst this war is on we are all dependent upon the British Navy to market our crops. The British Navy has marketed the Canadian crops this year, and not only the crops of this country, but those of the other dominions and colonies, Australia included. Would it be well for us to endanger that support by allowing our products to be diluted with foreign grain? That is something we should consider when we are talking of the question of free wheat, and perhaps it would be well to leave the discussion of free wheat over until after the war.
Well, the British Navy saw us safely over to Great Britain. When we landed, we were immediately sent to the highest plateau in England, known as Salisbury Plain. Salisbury Plain is one of the most historic spots in England. There you will see the remains of Britons, Romans, and Normans. There were gathered at times the military people of England for three or four thousand years; mounds there mark the graves of forgotten kings and warriors. We were the latest warriors to reach Salisbury Plain, and we certainly had a time of it whilst we were there. When we reached that camp we imagined that we were going to be drilled by English officers, and that our work would be easy for us. At that time, however, Great Britain was in the throes of mobilizing Kitchener's army. Thousands of men were joining the colours, and the authorities could not get enough instructors to train the troops, with the result that pensioners of 70 and 80 years of age were called upon to help in the work of instruction. The Canadian force supplied some instructors to the British Army, my own batttalion amongst the number, and I am very

pleased to say that one of the lads from my battalion won the Military Cross at the Dardanelles the other day. He joined the British Army from the ranks of my regiment, and to-day he is a major in the British army. That speaks for Canadian merit. Some 18 or 20 others took commissions, and assisted in instructing that great army which was still in the process of organization. WThen I left England in midsummer last year, fully 50 per cent had not then received their uniforms, arms, or equipment, and yet we in Canada continually proclaim our helplessness, and rail because a man does not get his uniform and equipment the moment he enlists. Few of us have any idea of the enormous amount of work that Great Britain had to accomplish in order to arm herself for this momentous struggle.
To-day Canada has virtually twice as many regular troops as Great Britain had at the beginning of the war. One hundred and fifty thousand men-just imagine what a paltry army that British army was. Why, we would hardly go out to see it march past in Canada now, when we talk in hundreds of thousands. We had considerable difficulties there. The climate was very disagreeable, and we were kept under canvas which was not very good, canvas which looked rather like cheesecloth. We were kept under that canvas all through the fall of the year and during a very wet season. It rained continually; it was the wettest season they had ever had on Salisbury Plains. One author has written something about the rains on Salisbury Plains being very bad for the men, anfl he was perfectly right, so -far as that goes. The weather was exceedingly bad, but the troops stood it well. They drilled regularly every day and at night, twice a week, under our own officers, and I may say that our own officers far exceeded expectations in that respect. Fuss and feathers were cut out almost entirely. Officers from the front came over to give us some idea of the conditions there, and our officers studied the methods and results, and organized the force until when it went to France it was one of the best divisions there. Ever since 1 joined the force, I have been "soldiering," and therefore my lips are closed with regard to a great many things that occurred at the front, because it does not do for a man who wears a military uniform to discuss questions that appertain to civil affairs or to military matters. Here I am free to speak, and there is one matter that I wish the Government would

look into, and especially my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) who is looking after the dollars. It is this: While we were on those plains, for about a month and a half, forty or fifty per cent of our men were taken away from the battalions daily by fatigues. These men were employed in building huts, digging trenches, constructing railways and carrying on great public works on Salisbury Plain and quite gladly and nobly they went to work and did their duty. We all believed we were doing our bit for the Crown, for the King, and we worked night and day struggling to get the camp into shape not only for ourselves but for. Kitchener's army. We left greater monuments on those plains than did the Romans or the ancient Druids, that built Stonehenge, because we built railways and use-, ful works of that kind that they did not know anything about. However, this is the point that I am referring to particularly: Our men received 25 cents a day from the English contractors, in addition to their pay, for working as they had done. When I had returned from the front and was in England, I ascertained that all the work that our troops had done there had been done for one or two English contractors and that the Government of this country had been giving these English contractors a free gift of virtually $1.10 per day for thousands of men employed. I hope the Government will take that matter into consideration. I do not know that it has been made known to the minister but it is a very serious matter. The contractors who were paid for that work by the British Government should be made to make restitution to this Government the wages of the men who were employed there, amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is quite clear, is it not?
That is only one example, but we must know that in times of war there are conditions under which contractors and grafters will try to get into the twilight zone between this and other colonies and the British Government. We must take very great care to see that contractors of that kind are not robbing this country or robbing the British Government. I say that unhesitatingly. There must not be any roses hung over the tables where contracts are being made between contractors and the Government. Everything must be open and aboveboard. The people of this country are desirous of doing everything in their power for the war. They
63i
are giving their last dollar and their dearest sons to the welfare of the Empire, but that being the case we should make sure that no advantage is taken of the unusual conditions which prevail in war time. It must be remembered that they have rascals in Great Britain just- the same as they have every place else. I was told that the Government had made an important contract with a German Jew for all the lumber that was used by the War Office in England, and that this man had, got a commission and something like a million pounds. I understand that he was subsequently punished. I trust that they now 4 p.m. have got him in the Tower or a concentration camp. Rascality of that kind must be stopped. Things like that have occurred also in other countries. In France much money was diverted by fraudulent contractors, and the same thing occurred in Russia, but that is all over now. The governments concerned took prompt action, and punishment followed. I trust that before this war is over steps will be taken to find out from the Commander-in-Chief of the. Canadian forces how and why it was that our men were employed in that way, and why the money equivalent of their wages was not refunded to this Government. This is a very disagreeable thing for me to discuss, but it is one of the things that many officers and men asked me to take up when I came home. I could not, while wearing the uniform, say a word about it, because it was not my privilege until I spoke in the House of Commons. I have spoken of this question and I have done so in the hope that the Government will inquire into it.
After we had spent a certain time on Salisbury Plain we were sent to France. Within a few weeks after the time that we had finished the building of these huts we were taken to France. That was all right; we were anxious to go there. Would it be occupying the time of the House too much if I were to describe the trenches in France and various matters illustrating the life of our men at the front?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on; go on.


John Allister Currie: I do not wish to occupy the time of the House at too great length. Well, the troops went over to France. Some of you may have heard stories about our troops; it has been said that they were drunkards and all sorts' of things. I can now state, for the information of the House, that eighty per cent of the men in my

'>96
corps, which was no better than the others, never took a drop of liquor of any kind during all the time they were in England, or after they had left England for the front. They were all fine, clean young fellows, who had gone to France intent on doing their duty to themselves and to the Crown, and they were anxious to be a credit to Canada. When they had reached France they were sent immediately up to the trenches. They were first sent to the ancient town of Hazebrouck, where they detrained. That is right in old Flanders. It has been stated that England had two, or three, million men there when we were sent over. That is not a fact. A return brought down in the House of Lords shows that Great Britain did not have more than 350,000 effective bayonets in France when we went there; so that we were a good sized unit to be added to the British force at the front. We took our position prepared to fight for Great Britain. Before going into the trenches we went into billets behind the trenches. These billets are composed of farm houses generally knocked about a good deal by shells. There will be a stable, a stall here and there, and there will be one or two rooms in the house which have not been destroyed by shell fire. Shells are likely to arrive at any time, as some of the German guns have a long range, and their fire is effective at a distance of ten miles. The various companies of the battalions are divided amongst these farm houses, and the farmers supply the men with milk, butter, and things of that kind. These farmers are not young men. There are only old men, boys and women left at the farms, and I will say to the credit of our men that there never was a single complaint against our men by the farmers in Flanders and that they behaved themselves like gentlemen. Flemish farmers have again and again expressed to me their appreciation of this fact. The Germans had overrun that country, and you can see evidences of German atrocities which it is unnecessary for me to mention here; there were ample evidences before our eyes at every place we went. A Flemish farmer said to me: We have had German troops, French troops, English and Indian troops, but the troops that behave themselves best when at our farms are the Canadians. 1 wish to bear testimony here to the men of the first Canadian division with which I was, and I am satisfied ''hat the men of all the other Canadian divisions will behave themselves equally well. The trenches 
that we went into first were in front of Fromelle, or within three-quarters of a mile of rue d'Enfers, which is the main road running into Aubers, where the battle of Neuve Chapelle was fought. These trenches are not exactly the same as those that you see pictured and which are shown as deep ditches. The deep ditches are communicating trenches. The trenches all through this whole country are really parapets about four feet high covered with sand bags and provided behind with willow trestles or basket work so that the men can stand up close to the parapets. The reason of that is that if you dig one or two feet below the surface you are in water. The result is that the permanent entrenchments must be all built up. The men entrench themselves in this way: The troops, after being engaged in battle, are told to dig in and every man digs a little hole for himself in the ground. He carries an entrenching tool on his back which he brings out, places on its handle and proceeds, while he is lying down, to dig himself a little hole in the ground. He gets into this and in about twenty minutes every man is lying under cover and if he gets any sleep at all it is then although the guns are playing upon these parapets and entrenchments. All the work is done at night. The shovels are brought down by the engineers and the men throw up a parapet four or four and a half feet high all along their line. They place wire entanglements in front of the entrenchments. Then, behind these parapets they place little dugouts into which the men slip when they want to have a little , sleep. In these trenches there is a rigid rule of discipline. The men are all required to be kept awake during the night. They are not allowed to sleep. If they do sleep they sleep with their rifles under their heads. Every man has to have his uniform and his boots on, his arms in his hand, his equipment ready and his ammunition in bandolier and belt holding 300 rounds, strapped around him. All through the night magnesium flares illuminate the sky between the trenches, and it becomes so bright that you can read a newspaper at a distance of even half a mile behind the trenches. These flares are for the purpose of illuminating that dead man's ground between the trenches, the devil strip. The patrols go in and out at night from both sides and fight in that interval where there is no law and nothing but death if any one is seen there. Along about the grey dawn, half an hour before daybreak, word is
i

passed from mouth to mouth-all orders are given in that way-for the men to "stand to their arms," and the men get into position behind the parapets, so that, if necessary, they can repel an attack. They then stand to arms until half an hour after daylight, when they get the word to "stand down," and then they proceed first to clean their equipment, and after that to shave and clean themselves. After they come out of the trenches, they look as clean as any of us here do, because our Canadian soldiers are endeavouring to carry out the rule of the best regiments in the British service, that every one must shave and clean himself every day, so that he may look clean and respectable; it does not matter if his clothes are dirty and muddy. The soldiers carry out this rule, because it makes for discipline, and there is no better disciplined force in the world than our Canadian soldiers who have gone over to France. You may talk about the discipline of Caesar's legions, but they never had better discipline than the Canadian troops. Discipline means the sense of duty to carry on all the work cheerfully as told, and our soldiers are all obsessed with an intense desire to do their duty and to behave themselves like men. If a soldier misbehaves himself or is dirty-it does not matter who he is-the officers do not have to take action; the men immediately bring him to attention, and -in about five minutes give him enough to make him go and clean himself and behave himself in future. Thus the discipline is self-imposed and as rigid as I could make it, the men carrying out their orders to the letter. This makes life agreeable to the officers, and the Canadian people have good reason to be proud of the men who represent them on the other side at the trenches.
Now, I want to bear testimony to the excellent food that is given to our soldiers. Nothing in the way of food that they require is refused them by the Government, and this Government deserves to be thanked by them for that food.	The English troops,
I may say, are	just as well fed
as we are. I hope the men will be given to understand, as they should understand, that this Canadian Government is paying for everything supplied to our men at the front. Some weeks ago, at the opening of the session, the Minister of Finance stated that Canada was paying for everything in connection with our troops. That is a glorious idea. Some people, not only Canadians, but some who are not Canadians, had an idea that we were not paying our
share in that respect, that the- British Government was paying and feeding our men. At the front, if a soldier sleeps in a barn, his officer has to give a requisition to the farmer that this soldier has slept in his barn for so many nights, because, as we are in a friendly country, everything has to be paid for and is charged to us. All the supplies of our Canadian troops, ammunition, food, and everything else, is paid for by us, and that condition of affairs should be made known more publicly in Great Britain than it is at the present time. I have been told many times in England and in Scotland, and the people there know, that our Canadian soldiers are receiving much larger pay than the English Tommies. The English soldier gets Is. 6d. a day at most; the non-commissioned officers, of course, receive higher pay and the English officers get much higher pay than the Canadian officers, notwithstanding that some members would like to see the pay of the Canadian- officers reduced. The English officers also get a larger allowance than the Canadian officers, but the English Tommy gets only Is. 6d., whereas our men get 4s. 6d. per day. Over in England the wealthy man is putting up the money required by Great Britain and Ireland for this war. He is paying taxes and buying war bonds. He is called the "British taxpayer," and he has been a notable factor in the history and development of Great Britain since the time of the Magna Charta. This British taxpayer admires the Canadian soldier; he has nothing but praise for the brilliant qualities in action and the bravery of the Canadian soldier, but he has a haunting idea that he is perhaps paying a little too much for our troops as compared with his own. Many men have^asked me: " Colonel, do you not think it is unfair that the Canadian soldier should be getting four shillings and sixpence a day while our men have to serve for Is. 6d.? I was not sure myself, until the statement was made by the Minister of Finance here, that Canada was paying ajl the salaries of our men. That is not generally known in (Great Britain, and I think that the sooner it is known within the walls of the British Parliament by some notable man, there or by some member of the Government there, that, so far as Canada is concerned, all the expenses of our troops at the front are being borne by us, the better it will be for everyone concerned. That fact

sould be made known for many reasons which I do not wish to discuss at this place and time. This being a fact, the position of our army at the front is to some extent different from what it is generally supposed to be, and in view of the fact that we aie paying for everything for *our own men, Canadians should command our own men and we should have some representation upon the committee that deals with the supplies and the handling of our troops in Great Britain. We are operating along with the British troops and the Indian troops, and the Indian troops are in exactly the same position as the Canadian troops, because India pays for everything connected with her own troops. India does not hesitate to have a say in matters connected with her troops and she has a representative in the British Cabinet, seated at the table with the British ministers, discussing Indian affairs and this war. We are in a slightly different position, and, so far as I am concerned as a member of this House, I bring this matter to the attention of the House, because I think we are amply justified in asking that we may appoint a committee in Great Britain representing this Government that may be able to control not only the expenditure of money in connection with our troops at the front, but promotions, appointments, and other matters of great importance. The question of promotions is a rather troublesome one. The British officers in command of the troops consider that they have all the say in connection with the promotion's in our troops, whilst the Army Act places all such matters in connection with the troops in the hands of the Government of the colonies that send armies to assist the Empire, stating that they have a perfect right to have their own rules and regulations in reference to pay, appointments and promotions, provided they pay the troops. It is very disagreeable for a young man who has served continually during the war to find out that his promotion is 'held back when officers no-t at the front have been promoted. Perhaps he may be entitled to a majority or to be second in command in his regiment owing to casualties which have occurred. His promotion, however, is held up for weeks. I am sorry that the Minister of Militia is not here, because I have received several letters from the front to the effect that, whilst some who have started as lieutenants in this country and who have not gone to the front at all are now

commanding regiments, many young men who have served at the front, a number of them graduates of our Royal Military College, still remain without promotions, whilst civilians at home are without experience, are aspiring to tlie command of brigades and divisions. Something should be done by the minister to bring before this House measures that would adjust this, so that these men may know that their promotions are being promptly looked after. Because, as we all know, what is everybody's business is nobody's business and is never looked after. The British Government-the War Office- does not want to take the responsibility in this matter; and I suppose there is not an overwhelming desire on the part of the officials here to undertake the responsibility of matters of promotion abroad. But these are vital matters in the trenches and should be attended to.
I have spoken of the food, now the clothing of the men'-it could not be better. It is first-class clothing, warm blankets, and all kept clean. Behind the lines, established in the breweries-that country is, dotted with breweries; there is one at every comer-are great baths where at least 100 men can bathe at once. The result is that they can run off three or four battalions a day, so that the men have a nice warm bath once a week. I mention these things because I am sure that hon. members are interested in knowing how our soldiers are cared for.
Now, it might be fitting for me to give a description of the great fight in which the Canadians so distinguished themselves. And when I say " Canadians," I want to include all the men in our ranks who came from the Old Country. Every one of these old countrymen who wears the strap on his shoulder " Canada " is as good a Canadian as I am, a native-born. And he is anxious to be known as a Canadian; there is no desire on his part to be known as an Englishman, Irishman, or Scotchman. He belongs to the Canadian army and is a Canadian, just as an Irishman in an Irish Highland regiment likes to be considered a Scotchman.


Mr. GRAHAM:: They have to have them to get up a good Scotch regiment.
Mr. CURRIE. These is something in that, but in the army there is no question of nationality. All our men are Canadians. And as to other nationalities there is no distinction. I had with me a number of

Irishmen and to one I gave the military cross for his bravery, and he deserved it. He wore kilts like the rest. I had several Englishmen, and nothing too good could be said of them. I had some of our friends from Lower Canada-there were a number of them with me. No braver men or better troops ever stood in shoe-leather than the French-Canadians who were with the First Division. When you fight alongside of men and see them press on, fighting with their hands, and bayonets, and rifles, and all standing to it without quailing, you realize the merits of those men and know the stuff the real Canadian is made of. The French-speaking Canadian militia has had ' a glorious history. Think of that corps in the campaigns of Montcalm and Wolfe. We know that when Canada was handed over to the British Crown the Canadian militia did not surrender, but marched out with drums beating, colours flying, matchlocks burning, and with all the honours of war. And the men who are fighting on the front to-da^, men alongside of whom I fought, the men of the Royal Highlanders of Montreal and the Montreal regiment, and some in my own regiment, were worthy successors of those brave men who tried to defeat the British over a hundred years ago. It makes me very tired indeed when I see the efforts made to stir up strife irj this country with the old weapons of the seventeenth century. These men at the front forget all these things. Those here who are trying to stir up trouble should go to the trenches for at least a few days. There they will see the wild Orangemen of Ontario dying, hundreds of them, alongside their comrades from the province of Quebec. And what for? For the very language and ideals over which there is trouble in this country; for the liberties of France; for the rights of that French-speaking people, the Belgians; for the integrity and independence of Belgium, " the beloved daughter of the Church." All these ideas of race and religion have been thrown into the sea by the men who have gone across; there is nothing of that among them. When a man has been under fire for twenty-four hours he reconciles himself to death. And he has a great respect for the man alongside him. The devotion of those men dying there should be an example to us in this country. In the shattered churches behind the lines, you find priests of the old faith praying there for these Orangemen and the rest of us in the trenches, praying that we may be safe and victorious. That is
an example for the whole world, and surely it should put an end for ever to strife in this country. I would urge those who seek to stir up trouble to go to the front and see what is taking place there. You will find the bodies of these same Orangemen that are derided by some here, and about whom such a'row is raised by agitators, buried in cemeteries the walls of which have been thrown down, buried in consecrated ground; no question as to religion there in the presence of the Great Tragedy. And this Great Tragedy is not enacted on that embattled ground alone; it is here, at our doors, it is in this very chamber as real as among these men in Flanders-unless they win. Surely we have something else to do here than to stir up strife. It ill becomes any man of military age.to carry on such an agitation among our people. Where the fighting goes on we come to know each other. And I can assure you that, so far as those are concerned who seek political preferment by means of such agitation, the men who have fought and learned lessons of toleration in the trenches-for they have votes-will take care of those agitators.
Perhaps the House would desire to hear something of the battle of St. Julien, and it may not be amiss for me to put on record a few words concerning it here. For no doubt future historians will take up this Hansard to see what one who was present had to say about it.
The Canadians took over the French trenches immediately east and north of the city of Ypres, in Belgium. I may explain that all Belgium is gone except a strip about twenty miles wide and thirty miles long-that is all that is left to the brave King Albert and his people to fight in. The rest is in the hands of the Germans. But it will not be always thus. The last city in Belgium is the city of Ypres. The Allies had thrown around it cordons of their troops and had driven the Germans back about six miles all around the city, forming what they call a salient. On the extreme north, along the canal to the sea the Belgian troops were holding. Then came the French, the "Iron Division" from Nancy, whose lines ran along the northeast section of this salient. Then came the Turoos, native Algerian troops, and brave troops they are. I do not say they were not justified in fleeing when the gas came. The French left their trenches, a*d we took them over, having a position between the Turcos and the British troops, who held the line southwest to Labasse.

