1916-02-25

MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER announced that he had received a message from His Royal Highness the Governor General. The message was read to the House as follows:
Arthur.
Gentlemen of the House of Commons:
I have received with great pleasure the Address that you have voted in reply to my Speech at the opening of Parliament and thank you for it sincerely.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. PROULX:: I have been informed that the Minister of Militia contemplates leaving for Europe in a few days. If so, his reason for going must be very important. Has the minister any objection to letting the House and the country know the reason of this proposed trip, as his presence is very much needed in this country now?


Sir SAM HUGHES:: I shall be delighted to give the House and the country all the information with regard to my movements to which they are entitled.



WOODMEN'S REGIMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day: '
Mr. KNOWLES:: Can the Minister of Militia give us any information as to the proposed woodmen's regiment?


Samuel Hughes: This regiment is being organized for the purpose of cutting timber, and is being recruited from among lumbermen in Canada, who are very familiar with the cutting of timber into various lengths and sizes. The freight on timber from North America and other parts to Europe is practically prohibitive now; vessels cannot he obtained to carry it. Timber is being cut in Europe, and these men are going over to cut it.


William Erskine Knowles: Are the announced
officers official?


Samuel Hughes: I have picked out the commanding officer, Colonel Alexander McDougall. I am afraid he is a Liberal, but it is one of my peccadillos-I have a knack of picking these fellows-


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD:: Good men.


Samuel Hughes: Fine men; no trouble about that. Mr. McDougall is a very fine officer. I understand he has selected two

very distinguished members of this House as his seconds in command. He has not yet submitted a list of his officers.



IMMIGRANT WIDOWS AND CHILDREN.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mir.   MTJRPHY@: On Monday last I made an inquiry with reference to a cable despatch to the effect that Commissioner Lamb of the Salvation Army was coming to Canada for the purpose of settling 15,000 dependent widows and children in this country. The Prime Minister then said he had .not heard of the matter, and I sent the despatch over to him. By this morning's Citizen I see that Commissioner Lamb has given an interview at Montreal and practically confirms the statement.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I shall he glad to bring my hon. friend's renewal of the question to the attention of the Prime Minister.



THE FIGHTING IN FRANCE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In view of the reports in the press as to the battle that is now raging in France, I would like to ask the Minister of Militia whether any of the Canadian troops are engaged, or whether the fight has extended to the quarter where they are stationed. Has he any information on the subject?


Samuel Hughes: The fight that is now going on is north and east of Verdun, a very strongly fortified position, perhaps the most strongly fortified position in Europe, except Metz. The latest news is that the French have completely smashed the first attack of the Germans, and that the troops now coming on are reserves, and practically raw recruits. They appear to be hurrying them on in masses, but the French have held a very strong position. In two places, the first line trenches have been broken, but the second line trenches are absolutely intact, and all the accounts agree that there is no danger. The fighting is in the vicinity of the Meuse along a front of about 20 miles, and the Canadian lines are a long distance from that; I need not mention where they are. There have been no infantry attacks on the Canadian lines, but the artillery firing is very heavy. Two generals have been wounded. Brigadier General Macdonell of Winnipeg was wounded rather seriously by shrapnel in the shoulder and in the side, and Brigadier

General Leckie of British Columbia was shot in the thigh. These casualties are supposed to have taken place in the rear of the Canadian position, but they are chances that our men are faking every day. The casualty list is not very heavy. I get a return every night, and there are five killed and eight wounded in last night's list. These are heavy enough, of course, but not serious. The artillery firing, as I have said, is very heavy on our line* and our fellows are giving it back to the enemy in their own coin.



NEW RICHMOND WEST POST OFFICE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the day:
Mr. MARCIL:: I would like to call the
attention of the Postmaster General to the post office at New Richmond West, in my constituency, which has lately been closed owing to the introduction of a rural mail service. This post office has been in existence for sixty years, and near to it is a school attended by 100 children. The institution of the rural mail service does not seem to have been accepted by all the people interested, and I have received copies of a petition, which I understand has also been sent to the minister, signed by a large number of people in that locality. The introduction of the rural mail service has had the effect of depriving those people of the outgoing mail on the same day as they receive the incoming mail-the trains meet at New Richmond-so that the rural mail service is not an improvement in that locality. I will send the minister the letters if he cares to see them, and in view of the facts I have stated, perhaps he might look into the matter and see if the old post office, which has been in existence for over sixty years, could not be re-established.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I would like the hon. gentleman to send me the papers he has.
I may say that the matter is under consideration now.



THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) for the Committee of Ways and Means, resumed from Thursday, February 24.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have formally addressed the House since you were appointed Speaker, and I wish to associate myself with the other members of this -House who have offered you their felicitations on your elevation to that high and honourable position. The other day I had

the privilege of listening to the Budget speech delivered by the hon. Minister of Finance, and also the advantage of reading it afterwards in Hansard, and in my judgment the speech was concise, well arranged, and well delivered. But I thought I detected running through it a note of selfadulation because the hon. minister was not as extravagant in his expenditures this year as he was last year; and he seemed to take considerable satisfaction from that fact. T-here will be expended on ordinary account, or on consolidated fund account, some $10,000,000 less this current year, ending on 31st March next, than on the same account last year. But the hon. minister omitted to say that, on the same account last year, he expended some $48,000,000 more than was expended in 1911, and some $56,000,000 more than was expended in 1910.
The hon. minister compared himself with himself, but I wish to compare him with his predecessor; the hon. minister will not object to that comparison. When the expenditures, to which I have referred, took place in 1910-11, the revenues were abundant, and increasing rapidly. We were at peace with the world, and we did not have to consider anything beyond the development of this country, and beyond providing money for its development. At the present time, as we all know, we are engaged m a terrible crisis, in a world-wide war with a strong, powerful, and relentless enemy, and our resources are being taxed to their utmost. This is a time for economy in every branch of the public service; everybody has to practise economy except the Government. During this time of stress and trial the Minister of Finance, and some of his supporters seem to derive considerable satisfaction from the fact that he is expending even in this year from $35,000,000 to $38,000,000 more than was expended on ordinary account during the last year of the late Administration.
Coming to next year, the year ending March 31, 1917, the hon. Minister of Finance told us that the expenditure on ordinary account would be $135,000,000. I am taking into account the portion that can properly be charged to the war, because it is only fair to take that into account; but allowing for the $20,000,000 that he estimated he would have to pay in interest on account of war loans, and for the $2,000,000 for the pension fund, he would still be expending between $25,000,000 and $30,000,000 beyond what was expended in 1911. Is there any
reason for this? Have public affairs been carried on better; has public business been better attended to; have the needs of the country been better looked after this year? Hardly any man will venture to answer yes to these questions. I have referred to the statement made in the Budget speech, but in the Estimates presented to cne House, the hon. Minister of Finance, and the Government, are asking for some $30,000,000 more.
He is asking for $158,000,000 on Consolidated Fund Account. He has made the statement to the House that they diet not intend to expend between $20,000,000 and $30,000,000 of that money. It appears to me to be a very strange thing indeed for the Government to prepare Estimates and submit them to Parliament when they do not intend to spend the money that they ask for. I do not know whether that is constitutional or not. It seems to me to be trifling with Parliament. There are only two reasons that suggest themselves to me why the Government should pursue that course. The first is that the Minister of Finance has lost control of his colleagues at the head of the large spending departments, if he ever had control, and he is obliged to come to Parliament and say that the Government intend to expend between $23,000,000 and $30,000,000 less than the Estimates in order to protect himself from his colleagues. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) made a speech here the other night in which he advocated economy and declared that the time had arrived when everybody should practise that virtue. He further stated that he did not know whether he should speak along that line or not but he thought his grey beard and thirty-four years' experience gave him the right to speak in that way. I cannot help thinking that he spoke in the wrong place and to the wrong people. He should have addressed an argument of that kind to his colleagues at the Council board. Perhaps he did and perhaps they heeded not and he was appealing from them to Parliament and the country. If that is the case, and if the minister failed to make any impression upon his colleagues in regard to this important matter, his duty to himself and to the country is to leave the Government.
Another reason that suggests itself to my mind is that when preparing these Estimates the Government expected to have an election this year and they deliberately padded them in order to deceive the coun-

try. If that is the case we have a degree of political obliquity that is a discredit to the Dominion. In view of this extraordinary expenditure the Minister of Finance urges economy and the Minister of Trade and Commerce makes a strong and eloquent plea along the same lines. Is this large expenditure due to the fact that, after this Government came into power, to use the words of the Minister of Finance himself on a former occasion there was ushered in " an era of uncontrolled prodigality, utter wastefulness and reckless extravagance unparalleled in this or any other British country"? These are strong words, but I intend to prove their application to present conditions and to prove it from the Public Accounts themselves. This is the law and the testimony. I have the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 1915, and 1 invite the	attention of the	Minister oiFinance to them. First, we will take the account we have been considering-expenditure chargeable to consolidated fund. As I have stated, I will compare the administration	of	the present	Minister of
Finance with that of his predecessor, and see how it will work out. The comparison is as follows:
Expenditure on Consolidated Fund Account.
Yearly average.
1896-1911	$876,985,606	$58,465,7001911-1915..	.:	..	.. 473,128,655	113,282,164
Or practically twice as much. Is there any justification for that? Has the country benefited by that enormous increase in expenditure?
I will go on now to examine the acounts in the different departments which go to make up the total I will take them as they occur here, not perhaps in order of their merit, or should I say demerit. I have given some attention to the Public Accounts, and it is a book that will pay perusal.
Collection of Revenue.
Yearly average.
1896-1911	$232,492,843	$15,499,5231911-1915	
142,580,587	35,645,147
Or two and a half times-250 peT cent- more. Then comes the account for other expenditures. I suppose this is the account into which are put miscellaneous matters that are not properly placed under any particular heading:
Other expenditures.
Yearly average.
1896-1911	$358,848,809	$23,896,6001911-1915	
223,427,163	55',856,800
An increase in this account, under the present Administration, of two and a half TMr. J. J. Hughes.]
times the average expenditure -under the previous Administration.
'The next account I will consider is that of Civil Government. That is an account that should not increase very rapidly from year to year. I understand that expenditures on that account are made up of the salary and expenses of the High Commissioner in London, the salaries of the lieutenant governors, the 'salaries of the Civil Service and expenses of the offices at Ottawa. The expenses, therefore, under this head should not increase very rapidly. Tinder the old, Administration there was some increase with the growth of the country, but not much. I find that for the fifteen years previous to 1911 the total amount expended on Civil Government was $31,130,268, or an average yearly expenditure of $2,075,350. Under the present Government the expenditure h-as increased very rapidly. During the four years they have been in power they have spent under this head $21,649,896, or an average yearly expenditure of $5,412,474. Is there any reason, in the world for that increase? Can hon. gentlemen opposite possibly justify it? According to a return brought down in the House last year, some eleven or twelve thousand employees have been ad,ded to the Civil Service in this city, and that, I think, largely explains the increase in Civil Government expenditure under this Government. Although the amount under this head is not very large, the comparative increase is simply enormous, and the country cannot stand it.
Now I come to the Immigration Department. Under the previous Administration immigrants came into this country by the hundreds of thousands. The cost of managing that department from 1896 to 1911 was $9,926,394, or a yearly average of $661,760. Under the present Government the expenditure has been, $6,343,589, or a yearly average of $1,585,897; that is, although very few immigrants are coming into the country at the present time, the present Government is spending on immigration nearly three times as much per year as the late Administration did. Can any explanation be given for that increase? I say it is absolutely unjustifiable; to use the words of the Minister of Finance, it is "uncontrolled prodigality, utter wastefulness, and reckless extravagance."
The Indian Department. The previous Administration expended on this department during the fifteen years they were in power $16,752,817, or an average yearly ex-

penditure of $1,116,854. The present Government, in its four years of office, has spent $8,157,850, or an average yearly expenditure of $2,039,462, practically twice as much. Have the Indians increased in number, or are they better looked after than they were under the former Government? Can any reason at all be given for this increase? It is unthinkable that such a sum should be expended on this department.
Public Works Department. The late Administration during their fifteen years of office expended on public works $80,313,281, or an average yearly expenditure of $5,354,220. The present Administration in the last four years has spent on this department $62,164,036, or an average yearly expenditure of $13,041,000; more than twice as much.
The cost of collecting the customs revenue for the fifteen years previous to 1911 was $21,282,332, or an average yearly expenditure of $1,418,822. From 1911-12 to 1915 this Government has expended under that head $13,219,069, or an average yearly expenditure of $3,304,800; practically three times as much, and that is something to consider. Have these matters been considered in Council? Have these enormous expenditures received the consideration the Government should give them? Can the country stand such expenditure? A country can be driven into bankruptcy just as an individual can. Was it these expenditures the Minister of Trade and Commerce had in mind the other night when he spoke so eloquently and forcibly in this House? Yes. If so, he was speaking in the wrong place; he should have addressed those remarks to his colleagues. Of course, if he had already spoken to them, but without any effect, he did well to address his remarks to Parliament.
Now I come to the Dominion Lands Department, and this is the worst of all, because expenditure in that department is increasing all the time although the revenue is falling off; less work is being done, and more money expended. The previous Administration in its fifteen years of office spent on this department $5,736,870, or an average yearly expenditure of $382,460. During the last four years the present Government has spent on this department $11,727,381; very nearly twice as much as the cost during the fifteen years previous.


Mr. ROCHE:: For the same service?
Mr. HUGHES! Yes.


William Roche: The figures are quite wrong.