Strong fighting had taken place there. The parapets were low, and many a German was piled up in these parapets and in the mud under foot, and almost every inch of the ground behind us was covered with the graves of the brave French defenders of that section and the Germans killed in trying to take the ground. Honourable members sitting here, I think, have little idea of the conditions under which our troops are fighting. Death is in the air every moment. Night or day, if a man raises his head above the parapet, he is liable to re-oeive a rifle bullet. Every five minutes a shell will hit the parapet or the trenches. Of course, everybody is placed so as to avoid danger as much as possible, but not a day passes when there are not one or two casualties, sometimes three or four, in every Canadian battalion, as you will see by the lists in the newspapers. And we were giving it back with interest to the Germans across the hundred yards of space in the same way. Four days after we had taken over the French trenches, on the 19th of April, between five and six o'clock in the afternoon, we noticed a tremendous rifle fire breaking out along the line occupied by the Turcos. Then we observed a huge cloud of greenish-yellow smoke, like, the smoke of burning straw. The rifle fire increased in intensity, and the shell fire became something terrible. The German guns gave what the newspapers call " a curtain of flame " on the forward lines of the Turcos' trenches. One of my companies was in the garrison of one of the villages behind that sector, St. Julien. When I first saw that the attack was coming, I was at the front line in company with Adjutant Dansereau, who is a native of Quebec, and one of the bravest men that ever stood in shoe leather. When we noticed the smoke and the intense firing, we immediately came to the conclusion that a tremendous thrust was being made against the French line at that point. We hurried back into the village of St. Julien and ordered our troops there to stand to. Shortly afterwards we noticed the figures of the French Turcos coming across the fields towards the village. Adjutant Dansereau, with a number of other young officers

Guy Drummond and Major Noseworthy among them-ran out to meet and to stop the Turcos. Dansereau rallied about two hundred of them into my trenches; the others were rallied into the trenches in front of the village. Drummond and Noseworthy fell gallantly, stemming the retreat. The Turcos told us that the Germans had suddenly 
turned a stream of gas on their lines, which, with the wind blowing about four miles an hour, quickly crossed the intervening space of 100 or 150 yards which intervened between the trenches. The opposing trenches are never more than 400 yards apart; indeed, the intervening distance is seldom more than 100 yards. When the gas first came the Turcos stuck to their trenches, and fully twenty per cent of their men died in their tracks. You can easily realize why so many of these poor, ignorant, coloured troops were so panic-stricken that they ran. Those who did not run were shot by machine guns or struck by shrapnel as they tried to make their way out of the trenches, so that only a remnant of their brigades reached the village. I desire to bear testimony to the courage of these men, even though they did retire. Out of the 200 men who were put in the forward trench at St. Julien, not more than sixteen remained alive after the battle; and the sixteen became prisoners of the Germans. You will see, therefore, that it was not lack of courage that caused the Turcos to retire. Well, the "Germans were coming on, and it was up to the Canadians to fight a rearguard action. I am speaking now not as a soldier, but in my civilian capacity; so I can give praise where it is due. I am sure, therefore, that a word of praise for General Turner will not be out of place. He is an officer in whom we Canadians all have confidence; and he is one of the bravest men in the British Army to-day. He is a Victoria Cross man, and a true soldier from the soles of his feet to the top of his head. General Turner immediately grasped the situation. The 10th and 16th battalions, which were in what they call brigade reserve at Ypres, formed up in the dusk of the evening west of the village of St. Julien, fixed bayonets, ported arms, and started to drive the Germans back. They drove the Germans back nearly a mile, many men falling in the engagement. No braver deed is recorded in the annals of the British Army than the charge of the 16th and 10th at St. Julien wood. Many of the Germans, who threw up their hands, were cowardly enough, after the troops had passed over, to shoot our men in the back. Between 60 and 70 per cent of the charging battalions were wiped out; that is, were killed or wounded. I have not time to mention the bravery of the officers who fell during that fight. The regiments dug in at the edge of the wood, and then the 7th hurried up to form a link between the villages

of iSt. Julien and the extreme point of the triangle held by the Mbntreal Highlanders and by my battalion. The first brigade was hurried up from west of the canal in reserve, and they helped to drive the Germans back and reconstitute the line., We stopped the rush that night. 1 understand that in the rush five army corps were in front of us. One of my men who had been a prisoner, but who, having lost his eye, was allowed to return, told me that six double lines of Germans were dug in in the fields behind the front of our lines. It was well known that there were 250,000 Germans in front of the Canadians in that fight; the odds, therefore, were about 20 to 1. That the Canadians were able to stop the rush of the Germans speaks well for their bravery. There was no hesitation, no question as to whether or not the force of the enemy was overpowering. It was a rearguard fight, and the Canadians held their ground because there. was nothing between the Canadians and Calais. If the German army had broken through, they would in two days reach Calais. It was necessary to sacrifice men, and we did not hesitate to do it.
On Friday the Germans gassed the front line again. They had come to realize, however, that the Canadians would keep on fighting like savage Indians, and would not throw up their hands as long as life and ammunition lasted. One wounded man in a ditch would hold up a wlfole battalion of Germans. Wherever they crossed bayonets with our men, our men overpowered them, and again and again the Germans were countered and driven out of our trenches. On Saturday morning they gassed us again, this time the attack being directed against the Montreal regiment and my battalion, which held the extreme angle of the salient. We were surrounded by Germans on three sides. Possibly 1,500 guns were turned loose on our sector; a shell fell about every ten feet. Out of forty-seven men who went into a small trench about 100 yards to the left of where I stood, only seventeen men came out after fifteen minutes shelling; the rest were killed by Jack Johnsons-great shells that fill the air with black and green smoke so thick that you could almost cut it with a knife. A number of the men applied wet bandoliers to their noses and escaped the gas in that way. We were not then supplied with respirators such as they have now. It was but the third day of our experience with German gas. In spite of the gas, the men held their line until late in the afternoon, when support	came. On Friday evening LU-
Col. Hart McHarg, who was in command of the 7th, got into a broken-down house from which the Germans were distant about twenty feet. While making an attempt to get out of the house he was shot and killed. Many other brave officers fell that day. On Saturday morning the Germans got a piece of our front trenches. They paid dearly for it. On Saturday afternoon the English troops came up and relieved us. I want to bear testimony to the extreme courage and bravery of these new British troops. They were not regulars, but Kitchener's army. They were fresh from England, had never fired a shot in anger in their lives, and did not know what the inside of the German trench was like. They took over our trenches, and their battalion lost possibly 50 per cent of its members, showing you that, with proper drill and discipline, the British troops are the equal of any troops and can hold any troops in the world. That makes us all feel satisfied that before this war is over we are going to have great and glorious victories.
I shall not refer to the few of our battalions who came out further than to say that I do not think any of the Canadian regiments' could muster more than three hundred men out of the eight hundred or nine hundred with which they went into that fight. All through the fight our brigadier was with us and with him the gallant officer who was his brigade major, the son of the Minister of Militia, a young man who is simply one of the bravest of the brave-there is no question about his ability as a soldier and his bravery. His commanding officer, General Turner, had to take the cooks and all the men he could scrape up at his headquarters to fight the Germans, who were within 150 yards, the first evening. A young officer from Winnipeg, McDonald, was shot in the brigade quarters by a shell that came into the room and the house was burned-not a particle of the barns and buildings where General Turner had his headquarters was left. Still he hung on, although we all thought he was killed. Our brigade got out about four o'clock on Monday morning and went into action again at eight o'clock the same morning, each of the battalions about 300 strong. Mine had 22 unwounded men and only two officers, myself and my second in command.
Something may have been said and has been said, there has been some gossip about my conduct at the front. I want to state to you gentlemen present here that

all through my career as an officer I constantly had in view ithe fact also that I was one of the members of this House and that I should comport myself in accordance with its dignity and honour. Far greater responsibilities rested upon me than upon anybody else there, but I never found the fact that I was a member of Parliament had anything at all to do with assisting me in any possible way, because I did not presume upon that; I took very great care that I never presumed or asked anything for myself from any person; neither political favour nor military favour of any kind have I asked for myself. There has, as I have said, been a little gossip. The men in my regiment and my officers know that when a battle takes place and I am there with them it is my duty to be there to lead them, rifle in hand; and after the battle is over I am the man who knows whether they comported themselves with bravery and dignity or not. The man who knows whether I did my duty there is Brigadier General Turner, V.C., who was with me all through the fight, and who shared the same dig-in with me during part of the remaining twelve days of the battle when we were in the thick of it night and day. When I was invalided to England he was good enough to ask for four days more leave for me. I got six days to start with and he was pleased to give me four days more, and he wrote me a letter which I think it is only right, in justice to myself, I should put oil record here as it will show that the words I have spoken to you are true. This letter was written on the 10th of May, virtually on the battlefield. The general was in the thick of the fight at Festubert a few days later. General Turner does not hesitate to go in with his men. He does not ask any officer or man in his brigade to do anything that he was not willing to do himself. That is the kind of man he is. He is an opponent of mine politically, so you will understand that there is no scratching of one another's backs, and no politics in this, He wrote to me:
Dear Colonel:
Leave has been extended for four days as requested.
The process of reorganizing is a heavy one.
Your battalion will have lost its identity as the 48th Highlanders.
In forwarding recommendation for " Mention in Despatches " it has given me great pleasure including your name for the valuable services rendered at St. Julien.
According to medical officers and my own opinion you are entitled to a good rest or suitable staff employment.

You have done more than called for as a regimental officer.
With best wishes, believe me,
Yours sincerely,
R. E. W. Turner.
General Turner, in his modesty, has not added the words letters "V.C." after his name, as he was entitled to do. That letter speaks for itself.. So far as my conduct is concerned, there is nothing to be ashamed of there. So far as the conduct of any Canadian soldier in the Canadian army that took part in that battle is concerned there is nothing to be ashamed of as far as I know. I am speaking for them all. If anything has been said or done since to my injury there are only two men who stood between me and any decorations that might have come to me, or any "mention in despatches," and these were General Alderson-and the Minister of Militia here. One was six miles back of the line all through the fight, and the other was attending to his duty in Canada, several thousand miles away. I choose to take the verdict of the man who stood over me in the trenches and the men that fought alongside of me.
We will now pass from what is a very disagreeable thing for me to speak of a personal matter, because a soldier has only his honour; you get nothing but hard knocks out of war and a little honour; so let us turn to the question of the war itself. We have now some 250,000 men ready for the field, and we are asked to get more men and yet more men. There are three things we will need: men, money, and munitions, and then more money and munitions. Of men we have now 250,000, and I often wish that this country had been blessed with national service before this war broke out. Then there would have been no heart burnings. The French people ihave national service, and you have no idea of their attachment to their country, and the excellent way in which that service works out. In France, when war broke out, every man, woman and child in the state was mobilized for war. The man whose place was behind the desk at the bank was left there, that was his place. The man who was to till the ground was left there. The only son of the widow, the only hope and support of a widow, or th,e bread winner of a small family, he was not taken off to the war. Places were adjusted for everybody, and there were no qualms of conscience in anybody, whether he should don khaki or

not; or whether we was of age or not, whether he should go to the front or not.
I find in this country men of my acquaintance of my age who have never served in any military capacity whose consciences are disturbing them constantly because they are not at the front. Their place if they led sedentary lives at home. There is^ a 'great difference between national service and conscription. Under conscription the names of the men in the community. are taken and put in a hat. If twenty men are needed twenty names are drawn out. It used to be the custom with conscription, and I do not think any law has been passed to change it, that if a rich man's name were drawn he could hire a poor boy a substitute to take his place. That form of conscription bore very hardly on the poor. But in France, where they have national service, the mother who rocks the boy in the cradle knows he has to tight for France and she glories in that. Many of them told me last year they were glad their boys would be old enough and able to take part in the war. Talk about their conduct in this war! Our ideas of the French people are in many cases entirely erroneous. The ideas put in hook? by novelists are often contemptible. There are no finer people, no more casual people, no more cool and collected people under danger-and I have seen them in the fight, in the middle of it-than the French. One of our officers, a Highlander, and a very brave man, who was wounded the other day, said to me: These Frenchmen in front of us carry on this battle just as casually as if they were working on a railroad job. Anybody who has seen them fighting knows that there is no chance in the world of the Germans winning, so far as fighting is concerned. The social qualities of the French and their discipline are very good. They were holding nearly 400 miles of these trenches I have described to you while the great British Empire was holding something like 35 miles. So you can understand the work and labours they had and the difficulties with which they had to contend. When we got into trouble their brigades marched to our assistance, took their places and helped us out and helped to finish the big battle of Ypres, which ended in a victory for the Allies, because it stopped the great German rush on the west front for a year. They have national service in France. If we had had national service we would have had no difficulty now; everybody would have known that he had his place, and then there would not have been
any qualms of conscience in the breasts of those who are now wondering if they should not get into khaki because I or somebody else has done so. They would have their place, and their proper place perhaps would be on the lines of communication; perhaps behind the men in the trenches, or perhaps legislating here. The legislators in France have to attend to their duties, even if men are fighting at the front. We must get the 500,000 men, and I feel satisfied that, in view of the martial ardour of the people of this country -and I am speaking now more particularly of the Canadians, who number over 80 per cent of the population-we will get them; there is no doubt about that. Even if we have to take action, even if we have to adopt some form of national service, I think 90 per cent of the people of this country would say immediately, "Amen, let the older men take our places and let the younger men go." Why should a middle aged man with a large family go to fight in this war, and leave the young fellows who have no ties to stay at home? I received a letter the other day from a .man at the front who is 53 years of age, and who has a wife and twelve children at home, and for over 12 months he has been under fire in the trenches. It is very unfair that a man of his years and position should have to go when there are hundreds of young men in the country quite capable of bearing arms; and it would be the best thing in the world for them.
We must get these men as quickly as possible. The nation that has the greatest number of men, the largest number of guns, and the greatest amount of equipment at the front, is the nation that is going to win this war. We must not say: We cannot do this, and we must not expend this or that money, because the war is likely to stop soon. Do not believe, gentlemen of the House of Commons, that this war is going to end in six months or in a year. The Germans have won so far; bear that in mind, and whilst they may want peace, and whilst it would be to their interest to * secure peace at this moment-and nobody knows that better than the Germans themselves-we should see to it that they do not get peace. What has kept us back was our lack of preparation. Germany has got 65 per cent of industrial France; she has the coal mines and the iron mines; and she has Austria, for Austria will be the lamb that will lie down inside the German lion when this war is over. There will be no Austrian emperor then; take that for

granted, even if Germany is beaten. Then Germany has the Balkan States, and there is no doubt that she has won great territory. But in the language of Joseph Chamberlain, are we down-hearted? Not a bit of it, because history teaches us that we must pass through at least two years of muddling in a great war before the tide turns in our favour. Those of us who read history know that in the war between the Parliament under Cromwell and the King that at the end of two years Pym was dead, Hampden was killed and all the great leaders of Parliament of that day were either dead or killed. Very few besides Cromwell and Milton were left, but the tide turned at the end of two years, and then there came great victories which won the parliamentary liberties that we now enjoy and cherish. Take the Seven Years' War. During the first two years of that war on the continent of Europe the battle of Kolin was lost. There was also the convention of Closterseven, the loss of Minorca, the defeat of Braddock, the fall of Fort Necessity. It looked as if the end were near. The French had everything. Then the great Pitt came and there was victory from which Great Britain emerged stronger than she had ever been before. She -secured the Spanish and French colonies, among them Canada, and for the first time obtained absolute command of Die seas. Reverting for a moment to Cromwell, I may recall that at that time were passed the Navigation Laws, and to-day they are reading the preamble of those navigation laws in the House of Commons in England, and wondering why they ever gave them up. Adam Smith says they were the wisest piece of legislation ever enacted.
Again, take the Napoleonic wars. The first two years secured for Britain the command of the sea, but there was mutiny at home and in many cases defeat abroad, the same as had happened in the previous wars. Pitt the Younger succeeded in getting command of the sea, cabinet after cabinet was formed, and coalition government after coalition framed by that great statesman, to the end that the country might succeed. Nevertheless, history shows that during the first two years nothing was done apart from securing the command of -the seas. Then the tide turned and victories came. Need I make any further reference to history? The tide is turning now so far as we are concerned. It has turned in Asia. The Russians have captured the great city of Erzerum, and 
the keys of Constantinople are always on the south side of the Bosphorus. They have always been there, and the Allies should be thundering at the gates of the city of the Turks before many months have elapsed.
So far as we are concerned, the fight has to be finished on the western front, and Canada must be there. We must have' arms, w-e must have men, but in the meantime we must not hesitate to establish great arsenals here to manufacture rifles, guns and munitions. We will need them all. It is a great mistake for us to spend our money abroad; it is a great mistake for the Empire to send its money abroad for munitions. There would have been no question at all as to the value of the English pound if everything possible had been done to bring about the manufacture of munitions in Britain or in the Empire. Why, the German guns that fired shells at my soldiers and myself day after day in Flanders, were made out of Canadian nickel and chrome steel. The rifles that fired at us had barrels that were made out of Canadian nickel steel. Every one of them was stamped " nickel steel," but they should have borne the motto "mined in Canada." This country has virtually the monopoly of nickel in the world. The French own New Caledonia, where there is nickel, but we are the only people in the world that have chrome ore in large quantities at the present time. There are loads of it in the province of Quebec, and it requires chrome and nickel to make the best electrical steel. The best guns that are being used in this war are not those of Krupps, but those of France and Austria, and the reason why they are the best is that the steel of which they are made is chrome nickel steel made by an electrical furnace. We have all the electricity we need, in this country; we have the nickel, and the chrome, and therefore we should go into the manufacture of arms and munitions on a large scale. The result would be that large amounts of money would be made in this country, and Canada would become great and prosperous.
As I have said before, when this war is over, we should see to it that we have made it pay, the -same as Pitt made war pay. I think the consensus of opinion in this House of Commons is that everything must be done to bring about that happy state of things. After the war broke out possibly 75 per cent of the factories in England were closed and the people were walk-
FEBRUARY 22, 19i'3
ing the stfeets. Before I left England last year I took occasion to visit Woolwich arsenal, and I saw the operations connected with the manufacture of guns and shells and fuses, and of all the articles that are needed in war. I spent syne time there, and took complete notes of every operation in that connection. I have a knowledge of machine tools, and of automatic machinery, so that I apprehend everything that was done in that arsenal. And let me say that I saw nothing done there which the people of this country could not do just as well. We have workmen just as able, and engineers that will hold their own with the engineers at Woolwich.
We must endeavour before this - war is over to put ourselves in a position to reap every advantage from Our great natural conditions. What a great thing it would be if this country were to become the greatest munition and arm producing country in the world. We have a monopoly of the raw materials that make cannon. To make cannon requires a certain amount of nickel, and also a certain amount of chrome, otherwise the temper of the metal will not last when the gun is fired quickly. We are spending enough money on this war to build these great plants for us and operate them. Now is our opportunity. If we let it pass it may never come again. If we deprive the Germans of our nickel, their predominance as an arm producing country will cease for ever. We will not be	troubled with so	many wars.
That is the whole secret of it. In all these localities we should be doing everything we can to bring about the establishment of works of this kind. I know that the Government have had a great many things to contend with and that they cannot do everything. I am speaking freely because, as a result of this great war, we have thrown our text books on economy into the fire and we have also thrown away a great deal of our politics.
1 think that some steps should be taken to inaugurate a policy similar to that carried out by Mr. Lloyd George in the old country. When he found that there were only three or four industries in Great Britain making shells and guns, and that they were trying to " hog " it all, he realized that it was necessary for him to get busy and increase the output of munitions. He called on the shoemakers, the cloth manufacturers and the steel makers and he said to these people: "We want you to make
material for the army." They said: "We have not any money to go into the manufacture of these articles." "Why?" he asked. They said: "We must have money with which to get machinery; the machinery that we require to make that stuff will be of no value after the war. Times are hard, we have no money, we have been fighting the Germans in the matter of commerce for years &nd we are without funds for the purchase of new machinery." That was true. He said: "You name what you want and the Government will provide you with it; if you want machinery for making munitions the Government will give you the capital that you require." He went to the manufacturers of clothing, of rifles, of shells, and made the same proposition to them. Hundreds of factories were established ia that way and to-day they are all going and prosperous. They are making large returns on their capital. Now, Mr. Lloyd George goes back to these manufacturers and says: "Well, gentlemen, you have made enough money to pay for these machines, for which the Government advanced you capital, you have got everything in first-class shape, you are making big profits and now I think the time has come when the Government should go into partnership with you and take 25 per cent of your earnings.." He is therefore quite justified in doing that. Something of that kind ought to be done in this country.
The day has gone by when we can stick fast to the old policy of letting everybody look after himself. England has advanced one hundred years in that respect during the last two years. Take it from me, if you had mentioned in England three years ago that there was a possibility of the Government taking over the railways of that country you would have been laughed at. you would have been told that there were so many interests at stake that nobody could get legislation of that kind through the British House of Commons. Yet, in one night the Government took over the railways of Great Britain and, with the exception of one or two small branches, they are bow all under Government operation and control. The Government have gone behind the munition manufacturers and they are going to go behind other kinds of manufacturers. Read the debates that are taking place in the English House of Commons almost every day and see what members of Parliament are saying about what they are going to do after the

war. They tell you that the Government are going to arrange banking 5 p.m. facilities, that they are going to stand behind their own manufacturers and that they are going to use every means in their power to control the commerce of the world. That is the proper policy and it is time that we should consider a policy of that kind.
I have talked to the House possibly long enough. There is nothing, as far as this war is concerned, that interests us more than the future. I see a glorious future arising from this war for this country and for the whole Empire. No longer will the British Empire be regarded as a bundle of sticks, a collection of shreds and patches. You will see, before this war is over, representatives of all the colonies having seats in the House of Commons; I have ne hesitation in saying that. But, there is plenty of time for that. The war is not going to be over to-morrow. We must not be in a hurry. We must do everything in our power to achieve the victory which we all hope for. If necessary, this House and this Government should take steps to assure the Mother Country that whatever can be done to bring about victory and the consolidation of the Empire we are prepared to do. Let us all pray that the day will come when we shall have, not an inglorious peace, but a splendid victory crowning our arms and sanctifying the sacrifices of our soldiers and people, when we shall have a great, free, united, happy and prosperous Empire presided over-as the great Pitt prayed for-by a pious and patriotic King and Emperor.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I have spoken since you have occupied the Chair,
I would like to congratulate you on your rapid elevation, and to express the hope and belief that you will discharge the duties not only with honour to yourself but with credi.t to the high position which you occupy. I also desire to congratulate the Government on the choice of a Deputy Sp'eaker. The hon. gentleman who occupies that position (Mr. Rhodes) is a very strong personal friend of mine, and I think that both sides of the House will be satisfied with his discharge of the duties of the Deputy Speaker.
I would like to congratulate my hon. friend the-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) on the very lucid and brief manner in which he placed the Budget before the House. I also desire to congratulate the gallant colonel from North Sirocoe (Mr. 
John A. Currie) who has just taken his seat. I listened to his speech with a great deal of interest, because it gave us a great deal of information. But, as far as the political end of it is concerned, it will not be necessary for me to make any extended remarks. Whether I could derive any advantage from such a reference, if it were necessary to make it, is another question. But, I must congratulate him on the tone of his address and upon the way that he delivered it. As far as his prophecies are concerned, I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, nor an admirer of prophecies, and therefore I will not attempt to answer that portion of his remarks, because, if we live long enough, we will all see, when the war ends, how the country will work out the problems which will confront it. I have no hesitation in expressing the belief that Canada will take care of herself.
When the war first started, I confess that the men of this country did not realize the seriousness of the situation. I believe that a great many people, especially the men. thought that the war, being over in France, or Flanders, or Russia, it did not touch us as closely as we now realize it does. Not so, however, with our women. Our women from the very first put all their energy, not only into providing comforts for our own men, their sons, brothers and fathers, but helping in Belgian Relief and Red Cross work. These women in many instances were better and more systematically organized than a great many movements, even under the Government supervision, that we have heard of.
I am not speaking now of this particular Government. The work that these women have been doing for the men at the front and for the relief of the suffering caused by this great war has been admirable and their organization has been splendid. Some of the newspapers have recently been agitating that the women should take the place of men for manual labour. Personally, I thank God that our women have not so far found it necessary to do manual labour, and I sincerely hope that it will not be found necessary in this country at any time for them to do so. During last summer as I travelled through the . country I am sorry to say I saw some farmers whose wives and daughters had to assist them in the removal of the crops, and I have no doubt that owing to the number of men who have been taken away on account of this unfortunate war, the same thing will have to be done to a certain extent in the future; but some of the news-

papers are agitating that women generally should undertake manual labour. I hope that will not be necessary. I think that for the last two or three months the people of this country have fully realized what they have to undertake. I believe that they are prepared not only to furnish the men necessary for recruiting purposes, but to pay whatever is necessary for the proper support of the army that Canada has to send to the front, no matter what the size of that army may have to be. They are ready, as the Minister of Finance has said, to economize and sacrifice to a certain extent; but they are looking to the Government for an example in the practice of economy. If the people have to economize as individuals, there is. nothing that will make them so sore, if I may use the word, as to see what they consider wastefulness on the part of this Government. Now, there may be some misunderstanding, but questions are asked US every day even with regard to the expenditure of the Militia Department. Many men ask me, on the train and off the train, at home and away from home, various questions which I will attempt to repeat. They ask me:	"Why is it necessary
for an outside	magistrate or some
such person to swear in a recruit when the officers are there to swear him in? If it is necessary, are these outside men paid for the work?" They ask me: "Why is it necessary to have an outside doctor to examine the recruits when there are doctors belonging to each battalion? If it is necessary, are these doctors paid for the work?" They ask me: "If two or three men are recruited in a village, are these men paid from the time they are recruited, from the time they are taken away from their work? Are they paid in full While they are sitting around the village shoe-shop or the village blacksmith shop doing nothing, not even drilling, or are they paid just the difference between what they would earn if they were not enlisted and what they earn as recruits?" I know that men are getting very scarce in some of the towns throughout Ontario; I do not know as to the other provinces. Is it necessary that these men, before a battalion is filled, should be left doing nothing in the villages? What benefit do we get in that way? Many people also say to me: "Is it necessary that these battalions should be kept so long drilling instead of being sent to camps with other battalions-so that they can be taught the methods of warfare as it is carried on at the front?"
1 am not complaining about these things; 1 am simply stating what people ask me and what I cannot answer. It is for the Government or for the Department of Militia to answer these questions. At the same time, the men who ask these questions are willing to support the Government to the utmost extent in recruiting; they are willing also to pay to the utmost extent to bring this country and this Empire out victorious in this war.
As I have stated, it is up to this Government to set the example in economy. In looking over the estimates for the year, one cannot help feeling that during the last four or five years, since 1911, there cannot have been such improvements made in the public service that the ordinary Estimates should have been increased from about $87,000,000 in 1911 to about $158,000,000 in 1916. Just as the manager of an institution is responsible for any increase in expenditure^ so the Government must explain the reason of this increase and tell us why the Estimates cannot be decreased without materially affecting the service that will be rendered to this country. The Government can certainly make a decrease in the Estimates of the Department of Public Works. I think .it is very bad policy for the Government of a country, just as it is for the management of a business, to put in the Estimates items that they do not intend to expend. Of course, it may be a good thing politically. I myself am a pooT politician; that is, I do not believe in taking political advantage by placing such items in the Estimates. If the Department of Public Works has no intention of erecting these buildings and constructing these various little public works, such as wharves and breakwaters, why does the Government put the items in the Estimates? It must have been for a political reason, for the purpose of convincing a section of country that benefit to them was intended by the construction of some public work at the general expense. There can be no other reason. Now, that is too bad. My hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has been telling us about the unity of this country and about doing away with politics. In the face of that it is too bad that the Government should put in their Estimates appropriations that they have no intention of spending, as acknowledged by the Minister of Finance, to the extent fo $23,000,000. There is no possible reason that I can see why the Estimates should not be cut down by $35,000,000 more, for

that amount of__ saving could be effected without injury to the public service. The Government itself should set the example if it wants the people to economize. Let us look for a moment at the expenditures that have been incurred. In the first three years of their tenure of office the Government had surpluses aggregating $133,000,-
000.	The Minister of Finance now tells us that at the end of the year the debt of this country will be $580,000,000, an increase of $243,000,000 over what it was. So that, with increased debt and expenditure of surplus, the Government have done away with $376,000,000 in something less than five years. And what have they to show for it? The Minist r of Finance may tell us of some things that they have to show, but he could not possibly make the list such as would justify this expenditure. Why, the post office expenses have jumped from about $7,000,000 or ' $8,000,000-I have not the exact figures before me-to $17,000,000 or $18,000,000. It is quite true that the Government has extended rural mail delivery, and for that I give them credit, but the expenditure on rural mail delivery would be only a drop in the 'bucket of this great increased post office expense. That increase is absolutely absurd. Now, if the Minister of Finance does noit intend to spend the $158,000,000 represented by these estimates, why cannot he strike out those amounts he does not intend to spend, as we come to them in committee? He asks us to unite with the Government in not playing politics and not talking politics. Why not, then, be honest with us and with the people and state openly what expenditures are to be made? I believe that from their estimates for public buildings and other similar works, the Government could strike out items aggregating $7,000,000 without doing a particle of harm. Then, in our expenditures on public works to be charged to oa,pital account, other great reductions could be made. They need not stop such great works as the Welland canal and the improvements at St. John and at Vancouver. Let these works go on to a limited extent. The Government need not fear that they will throw men into idleness, for the general labour market will take all the men that can be released from public works. While -I know that my friends on this side are as guilty as those on the other side in regard to the Hudson Bay railway, certainly there is no pressure this year, so far as I know, for the ex-
penditure of great sums of public money on that work.
Now I come to the revenue side of the account. The minister has shown us, and I am glad he was in a position to do so, that the revenues have increased very materially during the last six months. But I would have him remember that a great deal of that revenue has been obtained from customs charges on machinery imported for the manufacture of munitions, and that importation has about ceased. Besides, a great, deal of revenue in January and the early part of February was obtained because merchants and manufacturers throughout the country looked to see higher duties on many lines of goods. They did not know on what lines, for the minister quite properly, had not taken them into his confidence. But I know that vast -quantities of material for manufacturers were imported. Therefore, I doubt if the revenues will increase as fast during the next two months as they increased during the last two months.
The first change that 1 notice with regard to revenue is the duty on apples. My hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) said he was pleased to see that duty put on because it will help the people of British Columbia. That is one of the inconveniences of our widespread Dominion-what is meat for one province is poison for another. While this duty may benefit the people of British Columbia, it will prove a great detriment to the people of the prairie provinces. My hon. friend from North Simcoe says that no apples are shipped from Ontario or British Columbia to the Prairie Provinces. But so far as my own section of country is concerned that is not correct, for we ship many carloads of apples to the West; and, travelling in the West, I have found that there was a great consumption of Ontario apples and of British Columbia apples as well. I do not believe that we people in Ontario demanded this increased duty. For my part, I never heard it even mentioned. 1 know, from the prices that many men get who ship apples to the West, that the unfortunate people of the West must pay through the nose, as the saying is, for the apples they get. Now, while this duty may help the people of British Columbia, I would like to see them help themselves by competing with the Washington apple growers, just as people compete in any other line of business. I believe that the people of British Columbia could compete with the growers of the American West,

even without any duty, and I have no doubt the people of Ontario could hold their own against the American competition as well; -and, so far as I know, the apple-growers of Ontario are quite willing to do so.
As to the duty on crude oil, the only people upon whom this will bear very heavily, so far as I know, are the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Mr. TURRIFF:: And the Grand Trunk
Pacific.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The Government will get something out of the Grand Trunk Pacific company by reason of the duty on crude oil, but their action is rather ungenerous, considering the amount that will be taken from the Canadian Pacific Railway company. I admit that the Canadian Pacific Railway company is a great corporation ; so far as I know they are willing to bear their share of the cost of this great war. But I think it is rather heaping it bn to take a quarter of their profits over seven per cent, at the same time hitting them on the head so far as crude oil is concerned.
In the resolution which the hon. Minister of Finance submitted in connection with his new taxation proposals I find the following :
That there shall be charged, levied and paid to His Majesty a tax of twenty-five per centum of the amount by which the profits arising from any trade or business subject to the tax in every accounting period ending after the fourth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
The banks, I think, end their fiscal year 'in November; therefore, their first accounting period under this legislation would begin in November, 1914. If it was my hon. friend's intention to make this legislation retroactive from the beginning of the year,
I am not sure that he will succeed; he will certainly strike those banks whose accounting periods end in the latter part of the year if he causes the tax to cover the whole accounting period. I suppose the banks have already paid the one per cent on their note issue, as provided by the Budget of last year. Some persons say you cannot strike the banks too hard. I do not agree with that. My hon. friend realizes, I am sure, that any tax imposed upon industry finally comes back to the ultimate consumer. Every large manufacturing concern knows that an increase of one-quarte.r, or one-eighth, in the charge for cheques and drafts, would compensate them for the extra taxation. In
any case, all these things come ljack to the ultimate consumer.
Clause 6 of the second resolution reads:
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.
In Ontario many companies have issued capital stock as common stock that is paid up according to the laws of the provinces. In some way they have got round the law and arranged that the stock that is issued is just as much paid up as the preferred stock. I shall not call the great companies monopolies; it is my experience that the so-called monopolies are so overloaded with overhead expenses that the ordinary small business that is well run can easily compete with it. A number of large corporations-I shall not call them monopolies- have issued a great deal of common stock and have been capitalized to such an extent that this proposed ligslation will not touch them at all. The hon. minister shakes . his head. I do not know how he is going to get out of that, because there will be lawsuit after lawsuit if he does not recognize as paid up stock the stock which the province of Ontario recognizes as such. This being the case, a number of large corporations-I need not name them-cement companies, steel companies, and other large corporations that have great quantity of common stock, will not be touched by this legislation.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: There will be a definition of " amount paid up on stock " which will prevent, I think, undue advantage in the case of over-capitalization.


Charles Murphy: Undue.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That gives rise to the
observation that it is possible for a Government to take too much power into its own hands. What are we fighting for in Flanders and France? What are we spending this money for, if not to protect the right of the Englishman to be master in his own house? What are we spending this money for, if not to maintain what we call British fair play? Is it fair for the Government to take a man by the throat and make him pay what he should not pay? Is it fair for the Government arbitrarily to say what the stock of my company shall be when the Government have given me the right to issue that stock, the very Government that is going to take away that right? My hon. friend has no



right, in my judgment-leaning as I always do to British fair-play for every human being-to arbitrarily say just what that stock will be. That brings me to the people who will be most affected by the tax in the case of corporations. They are the people who are a credit to this country, those who very likely started with a small capitalization and have toiled might and day, with the greatest perseverance and industry, to work up a business in this country; and every member in this House who is in the manufacturing business and who has worked up a paying industry in this country knows what hard work it was. He knows that he kept down his capital stock and did hot try to make money out of the flotation of stock in his company, by selling it throughout the length and breadth of the land, preying on his neighbours. He has attended to his own business and made it pay and has very likely gone without dividends for ten or fifteen years to get the business in a position to compete with his neighbours in the rest of the world. He is the fallow who will have to pay one-quarter of the profits over and above his seven per cent, because he has no other recourse. Take the man who is in a partnership or who is individually carrying on business. He also has worked, as I have stated in reference to corporations-and I might call a corporation one man because in all successful corporation businesses that I know of the success largely depends on one individual in that corporation. Take the fellow who has no partners, who is doing business by himself. He has worked till he is grey headed very likely, until he has built up a business of which he is proud, and of which his town is proud-^and his country should be. He will be affected by this tax, while the great corporations, with what is sometimes called watered stock, with their great issues of capital stock, are not affected although they above all human beings in the world should be affected if you want to get at the rich man,-and I am taking it for granted that the Government want to get at the men who are capable of paying. The one person who escapes this tax is the fellow who promoted big corporations and sold the stock to everybody he could. Some of these promoters have put millions into their pockets by these promotions, yet they are not touched at all, they go scot free. I would find them if I had to take a searchlight. The man who has built up his business has to pay. I do not believe he will complain; I think he will pay and 
pay nobly without complaining. But let us be fair, that is what we are trying to do in this parliament, or should be. Bet us try and be fair to him if he is willing to pay. There is no use in driving a willing horse to death.
Now I come to the question of the $50,00b minimum. Why should it be set at $50,000?
I have been asking myself that question ever since the Budget came down. If my friend here has a company capitalised at $50,000, or is in a partnership with $50,000 invested, he is subjected to this tax; while I have only $40,000 invested, yet am making just as much in proportion as he, why should I not pay? Why should there be any limit? I do not see any sense in that. I might not have to pay as much as he, but I have just as much right to pay my proportion as the man with $50,000 invested. I do not see anv reason for arbitrarily setting $50,000, because I believe that the fellow who has not the $50,000 is just as willing to pay his proportion as the man who has, and I think he has as much right to pay as the man who has. What I do object to more than anything else is the escape of the very men, the large capitalists, who have no possible chance, in my judgment, of paying seven per cent on their capital stock. These men escape. The men who promote these corporations escape. Take the men who sit quietly on their pants and do not do a thing for the country or anybody else, the fellows who have money invested in bonds and in real estate from which they derive rents, some of them worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, why should they escape? You take that very type of man in your town; he never goes to a town meeting, never helps the town, is never willing to come forward to help with anything. He quietly gathers in his rent and his bond interest and that sort of thing. Why should he escape? I ask the minister. They are the fellows who ought to pay. Half of them are getting old and they cannot live forever and certainly they cannot take their money with them. Even when they die, in the cases of nine-tenths of them their children will quarrel like the deuce about their money. Why should such men not contribute, if only to promote peace in their families? The thing gets more absurd as we get along.
Now I come to the worst feature, the retroactive legislation. No human being can defend that. We none of us know where we are at or when we are finished.

If the Finance Minister and the Government wanted to get at the men who were supplying munitions and supplying war material for this war, why did they not take the example of a celebrated colleague now deceased and be bold enough to be honest and honest enough' to be bold, and get at them? Why whip all the other fellows over their shoulders? While I am opposed to retroactive legislation, absolutely, in any form, still, under the circumstances, considering the fact that people from one end of this country to the other say that these men who have supplied war munitions have made enormous fortunes, I believe that the people in Canada would have endorsed the action of the Minister of Militia and the Government if they had taken not one-quarter after seven per cent, but one-half.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Three-quarters.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: One-half anyway of the
profits made by suppliers of munitions and various supplies to the Imperial Government and to our own Militia Department. I believe the country would have endorsed that. Why did the minister not get at these men who have made enormous profits out of the supply of munitions and not at the companies that are doing the regular business of this country? Let me give an illustration. At the end of their fiscal year the directors of a company call in their shareholders and if they have made any money, and if they are honest, they distribute it to their shareholders, who should get it, because, after all, they are the owners. Now we go back to 1914, after these corporations have distributed their profits, if they made any. Do you mean to tell me that you are going to make these men go and borrow the money to pay up the war tax from 1914? I was the other day at a meeting of an insurance company, which gave the whole of its surplus profits, $50,000, to the Patriotic Fund-a Canadian insurance company. I had the pleasure of moving the resolution. Do you mean to tell me that you are going to make that company pay as taxes $12,500 of that sum which they gave to the Patriotic Fund out of their reserve?