James Joseph Hughes: I am reading from page 73 of the Public Accounts Report, comparative statement of expenditures on consolidated account. As I said, this department is the worst of all, for the revenue is falling off. For the first time in thirty years there has been a deficit in that department in the last two years. I think the deficit in 1914 was $250,000, and last year about $900,000. The receipts over expenditure during the last year of the previous Administration amounted, to over $1,000,000. I think .some explanation should be given of this increase.
As I see the Postmaster General in his seat, I wish to call his attention to the fact that the previous Administration in its fifteen years of office expended on the Post Office Department $72,438,037, or an average yearly expenditure of $4,828,536. The present Government during its four years of office has spent $48,838,088, or an average yearly expenditure of $12,209,522; that is, they spend on the average practically three times as much as the previous Government did. Sir William Mulook, when he was appointed Postmaster General, introduced business principles into the conduct of his department, and the effect was very quickly seen. Under the Conservative Administration the deficit was about $700,000 a year for some years. During the first two or three years of Sir William Mulock's Administration the deficit in the Post Office Department w'as reduced, but not completely wiped out. After that a surplus was the order of the day, and I think that the surplus during the last year or two of the previous Administration was pretty nearly a million dollars. Under the present Administration the surplus quickly evaporated, and a deficit took its place. Under the late Administration the postage rates were reduced from three cents to two cents on domestic letters, and, I think, from five cents to two cents on letters to Great Britain and all British dependencies, a very large reduction; but notwithstanding that the business management of the previous Administration brought about the condition of surpluses to which I have alluded,. Under the late Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Pelletier) business methods were discarded, and patronage committees from the Atlantic to the Pacific took charge of the Post Office Department, and the results were quickly seen. The present Postmaster General (Mr. Casgrain)-I have not the



honour and privilege of his. personal acquaintance-has, amongst those who know him best, the reputation of being an honest man, but those who know the late Postmaster General do not make the same statement about him. If the present Postmaster General is to sustain the reputation that he possesses he will have to get busy, because, although the receipts are increasing, the expenditures are rolling up, and so are the deficits. The deficit last year wae $3,000,000; this year I understand it will be about $5,000,000, and yet the Postmaster General is asking, in his Estimates, for about $800,000 more than he asked for last year. That is a serious state of affairs. Can the country stand an extravagance of that chraoter? It is time that the matter should be made known publicly, because very few men would believe that any Government would conduct the public business in such a manner. I have to borrow the language of the Minister of Finance in order to describe this extravagance properly, because I myself cannot do it justice. That is the situation so far as the civil expenditure is concerned, and there is practically no let up, even under the trying conditions through which we are passing at the present time.
Now, Sir, one would have thought that, when the war broke out and we were confronted with the enormous expenditure that would have to be made under war conditions, the extravagance that had been practised during the previous years would disappear, but it seems that, instead of that, ttie flood-gates were opened and grafters aid middlemen from all parts of the Dominion flocked to Ottawa as flies gather around a molasses barrel. The revelations made in the Public Accounts Committee last year, although they only touched the fringe of the matter, shocked the country. In that committee evidence was submitted to show that, when representatives of business firms came to Ottawa to try to do business with the Government, they were told that they could not do it direct; that middlemen would have to be employed. Shaver, the Toronto representative of Bauer & Black, Chicago wholesale druggists, who made a specialty of field dressings, made the sworn statement before the Public Accounts Committee that, when he came to Ottawa wishing to do business with the Government, he was to'ld that he would have to employ a middleman, and in that way Mr. Garland, the late member for Carleton, came into the business.

In Kings county; N. S., there were in regard to horse purchases revelations which discredited the country. Horses that were lame, blind, spavined, ringboned, wind-broken, or old enough to be rejected at the time of the Boer war, were accepted and paid for, with very few questions asked. Of course, the men connected with this matter had to leave Parliament and were read out of the party. A few days ago 1 put upon the Order Paper a question asking the Government whether the horses that had been purchased for army purposes in Prince Edward Island and also in the other provinces were found to be suitable and satisfactory, and I got the answer " yes " in both cases. I was told that 114 horses had been purchased in Prince Edward Island, and I know that the Davidson Commission, after examining into that purchase, stated that everything was right; that the man who made that purchase had acted honestly and squarely with the Government; that he had got good value for the Government. But the Government left off buying horses in that province. What, Sir, can be thought of the answer which I received in reply to my question whether the horses purchased in the other provinces were suitable and satisfactory? The minister said " yes," and when I questioned the accuracy of his answer, he stated in the House a few days afterwards that he saw the horses that came from Kings county, N.S., and that he never saw a better lot of horses. That is the kind of information which we get from Ministers of the Crown, notwithstanding the sworn evidence before the Public Accounts Committee.
There is published in my province a paper which gets articles written in Ottawa or inspired in Ottawa, and in it I saw a statement that the speech recently made by the Minister of Militia and Defence had completely exonerated the Government from any impropriety in regard to the manufacture of shells and all expenditures of the Militia Department. I just want to read to the House an extract from the Daily Mail, a paper which is published in the city of Montreal, and which supports this Government. This paper, the president and managing director of which is a brother of the Minister of Finance, had this to say in its issue of January 28 with regard to the statement of the Minister of Militia and Defence concerning war munitions:
It is not so long since Sir Sam launched an attack of the stereotyped Hughes quality, at the head of Mr. D. A. Thomas, for the reason that the latter gentleman questioned the econ-

omic and other capacities of the old Shell Committee. Sir Sam then asserted in his vigorous cocksure manner, that all was well ana no change would be required or would he tolerated.
But a change' has been made; a reduction in price was brought about, and an increased production was thus secured. And now Sir Sam quotes this right-about-face as a justification of his wisdom or initiative.
General Hughes' comparison of shell prices in Canada and those in the United States, like a great many other statements made in his speech on the Address, are based upon information the sources or bona fides of which he does not establish or reveal. If these statements are in keeping with the General's allegations as to the politics of some of the so-called mushroom manufacturers of shells in Canada, they are not worth considering.
It will be remembered that in his statement the Minister of Militia said that as many Liberals as Conservatives-and he gave some names-were making shells. The Daily Mail says that a statement of that kind is not worth considering. The article goes on:
We are in a position to say that he has named exceedingly good Conservatives in the mushroom business, and styled them Liberals.
I want to examine for a moment a matter with which the Minister of Militia and Defence is most closely connected, and which concerns a contract given to the Midvale Steel Company of Philadelphia. In his speech in the debate on the Address, the Minister of Militia said that the people of Canada could do anything that any other people on the face of the earth could do; that they could manufacture anything that could be manufactured elsewhere. There was only one thing that we could not manufacture-shovels. That m;ust have been the reason why a contract for 25,000 shovels at $1.35 each was given to the Midvale Steel Manufacturing Company. I am informed that at 500 different places in Canada these shovels could have been manufactured at from 30 to 35 cents each. Why was this order given to the United States firm? The only reason to be offered is this: no investigation could subsequently be held into the transaction. The people of the United States are not amenable to any court in Canada, not even to this Parliament, and no investigation into the giving of this contract could be held. Last session, over eleven months ago, I got an order of the House for the papers in connection with this transaction, and they have not yet been brought down. My impression is that the Minister of Militia and Defence has no intention of bringing them down; he intends to flout and disobey the order of the House. This year the matter is before the Hi	-
Public Accounts Committee, and 4 p.m. some light may be thrown upon it; but certainly no thorough investigation can be held. In my judgment there are doings in connection with this transaction that are more reprehensible than anything that Garland of Carleton, Ont., or Foster, of Kings, N.S., did. It is known that a young lady, a stenographer and typist in the office of the minister, got a patent on a shovel and made perhaps $25,000 out of it. The thing was worthless;
6,000	of them were sent over to England, but never got any farther. Is it possible that a young lady in the minister's office could have had sufficient military know-eldge to enable her to invent a military tool or arm that the generals- of Europe, with their years of experience, would not think-of? This young lady has been made wealthy at the public expense, and my constituents have to bear a share of that burden. I do not want them to bear it; it is not fair that they should. There is no surer way of injuring the country than by destroying the faith of the people in the impartiality and rectitude of its courts. This is the highest court in the land; the Prime Minister has its honour in his custody. Garland and Foster are out of the party; they are punished to the full extent of the minister's power for doing something that, in my judgment, was not as reprehensible as certain things done by another gentleman who was recommended for knighthood.
Considerable discussion has taken place in this House and in the press of the country with regard to shell contracts. That will be discussed at length before the session is over, and I shall not go into it now, except to say that the facts that I mention show the enormity of the graft which characterized the operations of the Shell Committee. The Minister of Militia says he is responsible for that committee, and that he will stand by it as long as it has a button on its coat. I just wish to mention that Mr. Jones, manager of the Canada Mr. D. A. Thomas, special representative of Mr. Lloyd George, secured by his intervention, the cancellation of certain contracts and saved Canada and the Empire $21,000,000 of excessive profits. These contracts were re-let at a price saving $21,000,000 in profits. It is not too much to say that there are men in the Dominion of Canada who will be multi-millionaires in consequence of some of the operations of the Shell Committee. An investigation has so far been refused by the Government, the reason advanced being

that the greater part of the money expended belonged to the v British tax-payer. And that is our idea of loyalty, that is our idea of guarding the British taxpayer, who is carrying a burden at the present time, and will be after the war, greater than has ever been imposed on any man in the world, who is bleeding from every pore at the present time. And these super-loyal men are piling millions on millions of graft upon the British taxpayer-and yet the Government so far refuses an investigation I Other things are going on that are nearly as bad. There is at present pending in the city of Quebec a suit between a middleman and a reputable shoe manufacturing company. The John Ritchie Shoe Company is being sued by a Mr. Belmar for some $40,000 or $50,000 as a middleman's profits on
150,000	pairs of canvas shoes, an order foi which he claims he was instrumental in getting from the department. This suit is contested, but a contract has been submitted, signed by the John Ritchie Company, acknowledging Mr. Belmar to be the middleman who obtained the orders for them, and it is known that on a previous order for boots they gave him a very considerable commission. The iniquity of the whole thing must be apparent to everyone. Under the present purchasing committee, which was appointed last year to do things properly, it appears that an order for trousers was given in Toronto at $40,000 more than the price at which the lowest tenderer was willing to make them. One company got a small portion of that order, some twelve thousand pairs of trousers, upon which they made an excess profit- because I presume the lowest tenderer was calculating on a profit-of over $6,000. That is going on at the present time, or it was quite recently ,and so it is all along the line.
Turning to the purchase of horses in Canada, I have been trying during this session to get some information from the Government in regard to their purchases of horses, but I cannot get any. Why should not the Government try to dispose of the surplus horSes fin this country? The situation appears to be that the Govern ment started in to purchase horses foT the Canadian troops-and we have seen the kind of horses they purchased. That discredited the horse industry of the country. Whether or not the horses were sent to Salisbury I am not aware, but I presume some of them were, and that they were very little good when they arrived there. Later on the Government put an embargo

on the export of horses, they passed an Order in Council prohibiting the exportation of horses from Canada. Then, almost without warning, the men who came from Great Britain and France to purchase horses were turned out of the country; the Government would not allow them to purchase horses here and they went to the United States. That embargo, I under stand, was removed, but there have since been no horse purchases worth speaking of in Canada, and there is a large number o', horses in Canada for sale, probably one hundred thousand. I wish to refer to some answers which I received to questions placed by me on the Order Paper. On page 794 of the unrevised Hansard, these questions and answers will be found:
1.	Did the British or French Governments purchase any horses in Canada for army purposes since 1st August, 1914?
2.	If so, how many, and when did they stop buying horses in this country?
3.	Has the Government made .any representations to the Government of Great Britain or France in regard to the number of horses obtainable in Canada? If so, with what results?
4.	Are the British and French Governments purchasing horses in the United States for army purposes?
5.	When'did the Canadian Government stop buying horses for military purposes?
Sir Robert Borden:
1. The Government is informed that the British and French Governments have purchased horses in Canada for army purposes since the first of August, 1914. I understand also that the French Government is buying horses in Canada at the present time.
, 2. The British Government has not. been purchasing horses for some months; I think since about November. I would not feel at liberty to give information to the 5 1 ousy as to the number of horses purchased as it would be against the policy which the British Government has pursued in such matters. The Britisn Government does not give information as to the numbers of horses, or munitions, or anything of that kind which they purchase.
3.	Representations were made to the Government of Great Britain with regard to the number of horses obtainable in Canada, and the British Government was asked to communicate these representations to the French Government. The result was that in August last an arrangement was made between the British Government and the French Government, by which the French Government should be permitted to purchase horses in this country.
4.	The Government is not aware whether the British and French Governments are purchasing horses in the United States for army purposes.
5.	The Canadian Government stopped purchasing horses for the reason that an arrangement was made during the past summer by which the British Government would purchase whatever horses might be necessary, not only for the British forces but for the Canadian, forces as well. That arrangement was made in the early part' of August, and I believe that since about that time the Canadian Govern-

ment has not been purchasing horses for military purposes.
Remember, the Prime Minister stated that he could not give me the information in regard to the number of horses purchased by the British Government, or anything of that kind. I have here clippings from the Ottawa Journal which are of interest in this connection. They are as follows:
Kansas City, Mo., Fob. 18.

No more American horses for use of the British forces will be purchased for some time at least, according to Major General F. W. Benson, of the general staff of the British army, who is in charge of the purchase of horses. The British Government has secured enough horses for the next three years.
New York, Feb. 18.-Records of the exports of horses to Europe show that more than 500,000 . horses valued at $125,000,000, have been shipped there from this country since the beginning of the war.
The prices show a declining tendency. The average price in 1914 was $240, against an average of $207 in November last.
So it appears that the Major General, who is purchasing horses in the United States fo.r the British army, gave out the information that we could not get in this Parliament. It appears also that the British authorities have purchased half a million horses in the United States at a value of $125,000,000, while the farmers and stock breeders of this country cannot sell a horse, and the Government appear to be helpless. Whatever interference, whatever action they took, would appear, so far as we can discover, to have been futile. Their Order in Council appears to have been ill-advised. Sending the representatives of the British and French Governments to the United States to purchase horses was surely a suicidal act. It reminds me of what the Agricultural Department did some years ago in sending an officer of that department to Washington to tell the people of	the United
States that our potatoes were diseased and should not be allowed into that country. Horses are what the British and French armies want, and if the Canadian horses are not sold for army purposes, they will not be needed at all, for there is no local demand for them. Is there any reason in the world why an industry in which the farmers and the stock breeders of the country are so deeply interested, should not find a market if the Government would only interest thmselves in securing it? But they seem to have done nothing; they have simply destroyed the horse trade in this country. We read in the despatches that the British
Army have secured in the United States sufficient horses for the next three or four years, so that we cannot expect to sell horses in this country for army purposes, and the surplus stock now on hand will be practically useless.
I would like to read a part of the answer to a question which I put to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister in his reply said:
1. The Government is informed that the British and French Governments have purchased horses in Canada for army purposes since the first of August, 1914. I understand also that the French Government is buying horses in Canada at the present time.
I then put a question on the Order Paper asking where the French Government were buying horses in Canada, and what the names and addresses of the parties representing the French Government in this country were; and the answer of the Prime Minister-I am not able to put my hand on it at the moment-wjas that he could not give me the information. He understood that the Hudson Bay Company was doing something in that line, but he was not sure; that was the purport of the answer. That is the condition of affairs; the Government do not seem to know anything at all about the matter. If they do, they will not give the information. Why should there not be some place at headquarters in Ottawa where information of this kind could be obtained? Why withhold this information? Why should the Government not be pleased to give the members of this House such information, information that they could convey to the people. They should be willing to get the information from any source in regard to a matter of such importance to the farmers and stock breeders of the country. There seems to be something radically wrong in regard to the matter. If the Government haive inform- ' ation in regard to it, they are withholding it for some reason or another not yet understood, and in all probability no information will be forthcoming. But this matter will be fully investigated before this session ends.
Sir, I have brought to the attention of the Government some matters which I think deserve consideration. In the dying days of the old French regime the Intendent Bigot, and those associated with him, introduced into the colony a carnival of corruption, graft and dishonesty. We are not in that position; but we are at war, and a great many people in this country are taking advantage of the war to make pat-

riotism pay, and some of them are the men who most loudly proclaim their loyalty. The Government are either protecting them or they seem to be powerless. Notwithstanding the revelations that were made in the Public Accounts Committee last session, the people of this country did not slacken their efforts or moderate their determination to see this war through. When demands were made upon them for the Patriotic Fund, for the Belgian Relief Fund, for the Red Cross Society, and for other funds, everybody responded. In my own small town, when we heard that there was a scarcity of machine guns at the front, and that our soldiers were not having a fair show against the Germans, we subscribed to a fund to purchase three of those weapons. One man alone subscribed an amount sufficient to purchase a machine gun. He could afford it; he is a member of the other Chamber. Another man in very moderate circumstances subscribed for another gun, the town collected money to purchase a third, and that same man subscribed $300 to the second fund and was ready to give everything he possessed in the world to help on the war. That is the spirit which animates the people. Even the school children subscribed, giving their pennies. But while that is the spirit among the ordinary people of this country, the grafters are getting away with their millions, and the Minister of Militia and Defence says he will stand behind them while there is a button on their coats. That is the state of affairs.


Mr. BURNHAM:: I may point out that when you wish to shield a man you stand in front of him, not behind him.


James Joseph Hughes: That is very smart. The .people of this country will see the war through; they are determined upon that, but when it is through I think they will turn their attention to the men who betrayed them, to the men who have made enormous profits out of the terrible crisis through which we are passing-who are making money .out of the agony of the nation.


Mr. W. S. LOGGIE (Northumberland, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, before addressing myself to the subject matter before the House, perhaps it would not be out of order if I referred Ho an incident that happened when I last addressed you. It was my pleasure on that occasion to congratulate you (Mr. Rhodes) on your elevation to the
rail-. J. J. Hughes.]
# ^
position of Deputy Speaker, and I regret that I have not the pleasure on this occasion of addressing the Speaker of the House, because I have not addressed the House when that gentleman was in the Chair, and I would like to tender my compliments to him.
I want to say, with reference to the circumstance that I have already referred to, that when I was addressing the House a voice came from my left saying that there was a bad fire. I cast my eye To the left and I could see a reflection in the hall. The rapidity with which the fire seemed to surround the chamber was marvellous. Within a few moments I rushed across the House, but I was not able to find an exit. I, with six other hon. members, made two attempts to find an exit, but failed. A short time afterwards we got through the same door as that at which we had prev-ously failed. It is regrettable that on that occasion some persons unfortunately lost their lives, and especially in this connection I would refer to our late colleague, the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Law), and I desire publicly to express my heartfelt sympathy with his wife and daughter in their bereavement. I think I should also congratulate the members of the House and those who were in the Parliament buildings at the time upon their 'wonderful escape under the circumstances.
Now, allow me to make a few remarks on the subject matter before the House. We are told by those in authority that we require half a million men from Canada to go to the front in order to win this war. The hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) tells us that we need $250,000,000 for war purposes this year. I am sure we are all impressed with the fact that men and money are needed to maintain the rights and privileges that we at present enjoy. My son, who has been in the trenches in France, and who was wounded in October of last year, said to me in a letter recently that it would take money to win this war. What we are able to offer, whether it be men or money, we shall offer, I am sure not grudgingly. We have volunteered to raise half a million men, and we are endeavouring to devise means by which we can raise $250,000,000 to pay the cost of what we have so laudably undertaken in our desire to aid the Empire at this time.
The question comes to me: what is our urgent duty on the present occasion? That brings me to the statement which has been

made to the House by the Minister of Finance. That hon. gentleman intimated [DOT]that there were in the Estimates votes to the amount of about $30,000,000 that the . Government does not propose to expend this year. In these critical times, in these days- when we have extended the life of this Parliament-our own parliamentary life, if you like-we might depart from the procedure of the past and eliminate votes that we are told it is not intended to expend during the coming fiscal year. I commend this suggestion to the Minister of Finance. It seems to me that under the present circumstances it would be a move in the right direction. Another suggestion I would make to the Government is that we, as a people, and as a House of Commons, should rise to the dignity of the occasion and adopt the attitude towards public affairs which was so ably presented to us by the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), and by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who spoke with particular reference to what I might describe as the patronage system disease. This disease is working into the very vitals of our country and undermining our best interests. I agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the statement that really no good comes from it to any party, but that in the end nothing comes from it but evil. In every town, as I understand it, where soldiers are billeted, orders for supplies are given out by a patronage committee. A patronage committee tells whom to ask for prices for supplies, and notwithstanding that a firm may have the necessary stock, is doing a legitimate wholesale business, and could supply the goods at reasonable prices, it is passed over, and firms named by the the patronage committee are asked to supply the necessary food for the soldiers.


Mr. CARVELL:: And without tender.


William Stewart Loggie: And without tender. We are giving our life-blood to pay for these goods. You propose to tax my earnings to pay for these goods and yet you say that all the firms in a town that are to pay should not be treated alike. I think that this is an opportune time to cut the patronage system out of our political and national life. Let us be as one man in our stand for liberty based on righteousness. If eternal vigilance be the price of liberty, it is the price we ought to pay to-day to maintain a standard of liberty based on righteousness. We are paying the price in money and blood to maintain our liberty. [DOT] Surely this is a
time when we should rise to the occasion and cut out this evil of the patronage system. Our King and his representatives call to us for men and money. We are responding to that call to-day and to-morrow shall be as to-day, but the response will be much more abundant.
That brings me to the resolution which has been proposed as a means of securing a portion of the money that we require to carry on the affairs of the country and to meet the interest on the money borrowed for the prosecution of the war. I see that the resolution is divided into two parts, or rather it refers to two classes of persons or companies as being subject to taxation. One class is spoken of as incorporated companies and the other as " persons." It is laid down that the expression " person " means " any individual or person and any partnership, syndicate, trust, association, or other body, and any body corporate," etc. There is one point on which the minister might enlighten me right now. I suppose there are companies that are bodies corporate but are not really incorporated. I am not quite clear why such a company should not be called a partnership, instead of a body corporate. If there is no such thing as a body corporate, outside of an incorporated body, the minister has no right to say that a person is a body corporate and tax all his profits above ten per cent. It does seem to me that the term "body corporate" is not in its right place. Perhaps the minister will explain.


William Thomas White: I have not had my attention drawn to the point to which my hon. friend refers, hut I shall be very glad to look at it with a view to discussing the matteT when we are in committee on the resolution.


William Stewart Loggie: The other clause refers to incorporated companies, and I think every hon. member clearly understands what an incorporated company is. The minister, however, in his speech the other day said:
It will be observed that incorporated companies are taxed upon a higher basis than individuals and partnerships. The reason for this is that capital in the case of joint stock companies frequently represents intangible assets or capitalized earning power or good will.
Even if that were true, I think that i? we are to put this legislation on the statute book, we ought to be big enough to undertake to arrive at a fair valuation of those assets. That should not be an impossibility; and if it is, the resolution as brought down should be amended before being dis-
. COMMONS
cussed in Committee of the Whole. The minister goes on:
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.
There should not be any great difficulty in doing that, although of course it might not be easy to arrive at the precise value of the assets. But I venture to say that the Government will not be able to arrive at the precise value of the assets of any company or person. Would the minister undertake to say that he will be able to arrive at the precise value of the assets of the J. R. Booth Company of Ottawa, for instance? I do not think he will. And yet he is providing for that being done, for I understand the Booth Company is not incorporated. I do nui, think we should let these apparent difficulties stand in our way. If we are to collect taxes in this way let us treat the people of the whole Dominion alike, let us do the thing fairly and equitably. I maintain that under the present proposals there will be positive discrimination. I of course realize, as the Finance Minister says, that there will.be difficulties, but they should not be insurmountable. We ought to be able to arrive at a fair value of the assets of any company doing business in Canada. The Minister of Finance illustrated the difficulty in this regard as follows:
The cases of railway, public franchises, and so-called holding companies, mining and other corporations, illustrate the difficulty to which I am referring. In addition there is the further fact that shareholders have purchased their shares and receive their dividends upon the basis of issued capital stock.
I do not care one iota what dividends shareholders have received upon the basis of issued capital stock. To me the only fair thing seems to be to put all the companies in Canada on the same basis; we should value the assets of every company in Canada, and form a reasonable fair value of the assets, deduct all direct liability. That would give us the capital on which the money is made, and that, I take it, is what the Government really desire to tax. It cannot possibly be that the Government desire to tax anything other than the earnings of a certain amount of money invested in a business. [DOT]
I think this resolution is unfair in another regard. I have read the minister's speech very carefully, and I cannot see that he has explained why the profits of an individual or partnership should be taxed only above ten per cent, while incorporated com-

panies with the same amount of capital are to have. their profits above seven per cent taxed. Is that fair? Let me give an illus-' tration. Suppose I started an incorporated company twenty years ago, with an original investment of $100,000. That $100,000 is not sufficient to enable me to carry on the business, and I borrow money in the ordinary way of business. Supposing in ten years I have made $10,000 a year. As I am indebted outside, and the business is expending, the money is left in the business with the result that in ten years I have a surplus of $100,000. I go on, and in ten years more have a surplus of $200,000. That gives me a surplus of $300,000 last year, and that $300,000 has earned me $21,000. What would be my position with relation to this resolution? If the resolution carries in its nresent form my position will be this: My original $100,000 will have earned $21,000, and I shall be called upon to pay one-fourth of $14,000, or $3,500, whereas I have earned only seven per cent on the total capital. But the hard part of it is that if I were an ordinary company, I would not have to pay a cent, because I would be entitled to 10 per cent on $.300,000 That is not equitable, and the minister ought to make some announcement before this resolution is passed and amend or add something to it so that we can discuss what the minister proposes to do in order to get out of this difficulty. [DOT]
I do not understand why the minister has arbitrarily fixed $50,000 as the capital for a person and not fixed any sum for an incorporated company. Let me illustrate how unfair that is. Suppose I form a partnership with my friend, Mr. Turriff, in the dry goods business in a town of five or ten thousand people; I invest $30,000-and $30,000 invested in dry goods in a small town will give a very nice stock and will enable us to compete with any other person or firm doing the same class of business. Suppose I make ten per cent, fifteen per cent, or twenty per cent on the $30,000-


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Too much.


William Stewart Loggie: I admit it is too much, but under this resolution not one dollar would I be asked to pay to the Crown. If, however, I should have been unfortunate enough to join my hon. friend (Mr. Turriff) in an incorporated company and put that $30,000 into it, and carried on the same business and made, say, only 8 per cent, I would have to divide with the Crown, the one per cent over the seven. Therefore I cannot for

the life of me understand why the minister intends to discriminate against an incorporated company doing business in a town of five or ten or fifteen thousand people, or, if you like, in a city. I have in mind at the moment an incorporated company doing a boot and shoe business in one of the western cities, and having a capital of $7,500, and a surplus of $5,000. A neighbouring boot and shoe store might have the same capital in a partnership company, but whereas the incorporated company would have to pay taxes to the Crown, the partnership company would escape scot free.


William Thomas White: The limitation of $50,000 of capital applies to firms, individuals and partnerships as well as to joint stock companies. If my hon. friend will look at section 4 of the resolution, he will find that it is perfectly plain.


William Stewart Loggie: Yes, I see. I did not
understand. I thought that the $50,000 applied to incorporated companies and not to partnerships.


William Thomas White: It applies to both.


William Stewart Loggie: The minister has answered that question. Will he tell me why he asks an incorporated company to pay on its earnings over 7 per cent while he does not ask a person to pay until he has earned over 10 per cent? I have endeavoured to think out what the reason can be, but 1 cannot understand it. I can understand that in large corporations 7 per cent may be considered a fair .earning for the money, but I cannot understand why J. R. Booth should be able to keep his money up to 10 per cent on his earnings, while the W. C. Edwards Company cannot keep theirs when they get beyond 7 per cent.


Mr. MURPHY:: That is an awkward case.


William Thomas White: I prefer to deal
with the matter in committee, because it will take me some little time to give he necessary explanation, and probably this is not the best time to do so.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: It would break
up the hon. member's speech.


William Stewart Loggie: It is not fair that a limitation should be put upon capitalization, and I cannot understand why the minister should arbitrarily fix the capitalization at $50,000. Why should a man who has a capital of $50,000 have to pay taxes to the Crown, whereas another man doing business beside him with a capital of $49,000
is not called upon to pay one cent? I also cannot understand why one class of firms should have the benefit of 10 per cent interest and another the benefit of only 7 per cent. These are inequalities that ought to be cleared up before the resolution is passed.
The minister was not in the House when I referred to the valuation of intangible assets, and I think he should be able to overcome that difficulty by consulting experts and framing legislation in such a way that all classes of the community, all business interests, will be affected alike, so that one class will not have an advantage over another, because competition is very keen, and it is inequitable if one firm has to pay three or four hundred dollars into the treasury and another firm doing business beside it is exempt.
I hope the minister will try to make this a matter of equality; I hope he will see to it that all business interests contribute alike to this laudable work. As the Finance Minister suggested, we all wish to pay our share, but we on this side of the House ilaturally think that the Government should set the country a good example by cutting down their expenditure as much as possible. In England the public are asked to economize; surely we in Canada also ought to economize. When you ask the people to economize, you cut down the profits of the men who are doing a general store business throughout the country, in the large as well as in the small towns. It seems to me, therefore, that this is a matter which will require consideration before the resolutions proposed by the Finance Minister are adopted.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Finance Minister upon the titles which have recently been bestowed upon them. Forty years ago I heard the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of Trade and Commerce deliver in Fredericton a lecture on temperance, with Sir Leonard Tilley as chairman. I have not forgotten that occasion. I have heard the hon. gentleman deliver many eloquent speeches since that time. I recollect an address that he delivered in 1907 or 1908, when he bewailed the taxation that the then Government were imposing upon the people of the country, asserting that they were taking out of the pockets of the people probably 100 per cent more than his party had taken from them when in power. If the hon. gentleman were on this side of the House now, how he would bewail the taxation that the Government is imposing

upon the people. On another occasion I heard the hon. gentleman deliver an address in this House on the navy question, when he said that we should give not money, but something tangible. I have not forgotten that address; it was grand. I heard him on another occasion, when, I think, he was not sane; at the time of the Drummond and Arthabaska election he gave insane advice. Now, however, I congratulate him for rising to the dignity of the occasion when he addressed the House a few days ago.