William Thomas White: Was that a life insurance company?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No, it was a fire insurance company, the Gore Mutual Company, and a credit to this country. I repeat, do you mean that that company should pay as taxes $12,500 of the amount which it gave
64*
to the Patriotic Fund? So far as I can see, that would be the result of this legislation.
Now, I have an old grievance to ventilate. I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance the fact that he is again giving a premium to insurance companies which do business in this country without a license. He is letting companies like the New England Mutuals, Reciprocal Underwriters, and American Lloyds go scot free. I have no doubt that there are some German companies still doing business in this country, and yet the Minister of Finance practically gives them a premium for not taking out a license. I think that every company doing business in this country ought to be forced to take out a license. I do not care who they are; I would put them all on the same level, and then there would be no grumbling. But these outside companies are not taxed anything. They come to this country and do business, and are not asked to pay a cent for the benefit of this country, while the licensed companies pay for their licenses, and will be taxed under this Bill, as they were taxed under last year's Act.
I would like to speak for a moment with regard to immigration. The Estimates for immigration have not yet been passed, and perhaps I will have an opportunity of discussing the subject at greater length then. But I have a very fixed idea that if there is one branch of the Government, the Estimates for which should not have been reduced, it is the Immigration Department, because now is the time to get ready. But the Government have reduced the immigration Estimates by $1,500,000, I think, despite the fact that now is the time to prepare for the immigration that is bound to come to this country if we are not taxed too high. I hope the Minister of Finance will see to it that we are not, although it looks very doubtful in view of this Budget. We have gone all wrong in our immigration- policy. We bring immigrants here, men and women, and dump them down at the landing place, and do not look after them. We ought to make some arrangement with the provinces by which these immigrants could be taken to-suitable places and educated to a certain extent in farm work. There could be large farms in the provinces where these immigrants could get a smattering, at least, of farm work. Most of them, when they come out, are of no use for farming, and the ordinary farmer will not engage them, and educate them, and pay them at the same time. We ought to change entirely

our system of dealing with immigrants, and that is one reason why I desired to discuss this subject. But I will take the opportunity later on.
Let me say just one word with reference to what my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) spoke of so splendidly thle other evening- the patronage system. I am not here to accuse the Government of bestowing patronage in connection with the war orders;
I do not know that they did, but they say that where there is smoke there is sure to be fire, of which I got definite proof at the old Parliament buildings the other night. But I believe there is absolute corruption in connection with the system. I would certainly join with- my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and with any other member of this House who will rise and condemn the patronage system in every shape and form. Personally, I never had any patronage to dispense in the riding which I represent; I always try to treat everybody exactly the same, no matter what their politics or religion may be. Regardless of politics or religion, regardless of creed, we in this country are willing to support the Government in any reasonable expenditures required for the upkeep of the army, and in order to win victory for our arms, and for those of the Empire; but we decidedly say that these expenditures should be reduced by the Government to a minimum. I am not going to attempt to indicate the various ways in which they could be reduced-it would take me all night to do so. The Government represent the people, and they are accountable to the people. If they have not a system which enables them to know where the leakages occur they should at once organize some such system with the view of cutting off all leakages, and all patronage, because that is the curse of the whole business. The Government should .-[DOT]tart now to Teduce to the very lowest minimum the expenditures in connection with the various departments, and they can do it easily. There must be hundreds of people employed whom it is not necessary to emploj in the various departments of the Government, and there must be hunirods and thousands of items that could be reduced without any hurt to the country. I say to you, Mt. Speaker, that it is the duty of this Government to meet the wishes of the people on this point, and 1 _ bel;eve the people will be perfectly willing tu bear any reasonable expenditures neces-
sary to carry the war to a successful issue. But there will be grumbling, and certainly there should be grumbling, over the fact that in four years our ordinary expenditure has jumped from $87,000,000 to $158,000,000. Take it at the minister's own estimate, $135,000,000; why the whole thing is absurd. People would not believe it possible if they did not have it in black and white before them.
There was one point raised by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) regarding which I would like to say one word. He said that the nickel industry in Canada was controlled by Germany. 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. 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 perfectly willing to have any investigation that might be thought desirable to clear away any doubts as to German control.	.
As it is practically six o'clock, if I started to talk further on this iniquitous, retroactive resolution that my hon. friend has introduced, I am afraid that I would have to finish after dinner; so, I will now, stop, as I have told the House frankly and plainly my views on the proposed Budget.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 3, respecting the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.-Mr. Stevens.
Bill No. 4, respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Bradbury.
Bill No. 7, respecting the Farnham and Granby Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 14, respecting the Central Western Canada Railway Company.-Mr. Green.
Bill No. 16, respecting the Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway Company.- Mr. Lemieux.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Private Bills, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Bill No. 13, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company-Mr. R. B. Bennett- in Commitee.

On section 4-issue of consolidated debenture stock or preferred stock:
William Thomas White: I think the wording of this section is reasonably clear. Hon. gentlemen may be aware that in Great Britain the principle proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that securities and stocks might be deposited with or sold to the Treasury. The intention was that such securities or stocks might be availed of by way of security for loans made in New York, or loans negotiated in New York, or sold upon the New York market. This Bill provides that the debenture stock of the 'Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which has been issued in sterling, may, with the consent of the holders, be issued in currency. It would then be available for deposit, and for use on this side of the Atlantic.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, and Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
Bill No. 15, respecting the Pacific Northern and Omineca Railway Company-Mr. Green -in 'Committee.
Mr. GREEN:: This Bill was allowed to
stand yesterday, the point having been raised that in section 1, it was provided that the company might commence and complete the road within five years, no special time being fixed for commencement. So I have drafted the ordinary clause that is inserted in all Bills, providing that the railway may be commenced within two years and finished within five years. I move that section 1 of the Bill as it stands be struck out and this inserted in lieu thereof.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: I note that in the description the expression is used, "Edmonton in the Northwest Territories". I would suggest that that should read, "Edmonton, in the province of Alberta."


Robert Francis Green: I do not know that it would affect it particularly, for there is only one Edmonton.


James McCrie Douglas: But there is a Northwest Territories north of Edmonton.


Robert Francis Green: I will be glad if the chairman will change it to read:	"Edmonton,
in the province of Alberta."


William Thomas White: This section
covers a rather lengthy description of a great deal of which does not appear in the Bill before us. Was this description before the Railway Committee?


Robert Francis Green: Yes, the section is as passed by the Railway Committee, except that it is provided that the road shall be commenced within two years and completed within five years.


James McCrie Douglas: I think that the words "or near" which appear as applied to Edmonton, should be struck out. It should read, " at Edmonton," not, " at or near Edmonton."


Robert Francis Green: Yes, "at Edmonton."


The CHAIRMAN:: I would call the attention of the committee to Rule 112, which provides that no important amendment may be proposed to any private Bill in the Committee of the Whole House unless one day's notice of the same has been given. I am subject to the direction of the committee as to whether this may be deemed an important amendment within the meaning of this rule.


Robert Francis Green: I do not think the House will consider this an amendment of any importance. If any objection is taken, I am ready to move that the Bill be referred back to the Railway Committee. But the change is simply to allow the company to commence within two years and complete within five years, instead of commencing and completing within five years, as provided in the section as it stands.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-acquisition, transmission, and delivery of electric and other power:


Robert Francis Green: This is the standard clause.


Mr. OLIVER:: I do not know who drafted the standard clause, but I would point out that there is the possibility under this section that the company holding this charter might exercise its rights as an electric company without having exercised its rights as a railway company. That is to say, this charter might be used as a cover for acquiring power rights without providing a railway. There is no objection to the railway using its right of way or its authority for this purpose if it becomes established as a railway; but it is not the intention of Parliament to give the rights of a railway company to a concern that is merely for the distribution of power-at least, I take it for granted that that is not the intention of Parliament.


Robert Francis Green: This is simply the standard clause inserted in these charters in this and other sessions. I do not see why. a different clause should be made for this Bill. If the

remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) apply to this Bill, they apply equally to every other similar Bill passed within the last two or three sessions.


William Thomas White: Under the provision of the section in question, the right of the company to acquire electric or other power or energy is limited to the purposes of its undertaking-that is, its own purposes-and it may dispose of the surplus thereof. I think that unless the company should not proceed with its undertaking, it would not have the right to acquire power or energy. However, this is a standard clause, and 1 should think it would be inexpedient just now to raise the question to which my hon. friend has referred.


Frank Oliver: I do not see why it is
inexpedient to raise the question, even though it has not hitherto been raised. Even in Parliament we live to learn; from time to time conditions are discovered that had not been observed before. This railroad has as much prospect of being built within two years as has a railroad to the moon. If it has any purpose, that purpose must be connected with the development of power. If it is the intention of Parliament to grant blanket power rights, as they do in the case of railway charters, well and good; but I do not take it that that is the intention of Parliament. Inasmuch as there is some question in the matter, I think that in all fairness that question o ught to be settled now.


William Thomas White: We might dispose of the matter by adopting the Bill in committee and dealing with the question on the third reading. The section expressly states that the power which the company may acquire shall be for the purposes of its undertaking and subject to the provisions of section 247 of the Railway Act. No good reason appears to have been given why this company should be singled out for exceptional treatment. In view of the fact that this is a standard clause, and that section 247 of the Railway Act makes provision relative to a company of this kind which may acquire power and use the surplus, it would seem to me that the committee would be safe in adopting this section. Then, if-my hon. friend desires to raise the question on the third reading, it might be more conveniently dealt with at that stage.


Frank Oliver: I should be very glad to
accept the view of the Minister of Finance, but if the details of any private Bill are to

be considered, they should be considered either in the standing committee or in the Committee of the Whole. As the point was not raised in the standing committee, here and now is the place to have it raised and settled. I did not hear the route of the railway laid down, but I am under the impression that the route approximates certain valuable water powers. There is a possibility that we may grant to this company fights and powers in regard to these water powers, while the company is professing merely to desire a railroad charter, and Parliament is professing to give them no more than that. If they build a railway let them have the benefit of the standard clause; but I certainly wish to have it provided that they shall not get the benefit of the water power clause unless the railroad is built.


Robert Francis Green: This Bill is simply a renewal of a charter already granted. The company may not use this power unless it appertains to their undertaking. This particular section was inserted not by the promoters of the Bill, but by the Railway Committee. I do not see why this company should be singled out for special treatment so far as the standard clause is concerned. I would suggest that the Bill pass through committee in the ordinary manner, and if there is any reason fpr objecting to this particular clause in the Bill, the matter might be taken up when the Bill comes up for third reading.


Frank Oliver: This is the time and place to raise any point such as I have raised. Of course, if the majority of the House think that the point is not well taken, I shall not delay the committee, but in my humble judgment the question is a very important one, and is very pertinent to this particular charter, whatever may have been the case with regard to other charters. I should like to have the matter settled now.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: If I have caught the
apprehension of the hon. member for Edmonton, it is that the company might, while masquerading as a railway company, be in existence only for the purpose of developing and selling power; that it might, in a word, undertake to develop power without building a railway at all. The hon. gentleman suggests that the company might argue that though the railway was not built, the power was being developed for the purposes of the railway when it should be built. I would not like'to undertake to give a judicial decision as to the possibility of this taking place under section 40. The com-

pany might, of course, even though its undertaking were not actually in operation, be developing power for the purposes of that undertaking, and might argue that it had the right to sell that power under those conditions. I draw the attention of the hon. member for Edmonton to the latter phrases of the section, by which the company is forbidden to sell any power, except with the consent of the Railway Commission. Supervision is reserved to that commission, which must fix the rates. I understand that clause was framed by that commission itself. The commission would have power, should they come to the conclusion that the company, while pretending to be developing power for the purposes of its undertaking was not yeit in esse and was really selling power, to refuse to that company the right to sell at all. It would have power to refuse that company the right to sell at all. We have therefore the protection of the first phrase, which says, "for the purposes of the company." Then we have the protection of Section 247 of the Railway Act. And further we have the protection of the Railway Commission. Consequently I do not think we could improve matters much by referring the section back.
, Bill as amended reported and amendments concurred in.
The following Bills were considered in committee, reported, read the third time, and passed, without discussion:
Bill No. 5, respecting The Canadian Northern Ontario Railway company.-Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. 9, respecting The Peace River Tramway and Navigation company.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 10, to incorporate Les Soeurs de l'Assomption de la Sainte-Vierge.-Mr. Le-mieux.
Bill No. 11, respecting British America Nickel Corporation, Limited.-Mr. North-rup.
Bill No. 12, respecting The Calgary and Edmonton Railway company.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 20, respecting Queen's University at Kingston, and to amalgamate therewith The School of Mining and Agriculture. -Mr. Nickle.



SECOND HEADINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 28, respecting the Kettle Valley Railway Company, and Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway- and Navigation Company.-Mr. Green.
Bill No. 36, respecting the Joliette and Lake Manuan Colonization Railway Company.-Mr. Guilbault.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) for Committee of Ways and Means resumed.
Mr J. E. ARMSTRONG {East Lambton): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest and pleasure to many of the speeches that have been delivered in the course of this debate, and I must congratulate the members who have taken part on the reasonable criticisms which they have offered. We have heard a great many splendid patriotic utterances this session, and I am sure we all appreciated the speech delivered by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir-George Foster) the other evening. I would even go a step further' than the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and say that bitter partisan politics will not be displayed on the floor of this Parliament for many years to come; nor do I think they will be exhibited to any great extent in the country districts, There were two memorable speeches to which I would like to refer. I congratulate the right hon. the leader of the Opposition on the splendid tribute he paid to the late Sir Charles Tupper, and also upon the speech he delivered on ihe extension of the life of Parliament. I am sure that these speeches will be read with a great deal of interest and pleasure in years to come. We also feel deeply grateful, especially those on this side of the House, for the splendid effort of the Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White), when he placed before this House and the country this excellent Budget. While it is open to reasonable criticism, we must recognize the fact that Canada is at war, that she is fighting for her very existence, and that the people must expect exceptional war measures will be introduced from time to time until the close of the war and that extraordinary taxes must be collected in order that we may carry to a successful conclusion our share of the struggle. I am sure that after all is said and done we can do nothing less than congratulate the Minister of Finance and the Government upon placing before Parliament such a splendid measure for demanding a reasonable share of the profits of the great manufacturers and financial institutions of the country. Never let it be said again that the Government are tied
R-i
[Stage Direction]
up to the great financial, railway, and manufacturing interests. Never in the history of the country has a Finance Minister attempted to gather from the financial institutions of Canada a reasonable and fair portion of the immense wealth which they are taking from the people. While it is true that some of our prominent men say that this is radical legislation, that it is bordering on socialism, yet, in talking with a number of prominent manufacturers and business men since the Budget was introduced, I have been assured by them that they are willing to assist in providing the means for carrying on the war and that they will gladly pay the portion that is demanded of them by the Minister of Finance.
It has also been said that this is a Budget in favor of the agricultural interests and the workingmen. Well may it be so said. The workingmen and the farmers are left free as far as this new taxation is concerned. On the other hand, one of the great departments of agricultural industry has been assisted by an added duty. x
We have listened to-day to the address of the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) and I hope he will not expect me to deal with many of the matters which he brought forward. He urges that economy be observed by every department of the Government and I am sure that the members on both sides of the House earnestly hope and Believe that the Government will exert their best efforts to promote economy in every branch of the service. He calls attention to the Estimates. The hon. gentleman knows full well that the items in the present Estimates that were left over from last year are revotes. The Government have already explained that they .do not intend to go on with the public works to which these items apply until such time as they have sufficient funds to continue them. Should the war cease before the end of the year, and should they have sufficient money to carry on these public works, hon. gentlemen opposite will not complain about carrying on works which they were willing enough to pass at the last session.
We also found the hon. member for North Oxford making the statement that the duty on apples would be meat for British Columbia and poison for the West and that the Ontario fruit growers had not asked for a duty on apples. A similar statement was made by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. 
A. K. Maclean) in his speech on the Bu,dget. He said:
In my judgment in no province of Canada outside of British Columbia are the apple growers interested in this increased duty.
Let me call the attention of these hon. gentlemen to the fact that on the seventh day of last month the fruit growers of Ontario met in the city of Toronto and passed a unanimous resolution whereby they appointed delegates to go to Ottawa and urge upon the Finance Minister the need of an increased duty on apples. In face of that we find hon. gentlemen opposite saying that the fruit men of Ontario did not ask for this, did not need it and did not want it. These gentlemen came to Ottawa, and I had the pleasure of introducing them to the Finance Minister; so I feel that I know what I am talking about when I make the statement that the fruit growers of Ontario are deeply interested in this question and are very anxious that this duty should be placed on apples. It will be recalled that five years ago 1,400 fruit men from Ontario 9 p.m. met in the old chamber of the House of Commons and urged an increase of duty on the then Government. Hon. gentlemen opposite must appreciate the fact that as far as the Ontario fruit growers are concerned they are vitally interested in this question. You must also take into consideration the fact that the fruit-growing industry is one of the greatest that we have in Canada according to Mr. C. C. Moore, the market expert of the Department of Agriculture, who states that $127,000,000 is invested in that industry. Of that suip the following amounts are invested in apple orchards in the different provinces:
Ontario	$50,000,000
British Columbia	 20,000,000
Nova Scotia	 20,000,000
Quebec		10,000,000
This is therefore an enormous industry and one worthy of the consideration of this House.	,
Let us look at a few more facts in connection with this industry. For many years past both the old Government and this Government have been sending out literature to foreign lands urging people to come and paitake of the good things we have in store for them in the fruit districts of this country. Tens of thousands of people have come to our shores and spent millions of dollars in the development of the fruit industry, in the hope and belief that they would be able to make use

of the markets of this country. I believe that the people of the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, are willing to live and let live as far as this industry is concerned, and that they realise the importance of the Vast development which 'has taken place in the fruit industry in British Columbia since 1891. At that time there was only a very small acreage, while to-day 2,500,000 acres of fruit lands are under development in that province. The Department of the Interior are issuing literature showing the great advantages of that province in fruit production. When you remember the enormous acreage that has been planted in apples in the northwestern States, you can readily understand the position in which the fruit men of British Columbia find themselves. The states of Idaho, Washington and Montana have.planted so enormously that the estimate has gone forth that they are producing to-day eleven or twelve times as much fruit as they can dispose of in their own- country to advantage; 500,000 acres of apple orchards have been planted in those northwestern states, largely for the purpose of disposing of their product in our western provinces. Canada, with her splendid opportunities for the production of fruit and the enormous acreage that she has capable of development, you cannot but agree with me that the time has now come when we should to a reasonable extent look after this great fruit industry. The Government of British Columbia has sent earnest petitions to this Government urging it to place this dirty upon apples, and different organizations in that province have also sent delegations to place before this Government the strongest representations in support of an increased duty on fruit. Therefore, in face of the fact that according to the census of 1911, we have in the Dominion of Canada 14,800,000 apple trees, and only 60 per cent of them bearing, it is well for us to consider whether we should allow the great states in the northwest to dump into the western provinces an inferior quality of fruit, as they have been doing during the last few years. I have been urged to state to the House that the fruit growers' associations of the provinces of British Columbia and of Ontario believe that they will be able to deliver fruit in the western provinces at a price not exceeding the price now being paid by the people living there. The people of the western provinces, the Grain Growers' Association and the United Farmers of Alberta, should take into consideration the fact that the fruit trusts of the United States have control of the sale of fruit in the different towns and cities of their provinces. If they investigate, they will find that such is the case; and in future, if this additional duty is imposed, and if the Grain Growers' Association and the United Farmers of Alberta will get in touch with the fruit growers' associations in the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario, they will find that these associations will gladly meet them and ship to them at a small profit the enor-ipous quantities of fruit which they require, and I hope that they will take advantage of the offer of these associations.
Canada is one of the largest apple producing countries in the world; she exports to-day apples to the extent of 1,200,000 barrels per annum. Now, some hon. gentlemen from the eastern provinces have said that the fruit growers of Nova Scotia do not need this added protection. For instance, the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) said that the proposed increase would not be of any value to the province of Nova Scotia. I cannot but believe that when the hon. gentleman made that statement he was not closely m touch with the apple producers of that province. Although this province is a large exporter of apples and its market is the export trade market, its apple growers must expect that, unless some protection is given in the western provinces the fruit production of Ontario will interfere materially with their export trade. Only-sixty per cent of the enormous area bearing, and we cannot tell what the production will be when all the orchards that are already planted come into bearing.
The hon. junior member for Halifax also made the following statement:
I do not believe that the imposition of this duty will he of any advantage to the apple industry of British Columbia.
I do not need to argue that point; I think hon. members on both sides will readily understand that the imposition of this duty will be of untold benefit to the apple producers of British Columbia.
Let me give just one instance in which an increase in the duty on fruit has not increased the cost to the consumer. In 1874 the men who were interested in the grape industry of this country came to Parliament urging that the duty on grapes be increased. The Government of that day increased the duty by ten per cent, but the
[Stage Direction]
grape growers found that it was impossible for them, with that small duty, to develop the industry, and so they came back, and in 187^9 the Government raised the duty to two cents per pound. What was the result?,' The grape growers of this country planted out extensive vineyards, and within a few years the people of Canada were able To buy grapes at a lower price than the duty charged on them. What do we find,to-day? In the Niagara district, in the fall of the year, grapes can be purchased at one and a half cents per pound, and that condition of things has existed for manj\ years past.
The hon. junior member for Halifax gave us to understand that the increased duty on oil would nqt be of benefit to the farmers of the West. So far as gas and fuel oil is concerned, the farmers of the West do not use it in any quantities worth speaking of. Gas and fuel oil is used largely on the railways through the wooded areas of this country. The Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, and several other railways are using gas and fuel oil extensively. While I have no intention of criticising the placing of an import duty on this article, I wohld suggest to the Minister of Finance that, after the war is over, he will probably fihd that the munition plants, which are using enormous quantities of this gas and fuel oil at present, will not require it in large quantities. I hope that when, that time conies he will.give to the railways the use of this oil for motive power and the advantage qf importing it free. My reason for this suggestion will be explained,by a reference to the report of the Commission of Conservation. On page 44 of that,report I find this statement:
Locomotive Fuel.
Oil fuel is in exclusive use on 477 miles of the Canadian Pacific railway, on 134 miles of the Esquimau and Nanaimo railway, and on 115 miles of the Great Northern railway, a total of 726 miles, all in British Columbia. In no case has a definite report been submitted of a fire caused by an oil-burning engine in Canada. The Grand Trunk Pacific railway has announced that during the spring and early summer of 1915, oil-burning engines will be installed on that portion of its lines in British Columbia and Alberta between Prince Rupert and Jasper, a distance of 71S miles. It is expected that this action will materially decrease the danger of fire along this portion of the line. The use of oil fuel is purely voluntary with the railways, and its adoption is dictated altogether by business considerations.
Anything that we can do towards conserving our great natural resources, our timber