George Eulas Foster: Life is a series of contrasts.
Mr. LOG'GIE: I join hands with the hon. minister in the stand that he takes with regard to the patronage system, which, as he says, has resulted in dry rot. I assure him that I should be glad to join with him in bringing about the good result that would accrue from doing away with this patronage sytem. Let us unitedly make new resolves in this day of our prolonged parliamentary life. Let us rise to the occasion and eliminate all that is wrong in connection with the patronage system; let us, when we go before the'people, do what we can to see that no undue influence is brought to bear upon the electors. All that demoralizes political life ought to be stamped out. It behooves the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, having in regard the high tone of his last address, to lead the way; if he does so, I am sure that he will have a great many faithful followers.
In closing, I think it falls on me to express my sympathy with those of my country who have lost sons in the cruel conflict that is now taking place in Europe. To those who have been maimed for life I extend my deepest sympathy, expressing the hope that the Government will give due regard to their requirements and to the requirements of all those who are entitled to the benefits of a pension fund. No doubt this matter will receive proper attention at the proper time; meanwhile, to the bereaved I extend my deepest sympathy on the occasion of their loss.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the Budget that has been brought down by the Minister of Finance is a new departure in the history of Canada. The imposition of a direct tax on capital is, in my judgment, a step in the
5 p.m. right direction, and in that respect I offer the Minister of Finance my congratulations. In bringing down the proposal to tax industry, I think , 
that the hon. minister has not been desirous of making party capital; in that respect his Budget is free from partisanship. I should like very much if I were honestly able to congratulate the Minister of Finance that in that part of his Budget relating to changes in the customs tariff he had refrained from indulging in any partisanship. But, Mr. Speaker, knowing the circumstances as I do, it is impossible for me to absolve my hon. friend." I think that personally he would prefer not to introduce partisanship into the Budget in any shape or form, but, if that was his desire, certainly he allowed his colleagues to put one over on him.
Only two changes in the tariff are proposed. One is the raising of the duty on apples from 40 to 90 cents -a barrel; that is, an extra duty of 50 cents a barrel is imposed on apples coming into Canada. Why was this done? For whom was it done? The Minister of Finance stated that it was done for the apple growers of British Columbia in particular and of Canada in general. The hon. minister knows as well as I know, and as well as any hon. gentleman in this House knows, that the extra duty that he is putting on apples will not materially affect the conditions in the lower provinces; he knows that it is not going to affect the condition in Ontario to any extent. The only province to which it applies is British Columbia. Why has the minister done this? In order to protect and assist the apple growers in British Columbia. My hon. friend is ever ready to protect the farmers when they ask for duties, but he is not at all ready to listen to them when they ask to have duties taken off. For one farmer in British Columbia who grows apples, there are a hundred on the prairies who. grow wheat. These hundred men have for years come down here demanding the removal of duties, and the Minister of Finance has on every occasion turned a deaf ear to them; but as soon as one man, one per cent of their number, comes from British Columbia and asks that a duty be put on, my hon. friend comes to the rescue at once and puts a duty on apples. What is the result? Every man on the prairies must in future pay fifty cents a barrel extra for his apples, in some cases a great deal more. In my part of the country apples come in by the carload for the American towns just a mile or two south of the boundary line. They are shipped in bulk as we ship potatoes or wheat.

These are second-grade apples, windfalls, and they are sold from the car at from twenty-five to thirty cents a bushel, and shovelled into the farmers' wagons. Then, our farmers are accustomed to purchase ten or twenty bushels and team them home, paying the small duty that has hitherto been imposed on apples. But my hon. friend comes forward and says. " You must pay more than double what you paid in former years." That is the way it works out, and why? To protect a few apple-growers in British Columbia. I said a moment ago I was sorry I could not exonerate my hon. friend the Minister of Finance from being touched with partisanship in this matter, perhaps not intentionally. My hon. friend is the last man in the House to whom I would wish to do an injustice; but somebody has put one over, him, for I say that that duty was put on apples not so much to protect the farmer as to protect the discredited politicians in British Columbia. There are by-elections taking place there to-day, and the general elections for the local House are coming on within the next two or three months; and in order to try to save the practically defunct Government in British Columbia my hon. friend and his colleagues put a duty on apples, and every farmer on the prairies has to pay the piper. That is the state of things we are up against. My hon. friend refused the ten thousand farmers their demand for free wheat. He did it, he said, in the general interest of the country. The farmers could not be listened to. But in this case, in which the proposal is against the general interest of the country, when only a few are to benefit by it, the voice of the farmer is listened to. Nobody in Canada, so far as I have been able to learn, has during the past few months asked for this duty on apples; there has been nothing in the press about it, so that it is easy to see that it is a put-up political jo*b to help out the political friends of the Government; and the farmers of the Prairie Provinces are the people who have to bear the brunt. Not only are they not allowed to have duties taken off, but they are not permitted' to secure a market. It was bad enough to be refused that market, but now the Government come along and say: "Not only will we not take the duty off your wheat so that you can sell in the American market, but in addition we will put another load on your back and make you pay fifty cents more for every barrel of apples you buy for your family.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Is that not about nine
times the United States duty against Canadian apples?


John Gillanders Turriff: I am not able to answer that.


William Pugsley: The duty on apples entering the United States is ten cents a barrel.


John Gillanders Turriff: And this is done to protect the British Columbia apple growers, while a few years ago those very British Columbia apple-growers voted almost solidly to refuse the American market for their apples, a market that woul,d have been open to them had we obtained reciprocity, a market that is within easy reach, because, as every hon. member in this House understands, in British Columbia the rivers and mountains and valleys all run north and south, so that you can ship fruit into the United States from the applegrowing portions of British" Columbia at a very much lower rate than to Vancouver or Victoria, where the great bulk of the population of British Columbia is, or to the prairies of the West. In the past we on the prairies have been getting apples from British Columbia, and why is it necessary to put on the duties to keep American apples out? Simply because we could buy the same class of apples from the United States a great deal cheaper than we could get them from British Columbia, and the market that was most suitable for British Columbia was closed by the votes of my hon. friends opposite. Now they come complaining when they get exactly the result that they voted for in 1911, and want to tax practically everybody in the Dominion of Canada in order to keep up that industry, whereas the industry would flourish if it had the American market in which to sell its product; because if must be remembered that our apples ripen later than those of the United States and would command a better price. The same thing applies to all friuits.
My hon. friend has put an extra duty on
oil.	I shall not discuss that at length because, unfortunately, I do not understand exactly what the tariff means. It seems to give a reduction in one case, but in the other it apparently means an increase of 7i per cent on the illuminating oil used by the people on the prairies and all over Canada. As I understand the proposition, it is that oil coming into Canada to be' refined shall be charged an extra 71 per

cent. Well, if you charge the refiner 7i per cent extra, you are going to charge the consumer probably 15 per cent extra. I may be wrong in my understanding of this proposition and perhaps the minister would explain it.


William Thomas White: It is on fuel oil, not on illuminating oil.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am glad to hear from the minister that it does not apply to illuminating oil, because that is the chief article of light used generally throughout the country. I shall say no more about the oil duty, because I am not very well posted on it. I am glad to know that in some cases there have been reductions.
We have heard a good deal in this House since the debate started about this being a farmers' budget, and some speakers on the Government side have taken credit to themselves because the farmer is not taxed under it. .


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friends opposite say, hear, hear. I have been now some thirty-five years in public life. I have represented my constituency for a good many terms, in both the local and the Dominion Houses, and I have never once, in the course of my life, heard a farmer complain at having to pay his fair and proper share of taxation. The farmers of the western prairies are readier than any people on the face of the earth to pay their fair share of taxation. They are not asking for exemptions. Why should a cattle rancher who has 5,000 or
10,000	head of cattle, and who makes a profit of $10,000 or $20,000; or a farmer who puts by $10,000 or $15,000 or even $5,000, after he has paid all the expenses of producing his crop, not pay his fair share of taxation as well as any other man? There is no farmer who would object to that proposition ; at all events, I have never met one. What the farmer objects to is being taxed up to the neck on everything he buys, on everything he uses to produce his crop, and not being allowed to sell his crop where he can get a market for it. He is hit at both ends; that is what the ordinary farmer objects to; it is not to paying his fair share of taxation.
The farmers of the West, and of the East as well, have responded readily to every call made upon them, whether it be in the way of contributing to the Red Cross fund or the Patriotic fund, or other funds. They [DOT] have done their share in that respect, and

it would not be to their credit if a law were passed exempting them from taxation. Last year the farmers. in three of the prairie provinces, in convention assembled, passed unanimous resolutions calling on the Government to impose a single tax, which meant taxing their farms. In that case every farmer would be obliged to pay a tax, whether he was making a profit or not. Do you think then that these men, who asked that the revenues of the country should be raised by a tax on their lands, would object to paying a fair share of taxation out of their profits? No, Mr. Speaker; any minister who would so judge the farmers is mistaken. Give the farmer fair play in the matter of duties, and give him a free market, and he will not complain about paying his share of taxation.
I am very glad, however, that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has resorted on this occasion to a system of direct taxation. Why did my hon. friend take up that new position? It was simply because he was driven to it, simply because he was unable to raise any more revenue by increasing the customs duties. My hon. friend is fortunately in the position this session to say that the revenue for last year was greater than had been anticipated; but let me point out that it was not because of the 7j per cent extra tax that he put on last year. Let me remind my hon. friend, and this House and this country, that in spite of the extra 7J per cent tax, for several months after the new duties came into force last year, the revenues kept falling. For several months after the new duties came into force, the revenue was not increased; it was, in fact, less than for the corresponding months of the previous year. What was the cause of the extra revenue last year? There were two, and two only, and neither was the per cent extra duty that was imposed. The two causes that contributed to the increased revenue were: first, the goods imported, a great deal of which were for the manufacture of munitions of war, and second, the bountiful harvest all over the Dominion. On the western prairies during the first few months of the shipment of the last crop, over 200,000,000 bushels of wheat went east of Winnipeg. The price paid for that immense quantity of wheat and the cost of freight for carrying it down to Fort William, represented a large amount of money going into that country; and then you can add the money going in for cattle, for hogs, for oats, for flax, for barley, and for all the products of the farm that were going east

or south. It was that condition of affairs which increased the revenue that my hon. friend was so fortunate to get during the first few months of this year.
' I have several objections to the proposed taxation, but the main objection I have is this: the minister proposes to treat the honest business man exactly, as he would treat the dishonest munition manufacturer who makes a huge fortune by robbing this country and Britain. The minister puts that class on exactly the same footing as the conservative business man who has been in business all his life, and who carries on a straightforward, legitimate business. Will any one tell me that that is a fair proposition? Will any one say that it is fair to put the regular business man on the same footing as the members of the old Shell Committee who acted simply as a committee to hand out to themselves contracts by which they made millions and tens of millions of dollars, which they were not entitled to make, and which any decent Government would not have allowed them to make? If the Government did their duty they would take at least half of the profits of these munition manufacturers in taxation. But what have they done? As I said a moment ago, they put that class on exactly the same footing as my hon. friend here (Mr. Loggie), who has been in bus-ines all his life, and who carries it on in a legitimate manner. Is it fair? Is there any equity in that? Is it reasonable? I venture to assert that there is not a business man in Canada who would object to pay this war-tax if it were evenly levied. If business men were called upon to pay approximately the same, you would not have one word of complaint from one end of the country to the other. But are we called upon to pay the same? No, not in any degree. I venture the assertion that, if my hon. friend the Minister of Finance had properly taxed the munition manufacturers, he would have secured a large sum of money, and as for the balance of the $30,000,000 or $35,000,000, which he expects to get out of this tax, he could have saved every dollar by a little economy. Why should it cost $50,000,000 more to run this country to-day than it did four years ago, when the Liberals were in power? Have we any more population to-day than we had then? If we have, it is very little. Is the country any better able to pay taxes than it was then? I think every man will answer that it is not as well able. Still this Government, instead of cutting down
expenditures, prefer to tax the people. Suppose my hon. friend the Finance Minister went to each voter in the country and said to him: " Do you prefer that I should tax the munition manufacturer, who has made his ten of millions; do you prefer that I should take half of his profits, and that for the balance of the $35,000,000 which we require we should cut off $25,000,000 of expenditure? We are expending $50,000,000 more than our opponents did four years ago; do you want us to cut off $25,000,000 of that and get the balance that we need from the munition manufacturer, or do you prefer that we should tax your industry to get that money? What would the answer be? I can tell my hon. friend what the answer would be. There would not be one man in a hundred who would support his proposal if he had the option of supporting or rejecting it.
Let my hon. friend take warning by what happened yesterday in the county of Peel. The people of Canada are being roused up about the way the money has been handled in connection with this war-squandered by tens of millions of dollars. My hon. friends opposite seem to think it is all right. Mr. Fallis thought it was all right and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) thought it was all right. With the support and backing of the Ontario Government, and with the backing of this Government up to the hilt, their candidate was defeated, there being a change of something like a thousand votes. Let my hon. friends opposite take warning by that, let them realise that it, is the handwriting upon the wall, because, if they do not take warning they will get a rude awakening whenever they go to the country. Talking to-day to one of my Conservative friends, something was said about the election in Peel, and he remarked:	Well, thank Gbd, we got an extension of Parliament for one year. Well is it for the Government that they have got an extension of Parliament for one year, but it would be well for my hon. friends not to rely too much upon that, because a year goes around very quickly, and if they do not mend their ways with regard to the expenditure of money in connection1 with this war they will find that a great many counties will follow the example of Peel when they next confront the electors.
Let me refer to another item in the Estimates. During the Liberal regime we had two-cent postage in Canada, and under the administration of Sir William Mulock and of my hon. friend from Rouville, the ex-

Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux), we had, after the first year or two, a surplus every year running up, I think, to as high as $1,000,000. Our friends opposite came into power and the surpluses gradually melted away until they vanished altogether, and we had a series of deficits. The Government, in order to avoid a deficit last year, raised the postage to three cents on letters and two cents on post cards, .an increase of from 50 to 100 per cent. What was the result? This year, I am told, we may look for a $5,000,000 deficit. They have a deficit of $5,000,000, notwithstanding an increase of from 50 to 100 per cent in the postage rates. Why? Simply because they have departed from the ordinary business methods that had been adopted by my hon. friend from Rouville.-. Now contracts are given without competition, and money is squandered in every direction. I do not know that the present hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Casgrain) is entitled to very much of this blame, but his predecessor is. His predecessor, the Hon. Mr. Pelletier, now Judge Pelletier, of the Quebec bench, is the man who brought this about. He was one of that little coterie in the Government who believe that the way to keep a party in power is to be extravagant, to spend money, to get big election funds, and to spend them corruptly in order to corrupt the people. We have seen examples of that in Manitoba, and we have seen examples of it here. What has it done? Landed the Post Office Department, after a 50 to 100 per cent increase in the cost of postage, into a series of deficits that is culminating this year, I am informed, in a deficit of $5,000,000.
The Minister of Finance told us that the only way in which we can save this country, and put it into a position to handle our immense debt after the war is over is by the practice of economy. I quite agree with my hon. friend that that is the proper position to take; I quite agree that that is what we should do, and I agree, also, that people all over the country, rich and poor alike, have been practising economy all through this war-all except the gentlemen" on the Treasury benches and those behind them when it comes to spending public money. Where has any saving been attempted by this Government? Where have we had any evidence of economy on the part of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance? There is not. a single sign that they contemplate economy. The only evidence we have is the speech

made by the hon. Minister of Trade ana Commerce (Sir George Foster) the other night, and I venture to say that that speech will stand to his credit as one of the finest speeches he has ever made in his life. But it would stand a great deal more to his credit if he would live up to it. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce, instead of speaking to us across the table, would speak to his friend the Minister of Finance and his friend the Prime Minister, and ask them to carry out the proposal that he made the other night, we might expect something to result from it. Why, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of- Trade and Commerce could have that proposal carried out there would not be the slightest neces sity of the Finance Minister asking for a dollar of taxes.


Mr. NESBITT:: Extra taxes.


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes, the $35,000,000 that the Minister of Finance wants. Let us see just what the Minister of Trade and Commerce did say. Here are his words, and I give him credit for them:
The same remark applies to the question of patronage. I said I was disposed to be perfectly frank on both of these points. There are expenditures now-there have been expenditures from Confederation up-which have been put into the Estimates, passed and carried out in the country, that were neither useful nor expedient. There is no doubt about that; it has been done under all Governments-
I quite agree with that.
-it probably is being done under this Government.
I must confess I agree with that.
My opinion is that until a different method is pursued with respect to our expenditures upon public works, in their authorization, we shall be open to these troubles and to that criticism. My view is that every application for a public work, or a public improvement, should go before a competent board of engineers and business men, should be reported upon by them for the information of the Government, and that every application should have to show some cause of necessity, of public benefit, or of future usefulness before it was passed and put into' the Estimates. I do not believe that we will ever get down to a proper system of husbanding the resources of our country, as we are bound to do as trustees for it, or of confining ourselves to useful and necessary public works until we get some machinery of that kind.
Those were the words of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and very fine words they were. While I believe there are men in this Government who could never be brought to look at the matter in that light-the Minister of Finance is not .one of them-such is the stand-

ing of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in this country, and so great is his ability and power, that I believe he could compel the other members of the Government to come round to his views. If he, succeeded in doing that, it would be the greatest work that had ever been accomplished in this country, and no future government of this country would dare go back to the old system, for the people would not stand for it.
We are living in changed times. Look at what has happened in Great Britain during the last year -and a half. Why should we not, in these momentous times, adopt the policy outlined by the Minister of Trade and Commerce?-but which, I notice, has not been advocated by any of the hon. gentlemen behind him who have spoken since. Let us see what a saving such a committee as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has suggested would effect. If all questions in regard to public works had had to go before a committee of engineers and business men who would certify that the work proposed would serve some present purpose, or be of value to Canada in the future, aid would never have been given to the Canadian Northern Railway in building its road from Edmonton to Vancouver, and millions and tens of millions of dollars would have been saved. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that such a committee would have approved of the vast expenditures being made on Victoria harbour and Vancouver harbour? No, they would have realized that the work in both those places could have been done for half the money, and millions would have thereby been saved to the people. And the same may be said with regard to Halifax harbour, on which it is proposed to spend some thirty odd million dollars. I have heard it stated that the whole work at Halifax could be done at from one-half to one-third of the proposed amount. Look at the money that is being squandered on St. John harbour, on wharves that cknnot stand up straight. There is no question that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is the ablest man in the Government.


George Eulas Foster: Don't pile it on too thick.
M|r. TURRIFF: I am not piling it on at all. 'The Minister of Trade and Commerce is a credit to the people of Canada. He is the strongest man in the Government at the present time, but, unfortunately for Canada, bad influences are also very strong with the Government. For all that, I have
confidence in the ability and integrity of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I am sure that if he set himself to this task he could accomplish it. He would have public opinion behind him, and that helps a great deal. I venture to say that any man in Canada who lives up to the ideals propounded by the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other evening will have the people of Canada, Liberals and Conservatives alike, behind him.
Ever since this session started, and in debates in previous sessions, hon. gentle-^men opposite have been giving sly digs at gentlemen on this side of the House in connection with the naval policy. My hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) had a great deal to say about that the other evening. If hon. gentlemen opposite want to discuss the naval question, and the attitude taken in regard to it by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, as contrasted with the position taken by hon. gentlemen opposite, let them bring the subject up in this House whenever they like. We are ready to debate that question at any time, but this habit of giving sly digs is unfair and unmanly. If gentlemen opposite want to discuss this question let them discuss it in an open way. We have nothing to fear. Fronj the day the Minister of Trade and Commerce introduced his resolution iij 1909 up to this moment, the right hon. leader of the Opposition and hon. gentlemen sitting behind him have not changed their policy with regard to the navy one iota, not to the extent of dotting an " i " or crossing a " t." We stand to-day exactly where we stood in 1909, and in 1910, and in 1911; that is, for a Canadian navy, built by Canada, manned by Canadians, at the call of the British Empire whenever she is at war. Had our policy been carried out-and hon. gentlemen opposite had it in their power to carry it out-we should not be in the position we are in to-day, without a ship on the sea, and having to depend upon Japan and Australia for the protection of our western coast; we should not have had to buy two obsolete submarines, at double the proper price, to protect Victoria and Vancouver-^submarines without a torpedo in them.	A great protection they
would be to anything or anybody! Had the hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches carried out the policy for which they voted in 1909, we would have had torpedo boats of our own on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and cruisers to protect our trade and our transports as our soldiers

crossed the Atlantic in order to take part in the war of the Empire.
Just here let me say that we on this side of the House stand exactly where we stood on the 18th day of August, 1914, when the House was summoned in order to vote the first war credit. We are behind the Government absolutely in carrying on this war; we are prepared to support them in everything; but we want a fair and reasonable accounting of the expenditure of all moneys voted for war purposes. A year ago the Government asked for $100,000,000 and we voted it without question. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance this year says, " We want $250,000,000," and we will vote that. We are not one whit behind in the field or in the trenches or in the Parliament of Canada in anything connected with carrying on this war and bringing it to a successful issue; and, to-day, when the fiercest battle of the waT is raging, I think every one in "this country can say that Canada is doing her duty fairly well, and will continue to do her duty to the end. If more money than the $250,000,000 is necessary, no complaint will come from this side of the House as long as that money is expended in carrying on the war; but we do not want tens of millions of dollars to be turned over to private raiders of the treasury, as has been done in the past year in connection with the manufacture of shells. We want to see an end put to that, and those men who got illegitimate gains punished by at least half of those gains being taken away to help in the carrying on of this war.
One of the main objections, Sir, to the industrial tax is that it is so absolutely unfair, because it taxes one man heavily and lets two or three others escape. When the Minister of Finance proposed to tax all corporations on the same basis by taking their capital stock as paid-up stock without going behind it to see what was the true capital, I am sure that a gentleman with the business experience of my hon. friend must have seen that such a proceeding is eminently unfair, because he is as well posted a man oh affairs of this kind as any man in Canada. Let me illustrate this point: One man put $100,000 into a business, and, as he is an honest, decent man, going about his business in a conservative way, he issues $100,000 of paid-up stock. His neighbour going into the same business also organizes a company, but he makes his capital $1,000,000, and he takes his $100,000 and buys certain property that the new company will need, 
and he sells that new property to the new company for $1,000,000; that is, he gets $1,000,000 of paid-up capital. Both companies start business. Suppose the first man, who has $100,000 of capital stock, makes $15,000.	$7,000 of that is exempt
and he has to pay 25 per cent on the balance. The second man, however-, who is a kite-flier, who goes in for speculating in watered stock, who has the get-rich-quick idea, has $1,000,000 of capital, and he can put $70,000 per annum in profits into his own pocket before he is called upon to pay one cent under the legislation proposed by the Minister of Finance. From what my hon. friend said last night, he has some intention of making a change in that regard, and I am quite satisfied that he will make a change. Why? Because there has been a general protest in all parts of the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific against the absolute unfairness of such a proposition. One of the strongest protests I have seen has come from Sir E. B. Osier, a member of this House, and a wealthy man, who has pointed out that the proposed taxation is eminently unfair. So faT as I know, no one in this country objects to paying a fair tax for the carrying on 'of this war, a<nd I do not suppose any one would object to paying 25 per cent of the profits over 7 per cent if the same tax applied to every one; but that is where the shoe pinches. The tax does not apply to every one; for one man who pays, one or two will escape, and the men who escape are the very ones who should not be allowed to escape.
Another point is that if every one had to pay, the Minister of Finance would not have to call for 25 per cent of the profits over 7 per cent, because in that case 10 per cent of the surplus profits over 7 per cent would give him all the money he requires. Why should one man pay 25 per cent of his surplus profits over 7 per cent and another man not pay anything at all? Would it not be much better to work out the tax so that every one would pay practically the same percentage? No one expects that under a proposition of this kind every one will be treated exactly alike, but it is a gross injustice to let one man escape and another man pay two or three times over. I am sure that if the minister, when he brings this Bill before the committee, will make a change that will spread the tax equally over the community, he will be doing something in the interest of the people of Canada as a whole, and will give general satisfac-

tion and not leave the heart burnings and the bitterness that the carrying out of the present proposition will do. Just think of the injustice of two companies earning the same profits and one company not paying a single dollar and the other company having to pay $100,000. Do you imagine, Sir, that the shareholders of the company that have to pay that $100,000 will sit quiet when they see the shareholders of the other company, who inflated their stock with water, .set off without paying one cent? Do you not think there will be dissatisfaction and some very hard things said about this Government if it should put such a proposition in force?
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 15, respecting the Pacific Northern and Omineca Railway Company.-Mr. , Green.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 17, to incorporate Canadian Indemnity Company.-Mr. Schaffner.
Bill No. 18, respecting W. C. Edwards & Company, Limited.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) for Committee of Ways and Means resumed.
John Gillanders Turriff: When the House rose at six o'clock I was pointing out that the system of taxation on industries as proposed by the Minister of Finance is uneven and unfair; that some companies will be taxed, and others will escape altogether. Under the provisions of the legislation proposed, my hon. friend does not by any means get at the general wealth of the country. Wealthy men all over the country are practically exempt from taxation, and unless my hon. friend makes some changes in his proposals, many persons will not be obliged to pay anything. Let me give you one or two instances where wealthy men will not be called upon to pay one single cent of the $30,000,000 or $35,000,000 that the minister is looking for. Some few years ago the late owner of the Canada Atlantic Railway sold that line to the Grand Trunk Raliway Company for $14,000,000 worth of 4 per cent guaranteed bonds. Four per cent of $14,000,72
000 is $560,000-and the owner of these bonds is not called upon to pay one single cent. Does the hon. Minister of Finance think that is a fair deal? Is it fair to let this man off scot free, while a man who is struggling to make an honest living with a capital bf $55,000 or $60,000 is taxed 25 per cent on everything that he earns over 7 per cent? I leave it to the justice and fairness of my hon. friend as to whether such a measure as that will appeal to the good sense and to the commonsense of the people. Many men, though willing to stand behind the Government in carrying on this war, will not like to see 25 per cent of their profits over 7 per cent go to the Government, while many huge concerns like the one I have mentioned, controlled by millionaires whose money is in real estate and bonds, are not (tailed upon to pay one cent.
I recall another instance of a gentleman in this city, walking around the streets with nothing to do, with $3,000,000 in first-class bonds which yield him a revenue of $150,000 a year. That man is not called upon to pay one dollar, while hundreds of other men in this city, who are with difficulty making their businesses go, will be called upon to pay. Surely hon. gentlemen opposite must see that such a tax cannot appeal to the country, cannot be successful, and will leave heartburnings throughout the whole Dominion of Canada, and justly.
I wish to place before 'the House the names of a few companies that will get off scot free and others with equal or smaller
profits that will have to pay		large taxes
to 'the Government.	I am now quoting	
from the Montreal	Financial	Times ofFebruary 19, 1916.	These are	shown inthe following table:	ApproximateCompany.	Net profits	amount of tax forBell Telephone	.$ 1,650,838	one year. $ 97,710C. P. R	. 35,575,109	2,681,844Canada Cement	. 1,286,963	Can. Con. Rubber.. .	. 1,108,845	193,465Canada Locomotive. . .	. 44,501	Carriage Factories.. .	. 267,230	24,807Can. Foundries	. *1,000,000	216,400Dom. Bridge	. 1,344,347	222,337Dom. Textile	. 1,230,767	186,750Hollinger	. *2,350,000	535,000Kaministiquia. . ". . .	. 181,332	12,382Lake of Woods	. 419,920	41,980Laurentide	. 787,191	28,800Lyall Construction. . .	. 137,696	Maple Leaf Milling-.. .	. 875.437	131,360Montreal Cottons . . .	. 337,306	Montreal Power	. 2,596,743	320,186Montreal Tram	. 1,185,820	243,955Nat. Breweries.. .. [DOT]	. 334,000	N.S. Steel and Coal .	. 1,613,063	254,515
* Approximate earnings.