resources as well as others, should be done, and quickly done. When we consider the enormous fire waste constantly going on in those timber areas traversed by railways the benefit to the people of any steps to prevent forest fires is at once apparent, Hon. members who have travelled over the new Transcontinental, lines must have seen the wilful waste of our great forest wealth under the conditions which have been allowed to exist in the building of our great roads. Tens of thousands of acres of timber and pulpwood lands have been burned over, and not for generations, can that forest cover be restored. I offer my suggestion not in a faultfinding way to the Minister of Finance. I do not say that the great corporations seriously complain about this duty, but I do say that it is worthy of the minister's consideration whether this duty should not cease with the end of the war, providing the production of crude oil in Canada does not increase! Unless we can encourage the use of this fuel, or can compel the railways to use electric power on their lines through our forest areas, we may expect that the enormous losses of the past will be repeated by the further destruction of our forests.	A *
One other statement was made in this debate, and this is practically the last to which I shall refer-the statement made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Buchanan) in the quotation of a long communication from a farmers' organization in his district. The hon. gentleman said that there were 800 of those men, and that one of them had stated that the price of gasolene had increased from thirty to fifty per cent. Knowing the hon. member from Medicine Hat to be a fair-minded man, I was somewhat surprised that he did not take into consideration the fact that gasolene was free of duty except for the duty of 7J per cent imposed last session. This would amount to only a little over one cent a gallon. That being the case, the hon. gentleman should not have presented to the House a statement that would lead the people to believe that this Government was responsible for great increase in the price of gasolene. I do not believe that he so intended it, and I cannot help thinking that he will tqll the people of his section of the country that they were mistaken in this regard. They could have brought in tank cars or tank wagons, and so could have obtained the gasolene at the price in the market of production, plus the duty of about one cent a gallon.

As a number of questions have been asked in the House, and as I have been asked personally many questions on the subject, I feel that I should put on record a few facts, in order that honourable gentlemen may understand more about this product. Gasolene of Canadian quality still comes in free of duty, except for the 7\ per cent war tax imposed last session. The gasolene largely used in the United States is not allowed in, owing to its heavier quality. Canadian gasolene costs two cents a gallon more to manufacture, and is much better. The gasolene used in many districts in the United States is five points below the Canadian product, being 59 beaume, as against 64 required by the Canadian regulations. Regard must be had also to the difference in the size of the gallon. In the United States they use wine measure, while in Canada we use imperial measure, which is about one-fifth larger. Allowing for the size of the gallon and the quality of the oil, even with the war tax, the price of gasolene is not higher in the principal centres of Canada than at corresponding points in the United States.
The price of gasolene to-day in Detroit per wine gallon from the tank wagon is 18 cents, or equal to 21 cents per Imperial gallon. Under item 272 of the tariff, gasolene under -725 specific gravity at 60 degrees temperature is admitted into Canada free. The gasolene offered for sale from the tank wagons in Detroit would not qualify for admission free into Canada, since it is 59 beaume, or -7407 specific gravity. It is an altogether heavier gasolene, costs about 2 cents per gallon less to manufacture and can be purchased at 2 cents less in the market. Crude oil in the United States, from which so much of the Canadian gasolene is made, costs to-day two and three times as much as jt did nine months ago. For instance, in the mid-continent fields it sold for 40 cents a barrel a year ago, and to-day is selling from $1.30 to $2 per barrel, or from Si to 5 times as much as it did then. The war in Mexico for the past two years, together with the shutting off of the production in Roumania, Central Europe, and Russia, appears to have left the world dependent on the United States supply. These causes, together with the enormous increase in the uses to which gasolene is put, particularly the tractors and motors, have all contributed to the [DOT]rise in .price, which has not been peculiar to Canada but has been generally worldwide. The demand for gasolene is now and will probably be during 1916, greater
than the available supply, as the production of naphtha-bearing crude oils has not kept pace with the constantly increasing consumption. The large increase in (the number of automobiles, motor boats, farm tractors and stationary gas engines has brought the gasolene price to its present level. The following figures will show why the price of gasolene has increased so enormously. In 1905 there were approximately 1,200 automobiles registered in the Dominion of Canada. In 1910, 10,000 cars were in operation and in 1915, 83,000. The automobile manufacturers estimate that in 1916, there will be over 3,000,000 cars in operation in Canada and the United States. In 1905 probably not one gasolene tractor was owned in the Dominion of Canada. In 1910, 2,000 of these machines were in operation, and in 1915, there were' approximately 8,000 gasolene tractors in the Dominion. The average high power gasolene tractor consumes a barrel of gasolene every ten working hours. In 1905 it is estimated that only 5,000 stationary gas engines were * in use in the Dominion. By 1910 this number had increased to 25,000, and at the present time there are over 100,000 of these machines, all helping to swell the figures for gasolene consumption. In 1905 Canada used approximately 100,000 barrels of gasolene, and in 1910, approximately 390,000 barrels. In 1915 the consumption of gasolene in the Dominion was over 1,300,000 barrels. Most of the gasolene refined in Canada is manufactured from United States crude oil, as the production of crude oil in the Ontario field is not large. Unfortunately the great increase in the number of gasolene consuming machines has not been followed by a proportionate increase in the production of crude oil; in fact some of the large naphtha producing crude oil fields in the United States have shown a marked falling off in production. The great Cushing field in Oklahoma is now producing considerably less than 100,000 barrels per day, as against 300,000 barrels per day which it was producing a year ago. My hope is that some inventive genius will evolve a practical kerosene carburetor which would enable a large proportion of the motor driven vehicles to operate with refined oil as fuel. Refined oil is a drug on the market. The price of gasolene has increased by leaps and bounds. For instance, in the city of Toronto for the past seven months, tank wagon prices per Imperial gallon were as follows:- August 1, 134c.; September 1, 16c.; October 1, 17c.; November 1, 184c.; December 1, 22c. ;
[Stage Direction]
January 1, 24c.; February 1, 25c. The same prices pervailed in other large cities near the International boundary line.
I , am very glad ito have the privilege of referring these matters, which are of interest to the district that I represent. We all appreciate the significance of the fact that this country is in the throes of a great war. The northern half of this continent is ours-ours to maintain and to develop. If the national ideals of Germany should ever hold sway in this country, we should lose the privileges and liberties that are our common heritage. It is hardly necessary to say that we decline to accept the national ideals of Germany, of Austria, or of Turkey. The happiness or misery of eight millions of people, the control and development of hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of productive industry and capital in this country, are at stake. Hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House-indeed, the whole of the people of Canada-are desirous of taking such steps as may bring this war to a successful conclusion. Never was Canada more united in a common cause; never was she more determined to do her part to attain a worthy end. Our brave soldiers on the battlefields of France and Belgium are singing:
*We'll never let the old flag fall;
We love it the best of all.
We don't want to fight To show our might,
But when we do, we fight, fight, fight!
Our gallant boys are ready and willing and able to fight for the land they love so well and for the flag they hold so dear. When we realize that Great Britain has trebled her national debt and doubled her taxes, the amount being asked by the Finance Minister to-day seems but small. We should be glad and proud that we have controlling the affairs of Canada men who are able to guide its destinies in the manner in which they are being guided. We all love our country; we believe in her; we live for her; we are ready to fight for her, in order that her territory may remain intact and her name untarnished.
Mr. DUNCAN C. BOSS (West Middlesex):	Mr. Speaker, as this is the first
opportunity that I have had of addressing the House this session, I trust that you will not think it presumptuous on my part if I tender to you my congratulations upon your elevation to the high office which you occupy. Although my congratulations are late, they are none the less sincere. You pos-

sess all the qualities necessary to your office. The university of your native province has marked you as being possessed of scholarly attainments. We on this side of the House feel that, in addition to that, you are so inspired by ideals of fairness, justice and honour that you will be able to hold the scales in equal poise between the parties, unmoved by fear, favour or affection.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the various addresses of those who have taken part in this debate. I have listened .to none with more interest than to the lion, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). It is always a pleasure to listen to him; we esteem him one of the first orators of Canada. We know his wide experience in public life, and we know his intense patriotism and love for his country. His speech of a few days ago was only another instance of that eloquence, another manifestation of that patriotism. As I listened to him my mind travelled back over the space of several years, and I thought of a speech which I heard him make in 1910 when I had newly come to this Parliament. I think that, without exception, it was the most eloquent speech I ever heard. He then dwelt on the necessity of Canadians being able to fight for themselves, on the prowess of Canada, on its future potentialities and on all its coming greatness. I sat and listened to him in open admiration, as did every member on this side of the House. The other night he spoke to us about the evils of politics in this country and the evils of the patronage system, and I concurred also in all he had to say. My fear is only this, that the hon. minister may do as he did in 1910 when, a few moons having passed, the minister took a double back somersault in the air. I fear that now he will not, in the council chamber, inspire in the Prime Minister the same views that he expressed in this House on the evils of patronage and will not, as a member of the Privy Council of Canada, endeavour to do away with what he describes as this monster of iniquity, the patronage system. I hope he may, because I think patronage is one of the great evils of this country.
I wish first to discuss a few things that affect this country in relation to the war. Many of these matters have already been touched upon in a very able manner by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). Some things which he said should be accentuated, and in my humble way I am going to associate myself with him in urging these matters. In the first place, I think if we are going to carry on this war to a success-

ful issue, as we certainly are, and if we are going to get 500,000 soldiers to fight for King and country, we must make sure that these soldiers are going to the battlefield with perfectly contented minds and that they feel satisfied that the dear ones they are leaving behind will be protected just as if they were remaining at home. They must feel sure that if they are injured on the field of battle they will be taken care of and if they lose their lives the dear one they leave behind, wives, mothers and children, will receive generous protection from the people of this country. It seems to me we cannot be too careful about this matter and that, although our allowances are generous to the woman and children left behind, they are not placed upon a proper basis. I was struck by a remark of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) ivho spoke of a man fighting in the trenches, under his command, a noble, brave soldier, one worthy of the Victoria Cross, a man who had left a wife and twelve children behind him. I could not get a better instance to typify or symbolize what 1 wanted to say. Here is a married man in the field, fighting the battles of liberty in Canada, with twelve children at home, and this country gives that wife the paltry allowance of $20 a month for her sustenance and that of her family. I think in this regard we are derelict in our duty. The British system is far better and I cannot understand why the principle we have adopted in regard to our pensions is not followed in Tegard to our separation allowances. Whether a roan is dead or alive, his children will require as much to support them. If a man dies on the battlefield his widow has certain allowances, and she gets a certain allowance for each child. Why should not that system be followed also in regard to our separation allowances? For my own part I think the same principle should apply, and that some change should be adopted by this Government in that respect. I would like to emphasize the point made by the hon. member for Edmonton, that the pensions given to the rank and file of our soldiers, particularly those in the lower ranks, are insufficient. A single man who _ has been totally disabled in the face of the enemy receives from this country $22 a month, and he is also entitled to an allowance of $7.33 a month for an attendant. It strikes my judgment that this is not sufficient to give to a man who has risked his life for liberty and for this country, and comes
back here totally incapacitated from earning a living for himself. I would commend to the favourable consideration of the Government a pamphlet issued by a committee of which Mr. Frank Darling is chairman, and I should wish to associate myself with the suggestions in that pamphlet, because they are all worthy of commendation.
We are engaged in the most terrible war that any land has ever been engaged in; the fury and fanaticism and strife and turmoil and noise of battle in this war are such as have never occurred before. Men are not only losing their lives and their limbs, but, what is even more pathetic and sad, men are losing their reason; men are having their nervous systems shattered; quite a few of them have come back to this country with those sweet' bells of the mind jangled out of tune; and it seems to me that some special*provision should be made for them. Up to the present I believe no special provision has been made. These men should not be put in the ordinary insane asylum, but special institutions should be built for them where they will receive unusual consideration, as there is no real life for them in the future.
The treatment of our officers is not very liberal, and should be improved. I was not aware until recently that they are treated less liberally than the British officers; 1 thought they received a little more; but the fact that they are paid less only accentuates the argument I wish to make. As I understand our present system, an officer who joins the active forces to-day is allowed by the Government $150 for uniform and accoutrements. As I understand the English system, a similar allowance is made to the British officer, but while our Canadian officer receives only one allowance for this purpose, no matter how long the war lasts, the British officer receives an allowance when he first goes on service, and each year thereafter receives about £20 for uniform and accoutrements. That is only just treatment of our officers. Their clothes cannot last for ever; in the struggle and strife of active army life their uniforms must wear out and become soiled, and I think it only fair that these officers who are risking their lives should receive an allowance of say $100 a year to replenish their uniform and accoutrements.
I shall not follow seriatim what the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) has been saying. My hon. friend is my nearest neighbour, and we have ever been friends. He has been a constant visitor to West Middlesex for many years. He
[Stage Direction]
always conies probably when we least need him; but if his visits have been as pleasant to him as they have been innocuous to me, I do not mind how often he cornes. Some day in the future I may do myself the honour of returning some of them, and I hope that my visits to his constituency will have better results than he secured.
My ibon. friend discussed the question of apples. He made some remarks in regard to apples which I could not follow. The part of the country from which I come is a part in which many apples are grown, the best apples in the world, I venture to say, not excluding those grown in the county of Lambton. I cannot understand the solicitude of the hon. member for East Lambton for the apple industry of this country. I could not follow his argument. He said, forsooth, that the apple growers of this country had 14,000,000 trees, that it was a great industry, and that the apple growers had sent petitions and delegations to the Government asking to have their industry protected. I cannot see that that is any reason for giving them additional protection. I cannot understand why the hon. member should have got so much worked up over this small industry. I have heard it said during the past four or five years that thousands of men had come from the West to interview the Government, men who are engaged in a very important industry, in which sixty per cent of the population of Canada are engaged, and in which from four to eight billion dollars are invested, and yet I have never heard that this Government acceded to their requests. The farmers of the West and of the province of Ontario have come here in thousands asking for the privilege, not of giving their particular line of production protection, but of giving it some freedom, and I have never yet heard that the Government considered that a good reason for acceding to their requests. At any rate, they have not done so. One reason given by the hon. member for East Lambton for the proposed increase in the duty on apples was that the people in the West were getting an inferior grade of apples. I take exception to that remark of the hon. member. I know of what I speak; I know that the people in Winnipeg, and further west, get apples from the good old province of Ontario, from the county of Middlesex as well as from other counties, and I defy any man to prove that the apples from Middlesex county, or from Lambton county, are inferior to any apples in the world. I think

the hon. member for East Lambton was giving the industry in his own county, about which he is so solicitous, a black eye, and I do not think the apple growers of Lambton or of Middlesex will thank him for it.
Mr.. J. E. ARMSTRONG: I know that the hon. gentleman has no intention to put words in my mouth, which I did not utter. If he will read to-morrow's Hansard ne will find'that when .1 referred to inferior fruit going into the Northwest provinces, I was referring to inferior fruit from the Northwestern states, and not from Ontario or from British Columbia.
Mr. ROGERS:: We always get good fruit from Ontario.


Mr. ROSS:: I owe the hon. gentleman an apology. The inference I drew from his words-I may have misunderstood him, and T do not wish to put words in his mouth-was that the apples going into the Northwest provinces were Inferior apples, and I naturally assumed that he had reference to Ontario apples, because Ontario apples go in thousands of bushels to the West.
This cry of protection is the old Conservative doctrine. The apple grower has to be protected because, according to the hon. member for East Lambton, it is a great and growing industry in which millions of dollars are invested, and the people engaged in it do not understand their business. Of course, in Canada we cannot do anything as well as it is done in the United States. Our people have no initiative, no brains. We cannot build ships, and we cannot grow apples; we cannot do anything that intelligent people ought to be able to do. We cannot stand on our own legs, but we must get subsidies from a paternal Government. For my own part, I think it is about time that we in Canada were getting beyond that stage of affairs. I think this war has taught us, at all events, that we can build our own ships, and I can speak for the farmers of Middlesex when I say that they do not thank this Government for any extra duty on apples. It is all very well for us to say that we are going to build up a 'big apple industry in this country, but there is one thing that we must not forget. There is a class called the c'om-moti people to whom apples are an absolute necessity. The apple is the orange, or the grapefruit, of the common people. I contend that in the solicitude of this Govern-

ment to help the apple trade, they should not forget the labouring man and they should not make fruit, which to him is a necessity, dearer and harder to procure. That is one of the great reasons why this extra duty is not right and is not in the interest of the country. There is no reason why the workingmen should pay tribute to the orchard owners of British Columbia.
There is another matter to which I would like to refer; it has reference more particularly to the finances of this country. ' The Minister of Finance told us in his Budget speech about some loans which he made. I want to discuss everything as far as possible in an unpartisan spirit, but I do not think that the loans made by the Minister of Finance greatly redound to his credit. Let us take, for instance, the loan which he told us he made in the United States. It was made, as he told us, to cover the capital expenditure in connection with the public works of this country. For my part, I think it would have been much more creditable to the Minister of Finance if he had cut down the capital expenditure of this country, so that it would not have been necessary to borrow $45,000,000 from the American people.
Again, Sir, I think he made a loan which was not advantageous to the people of this country, and in which he did not show that keenness and financial ability which the Minister of Finance in this country should be endowed with. Let us look into this matter for a moment. He borrowed $45,000,000 from New York, and $25,000,000 of that amount was to be paid on August 1, 1916, and the balance of $20,000,000 on August 1, 1917. What were the facts in regard to loans at that time? The provinces of this Dominion were borrowing money in New York at the rate of five per cent, and the municipalities at the rate of five per cent. The great financial corporations of this country were doing the same. It is axiomatic in financial matters that, the standing of the Dominion being superior to that of the municipalities or corporations, Canada should be able to finance a loan of that magnitude at a lower rate of interest than the lesser bodies. At that very time Britain had borrowed three billion dollars at four and a half per cent, and the British loan was subject to income tax. The Minister of Finance took care that the loan he made in the United States should be exempt from income tax. The result was, that so far as Britain was concerned, while it was borrowing at four
and a half per cent, it was really borrowing at four and a quarter. The Minister of Finance borrowed his $45,000,000 and agreed to pay interest half yearly, whereas the interest on the British loan, and on municipal loans, is payable yearly. The Minister of Finance also undertook to pay the money back in gold in New York, and in addition he gave the buyers of the loan the privilege, to be used at any time within three months of the time when the loan matured, of buying Dominion bonds, thus compelling the people of this country to pay to the 'money lenders in the United States the sum of five per cent for twenty years. Besides that, the Minister of Finance paid the New York brokers who consummated the loan three quarters of one per cent commission. What does all this mean in loss to the Canadian people? The Minister of Finance puts the municipalities in this position, that if the Dominion Government has to pay five per cent for American money, it necessitates the municipalities paying a higher rate than five per cent.
However, let us take the matter as it is. This money should, and could, have been borrowed, if the minister had been astute, at four and a half per cent, the rate at which Great Britain was borrowing. The fact that it was not borrowed at four and a half a cent means a loss to the tax-payers of $325,000. That, taken in connection with the three-quarters of one per cent paid to the American bankers as commission for consummating the deal, which means an additional loss of in the neighbourhood of $376,000 to the people of Canada, brought about by the carelessness of the Finance Minister, makes a total loss of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $750,000. I think it would be wise for the party in power, if they would in future have no truck and trade with the Yankees in regard to borrowing money unless they can send some man over to New York who will be a little keener in dealing with Morgan & Company than the Minister of Finance was in this case. I believe that if Mr. Fielding had been negotiating that loan we would not have had the people of Canada paying five per cent for $45,000,000, and we would not have run the risk of being bound for twenty years to pay five per cent on a loan of this magnitude.
I am going to deal for a few moments with the taxation which has been placed upon companies and corporations. I appreciate as well as any man in this House the necessity of raising money to carry on