Approximate
amount
Company.	Net profits, of tax for
one year.
Ogilvie Flour	$ 1,519,594	$ 201,150Ont. Steel Products.	..	76,745Penmans, Ltd	
260,315	6,133Shawinigan	
1,069,032	29,040Sherwin-Williams	..	. .	384,495Smart Woods	
351,658	22,023Toronto Railway.. ., ..	1,192,489	88,122Total	$5,537,959
Let me compare the burdens imposed on some companies that have made about the same amount. Take the Bell Telephone Company, whose profits amount to $1,630,000 and their tax to $97,000. The Nova Scotia Company made profits of $1,613,000, just a little less than the Bell Telephone Company, and they are called upon to pay over a quarter of a million dollars, whereas the Ogilvie Milling Company makes $1,500,000 and has to pay $201,150. Then, the Canada Cement Company makes $1,286,000 and pays nothing. The Dominion Bridge Company makes $1,344,000 and pays $222,337. The Dominion Textile Company makes $1,200,000 and pays $186,000. Nothing more unfair could be devised. If the minister had tried to get a system that would tax one man heavily and let others off scot free, he could not have devised anything more efficient than this. Take the Hollinger Company which has to pay over half a million dollars for this year. For the two years the shareholders of that company will be called upon to pay up over a million dollars to this Government.
I turn now to a list of companies whose taxation I have figured out for myself, taking the figures from the Annual Financial Record Review of 1914:
Approximate
amount
Name of Company.	Net profits, payable
under tax
Asbestos Corporation ..$270,932.37 Ames Holden & Mc-
Cready	 351,390.10
Lake Superior Co	419,179.91
British Columbia Breweries	 109,898.86
Canada Bread Co	 88,689.96
Canadian General Electric	 821,067.97
Cockshutt Plow Co.. .. 321,273.39
A. McDonald Co	 228,073.20
Riordan Pulp Co	 640,010.79
Steel Co. of Canada.. .. 214,325.07 Tuckett Tobacco Co- .. 151,773.99 Wayagamack Pulp Co... 148,980.32
Winnipeg Glass Co	 884,626.89
Canada Permanent Loan. 285,815.47 Central Canada Loan . . 371,970.38
Huron & Erie	 351,056.10
rMr. Turriff:]
Nothing.

Nothing.


William Thomas White: I do not like to interrupt my hon. friend, but his figures are wholly erroneous, wholly inaccurate.


John Gillanders Turriff: If my figures are wholly inaccurate, my hon. friend had better get hold of this annual Financial Review, and see that it does not publish erroneous figures. I have taken these figures from that Review-I can turn up the page, if necessary-and the figures I have given are correct, if the Financial Review is correct.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend
is not applying the tax properly. In the first place, he is not taking into consideration the question of reserves; and, in the second place, he is not taking into consideration the fact that there is in the Bill a definition of paid-up stock under which, as I stated last night, and on Tuesday last, there will be no undue advantage to overcapitalized companies. If he would take these facts into consideration, his figures -would be worth listening to. ,


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend brings
forward a resolution, on which his Bill is to-be based, and in that resolution he does not say what he has stated to-night. In the resolution he states that it is impossible to go behind the capitalization of the companies. That is what the minister stated,

and, in order that there may be no misunderstanding about it, I will quote his own words from Hansard of February 15, pa*e 849:	'
It will be observed that incorporated companies are taxed upon a higher basis than individuals and partnerships. The reason for this is-that capital in the case of joint stock companies frequently represents intangible assets or capitalized earning power or goodwill. 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. The cases of railway, public franchises, and so-called holding companies, mining and other corporations, illustrate the difficulty to which I am referring. In addition there is the further fact that shareholders have purchased their shares and receive their dividends upon the basis of issued capital stock.
If these words mean anything, they mean that the paid-up capital stock is the basis on which the companies would be taxed. I am very glad, however, to have the statement of my hon. friend the minister tonight. Since 15th February, the minister has seen a great deal of light, and he has come to realize, not from anything we have said on this side of the House, but from the influence brought to bear upon him by supporters of the Government, by industrial institutions who support hon. gentlemen opposite, the absolute unfairness, and the absolute inequality of the system of taxation proposed, one man being taxed heavily, while many others are left off absolutely free. Then there is a difference in regard to the capital in incorporated companies, and the capital in partnerships, but it is too late for me to go into that at the present time.
Another point to which I desire to call attention is, if I understood my hon. friend rightly, that he proposes to let life insurance companies off absolutely, with the exception that they have to invest in Government bonds one half of their extra assets earned during the years 1914 and 1915. I think that the ordinary life insurance company, which has put up bonds earning from 4 per cent to 45 per cent, will be only too glad to exchange these bonds and the securities they have for Government bonds which will yield 54 per cent. Is that putting a tax on life insurance P I would like to know why a difference is made between life insurance companies and accident insurance companies. It may be said that, if you tax life insurance companies, they will charge . a 'higher premium on their policies; but does that argument not apply hr the same degree to fire insurance companies? If fire insurance companies are taxed, will their
72i
policy holders not have to pay higher premiums? I would like to know on what grounds the life insurance companies are exempted, and in fact given a bonus, while the other insurance companies are to be taxed, and very heavily taxed.


William Thomas White: The reason is that a tax upon life insurance companies would fall upon policy holders and their beneficiaries.


John Gillanders Turriff: A great deal would fall on the policy-holders, on the men who are paying the premiums.


William Thomas White: The policy-holders would suffer.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am not very well posted on life insurance matters, but I have a couple of small policies, and therefore I am a policy-holder.
. Sir THOMAS WHITE: We do not want to tax you.
Mr. TURRIFF; Why should you let'me off, and tax the man who is paying fire insurance? That is what I am trying to get at. Why should the man who has life insurance get off scot free; why allow to get off scot free those insurance companies that have a very small amount of capital, but that have piled up millions and tens of millions of dollars, while the shareholders of fire insurance companies, marine insurance companies and accident insurance companies are to be taxed? 'It seems to me that it is giving an unfair advantage to life insurance companies as against the other insurance companies.
There are a couple of other classes of companies that my hon. friend puts in the same position as the companies 1 have mentioned-the mining and lumber companies. It seems to me to be altogether unfair to put a mining company in the same class as an industrial company or a loan company, because the mining company is using up its capital every year in taking ore out of the ground. It is always considered that unless a mining stock is paying 20 per cent the stock is not worth par, and the same argument applies to lumber companies. And yet lumber companies are put by the hon. minister in exactly the same position as commercial companies, notwithstanding the fact that every year they are digging out of their capital. For every thousand feet of lumber they take out, there is so much less standing timber out of which to make lumber. Take again the mining companies which should pay, and pay well;

my hon. friend lets them off altogether. Under the present proposition there is- no attempt whatever to tax the big nickel industry of Canada. That industry is owned outside of Canada. The Canada Copper Company in Sudbury own the largest nickel properties on the earth. They mine more nickel than any other company. There are only three concerns in the world handling nickel. We in Canada own 85 per cent of all the nickel that.has ever been discovered. The only place, outside of Sudbury, Canada, where nickel 'has been discovered is the island of New Caledonia, near Australia, and that deposit is owned by the Anglo-French Nickel Company. They control about 15 per cent of the product of the world; the other two companies own the balance, and those two companies are the Canada Copper Company and the Mond Nickel Company, an English concern who mine their ore near Sudbury, smelt it into matte, and ship the matte to England where it is refined. The Canada Copper Company is only a subsidiary of the International Nickel Company. They have at Sudbury the largest mine in the world. They are producing a huge amount of nickel, copper, gold, a certain amount of silver, and a large amount of platinum, with its great value. This is all sold by the Canada Copper Company to the International Nickel Company at a price that gives a moderate profit to the Canada Copper Company. Xhe Canada Copper Company will pay probably a Small tax to the Government in this connection, but the great big profit is made by the International Nickel * Company, that purchases this matte, takes it down to the state of New Jersey, refines it, and puts it into commerce. They have the big end of the profit, but they do not pay one single dollar of taxes to this country.
Of all mistakes that this Government have made during the past year or two this is one of the greatest. I charge this Government with being absolutely unfair to Canada; I charge this Government with standing in with the Huns, our enemies, in so far as they 'have refused to exercise their power to prevent the exportatioir of nickel to the United States. Who are the International Nickel Company? The Krupps, of Berlin, and German-Americans own and control that company. The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) stated the other day that Germany cannot make armour plate, and cannot make guns, without the nickel that comes from Canada. Here we
are supplying our enemies with nickel with which to make their armour plate. Canada has it in her power, and has had it in her power ever since the war began, to prevent the Germans from getting any further armour plate to build their battleships, and the Government have refused to exercise this power. What have they done to prevent our nickel going to Berlin to make guns and warships to kill our sons? Nothing, and I charge them with that dereliction of duty. But take it on the commercial side alone. The International Nickel company have 2,000 men at work in New Jersey refining our nickel. Why are they not refining it in Canada? That is something for the Government to answer. Two thousand men at work drawing 'big pay!


William Thomas White: How long have they 'been refining nickel in New Jersey? Were they refining nickel down there four or five years ago?	.


John Gillanders Turriff: I cannot give the exact date, but they have been refining nickel in New Jersey for something like fifteen or twenty years.


William Thomas White: Why, if the hon. gentleman's facts are correct, did the late Government not put an export duty on nickel?


John Gillanders Turriff: A fair question, and one that I am not a bit surprised that my hon. friend, has asked. It is a question that I would be inclined, if the circumstances were reversed, to ask myself. I think the late Government were very remiss in their duty in that respect. I went to them time and again as a private member and asked - them if something could not be done on that line. It was not a very important matter then, not nearly as important as it has been during the last year and a half, because when the war broke out was the time for Canada to do something for the Empire and herself. This Government did not hesitate one moment to stop the farmer and the miller from exporting wheat and flour to enemy countries, and it did not hesitate to prevent others from exporting other articles of commerce in the belief that it would not 'be to the advantage of the Empire to have them exported to Germany, Austria, or Turkey. But when it comes to nickel, the one article that we absolutely control, the Government do nothing. Remember that nickel is not in the same category as wheat, or flour, or
QMr. Turriff.]

clothing, or anything else. If the enemy countries could not get these articles from us they could go elsewhere and get them. But if an enemy country could not get nickel from the International Nickel Company, of New York, they could not get it anywhere else in the world. The Anglo-French Nickel Company, composed of Englishmen and Frenchmen, own all the nickel that comes from the island of New Caledonia, and the Germans cannot buy any of the nickel that the Mond Company ship from Sudbury to London. But all the nickel that is produced by the Canada Copper Company at Sudbury goes to the International Nickel Company. It is shipped to New Jersey, refined there, and sold by them to Germany, because the Krupp people are big owners of the International Nickel Company.
When war broke out nickel was worth from 20 to 24 cents a pound. This company immediately held up the British Government for fifty cents a pound. Canada allows it to be taken free to the United States, there refined, and sold to our enemies at whatever price they choose to pay for it, because they control it; but Great Britain has to pay fifty cents a pound for it. The International Nickel Company have been making from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 a month, every month in the year, or $25,000,000 a year, and they have been making this huge profit o.ut of the ore that we are supplying them with. That is a state of affairs which should not be allowed to exist another hour. They do not allow it in Australia, nor in the United States. The United States imposed a duty of $120 a ton on refined nickel entering that country. If we had a refinery in Canada, we could not ship nickel to the United States without paying six cents a pound duty. And we allow our matte to go in there free ! What is the process this company employs? The ore is first of all mined at Sudbury. It contains a large amount of sulphur, and is next gathered into large piles, hundreds of feet long; it is then roasted over wood fires until the sulphur is all burned out. This takes about three months. The nickel then goes to the smelter, where all the other metals, copper, gold, silver and platinum, go into the matte. And we allow this matte to be shipped to the United States free of duty, giving employment to two thousand men in New Jersey! But that is only a small matter. The worst feature is that it enables our enemies to get all the nickel they want.
Those are the plain facts of the case. Let us see how this company treats the settlers in the Sudbury district. The country is simply devastated by the sulphur fumes that are given off as the ore is being roasted. Farm after farm has been devastated, and every bit of vegetation destroyed. In many cases the farmers have been left without a single dollar's worth of crop. Last year things were so bad that 150 of the farmers got together and engaged experts to ascertain the actual damage to the farms, and report to the Canada Copper Company. The company absolutely refused to pay any damages after these experts had reported. Months afterwards the Canada Copper Company sent out its own experts, but this was in the fall when it was impossible to see the full damage that had been done. Their own experts reported on the damage done, but the Canada Copper Company did everything in its power to delay settlement; and you know, Mr. Speaker, what a powerful millionaire company can do when it comes to litigation with a poor farmer. The company in every case refused to settle, except on its own terms. And remember, Mr. Speaker, England is paying this ten or twenty million dollars a year profit that the International Nickel Company is making. That company has doubled its output, and has erected new plant. It could very easily burn the ore in kilns, instead of in the open. If that were done, the sulphur and other bi-products could be saved, but it would cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars to erect the necessary plant, and the company absolutely refuses to do that. What do you think, Mr. Speaker, one of the grounds of their refusal was? To quote:
The damage caused by the Company has been going on to a smaller extent for many years, and the Company in their defence claim to have acquired a prescriptive right to cause such damage even on the enormously large scale.
Simply because this company had ruined every farm in the vicinity in the past, they claimed the right to go on doing it in the future. The local Government at Toronto is just about as bad as this Government. They have recently withdrawn 200,000 acres of land from settlement at the demand of this company-this enemy company that furnishes to the Germans and Austrians and Turks the nickel that they require for the battleships that are to be used against the British Empire. And this Government-sit quietly in their places, and refuse to take the necessary action! The way this company is treating the settlers in the


Mr. GAUVREAU:: What about Mr. Gute-lius in charge of the Intercolonial railway?