this war, and I believe the people appreciate it, but, for my part I cannot follow the Minister of Finance in his argument or in his action in connection with these taxes. What I propose to say may, to some extent, be a repetition of what has been so ably said by my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) and by, my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), but there are some things about this taxation on corporations that seems to be so unjust and inequitable that I am sure I will be pardoned if I reiterate some of the objections which have already -been raised against it. In the first place, it is my contention that, although the Min10 p.m. ister of Finance in his address, discriminated between different classes of companies himself, when he came to the question of taxation, he failed to discriminate between them. Speaking, at page 849 of Hansard, he said:
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. Their position being advantageous as compared with less fortunate fellow-citizens, it is just that a portion of their advantage should be appropriated to the benefit of the state.
That seems to me reasonable, but I do not think the Minister of Finance has carried his ideas out in his taxes. I think there should be a difference between taxes which are imposed on companies manufacturing munitions of war, that have made themselves rich to the extent of hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars of the money of the people, and corporations which have made their money in another way. The munition factories and manufacturers are simply the outcome of this war. They have not helped to build up the country. They are helping to defend the country, it is true, but they are being mightily well paid for it. This tax on the munition factories is, I say, an absolute admission by the Government that their treatment of the munition factories, and the way they gave them contracts, was a mistake, that it was wrong, and that i't was not in the public interest. But, Mr. Speaker, these factories, when the war is over, are not going to help in the development of Canada; they will be out of busd-

ness, they \Vill not be employing men, and in the past they have not helped to develop the country. We have nothing to thank them for as far as that is concerned. Take the industries which, in so far as taxation is concerned, are being put on the same basis; take an institution like the Canadian Pacific railway, which has helped to make this land great; take all our large manufacturing establishments, which have helped to make Canada the prosperous country it is, in which men have struggled end wrought, and into which men have put their money, and in which men will struggle, will work, and into which they will put their money in the future, and which will make this country still greater, and I think you will agree with me that there should be discrimination between the taxes put upon munition factories and the taxes put upon these factories which are so necessary to the prosperity of Canada. It is not fair, it is not according to the usual canons of taxation to ignore the principles which I am now urging upon the consideration of the House. These institutions are not as well able to bear the load as the munition manufacturers. The munition manufacturers have made hundreds of thousands of dollars an a short time. The ordinary manufacturer has built up his industry and made his money slowly; he has been, and will be, of use to the country, and therefore that a different rate of taxation should be imposed upon the munition factories from that which is placed upon the more stable industries of the country.
There is another point I would like to accentuate: it is the difference between corporations and partnerships. The proposal of the Finance Minister does not seem fair to me, looking at it from the narrow point of view which I get when applying it, for instance, to my own town. Here is a corporation, say, which is selling dry goods. They adopt the most modern form of business arrangement, that of a joint stock company, and they have a capital of $35,000 invested. Under this proposal you tax them twenty-five per cent on their profits over seven per cent. I think that is not just. In the first place, I think, they should be given more than seven per cent. If you have a stable industry which is making for the development of the land seven per cent is not enough to give the owner as a return on his capital. In our province we can go out and loan our money at six, seven, and eight per cent on legal security which is beyond the possibility

of loss. A man can put his mortgage in his vault and have no further care or responsibility. Here you are going to a merchant who takes all the risks of trade and . you are only giving him a profit of seven per cent, when a man can get seven per cent on a mortgage, and you are finding him twenty-five per cent of the balance of his profits. I say that is not just. My argument is this:	A corporation is
charged with whatever amount of capital is invested. A corporation in the province of Ontario must consist of at least five people; a partnership may consist of as many persons as you like. Suppose that you have a partnership carrying on the same business as a corporation, say a dry-good business, and that it has $35,000 invested. This partnership which is competing with the company, is under no greater responsibility than the company; there may be more men interested in the partnership than in the company; the company has to meet the same emergencies and contingencies as has the partnership, yet the partnership escapes scot free from this taxation. That is not just.
'There is another point that I think is unjust in this taxation. In my town there is one of the best furniture factories in Canada, bar none. This factory happened to be given a little order for $5,000 worth of munition boxfes or shell boxes. I do not know how they got the order; I was surprised, but I was also glad to see them get it. If this taxation is imposed, this corporation, engaged in the manufacture of furniture and turning out probably $150,000 to $200,000 worth of furniture in a year, will, because it has received a little order for 5,000 boxes at 80 or 85 cents a box, be taxed 25 per cent on all its profits over 7 per cent on the whole of its business. That is absolutely unjust and inequitable. In that case, the company should not be taxed on anything more than on the order for shelj boxes.
Besides being unjust and inequitable, this scheme seems to me to be absolutely impracticable and to have many evils connected with it. In the first place, it is going to lead to a great expense to this country. /No man can convince me that, under this system, these taxes are going to be collected without scores and scores of officials being added to the many thousands that are already helping to make this country poor.
It also seems to me that it is absolutely impossible for the Minister of Finance to
get at the capitalization of these companies. What he said himself in that regard on the 15th of February is not alteted to-day. As reported on page 850 of Hansard, he made the following statement:
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 it is practically impossible 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, then I say that this taxation cannot be levied equitably; because, if you have to take the actual stock issues of companies as the basis for your ' taxation, the company that has inflated its capital so that it is half or three-quarters water, is going to escape taxation, whereas the company that has put its earnings into its business and is in a good financial condition, is going, if I may use a vulgar expression, to be bled at the nose, and that is neither fair nor just.
The only just and equitable scheme for the Government to adopt is that of a graduated income tax, which -has been adopted in Great Britain and in the United States. Under the scheme brought forward by the Minister of Finance, the wealth of men who have their money in bonds or in real estate is going to be absolutely exempt. These men 'have just as much right to contribute to the carrying on of this war as any other men. This country has helped to make them rich; its possibilities, its prosperity, and the protection it has afforded, have made their fortunes, and they should be glad to contribute, out of the* wealth that this country has assisted them in making, their share of the money required to carry this war to a successful conclusion. Therefore, the proper scheme for any minister of finance at this time to adopt would be that of a graduated income tax, starting at $800 or $1,000, and the percentage increasing as the amount of the income increased. In that way every man would pay, and there would be kept in mind the cardinal canon of taxation that the burden of taxation should fall upon the shoulders of those who are the best able to bear it.
Now I come to what I think is the most important pronouncement made by the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech. He said:
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 bound up with the



question of increase in population of the productive sort and the facilities afforded it for the application of its intelligence and industry. It is probable that in the straitened financial conditions which may prevail for some years forward the question of capital for the development of agriculture may be of paramount importance, and it is our intention to inquire carefully during the coming recess into this most important subject, with a view, if desirable in the public interest, to supplementing by federal aid existing facilities in this connection. Particularly will the question of establishment of a system whereby loans at reasonable rates repayable on the amortization principle engage the attention of the Government.
I wish to consider for a few minutes the question of rural credits. The agricultural industry of this country, of which the minister spoke in such laudatory terms, is getting in this case only the bread of promise. I hope it will get the bread itself before very long.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: The real bread.


James Hamilton Ross: I do not think I need go
behind the speech which the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) made in 1913 in order to establish my argument in regard to rural credits. The Minister of Finance led us to believe that he was going to establish a system of federal aid on the amortization principle. As I view the present needs of the Canadian farmer, in Ontario and in the West, I do not think this is what he wants so far as federal aid is concerned. The amortization principle means that a farmer gets a loan on his land for a long period, say twenty, thirty, forty or fifty years, and he pays back the money, by means of a sinking fund, in equal annual instalments of both principal and interest. It seems to me that that is not the great need of the Canadian farmer to-day, and in that respect I am going to quote the words of the Solicitor General in 1913. I may say, in passing, that I have listened to several speeches of the Solicitor General. At one time I listened to a speech of his on free agricultural implements. The Solicitor General has probably forgotten that speech.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.


James Hamilton Ross: It was a worthy speech, more worthy of the Solicitor General than those that I heard him deliver later in regard to the Canadian Northern railway and in regard to cutting off the privileges of debate in this House. Of all the speeches of the Solicitor General which I have admired, this, to my mind, exhibited the greatest study and research, and was expressed with the greatest lucidity. The Minister of Finance at that time approved of the resolu-

tion of the Solicitor General, and both these hon. gentlemen were very solicitous about helping the farmer. But now they are putting the cart before the horse and proposing a scheme which they say will promote agriculture; and perhaps it would be partisan for me to say that they are postponing the bigger scheme on behalf of their great allies and friends the chartered banks of this country. It may be unfair to say that. These are the words of the Solicitor General to which I have referred:
And, as I approach this part of the subject, let me premise that I am not convinced that the time has come in this country, as yet, when the application of the principle of the lands-chaften bank as now successful in older countries, can be made to advantage in this country. I think we should proceed first along the line of personal credit societies, and that, at least so far as the province with which r am more intimately acquainted are concerned, the time has not yet come when we can import into Canada the central principle of the lands-chaften bank or land banks as existing in Germany and all the older countries. I say this notwithstanding the fact that the report of tne American commission is distinctly favourable to the importation of this system into the United States; I say this notwithstanding that even so high and conservative an authority as President Taft has distinctly and emphatically recommended to the congress of governors the immediate application of the land mortgage banks to the American republic.
I think the Finance Minister and the Government have been derelict in their duty to the agricultural class. Agriculture is the most important industry in this country. The agriculturists have been the mainstay of the country during this war; but for the immense crops of the West we should find ourselves in a most undelightful financial position. These rural credit societies, as the Solicitor General so ably pointed out, are not an experiment. They exist to-day in Belgium, in France, in Germany; they exist under provincial laws in the province of Quebec. They have been an immense success. They have expanded so greatly that in Germany there were, according to the Solicitor General, from 16,000 to 20,000 societies-and there must have been more since, because the Solicitor General stated that they were increasing at the rate of two and a half per cent a day. They have been instrumental in lending to farmers and other producers in Germany as much as $4,000,000,000 a year. They have helped to make the prosperity of Belgium, and of Germany as well; and Japan, as the Solicitor General has pointed out, was so convinced that this is the best system in the world, that she incorporated it holus bolus as a part of her banking system. It seems

to me the Finance Minister could give this system to this country, not a year from now or two years from now, but now. We are not so busy in this House, we are not so engrossed in other matters, that we could not attend to this. We have plenty of time. We should have a measure introduced this session which would give to the people of Canada now, and not several years hence, the great advantage of rural credits as they prevail in other countries.
The advantages of the system are many. As I have said before, the farmer does not want money for a long time, as a rule. I think the remarks of the Minister of Tjade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) are quite correct. We are not going to be crowded out of this country by an influx of immigrants from other lands, and so an amortization system to aid immigrants to buy lands will not be necessary. But it is necessary to provide some practical present assistance to the farmer of the West who wishes to buy a cow, a horse, some grain, or something of that kind to carry on his business. A system should be established under wlhich these men could go to their rural credit association and get temporary loans at a moderate rate to develop their farms and so to develop this country. The Solicitor General, in his speech to which I have referred, pointed out that this was the need of the farmer and producer, and what he said is just as true to-day:
I say to the discredit of Parliament we have provided as yet no machinery whatever of a uniform character, which is the first essential, to give the people of this country the advantage of co-operative hanking as it obtains in almost every civilized country on the face of the globe. I shou'd have said a few moments ago, that not only has it done great service in all the, countries of Europe, but this last year in Japan alone, I believe, some five hundred banks were organized.
I desire to read, also, what the hon. gentleman quoted from a writer of the name of Wolfe. There have been two writers of this name, each of whom has written valuable books on this subject. And the United States has sent two commissions, one appointed by the Government, and another by a central association, to investigate this system. Those commissions travelled throughout Europe, and I have on my desk their reports speaking in the most laudatory terms of this system. The Solicitor General's quotation from Wolfe is as follows :
Personal credit in agricultural Europe is obtained usually by means of the co-operative credit associations. They are also used by artisans and small tradespeople in the towns and
cities. These associations are in fact the only banks which the farmers will patronize for short-time loans in the nations whei e they abound in the greitest numbers. With their aid poverty and usu*y have been banished, sterile fields have been made fertile, production has been increased, and agriculture and agricultural science raised to the highest point. Their educational influence is no less marked. They have taught the farmers the uses of credit as. well as of cash, given them a commercial instinct and business knowledge, find stimulated them to associated action. They have encouraged thrift and saving, created a feeling of independence and self-reliance, and even elevated their moral tone.
And the Solicitor General himself said r
The poorer classes of this country, if they be ever so honest, do not as a matter of practice, and cannot as a matter of possibility, secure the credit to which their honesty entitles them in the commerce of the world. There can be no greater benefit, there can be no greater blessing given to the humbler classes of any community, than to so press out the machinery of our banking system, to so extend it, as to reach those classes of people who are not now served and to enlist in the service of the state and in the full plenitude of citizenship, with all their [DOT] potentialities and possibilities, the poorer classes of the country. By doing so you perform an educational work the advantage of which is hard to over-estimate. More than that, you teach self-reliance, you teach the great principle of mutual help, than which there is nothing more efficacious in securing the common advantage. You implant in the poor man the thought that this honesty of character, known as it is amongst his fellows, has been sufficient of itself to enable him to get a small loan, and, having implanted that in him, you give him an encouragement that is worth not a little.
It seems to me that I have established the point that the rural credit system has gained favour in all the countries of the world. The Minister of Finance has brought in a Bill to amend the Bank Act, which :s fairly good so far as it goes; but it does not go far enough. It is not sufficient merely to amend the Bank Act. In the United States for many years the banks lent money on chattel mortgages, but they are not content with that system. As the hon. Solicitor General knows, a Bill is being considered by Congress to establish a system of rural credits throughout the United. States. They have found that simply to accord the banks the privilege of lending money on chattel mortgages is not sufficient to meet the needs of the agricultural people. In this matter we should not be slow in following the example of the American people; we should keep up with the procession, and establish in this country a' system of rural credits. I am sure the hon. Solicitor General will agree with me in that respect. We have all the information that we can get. Reports of commissions, opinions of textt

book writers and the experience of other lands show that this system, is no experiment. The words of the Finance Minister simply mean that he is making a promise to the rural people that it will take him a long time to fulfil, and that money is 'being wasted without necessity.


Arthur Meighen: I cannot fully express the pleasure t have in feeling that I have so able a colleague in this matter as the hon. member for West Middlesex.


James Hamilton Ross: The hon. gentleman has been too slow.


Arthur Meighen: A Bill relating to this matter was introduced, I think, the session . before the special war session. , I am free to say that the Government is in favour of legislation of this kind; it is entirely a matter as to whether its importance justifies its introduction at this time. This is the point I want to make: while in the province of Quebec the banks are established under the segis of provincial legislation, they flourish in the province of Ontario without the advantage of any legislative acts at all. Would the hon. member give to the House liis views as to the banks were they to operate under uniform Dominion legislation instead of without legislation at all?


James Hamilton Ross: I am obliged again to refer my hon. friend to his own very able speech. The hon. gentleman said that if we had uniform rules and fegulations all throughout the Dominion, a farmer going from Quebec or Ontario to Saskatchewan would know exactly what the system meant, having enjoyed its benefits in his native province.; and he would be able to take advantage of it in his new location without *delay or difficulty. That was the great advantage that my hon. friend pointed out as the undoubted result of uniform federal enactment in that regard. I think it is certainly a very good point.
The1 people of Canada are not afraid of the future. They are rich, prosperous, happy and contented. As long as the taxes deemed necessary to carry the war to a successful and permanent issue, are just and equitable and fair, you will hear no outcry from the people. I do not say, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada approve of all the'taxes that have been imposed by this Government. The majority of the people of Canada [DOT] were very much opposed to the increase in the British preferential duties introduced
IMr. Ross.]
by the Government last session, and passed by this House. I do not believe that the people will approve the taxes ithat have been submitted by the Minister of Finance in his Budget of this .-year. The people of Canada all throughout this land are doing more than the Government are asking them to do by way of taxes. I am going to refer for a moment to my native county. I do not think that it is parochial to do this, because what the people in my county are doing is typical of what is happening in every province of Canada, and in every country of the British Empire. The people of Canada are not afraid of taxes that are just, because they are voluntarily giving of their substance, out of their plenty and out of their scarcity, to assist the Government in carrying on this war. They are giving not only their money, but their blood as well. My heart throbs with pride and emotion when I recall the sacrifices that have been made by many of the young men of my county and by its noble women in order that Canadian homes and Canadian women and children may enjoy freedom and happiness. The same tale, Sir, can doubtless be told of every county in this country; but, in passing, I am constrained to drop a laurel leaf of appreciation, praise and gratitude upon the memory of those of my county who have gone to the front. They came from every walk of life. They were not divided by questions of race or creed or politics; they were united by a common impulse to serve the Empire. Some of them made the last great sacrifice that their country might live. They did so ungrudgingly, ungrumblingly, nobly, as became Canadians, and their parents sent them forth in the same spirit, rejoicing in the grandeur of their action, and believing, as the old Romans did: Pulchrissima pro patria mori. Some of them sleep beneath the hills of France-but they are not really dead. Their souls, like John Brown's, go marching on through Canadian towns and hamlets, through country fields and country lanes, through the thronged streets of great cities, inspiring Canadian men and women to renewed and redoubled effort in the great crusade which they have begun. Their final acts of devotion were not confined to any one part of this country; they were widespread throughout the whole Dominion. The lesson they contain for us cannot be better expressed than in the language of that greatest of Presidents of the United States at a time when his

countrymen had made similar sacrifices in order that that nation, conceived in liberty and based on the principle that all men are by birth free, should live and perpetuate those principles. At the dedication of the cemetery at Gettysburg to the memory of the brave men who had fought and died for their country, Lincoln used these words:
It Is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honoured dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this Empire under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.
I have inserted the word Empire ipstead of the word Nation. That is the lesson I take from the grand men of my county and the grand men of Canada who have gone to light the battle of the Empire. Who were these noble men? '1 have in my mind Captain Frita Robertson, a son of the rectory, who had two brothers in the service. The rector and his noble wife gave these three sons for this great cause. One of them was a distinguished student at Oxford university, preparing himself for the Church. Captain Fritz gave his life for his country, facing and fighting the enemy. Lieut. Lindsay also made the great sacrifice. His mother, a noble woman, also gave three sons for the good cause, one of whom died in defence of those principles which we all eherish. I am proud to say that one other son gained distinction on the field of battle, Col. W. B. Lindsay. Another widow in my county, Mrs. McColl, gave two noble, stalwart sons, who themselves gave theit lives for Canada in that great battle which the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) scf feelingly described to-day. And these are only a few of those who have brought honour to my county and honour to Canada. It is only fair that I should mention some of their names. Col. Lindsay, I have spoken of. Major Chesham, Chapman, of Ailsa Craig,. Bolton, Degroat, and Pedden were all seriously wounded in the defence of liberty, but their courage was such that they returned again to close with the enemy. In passing, may I mention to the House a little Temark that was made to me which showed the contempt of the Canadian Tommy for the German. This man
of whom I speak had been wounded. I ipet him on the street and asked him about his wound, and he said:	"Yes, I was
wounded, but theise Germans are no good." I asked him: "What were you doing when you were wounded?" He said: "Carrying His Majesty's mails from place to place, and they were throwing up flares and I was forty-five minutes in making my round. Every time they threw up a flare I threw myself on the road, as it was too muddy to use a motorcycle. They were shooting at me with machine guns for forty-five minutes, and they only struck me four times!" I would have thought that was quite often enough to be struck, but the pluck of that man was so great that he has gone back to the firing line. Major General Currie came from my county; he has been honoured by the King and by the President of France. We have others, such as Major Leonard, Officers Weir, McGugan (the son of a former member of this House), Scandre'll-these all received recognition for distinguished services. Others have received mention in despatches, such as Malcolm Cuddy. Altogether I think I have a right to be proud of the showing of the good county of Middlesex, because I believe it typifies the showing of every other county in Canada.
In addition to the taxes that this Government are placing on the people of Canada, our people are voluntarily giving of their blood and of their treasure; and just here I want to mention my county again. Only a short time ago the county council of the county of Middlesex gave to the patriotic fund a monthly grant of $6,000 [DOT]for the next year, in other words $72,000. Then every township, town, hamlet and village in Middlesex has in that way, by money grants as well as by giving its sons, shown its generosity and its willingness to give of their means to protect this country. The people of Canada to-day are not afraid of any just burden; the great danger is not that we shall not be able to bear the burden, but that wastefulness and extravagance shall so sap our strength that we shall fail in our effort to do so. That is the great fear in the hearts of the Canadian people to-day.
I charge the Government that, in the first place, they have shown lack of initiative. They have shown lack of initiative in regard to rural credits and in regard to the manufacture of munitions. It is my contention that the munitions factories of this country should have been taken over