John Gillanders Turriff: I do not know anything about him; I speak only of those I know. Probably there are many more of these men.
This work going on in Toronto harbour had to be stopped on account of the rascality that was going on in regard to the class of work which was being done, and we have our enemies doing this work. Why is all this being done? For a little bit of paltry party advantage, a little bit of patronage, of trying to catch the German vote, while the country is bleeding at every pore and suffering on account of this. That is the existing state of affairs, and I call on the Government to put a stop to it.
Now, I ask the Government to put a stop to the exportation of nickel, unless it goes direct to Britain and the Allies. I ask the Government to put a stop to the exportation of nickel to the United States, where it can easily slip through to Germany. The Government will tell me: "Oh, we have an understanding with the International Nickel Company that they will not sell any
nickel to our enemies." Well, who buys it? Why, the Krupps are buying it, and do you expect, Sir, that it is not going to get to Germany, perhaps not as nickel, but combined with other metals? Do you think you can trust them? I remember a few years ago we had at Vancouver and Victoria a German named Alvin von Alvinstein, who-was a great man out there, a fine fellow. He invested there a lot of money, a good deal of which belonged, so he said, to the German Emperor. He made a visit to Germany a couple of years ago; he did not return until after the war had started, and, as he was refused admittance to Canada, he remained in the United States, and what was found? The German Emperor had endeavoured, through this fine fellow, to have an invitation sent by the people of Victoria and Vancouver to the two German warships, the Goeben and the Breslau, the two ships afterwards transferred to Turkey, to pay a visit to British Columbia. Had he been able to carry out that idea, these two ships wrnuld have been in the harbours of Victoria and Vancouver respectfully when the war broke out. If that had happened, what would have taken place at Victoria and Vancouver? Nobody suspected Alvin von Alvinstein; nobody in times of peace suspected the International Nickel Company. But when war comes, our view of these things is changed. War changes everything excepting our friends on tne Government benches; they do not and will not change. Again I call upon the Government to do something to put an end to the state of affairs to which I have referred.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to one of the ablest speeches ever delivered on the occasion of the discussion of the Budget, and I am glad to offer to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. J. G. Turriff) my sincere congratulations upon his earnestness and his devotion to his public duty as a Canadian and a parliamentarian. May I offer also my sincere congratulations to the Minister of Finance for the brevity of his speech and the felicity of his words when he delivered the other day a typically White speech to the House, by means of which the will be able to bleed white our >
dear country, Canada. I wish the hon. minister would spare the money of the treasury as well as he spares the time of the House wdien he'delivers his annual Budget speech.	[DOT]
Whilst I am complimenting members of

the House, I wish to say a good word to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for the masterly address he gave to the House and to the country the other day. Indeed, it was a clarion call Of a kind to which we on this side of the House are not ae-' customed. It was an earnest appeal from one who, as he said, has been thirty-five years in public life. At last he warns his friends that the moment has come to rid the country of the canker of patronage ' and corruption. If the right hon. Prime Minister had been in his seat that evening, and if, surveying his flock around him, he had been fortunate enough to look instantaneously upon the Minister of Finance, the spendthrift, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the preacher of economy, he might well have said: I have a difficult team to drive. The address of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce will not raise him in the public estimation, because he already stands high in the estimation of the people of Canada. But I wonder if his address, when read carefully and thought over by his fellow members of the Cabinet, will raise him in the estimation of his own . party. I remember having read, in one of the first books that I read in English, that admirable saying of Hooker:
Even ministers of good things are like torches-a light to others; waste and destruction to themselves.
I think that the effect of the address of the Minister of Trade and Commerce was like the effect of the torch; a light to others, but waste and destruction to himself. After the verdict of yesterday in the county of Peel, where the election was fought on a Dominion issue, not on a local issue, at least we may say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, after thirty-five years of public life, has been of service to his country. It is said that Queen Mary of England, lamenting the loss of Calais, which for so many years had been the proud possession of England, said to her courtiers: " When I die, open my heart, and there you will find ' Calais.' " Sir, when the Prime Minister read the Toronto and Ottawa papers this morning, and was apprised of the result in the county of Peel-a verdict against corruption; a verdict against the canker of patronage as denounced by the oldest, member of the Cabinet a few days ago-I wonder if he said: Open my heart, my friends, and you will find deeply engraved within it the name of Peel.
Let me, Sir, come at once to the all

absorbing issue, the war, which is being carried on to-day in nearly all parts of Europe. I agree with the hon. minister of Trade and Commerce when he says that the people of Canada, irrespective of party politics, are behind that war and underneath that war. As a Canadian and as a Liberal, all war expenditures on the part of the Minister of Finance that are properly and honestly applied, will receive my unqualified support. Sir, I read with pride as a Liberal and as a Canadian the words spoken by the Prime Minister of England two days ago. In the roar of cannon at Verdun, when peace proposals were whispered by some weak-kneed members, the Prime Minister of England said:
What X said November 9, I repeat now. 'We shall never sheathe the sword which we have not ljghtly drawn, until Belgium-and I will add Serbia-recover in full measure and more than they have sacrificed ; until France is adequately secured against aggression; until the rights of the small nations of Europe based upon an unassailable foundation, and until the military domination of Prussia is wholly- and finally destroyed'.
The pledge taken by the Prime Minister of England is the pledge of every Canadian, as it is the pledge of every Australian and of every New Zealander. The spirit of the Canadian people with regard to the war has never been better exemplified than during the weary months that have passed since August, 1914. The manhood and the womanhood of this country have vied with each other in the effort to replenish the treasury of the Patriotic Fund, in order to maintain the families of the soldiers; in giving to the Red Cross societies, the Serbian Fund, the Belgian Fund, even the Polish Fund, all that they could give. Sir, never was it more remarkably manifested than when, in the month of November last-yes, even under the present Administration-the Canadian people were asked to subscribe $50,000,000 to a domestic loan. From every city, town and hamlet in the country came subscriptions towards 'that domestic loan, and my hon. friend was able to get not merely $50,000,000, but more than $100,000,000. There you have an illustration of the Canadian spirit as regards the present war. Our participation in this war has been questioned by a few. Sir, I do not know that there ever existed, at least in the British Empire-nay, speaking of Cobden, I must speak of him as a citizen of the world-that there ever existed in the world a greater pacificist than Richard Cobden. But, op-
/ .

posed as he was to war, Cobden himself said:	[DOT]
When a military despot interferes to crush the men of another country while struggling for their national rights, no principle can make it wrong for a free nation to interfere by force against him. It can only be a question of expediency and prudence.
Sir, I have very often heard warlike people criticising Richard Cobden, the apostle of free trade. Certainly he was not a fervent advocate of war. But if Cobden himself had lived in August, 1914, he, I am quite sure, would have stood by the Allies in the attitude they took in fighting the enemy of mankind. In my own province, there are people who have taken to task the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition. They claim that he has not been true to himself, because some years ago he stated on the floor of the House of Commons that he was opposed to Canada being launched into the vortex of European militarism. It would be quite easy to make the distinction between espousing the cause of European militarism and fighting the military caste of Berlin, as we are fighting it to-day. But is not this a war between the forces of light and the forces of darkness? Is it not the conflict between liberty and tyranny? It was quite logical for the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition to take a commanding attitude in this country and particularly in his own province, in his advocacy of Canadian participation in the war. Sir, look at the United States to-day. T.he Americans are described as a matter-of-fact people. They chose to be neutral from the outset of this great conflict. They kept silent when Belgium was ruthlessly invaded; they kept silent when the crime of the Lusitania was committed. But behold the reaction which is taking place across the boundary. President Woodrow Wilson has been, I must say, a great servant of the American Commonwealth and of democracy. But, Sir, the reaction to-day is against men who are too proud to fight when their country is being humiliated. The issue in the month of November next, when the presidential election takes place, will not be the tariff, will not be any domestic question, the issue will be whether America is to be a factory or a shrine, whether it will adhere to or desert the cause of justice, liberty and humanity. There are many arm-chair critics nowadays. It is extraordinary how their number increases when great events take place. There are armchair critics in my own province, and elsewhere too, who think that England has been rather slow in this war, who say that England has not done her share so far. We hear that statement even here in the city of Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, there is one. cardinal feature of this war which must not be lost sight of: it is that the British Navy saved the Allies from speedy and irrevocable disaster. It gave them time and opportunity to organize resistance to the tremendous German swoop which in August and September, 1914, was the outcome of forty years scheming and planning. The ' fleet has been the vital element and has been the determining factor of the fortunes of the war up to date, this being said without any disparagement of the forces fighting with us. We all know that the Allies have fought nobly, that the French and the Russians have fought valiantly; but we must never lose sight of the fact that without the British navy the war would have soon ended to their disadvantage. If you eliminated the British fleet from the conflict, what would happen even to-day? With superior Teutonic argosies the French colonial empire-which is second only to the colonial e'mpire of Great Britain-Tonquin, Madagascar, Annam, and other dependencies would have been attacked and captured long ago; French and Russian shipping would - have been swept away from the seas; French commerce would have been annihilated; France would have been cut off from Algeria, Morocco, and Corsica, and all chance of obtaining munitions of war, food supplies, and mech-' anical supplies from over the seas would have disappeared. When I hear the armchair critics complaining of England's slowness in moving in this war, I bear in mind the words spoken by the Minister of Marine in France, M. Augagneur, who said:
It is the British fleet that saved the world from destruction by the barbarians of the twentieth century.
Before I come to the .way and means, I wish to say a word or two about two classes of combatants in the present war. Reference was made yesterday by my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) to the gallant conduct of the British aristocracy. There are two facts in this war that will ever remain salient-the gallantry of the British aristocracy, and the indomitable courage of the French democracy. It has been-said-I read it time and again before the war in books, pamphlets, reviews, that England was decadent, that her aristocracy was effete idle, degenerate. But when the sons of the

British nobility responded to the call of duty on 4th August, 1914, when they buckled on their armour, when they rushed to the front in Artois and Champagne, when later on they were mowed down at Charleroi and Mons, mingling their blood with that of the soldiers of the Republic, I could not help thinking that they were the worthy sons of their sires, of the noblemen Who wrested from King John the Magna Oharta, and of the men of that aristocracy who played such a prominent part in Europe in the course of the 18th century; I could not help thinking that their chivalrous spirit was after all the best evidence that " bon sang ne peut inentir."
As regards the French democracy, let me say this: before the war it was thought that the anti-military party in France would not respond to the call of duty, and fears were expressed that as labour had been more or less internationalized in its organization, the French proletariat would not fight the Germans. Mr. Speaker, the present Munitions Minister of France, Mr. Thomas, is one of the leaders of the old French Labour party. He himself sided for many years with the anti-militarists. But, listen to what he said the other day, speaking at a meeting of labourers in England; one of his friends, who had returned from the front was listening to the complaints of a civilian, and here is the language which he used:
Comrades, I am surprised to hear what is now being said. We, who have been with the colours, know all about the fatigue, the suffering, and the demoralization of French warfare; but we are to-day in the same mind as we were on the day of mobilization. I want to fight in order that my son here may never have to go to war. If I am to die, then I shall die; but I do not want him to see war. To avoid this we will make every sacrifice-our liberty, our blood, and our life.
That is the spirit of the French democracy, a spirit which is on a par with that which animates the British aristocracy.
I now come to the ways and means proposed by the Minister of Finance in order that Canada may stand the test during this crucial period. Let us be sincere with ourselves; let us face the facts as they are, not as we would like them to be. The present war will leave Canada saddled with a huge war debt of probably more than one-billion dollars. As I stated a moment ago, we stand in this war for the ideals which the Allies represent. The first question which any intelligent man should put to himself in this great crisis, is, it seems to me: How best can the Government of this coun-

try help the cause of the Allies? Is it not just by practising, as .all the Allies are practising, rigid economy in civil expenditure, by the elimination of all unnecessary capital expenditures, and of waste in war expenditure. What 'is our financial position at the present moment? Sir, when I look at the array of figures representing our expenditure since 1911, I cannot help but think, pause and ponder. Let us take the fiscal year 1915. The revenue for that year amounts to $133,073,000 and the total expenditure, war expenditure included, is $237,721,000. The year ends with a total deficit of $104,647,000. Let us take the fiscal year 1916. The revenue is $170,000,000; the expenditure, war expenditure included, is $295,000,000, a total deficit of $125,000,000. For the fiscal year 1916-17, the revenue is estimated at $170,000,000; expenditure, war expenditure included, at $415,000,000, a total deficit of $245,000,000. These are facts which the country has to face at the present time.
Now, let us compare the expenditures of 1910-11 with those of 1916-17. I take 1910-11 because that year marked the height of our prosperity in Canada, whilst 1916-17 finds us in the most crucial period in Canadian history. In 1910-11, when we were abnormally prosperous, the interest charges on our national debt took from -us $14,114,000; the estimate for 1916-17 is $39,640,000.
Civil Government	
Dept, of Agriculture. ..
Immigration	
Pensions	
Militia	
Public Works-income .. Public works-capital .. Steamships subsidies .. Naval Service	
The list gives us som
1910-11.	1916-17.
$4,463,000	$7,240,000
1,379,000	4,263,000
1,079,000	1,534,000
240,000	3,365,000
6.868.000	5,706,000
8,621,000	13,814,000
3,742,000	8,072,000
1,918,000	2,963,000
256,0.00	2,250,000
e striking	contrasts
from beginning to end. The total estimate for 1910-11, when we were prosperous, was
$132,827,000 as against $188,981,000 for 191617. The best interests of the country command the Government to revert to the
figures of 1910-11 when we were prosperous. But I anticipate the answer of the Minister of Finance and the spendthrifts who sit around him. They will apply to the situation the popular slogan, " Business as usual." In a sense I would be inclined to say that this watchword is a true one, but it must not be forgotten that we have to reckon with an unusual business at the present time. We must provide for an army of 500,000 men, we must pay pensions, we must maintain the dependents of the soldiers, we must pay the interest on a huge