or established by the Government long ago, as has been done in England; that these big shops should have been placed at the disposal of the Government so that munitions could have been made there, thus securing a lower price. The Government have shown a lack of initiative also in regard to protecting the great agricultural industry of which we hear so much from gentlemen on the other side of the House. They have shown great lack of initiative in dealing with the horse trade of this country. The Finance Minister expressed great solicitude for the agricultural interests of this country; but in all the Government have done since the war broke out there has been nothing to help the agricultural interests. Take the great horse industry of Canada,-and we all acknowledge that there are not better horses produced in any country in the world than in this land- what was done? The Government were very solicitous about the munitions manufacturers. They could not do too much for them. The Premier guaranteed that they would be protected from loss. They were given immense profits and helped in every way. Ships were commandeered to take their products across the sea. But what happened to the horse producers? First, an embargo was placed on the export of horses so that no horses suitable for artillery or cavalry purposes could be sent across the line. In the second place, an arrangement was made whereby the Allies should not buy horses in Canada but should confine their operations to other countries. In the next place, horses were bought in Canada in such small numbers that no advantage accrued to the farmers. What happened? Since the war broke out, if	the evidence	before	theDavidson	Commission is true,	the
farmers of Canada have sold for purposes of war about 27,000 horses. For these they have received about $4,000,000 or $5,000,000. On the other hand, the farmers of the great republic to the south have sold to Great Britain horses to the value of $60,000,000, and to the other Allies horses to the value of $140,000,000. In that way, whilst this country has derived an advantage from the sale of horses to the extent of about $4,000,000 or $5,000,000, the republic to the south has been advantaged to the extent of $200,000,000. What happens? In my part of the country, in the county of Middlesex, the farmers are grumbling, and rightfully. They are helping in every way to carry on the war, but they cannot get rid of their product. Their industry is not encouraged 
or developed. On every farm of 100 acres in Middlesex, for the past year, I think I am safe in saying, there have been from one to three horses fit for military purposes eating their heads off. In this matter the Government have shown lack of initiative. In fact, I do not know in what respect the Government has shown any initiative except in creating civil servants-and knightly personages. In those two things they have shown great initiative, but in no other. Extravagance is the great sin of this Government. In the first place, in munitions they have squandered thousands and millions of money. In the second place, they have in the post office a deficit of nearly three millions, whereas under the Liberal regime that department had an average surplus of $700,000. They ' have appointed civil servants in great numbers, and so have depleted the funds of the treasury of this country. To-day we find in the Estimates brought down by the Prime Minister items amounting to millions, which the Prime Minister himself says he does not intend to spend. I cannot speak in too strong terms of reprobation of the conduct of the Government in this respect. I say that if the Government does not intend to spend these moneys they should be wiped out of the Estimates. We are supposed not to Ibe playing politics in this Parliament at this time, but to be acting patriotism; and these amounts put in the Estimates are only put there, it appears to me, for the purposes of dangling wholesale bribes, if the word is not too strong, before the constituencies, in which these buildings are intended to be built. The Public Works Department has gone beyond all bounds. In 1910-11, the last year of the Liberal regime, we spent $11,000,000, if I remember correctly, in connection with the whole Department of Public Works. In 1914, the Minister of Public Works spent $11,000,000 in public buildings alone, as much as the Government of my hon. leader spent in the last year of his Administration in the whole Department of Public Works, and in 1914-15 there were eight months of war, during which many public works were not being carried on.	[DOT]
I have tried to avoid dealing with any subject in a partisati way. I may have failed, but I have tried to avoid criticism that . might not look like honest, earnest criticism, or such as wouM tend to party advantage. Personally, I agree with that sturdy old Scottish iron founder, who

described the man who tried to make money-out of his country's agony as a traitor, and any man, or body of men who indulge in unfair or partisan criticism and try to make party advantage, either for the Government or against it, are equally guilty of treason to the State. But that does not mean that a Government, no matter what its record may be, shall be subject to no criticism with regard to administrative or military affairs. No criticism might be more treacherous and dangerous to the State than party criticism.


Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. gentleman permit an interruption with regard to something which he has just said? He stated that this Government had made an arrangement with the Allied Governments not to buy horses in Canada. That is distinctly not the fact. I would like the hon. gentleman to give his authority for that statement.


James Hamilton Ross: At any rate, the results have been the same. They have not bought horses in Canada, and if the good offices of this Government had been exerted as industriously in the interests of the agricultural population and of the horse breeders of this country as they were on behalf of other interests, the Allies might have been induced to buy horses in this country. Maybe I am wrong, and maybe I am right.


Arthur Meighen: The correspondence will show that the hon. member is wrong, if he will ask for it.


James Hamilton Ross: I would like to see it brought down. Mr. Elihu Root made a speech the other day which I commend to every member of this House, and in which he used these words:
There comes a time in the lives of men, as of nations, when to treat wrong as if it were right is treason to the right.
To deprive any one in this House of his right to honest criticism would be to deprive this House of :the very purpose for which it was constituted, and to make it a burden, not a benefit, to the people. When we meet here it is not our duty to sit silent and close our eyes to matters of grave import, especially if those matters are inimical to the State and may lead to its disgrace or its destruction. In such a case he who would withhold just, fearless, and honest criticism would be a traitor to his country. In times of peace, Sir, when the State is prospering and flourishing, and is under no pressure, we may at timesthough we should not even then-overlook little sores and ulcers in the body politic; but when the life of the State is at stake, when its very existence is being tried by the fearful arbitrament of war, we should not tolerate these things for a moment Itest they fester and spread, and leave the State so weakened that she cannot defend and preserve herself.
David Lloyd George has said that this world war will be won by the nation having the most silver bullets, and making the best use of them. No man is in a better position than he to know what is the vital factor for victory. The Government of Great Britain evidently think the same, for they are advising their people to make every possible economy, to forego all luxuries, to use only those things in the nature of food and clothing which are produced within the Isles themselves. Such being the case, the matter of economy in public and private expenditure is one of the most vital questions for this House to consider, and members of this House, on whatever side they may be, who do not criticise this Government for any departure from the most rigid economy are not doing their duty to those they represent. It is as much the duty of an honourable member to your right, Mr. Speaker, particularly at this time, to condemn wrong-doing, or wastefulness, or extravagance, as it is for a member to your left to do so, and to find a remedy for the same if they exist. By not doing so he may be true to his party, but he is false to himself and to his country. So far, I have not seen an hon. member opposite, except, perhaps, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who spoke of the dangers ot party shibboleths and party patronage, rise in his place to criticise this Government. Whenever hon. members opposite do rise, it is always to commend it. Are we therefore to presume, Sir, that this Government is considered perfect and infallible, or are we to draw the other deduction, that even when our life as a nation, and our liberty as a people, are at stake, there is no man among the members of the great Conservative party fearless enough, or thoughtful enough, to disenthrall himself from his party fetters, and say boldly: I stand for my country, not for the selfish interest of any party.
Mr. Speaker, no one can conscientiously deny that, even had the times been times of peace, the Government has been grossly extravagant, and it is alleged by many

thoughtful and patriotic Canadians, not all Liberals, that there is too light a characterization of its conduct. After listening to the masterly non-partisan and fair arraignment of its administration by the junior member for Halifax, this conclusion must have been borne in upon the mind of every hon. gentleman who heard him. From that arraignment, and from events which have transpired, another conclusion must also have been arrived at, and that is, that whatever extravagance and wastefulness and wrong doing there may have been, however dangerous they were to the State, they were the result of our party slavery and patronage system. If we do not destroy this monster, it will eventually destroy this country, or at best, it will ruin its progress and development and make the name of Canada a by-word in the Empire and throughout the world.
In this respect I think it is right for me to refer to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said the other night, and I wish to say that I agree with every word of it. He said:
Now, as to patronage, I have been thirty-four years in public life; I have been a pretty close student of political parties and political history
in this country, and I have simply this to say___
I give it as my individual opinion-I have long felt it and I feel it now that in the whole course of my political life I cannot point to a single instance where political patronage ever helped the status of the bench, ever helped the status of the Civil Service, ever helped economy in administration or enhanced the status of public administrators, no matter what functions they performed, ever helped a member of Parliament in reality, ever helped a Government in reality; it almost always causes the dry rot and disintegration that break up government after government and party after party, and I wish now, in the white heat and light of this great contest and struggle and the self-sacrifice 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 X 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 baneful effect of political party patronage.
To-day, party patronage and slavery to party are decreasing our power and efficiency in the great war of liberation. It is a curse in times of peace and a curse and a crime in times of war. It saps our lifeblood, it destroys our unity as a nation out-TMr Ross.]
side this House and in it, and there is no good in it as a compensation. There never was a better time to destroy it; the people are united as they never were for one purpose and one purpose alone, and every other object interfering with that one purpose fades into insignificance. They are ripe for any change that will put the state before the party, and, if the leaders will only point the way and give the guidance, they will follow.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister at this time is the chosen leader of the people. They look to him for guidance and real leadership in this matter, and they look to his opponents to support him in any efforts he may make with an eye to rid us of this monster and win this war, and in their expectation, Sir, I feel that the Opposition and its leaders will not disappoint them.
It may be presumption on my part as one of the younger members of this House, but I say this to the premier, as one who has followed his public career with great interest, while not approving, but himself disapproving, of many things he has done since he attained office, that, as the premier of the Canadian nation, he is no longer playing a minor part in some comedy or melodrama on some provincial or colonial stage. Events have carried him, and all of us, far beyond that. Thanks to the genius, statesmanship and foresight of my beloved leader, we have felt for some time, and we feel to-day the throb of nationhood. Are we, as members of this House, and is the premier as its leader, marching with events?
To-day, all the world's his stage, his audience humanity. He is no longer playing a minor part, but has one of the leading roles in the greatest tragedy ever staged for the world. Each of us has his lesser part to play. Will the Prime Minister rise to the height of the great argument? Will he act the part Canada has entrusted to him in a manner worthy of her and of the Empire? Will we each do our lesser part? Will he, at this.crisis in our history, rid his councils of any man, if such exist, who has not an eye single for the service of the state, and call to his [DOT]councils those alone seeking to serve the nation and the great cause of humanity, and not themselves or their party or their friends? Will he guard the public treasury as a most sacred trust, upon which the very life of the nation may depend?
Destiny has been kind to the Prime Minister even if she has burdened him with responsibilities such as none of his

predecessors were called upon to bear. But responsibilities such as his, efficiently and honourably borne, insures not only the satisfaction of looking upon duties well done, but honour and fame and a lasting place in the memory of the Canadian people and of the whole Empire. No statesman in this land has ever been given such an opportunity to make his name forever as sweet to his people as that of Lincoln to his countrymen. If he will seize the passing opportunity he may, in the Empire's progress, as Tennyson beautifully puts it,
Live to clutch the golden keys,
To mould a mighty state's decrees And shape the whisper of the throne;
And, mounting up from high to higher, Become, on fortune's crowning slope.
The pillar of a people's hope,
The centre of the world's desire.
No one On this side of the House will envy him his glory so attained, but rather is it my belief that if he will just lend himself to the task, every member of this House, irrespective of the past, and the whole Canadian people, will support him with all their heart and soul.
Why, Mr. Speaker, can these things not be so in Canada? Are we never to arise above the muck and mire and mud of politics? Are we always going to be all for the party and none for the state? Are we going to allow the little things of self and party to eclipse the immense things of the nation and the Empire? In this House to-day we are under the surveillance not only of the Canadian people but of the Empire and the world as we have never been before. It is expected of us as men and as parties that we will measure up to the greatness of the occasion and not down to the smallness of party strife, or manipulation, or administration, for party advantage. If we fail I believe the temper of the Canadian people is such, and rightly so, that they will choose new men and new parties to guide their destinies and that a great, radical reform party will arise in this land to give the people what they desire and what they deserve.
In this House we are not lesser than the breeds from which we sprang. We enjoy the same free institutions, we possess the same ideals, we are inspired by the same determination to preserve the freedom and civilization of the world, and to-day our unity is accentuated by having everything that we prize threatened by a common danger. In Canada we are two II p.m. races united for the present and for the future, I believe, as never before. We have two motherlands.
As the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) so truly said m a speech in Toronto, we have the motherland of France and the motherland of Britain; France gave us life, Britain gave us liberty. Today, with us, they are struggling to preserve that life and liberty and they are teaching us how best to do it. Britain is still the mother of freedom. In Britain, party strife, although never so bitter as immediately before the war, is hushed in the land. The leaders of opposing factions united by common ideals and purposes and threatened by a common danger, have clasped hands and, as Abraham said to Lot, in olden times, Mr. Asquith has said to Mr. Balfour: "Let there be no strife,
I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen; for we be brethren." This action has inspired the people with the same sentiment and Britain is united as never before. Faction has been unable to gather strength in that land. Her sons, gentle and simple, rich and poor, prince and peasant, inspired by her statesmen, are coming forward in millions to fight for liberty, and her daughters are making heroic sacrifices beyond any precedent. Her sailors are taking care that she is still encompassed by the inviolate sea.
As for France, she is the wonder, the marvel, and the admiration of the world. Her statesmen are united, her people have but one thought, the sacrifice of everything they possess, if necessary, for the preservation of her liberty and integrity. She is no longer the gay, frivolous pleasure-loving France of our imagination. She has found her true soul, a new soul, a soul greater than she ever had. She has become inspired, glorified, transfigured. The whole world salutes her with reverence. As the editor of the Providence Journal said, she is fighting wfth the sword of freedom in her hand and the light of God in her face. Every daughter has become a Joan of Arc and every son a Roland, sans peur, sans reproche. She is the first republic of the world and from the ashes of Louvain and Rheims and the peasant homes of France like the fabled bird, there will arise a new France, a greater France, a better France to enrich the ages.
With Britain and the Allies she is fighting for her life, but also for the world's freedom. Over a hundred years ago her peasants fought to wrest for the individual from a kingly and autocratic despotism within her own borders, the blessings of equality, liberty and fraternity, and to-day

they are fighting a nobler fight to wrest from a foreign despot, for nations great and small, the blessing of equality, liberty and fraternity. France made possible the life of other republics who forget her when her life is endangered because they are too mercenary, or too selfish, or too proud, to fight for liberty. France will be remembered for her chivalry and nobility when their wealth cannot save them from scorn.
Mr. Speaker, these are our motherlands -France and Britain. We of British extraction, you of French, all Canadians, can proudly say with the Scottish singer: A dear old land is the Motherland. They are giving us grand examples of unity, of harmony, of self-sacrifice, of patriotism. They are worthy of emulation. They are worth fighting for, worth dying for. Let us measure up to these standards in this House and out of it and make the name " Canadian " one that will live forever.


Mr. A. BELLEMARE (Maskinonge):: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, every hour, events, both in Canada and Europe, take on a more serious turn. More than ever since the beginning of the crisis in which the Empire is struggling, the increasing hugeness of the conflict obtrudes itself on our minds.
The situation, even as .regards our country, is becoming more tense.
In August, 1914* at the time of the declaration of war, all of us, in a common accord and led on by a like enthusiasm, have realized, without any other incentive but our loyalty to the Empire, that Canada was in honour bound to participate, to the extent of its resources, in the great struggle into which the Empire had just been drawn for the sake of its own preservation and the defence of civilization, threatened by a nation scorning its solemn engagements.
At that time, the world did not dream that in a few months the portentous struggle would reach such stupendous proportions. The worst pessimists could not but predict that the conflict would be of short duration; unhappily, those predictions turned out too sanguine and notwithstanding the successes of the Allies, interspersed, it must be admitted, , with a few reverses, and notwithstanding that the final victory is certain, a guess as to the probable termination of hostilities, becomes increasingly hazardous.
Until now, the Allies, although labouring *sometimes under a considerable disadvantage, sometimes have had the best of the struggle, but after long months of unrelenting endeavours, we, are now more convinced than at any time since the opening 
of hostilities) that the triumph of the cause to which the Empire is giving the best of its resources in men and money, depends solely on the perseverance of all citizens in [DOT]their devotion and sacrifices. Canada, I must say, has nobly and unsparingly answered the call. Our contribution to the defence of the Empire has been more than generous. The Government, anxious to meet its obligations to Great Britain, without nevertheless derogating from the traditions of the past, has opened its coffers to help the cause of civilization. That those sacrifices have not been in vain, the proof is wafted over to us from the battlefields of France where our valiant soldiers have won distinction, and the proof will again come out evident and eloquent later, on the day of victory, when we shall be proud of having helped in the final triumph, and take glory in the share we are now bearing of the present exceptional burden.
I say exceptional advisedly, because, so long as Canada was not threatened in its existence, there was room for difference of opinion regarding its obligations towards Great Britain. But in this war, as a matter of fact, there is no question of a crisis concerning one part only of the Empire, and, it cannot be denied, the cause of the Allies is not only the cause of the European powers directly at war, but Canada itself, notwithstanding its apparent safety, is nevertheless in danger. Like Belgium, whose automony seemed at first absolutely guaranteed by .solemn treaties, we are not allowed to think of the future without some apprehension, especially with enemies such .as we are contending with. We may from them expect anything, and the events of the last two years, and the happenings of recent date amongst us give us cause to dread.
The present war is not, as would be thought by some, a European war, it is a universal struggle, in which all nations, including Canada are interested.
The events of the last year in Europe have developed into a situation of such gravity that those of us, who had been opposed to Canada's participation in Imperial wars, although at the time absolutely sincere in their opinion, are driven by the present turn of events, to acknowledge the changed conditions and alter their views on the subject.


Many MEMBERS:: On the subject, hear, hear.


Adélard Bellemare: I take the greater
credit for it, because in 1896, the Liberals who attacked the purchase of rifles by the
/

Government of Sir Charles Tupper, have changed their minds, and if we, independent politicians, follow their example, how can we be blamed? I still uphold the fundamental principle of national autonomy, but I cannot but tolerate in the circumstances the policy the present Government has hereto followed. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I would make a reserve. As I was saying a moment ago, Canada, as other countries, must look forward to the future, and if there is found to be danger, as seems to be the fact, is not now the time, before it may be too late, to think of our own security? Should Canada be attacked it is hfu'd to state the precise developments that would bring about such an occurrence, but as it is among possible events are we, after the enormous sacrifices in men and money we have been making to this day, in a position to successfully defend our territory?.
I do not thereby mean that we should completely stay those measures now being taken, but I particularly commend to the attention of the Government that in our decisions there be kept in view the safety of our own immediate interests. To this date, millions have been spent to come to the help of the Mother Country and the Allies, but led on by the burst of enthusiasm and generosity which in this war animates its citizens, Canada must not forget its own national security.


Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Laprairie-Napier-ville):: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I was
much interested in the addresses delivered in this House following the Budget *Speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance. Before adding my own remarks on the subject, 1 must first tell yotf, Mr. Speaker, what I think of the war expenditure.
I <am of the same mind as last year, and I am at a loss to know where the Government is leading this country with the present expenditure, which has overstepped all bounds and control.
So as to ward off all misunderstanding, I shall quote what I stated in this House on the 9th of March, 1915, as reported, page 804 of Hansard:-
It was with satisfaction that personally I voted the $50,000,000 required to defray the contribution which we deemed it proper that a country such as ours ought to vote.
But, Mr. Speaker, I believe that such help ought to be proportionate to our resources and that we have no right to indulge in inconsiderate and uncontrolled expenditure. The help which a son is bound to give his father should be proportionate to his own resources and ito the needs of his parent, and if we must accept that proposition as being absolutely logical and reasonable, we must also infer that we have now greatly exceeded the limit of our obligations.
Let us calmly look into the situation, keeping in view solely the performance' of our duty as representatives of the people.
It is-universally conceded that England has all [DOT] the money she wants. We know through the Minister of Finance himself that we go to England to obtain the very moneys that have been appropriated for our war expenses. Is not that sufficient evidence that, instead of fulfilling an obligation, we have on the contrary imposed upon ourselves an immense sacrifice.
In view of the present financial situation in England and in our own country, is it not evident that our sentiments of loyalty and the deep indignation felt at the atrocities committed by those blood-thirsty Germans, have been the sole motives of our spontaneous participation?
But, Mr. Speaker, I ask this House, are we then justified in driving the country into bankruptcy? iNot so, unless it may be shown that our participation to the full is the only guarantee of the certain success of the Allies. And as a member of this House is expected fully to speak his mind, let me say right here that the interest we have in this war, however great it may be, is far from being equal to the interest of England or the other independent nations engaged. We are only a self-governing colony, and we have no war to wage here for the conservation of our sovereignty, as have other nations; and that makes an enormous difference. If we were to follow the dictates of certain visionaries, we should exhaust^ nay, we should already have exhausted at this moment our resources in men and money, and, say I, under what circumstances?
Since the last session, things have gone much worse. During recess, the Government has decided to increase our forces to 150,000 men, then to 250,000 and on ithe 2nd of January last, the Prime Minister, confined in his room by sickness, threw out that stunning news of an army of 500,000 men.
Why not have waited to the 12th of January, on the opening of Parliament, to lay before the House that ridiculous project?
In bringing the 'Canadian effective to 500,000 men, the Government puts us on an equal footing with European nations, leaving out of count the foreign nationalities among our population.
The Prime Minister, in his address on the Speech from the Throne, has declared to the House that the Canadians had saved the Empire at the battle of Langemarek.
So, it is, Mr. Speaker. Our soldiers have been mowed down as by a scythe, on account of our inferior arms 'and supplies and the large number of German guns and munitions of all kinds.
I maintain therefore that it was nothing less than a crime to thrast our soldiers into battle without weapons and supplies.
Mr. Speaker, I denounce with all the energy I can command, all that waste of men and money.

First of all, the request has never been made by England for sacrifices of that *magnitude; she knew that 'it was beyond our power.
Will you not acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that we could have rendered more yeoman service, a hundred-fold more so, to the Allies, by commandeering all our workshops to the making of munitions, and by getting the Government shops to manufacture shells at cost price? Valuable help would thereby have been given the cause.
The Westminster Gazette, during the month of January, 1915, had the following:-
We are told that Canada desires to carry its contribution in men to 1<50,000 before next fall, should that number be required. It is needless to say that we do not believe such a sacrifice will ever be required from the Dominion. We fully acknowledge that Canada will be with us in the present war to the extreme limit of its resources. But we hope that the recruiting now going on in England will suffice and that we shall never be obliged to make such a call on Canada. We must not forget that what is required from Canada during the present conflict is twofold service. That country must remain the granary of the Empire and if we are to achieve success in this war, the men working in the Canadian fields will help us to that victory just as effectively as those who expose themselves to the fire of the enemy.
Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly aware that the newspapers of the country, Grit and Tory, will denounce me to-mor.row for the stand I now take on the question of our participation in the war, I realize that the yellow papers of Ontario will report my words. I am quite willing they should do so, what I say expresses my own personal opinion.
If my party was in power, and my parity was guilty of such absurdities, I should attack my party with all the >sfre.nuousne&s.
I could muster.
The Ontario papers have spread the report that the Prench-Canadians were not performing their duty, that they did not enlist m sufficient numbers. I am of a contrary opinion. To my mind, their enlistment is too great for the treatment they receive at the hands of the majority.
In Ontario, the French-speaking element are deprived of the rights which were granted them by the Fathers of Confederation in 1867 in an agreement acquiesced in by the different groups which then inhabited the country. The clear intention *was that the French language was to be on an equal footing with the English language, and yet what sight are we given to witness around our French schools in this very capital city of Canada. Are we not refused the liberty of teaching our children the language they learned on their mother's 
knee, a right guaranteed to French-Can-adians by the Fathers of Confederation.
I take pleasure in congratulating the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) on the address he delivered this afternoon. I see that during his sojourn in France he has learned to appreciate the French race and the French-Canadians. Should he return, I should suggest that he bring along with him the Prime Minister of Ontario, Mr. Hearst, his colleagues, and many of the members of this House, in order that they may get an opportunity of finding out the real worth of Frenchmen. When they return, it is safe to say that they will no more insist on the children of such a glorious race being forbidden to learn their mother tongue in French-Canadian schools.
The war unfortunately is being waged in Europe since the third of August, 1914. Let us examine rapidly the relative position of both sides, both in men and resources. The Allies, I find, have an aggregate population of over 300,000,000, and greater resources than the enemy. Such being the case, why should the Canadian people be driven to the verge of bankruptcy by its Government in order that soldiers be sent to fight for the Allies, when it has been proved that what was wanting was not men but war supplies.
Let us compare our situation with Great Britain's. The latter, according to the statements made by Lloyd George in the British House of Commons, has enough funds invested in foreign lands to enable it to continue the war during the next four years.
We, on the other hand, are yearly paying as interesting to England $150,000,000, and $50,000,000 to the United States, and we still must go on borrowing hundreds of millions more if the war last another year or more. If after the war, this country should be called upon to pay the expenditure, three-quarters of our people will be bankrupt.
I read the other day the interview given certain New York newspapermen by the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol). He claims there are now 150,000 Canadians in the trenches at the front and 1,350,000 British. There are in these figures a great discrepancy with the declarations made by the right hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Militia, in the course of their discussion on the address in reply. These gentlemen stated that we had at the front 50,000 men only. That leads me to conclude that if Mr. FEBRUARY 22, 1916
Bristol has made a mistake of two-thirds regarding the number of the Canadian soldiers, he must have made a proportionate error in his estimate of the British forces.
Let us now examine what obligations we have incurred since the beginning of the -war. Those obligations, I fear, will exceed our resources should the war last much longer, as seems to be pointed out unfortunately by present indications.
As a matter of fact, our soldiers are paid $1.10 per day while England only pays them a shilling, and the French -soldier receives only five -cents,a day. We moreover pay twenty dollars a month to the soldier's family, which means that 500,000 men cost more to Canada than 2,000,000 to England. Again I say, 'it is an insensate policy to which the people of this -country are absolutely opposed.
Our newspapers almost unanimously advocate recruiting. Havetho.se Empire-saviours set an example by enlisting first? No, Mr. Speaker, they take good care not to display their patriotism in that manner. But we understand from what source springs all this devotion, paid by the Government at so much a line. Newspapers wiill publish any story for money-and you know the saying, M-r. Speaker: Lie, lie anyway; some of it is hound to stick. But, Mr. Speaker, the people of this country are wise to the patriotism of the great dailies; and s-ooneT or later, a day of retribution will dawn, and the people who are good judges, will punish as they deserve all those who would save the Empire-for money.
I now should make a few remarks on the speech of my friend, the hon. -the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Patenaude), delivered in this House on the 2nd of February.
The hon. minister alluded to addresses *which, he states, were delivered by the hon. member for Teiniscouata (Mr. Gauvreau) and Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) in their respective -counties some time last year. He likewise quoted from Le Soir a newspaper published at Montreal at the time of the general elections in 1896, and from the Electeur, the official organ of the liberal party in the province of Quebec, where the main question discussed was Desjardins rifles, Desjardins then being Minister of Militia in the Cabinet of Sir Charles Tup-per. Among other things, Le Soir stated:-
Why light for England?
The e-lector-s will have to keep in mind that -those big and great leaders who are always so anxious to appear greater patriots than the rest of us, more loyal and eager to -send us to war for another country's benefit, are not those who will be called upon to bear -the burden.
Those rifles, those guns, it will be -the electors who will handle them. They see -in you good gun targets. The Tupers, Angers, Taillons will sit quietly in their office at the department, whence -they will despatch you to your doom.
Lower down:-
Your sons will be sent to Africa or Asia, never -to return.
That quotation is found at page 542 of the 1896 un-revised edition of Hansard. Twenty years have since elapsed, and the hon. minister could have, meseems, spoken of the happenings of 1910 and 1911. He dared not. Well, I shall supply the omission, which I suppose, he has made unintentionally. In the month of September 1910, addressing a large meeting at St. Re-mi, the -hon. the minister was then neither honourable nor minister. Mr. Patenaude declared among other things that Laurier had sacrificed Canada to secure titles and honours, and added that Borden was following in the same path. Needless to add that he has denied his leader many times during 1910 and 1911.
The elections of the 21st of September came about. Everything was peaceful. The minister's soul was peaceful. But, a few months later, the cock crowded again beside the Minister of Inland Revenue. On that day he was -called on to deny not his leader but the master of his leader, that is the people. He lost no time, and the diminutive St. Peter was consecrated party organizer for the district of Montreal.
No more have you heard the voice of the hon. the minister throughout our counties clamouring that the proposed navy or the intended contribution to the Imperial navy ought to be laid before the people. The offer of three dreadnoughts was before the House in 1913. The hon. the minister did not say that they amounted to more than the real estate assessment of the counties of Laprairie, Napierville. Not so, Mr. Speaker; during the election of 1911, the hon. the minister warned the people of Laprairie-Napierville that the navy would be Canadian in times of peace but Imperial in times of war, and he quoted the Hon. W. S. Fielding, who had stated in this House that our navy could be put at the disposal of the Admiralty in case of need. You must learn, that the minister was very shy of cannon shots at the' time. His nerves have improved. It was then a terrible sight, that of our sons being put aboard vessels to be sent to China or Japan to fight for England's sake.
I never could understand why a difference was made between [DOT] the net and the gross

debt. It is well known that in the amount deducted from the gross debt, there are certain sums which have been loaned to railway companies, and which those companies have never paid back and never intend to make good.
However, another year of this war, and the gross debt will be $1,200,000,000 and the net debt $850,000,000. We will besides have to settle with England for our share of the expenditure for guns, munitions, etc. The figure will be a good round one, because shells have been expensive in this country. What the amount will be, I cannot forecast, but at its lowest figure it must he estimated at $100,000,000.
Since the August session of 1914, the Minister of Finance has, on three occasions, imposed on the country taxes aggregating at the least to $75,000,000, over and above the taxes with which the people were burdened in 1911.
This year, the revenue is considerable, on account of those new taxes. There must be. taken into account that the soldiers* pay, their pensions, the monthly allowances to their families, increase the buying power of the population. A large number of workmen, moreover, get employment in the manufacture of all kinds of war supplies.
But once the war over, our high-paid workmen will be without salary; the soldiers now in training in various parts of the country will be sent back home. I do not think that I am imposing on this House in stating that the closing up of those two sources alone will result in a decrease in .the actual purchasing power by over $1,000,000 a day. We shall have to pay pensions to our invalids, our widows and our orphans. What will this item aggregate? I cannot say, but if the war endures for a year or more the amount will be considerable. 'The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. iCarvell) placed the figure at about $30,000,000. The interest on the debt will add .at least another $50,000,000; to which if you add a sinking fund to cover those three items, the amount will not be far from $100,000,000. Then, the Civil Service expenditure will have to go on, so that, during the years following on the war, we will not be able to put both ends together for those purposes alone.
Since the month of August, 1914, the hon. the Minister of Finance has imposed additional taxes amounting to at least $75,000,000 over and above what the people had to pay in 1911. Those taxes always fall on the shoulders of the common people, whatever may state the Government organs. The last

articles to be taxed are apples, petroleum, and the profits of manufacturers. Let us examine that taxation. The tax on the profits of industry and trade is the introduction of a revenue tax. If the war keeps on longer and if the Government puts into effect its proposal to raise 500,000 troops, every shred of income r^ill be taxed within the next two years.
%
We need not for a moment put any stock in the declaration of the minister to the effect that this tax will end in August, 1917. My opinion, on the contrary, is that it will be renewed after that date and even increased. The .consumer it .is who will have to pay the tax; the manufacturer will lower the salaries and increase the price of his merchandise to .an equal extent, and the people will pay over one-quarter of what the manufacturer will turn over to the Government.
That tax seems to me unfair to a manufacturer wtho acts in good faith. iSuipipose a company that had a capital of '$100,000 fully paid and doing a successful business. Will not that company, Mr. Speaker, have to pay more to the Government than another company commencing business with an equal capital, but who found *the means of watering it up to $400,000? fhhat last one declares a dividend of 5 per cent on all its paid-up capital and its water stock. The new law does not affect it. If the other company realizes similar profits, namely 20 per cent on $100,000 of paid-up capital, it will retain only 7 per cent free of tax and the other 13 per cent will have to pay a tax of one-quarter. The law as it is appears quite unfair for the manufacturer in good faith and gross injustices will result. I fail to grasp why the minister has made such a slight distinction between the tax on ordinary manufacturers and that on shell producers, 7 per cent on the first and 10 per cent on the mushroom variety.
What strikes me most in all this is the discontent which that tax is raising among the manufacturers. Yet those very gentlemen mostly all favoured sending the first man and the last dollar to save the Empire.
The famous Ballantyne incident at Montreal is well-known. That gentleman, in the course of a speech at a recruiting meeting, held that all manufacturers ought to discharge their unmarried men who did not enlist voluntarily. Many have discharged their unmarried employees to force them to enlist. I have yet to hear that those big heads, those Empire-saviours, have pointed

the way by themselves enlisting; yet now that the Minister of Finance asks them to .contribute twenty-five per cent over a reasonable profit of' 7 per cent and 10 ,per cent, they are dumb as to the needs of the Empire; their chief care is to make money *like other mortals, maintain the war to sell off their supplies, and begin again after the war, like the celebrated Krupp Company, .in Germany.	'
As for me, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to those excessive taxes. I say that we had no right to saddle the country with a war expenditure above its capacity. Future generations, who will administer the public weal, will say, and truly so, that the politicians of 1914, 1915, 1916 and 1917 have driven the country to bankruptcy; that .their pretense at saving the Empire was but a bluff; that their real ambition was to enrich a large number of their friends and swell the electoral funds of the Tory party.
I like a game of bluff, on a green cloth, not in the House. Parliament is no place wherein to play political bluff. [DOT]
I have but a few remarks to add with respect to hay. I have always found it strange that the Agricultural Department should have seen fit to place the hay-presses on the wharves in Montreal. I think, Mr. Speaker, there is no common sense in that. The hay should be pressed on the farm. As early as the month of September, 1914, the Government awarded James McDonald a contract to re-press that hay in small bales at $4.95 a ton. If I am rightly informed, the same James McDonald, of Montreal, had secured a contract for many thousands of tons of hay at $18 a ton for Nos. 2 and 3. What was the result, Mr. Speaker? In October, 1914, there were in the railway yards not less than 2,000 cars of hay. That is, there was enough for two months ahead, with the result that a large number of smaller dealers were ruined, hay was refused in large quantities, repurchased by associates of McDonald, put in shed No. 16 on the wharves, and, if I am rightly informed, paid $10 to $12 to those dealers. There was besides deducted from that price demurrage on each car, amounting in certain cases, to ten, fifteen, twenty and thirty dollars each car. That demurrage was charged to the dealers, so that they suffered to the extent of thirty, forty, and fifty1 dollars per car. Besides that, Mr. Speaker, many of those dealers found a shortage on some of their cars of twenty, thirty and forty bales, which meant a difference of, one, two or three tons per car. I am told further that a certain inspector used to send carloads of hay that had been rejected to a friend in his village, and I suppose that some time later, the same hay, loaded on another car, was sent again to the Department of Agriculture at Montreal.
I have a case of my own. During the month of October, I sold ten carloads of hay to a hay dealer, who had a contract with the department. That hay was shipped in the name of the dealer. It had been agreed between us that in the case of any hay being rejected by the inspectors of the department he was to have it carted by the J. B. Baillargeon Express, Limited. That was done. Out of the ten carloads about forty tons were rejected and carted by the Baillargeon Company. I gave instructions to the company to dispose of that hay and during the month of December, Baillargeon sold that hay to another dealer who was supplying the department. The hay was taken from Baillargeon's sheds, and passed the Government inspectors who accepted two-thirds of it. I am thus led to believe that the inspection was lax and must have been an incentive to many dealers to have an inferior quality of hay accepted by the inspectors. If, on the other hand, the department had awarded contracts of two, five and ten thousand tons to serious dealers, the latter, as was done at the time of the Transvaal war, would have installed their presses in the country, where they could have secured the hay from the farmers *without the need of inspectors. Mr. Speaker,
I have been in the hay trade for the last twenty-one years. Needless to say that I have sold large quantities of hay and my sales were always based on the quality of the merchandise, either No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, mixed clover, pure clover or cull, and be sure that when I had sold ten carloads of No. 1 hay, I had without fail to deliver the quality I had sold, otherwise, the hay would have been refused on its arrival where it had been bought. The same may be said of grain which, like hay, is sold according to its quality. In 1899 and 1900, I sold for the Transvaal 6,100 tons of No. 2 hay. There were no inspectors at the place of shipment. In summer, the hay was inspected on the wharves at Montreal by a Government, inspector and in winter, the same thing was done by Government inspectors at St. John/ or Halifax. Out of those 6,100 tons only 1,232 bales of 100 pounds each, were rejected, and the rejected hay was stored in Halifax or St. John under my name. And I must add that I never had met, and what is more, was not acquainted with the inspectors. I am satisfied as to what they have done. ,

Last December, the Government prohibited the export of Canadian hay to the United states. It seems to me the Government should have followed New York's example. It often happens that an embargo is placed on New York, either for Thirty-third street, Brooklyn or Erie. Immediately all the railway companies of the United States and Canada are notified of the embargo and the very same day should we ask for cars for New York our station agents advise us that no cars are to be had on account of the embargo. I fail to see, Mr. Speaker, why the .same was not done toy the Uovern-iment; much trouble would have been saved to the dealers. If I .am rightly informed, about 300 oars loaded with hay were held at the port of entry on account of that embargo. I have myself two cars which were held at St. Alban from twelve to fifteen days, so that I may expect to have to pay from twelve to fifteen dollars a car. However, I shall know my fate when I shall receive my bills of sale of the two carloads. I am of the opinion that some compensation should be given by the Government to all those who have had to pay demurrage on oars on account of the embargo. As a result of the embargo we are deprived of our market for No. 1 hay and the bon. member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Rainville) is as aware of that as I am. At the present time, there is no one to purchase that hay, and the farmers have to hold it until next harvest time, except what may be sold on the local market at Montreal,


Mr. RAINVILLE:: (Translation.) The hon. member knows that last January there was in Eastern Canada, from Ontario to the Maritime Provinces, not more than 55,000 tons of hay to be had, and one hundred thousand tons were 'required for the War Office.


Roch Lanctôt: (Translation.) I know
what we have at home, and I know that we shall have some left over to next August, if we are afforded no other market but Montreal.


Mr. BOULAY:: (Translation.) How much do you sell your hay for now?


Roch Lanctôt: (Translation.) We pay $19 for No. 1 hay and sell it at $20. It must also toe taken into account that the waste which *is being sold is harmful to the trade; many large stables in Montreal, having little to ido, buy that waste at a little over a dollar a ton. I am led to believe that >at least one-quarter of all the horses in Montreal are fed that way. As we. are prevented from selling

our No. 1 hay in the United States, I should suggest that the Department of Agriculture buy our No. 1 hay at the price that it could be sold on the American market, namely $20 a ton, and I feel that this bay at $20 a ton would in the long run be much cheaper than No. 3 hay for which is being paid $18.50 a ton and which certainly is not worth any better than good straw to feed animals.
Mr. Speaker, as it is getting to a late hour, I will take my seat, and leave my remarks to the consideration of this House, believing that they are true and wise.
On motion of Mr. Boulay, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Hon. R. Rogers, the House adjourned at 12 midnight.
Wednesday, February 23, 1916.