war debt, and the war will be long. The immigration wave which swept the prairies of the West during the Liberal Government has passed away not to come back very soon, if we take the Minister of Finance at his word because he predicted a not very roseate aftermath. I believe also with him that the reconstruction of this country will strain all our energies for many decades to come. Therefore, I say that the policy of any wise and patriotic Government during this crucial time should be to practise economy as they practise economy in England, the best ruled country in the world, and in France where they are facing the realities of the war more than anywhere else. Why not imitate England and France in the practice of economy? France and England are wealthy countries. We must preserve our credit. It must be remembered that we have not only interest to pay on our Dominion liabilities. When the Minister of Finance devised his scheme of taxation, which will strike not only those who are profiteering, but legitimate and ordinary business as well, did he think of the other interest charges which bear so heavily on the shoulders of the Canadian people? We have something else than the interest charges on our Dominion liabilities to meet. We have our provincial and municipal liabilities to meet. The Toronto Weekly Sun, a radical paper, one of the best edited in Canada ,and a tolerably good authority, has compiled a list of the liabilities, direct and indirect, of the provinces and municipalities, from which it appears that the direct debts of the provinces amount to no less than $183,000,000. Ontario heads the procession with $44,000,000, while Quebec has liabilities of $26,000,000. The indirect provincial liabilities, consisting principally of railway bond guarantees, amount to $195,000,000, British Columbia leading with $80,000,000, far more than she can afford to pay with her small and not growing population, followed by Alberta with $42,000,000. The municipal liabilities of the entire country have reached the gigantic sum of $625,000,000. The commitments of the provinces and municipalities together amount to $1,000,000,000. Did the Minister of Finance, when he was devising his scheme of taxation the other day, think of the other liabilities that the Canadian people, and legitimate business, have to face? That is one more reason why, as in England, as in France, the Government should practise rigid economy. I know it is a difficult matter for the Government. In England, where
there are statesmen, in France, where there are statesmen, when the war broke out the best men of the various parties sunk their party differences and acted as patriots. They turned their attention to the national issue alone. England formed a coalition government, and so did France. We all know jvhat took place in England. Sir, it was nothing short of a miracle to see Asquith, Grey, Churchill, and Lloyd George sitting around the same table in counsel with Bonar Law, Balfour, Carson, Lord Robert Cecil, and Lansdowne. In France where party passions run very high, it was still more surprising to see Poincaire, the President of the Republic and a moderate Republican' himself, gathering in the Cabinet chamber men like Briand, an exsocialist, Cochin, the representative of Catholic opinion, and Viviani, representing the advanced Socialist opinion, Ribot, a liberal, Combes, an extreme radical; a cabinet mot unlike a mosaic, firm and strong, though diverse in colours.
I have no advice to offer to the Government, I am not looking for a coalition government in Canada, but I say to my fellow members and to the country that if the Prime Minister of Canada had been inspired . by lofty and patriotic motives on the 4th of August last, he would have left the council chamber, and walked across the Parliament building and knocked at the door of the venerable leader of the Opposition, the senior member of the Privy Council in the British Dominions, the Nestor of the British Empire, as he was well described by Mr. Asquith at the time of the Imperial Conference in 1911. He might well have said to the right hon. gentleman:	"I want
your advice and counsel, let us put an end to party politics and think only of the great national issue." But nothing of the kind was done. This Government thought only of parish-pump politics. Ever since this war began they have been playing the game, watching for a chance to surprise their opponents. On the 15th of November, 1914, I was present at the first recruiting meeting held in the city of Montreal. The right hon. leader of the Opposition was present at that meeting. Long before, he had made a promise that whenever the Empire was on its trial he would appeal to his fellow men in the province of Quebec to join the colours. That night a telegram was handed to the right hon. gentleman, who was sitting next to me on the platform. The telegram informed him that sinister influences were at work in Ottawa, that a dissolution of

Parliament was impending. But such a protest went up from one end of the country to the other that the Government paused and pondered, and finally Teeeded.
Then, in the month of May last, the hon. Minister of Public Works visited Montreal and practically announced an immediate general election. At that moment, our boys were fighting and dying at Festubert and St. Julien, and next morning, as the people read in one column of their papers the report of his speech, and in another column the story of how our boys had been mown down by the enemy, every one felt this time the veto against an election had been written with the blood of our brave soldiers, and the Government would not dare dissolve Parliament. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was the blood of the bravest which prevented this Parliament from being prematurely dissolved.
This Government .have been playing politics, instead of playing the part of statesmen. What have they done since 1911? If they really wanted to help the Mo-theT Country, if they were really in earnest, would they not stop at once every foolish expenditure and use the money to purchase equipment and necessaries for our soldiers? For instance, is it not a scandal that instead of conducting a recruiting campaign, this Government is only recruiting camp followers for the inside and outside public service? Since 1911 they have appointed 25,613 men to the service. Of course, I know' they will answer that many employees have died, many have resigned or been dismissed-the larger number of them have been dismissed-but we know that after allowance has been made for all these, there have been 11,147 additional appointments made by this Government during a period when the country was making mighty little progress. In the Department of Agriculture there have been 579 'new appointments; Customs Department, 1,649 new appointments; Indian Affairs, 295 new appointments; Inland Revenue, 165 new appointments; Immigration, 343 new appointments, and no immigration; Mines, 103 new appointments; Public Works, outside service, 1,877 new appointments, inside service, 128 new appointments; Intercolonial railway, 2,076 new appointments; Post Office, civil servants, 3,312 new appointments; postmasters, new appointments, 6,591;'Marine Department, 1,608 new appointments. In the Fisheries Branch alone there have been 269 new appointments. I say in the presence of my hon. friend the Minister 
of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) that if Ire conducted his own private affairs as he and his colleagues have conducted the affairs of this country, he would very soon have no business to conduct.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He would not have any business to manage.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Mr. CROTHERS:: Is my hon. friend
speaking about the expenses of the different *departments?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Does my hon. friend say that the increase in the Labour Department is 50 per cent?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The expenditure was $7,000 less last year than in the previous
year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am speaking of the four years since 1911.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That is not true; 1 will tell you that.


Mr. OLIVER:: The Ihon. minister is
scarcely in order in making such a straight remark as that.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: What is there oat of order about it? I do not for one moment charge my hon. friend with making a statement that he knows to be untrue. 1 know him too well to believe that he would do such a thing as that. I simply say that the statement which he makes, which I assume he has from an outside source, is untrue.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When my hon. friend's Estimates come before the House, I will prove to the hilt that my statement is true.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, you will not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I happen to know something about the Department of Labour, because I administered it for four years; and I can compare favourably the administration during that time with that of my hon. friend.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We are not discussing that just'now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The rate of expenditure during the short term of office of my hon.
friend has been simply scandalous as compared with the rate of expenditure during my time.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I can only say that that statement is also untrue. I do not charge my hon. friend with intentionally making it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In Trade and Commerce, the rate of increase has been 905 per cent. That was explained in a way the other day by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I am inclined to accept his statement, but the increase is nevertheless abnormally high. In the inspection of staples, the rate of increase has been 98 per cent; in the inspection of weights and measures, gas and electric in-
10 p.m. spection, 25 per cent. I know whereof I speak. If my hon. friend the Postmaster General were in his seat, I would not charge him, because he is, fortunately, not responsible for the maladministration of the Post Office Department; but I would call his attention to the state of things which exists in his department. When I administered the Post Office Department, no contract above $200 was given without tenders being called for; but, since the Hon. Mr. Pelletier took charge of that department, the policy of public tenders has been cast to the winds, and that explains why, three years after the administration of the department by Mr. Pelletier, the expenditure has been more than doubled.
Let me give my hon. friends another instance. The other day I put a question on the Order Paper, asking the Postmaster General how many new appointments had been made in the Quebec post office since 1911. Let me explain to you, Sir, the Quebec post office yields on an average a revenue of $100,000 a year. When I left the department in 1911 there were from 70 to 75 employees in that post office. I will ask my hon. friend the Minister of Labour how many appointments have been made by Mr. Pelletier since lDill ? Did he make no more than fifty appointments to an office which does not yield a revenue of $100,000 a year? No, Mr. Speaker. 'Did he make 75, 100, 150, 200 appointments to that office? Six, Mr. Pelletier appointed in the Quebec post office 255 camp followers in three years. In the Montreal post office there were about 750 to 800 employes in 1911. I am not positive as to the figures, but I am not far astray when I say that there are over 1,500 employees in the Montreal post office today. Is it, then, surprising that the rate



J150 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
of expenditure should have gone so high as it did during the administration of Mr. Pelletier? I say that his administration in the Post Office Department was a scandal from the day he went in to the day he went out. He has not been fair to his successor, the present Postmaster General, who is a business man and who has a sense of responsibility.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What are they going to do with the $17,000,000 they are asking for this year?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will say in a moment what the Government ought to do. I am going to appeal to the better instincts of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. I am appealing in this grave national crisis, not to the spoilsmen, but to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister nf Trade and Commerce. I say, let us have a round table conference in the House of Commons. Let us form a committee, and let us apply the pruning knife to the scandalous expenditure of the various departments of the Government. When our sons are bleeding on the plains of Flanders; when our wives and sisters are straining every nerve on behalf of the Patriotic Fund, the Red Cross, the Serbian Fund, the Belgian Fund, the Polish Fund, it is a scandal for the Government to maintain such a high rate.of expenditure. The conditions are as I have stated them, Mr. Speaker, and no answer can be given to the charges that I have made. No justification of the expenditure can be offered, because there has been no corresponding increase in population, in trade, in revenue, in business generally. Sir, we are not the only pebbles on the beach. In the other overseas dominions, there are level-headed men. What have they done in South Africa? I quote from the Times of May 22, 1915, which says:
'Steps were at once taken by the Government of South Africa to curtail as far as possible the expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31.
Regarding India, the Times says in the same issue:
To meet the shrinkage in revenue it has been decided to curtail expenditures, and not to resort to additional taxation. The capital outlay for public works, etc., was reduced by $60,000,000. Australia and. New Zealand adopted a similar policy.
Economy in private life is a golden rule, I think; economy in public life is also a golden rule. But more especially is .it a

golden rule when a country is at war, and when that country is being taxed and overtaxed by its administrators. The Government cannot complain that it has not received warnings. Warnings have come to hon. gentlemen opposite, not only from this side of the House, but from their own friends. A year ago, Sir Edmund Byron Walker, who is probably the counsel and adviser of the Minister of Finance, speaking in Toronto, reminded his hearers that it was the duty of every man, woman and child to do their little part in adding, by extraordinary industry, to the natural store of wealth. Nothing, he counselled, should be bought or built that is not absolutely necessary. He added the following words:
For, in the years to come we shall be binding our backs to a taxation such as in this country, which has been singularly free of taxation, we have never known before; and so also will our children for generations to come.
I say that the Government have received warnings not only from this side of the House- though it is our duty and our business to warn the Government-but from their own friends. Was there not something strange in the language of Lord Shaughnessy the otheT day when he received the news of the Finance Minister's new taxation measure. No Government, no private individual, would have received without a blush the warning contained in his words. After having criticised moderately the measure of-taxation brought down by the Minister of Finance, Lord Shaugh-nessy added the following ominous words:
Every good citizen and reasonable man will loyally stand back of the Finance Minister in the adoption of the plan of action that they find may finally be considered best in the circumstances, but in return, the people of the country will demand, probably more emphatically than ever before, that expenditures in connection with war shall be without wastefulness or extravagance, and that the Minister of Finance, with his colleagues, shall see that the country's money is neither pilfered nor squandered.
Do you think that if the Government were blameless in the administration of the affairs of this country since the beginning of the war: do you think that if the Government had behaved themselves even in the ordinary way, Lord Shaughnessy, a friend of the Government, the mighty president of a mighty company, would have used that language? Mr. Speaker, we live in a British Dominion, under British laws. We have a British form of government; we have British ideals of government. Could you imagine the governor of the bank

of England, or the president of a powerful company in London, or even the bitterest opponent of the Asquith Government, speaking as Lord Shaughnessy ' spoke when giving this timely advice to the Government? Could you imagine any one in England saying to the Government: "Do not pilfer, do not squander the money of the people." Why, Sir, the very warning is an accusation that goes to the heart of the people of Canada.
I for one do not object to being taxed. We have an old French saying: " On Tie va pas a guerre sans qu'il en coute "- no war is carried on without taxation. But taxation, in order to be borne by the people, must be first equitable, and before taxing the people it is the duty of the Government to avoid all unnecessary and extravagant expenditures so as to limit the burden of taxation.
I know what will be the cry of our hon. friends when Parliament is dissolved and when" we on both sides of the House have to face our electors. I can anticipate the excuses given by the Government for this taxation. We have heard some of these already. One hon. gentleman, I think the hon. member for East L,ambton (Mr. Armstrong), said:	"Oh, we of the Tpry party
will never be accused of favouring the interests : we have taxed the interests this time." What a shallow excuse, as if last year by that horizontal raising of the tariff by 7i per cent, the minister had not- gone to the very vitals of the consumers of this country. We were told last year that it was a war measure, I doubt it very much. In my humble judgment the raise in the tariff was the payment of the debt which the Tory party owed to the privileged interests, which put them in power in 1911.
The Solicitor General the other day, when fighting the resolution for free wheat, said: " There is no caste system in this country." His remark reminded me of what Mr. Bryce has written in his classical book, " The American Commonwealth." Speaking of those Americans who boast of having no aristocracy in the United States, but that on the contrary, the United States of Amer-, ica are the home of modern democracy, Mr. Bryce says that it is true that there are in the United States of America no kings, no dukes, no counts, no knights. But, he says, if the world changes, the change is only on the surface and the same idols reappear under different names He said: " True, there is a President of the Republic, and surely he is the President of a great democracy; but there is in the United States a silver king
in California; there is a steel king at Pittsburg; there is a cotton king at New Orleans. They are not kings by divine right, but by the rights conferred upon them by privileges-by the tariff, by the trusts, and by the combines."
So there is no caste system in Canada, as the Solicitor General said the other day, but we have privileged interests well entrenched. The millers belong to our Canadian pseudo aristocracy; they fight free wheat in the name of interests which they hold dear and sacred. They fight wider markets; they fight the farmer in order to maintain well entrenched their interests, as the dukes, as the counts, as the knights of old fought behind their walls and behind their castles against serfdom. The Minister of Finance is very much perturbed indeed lest free wheat would make us Canadians dependent on the United States. The same candid gentleman who in 1911 said that Canada should not truck nor trade with the Yankees, in the month of November, 1915, went to New York to borrow $45,000,000 from Pierpont Morgan' and the American money trusts. In the same vein, in order to keep the farmers of the West marking time he predicts for them a preference with the Mother Country.
I wish here to settle a controversial point with the Minister of Finance. The other day he was reciting an Order in Council of the 60's about a request of the Canadian traders and merchants for a preferential agreement to he obtained from the Mother Country, and I said to him that it was the withdrawal of a similar preference which had precipitated the movement for annexation in Canada; that, on the contrary, the granting of reciprocal trade to Canada had been the means of stopping the agitation for annexation. He at once said: "Yes, we obtained reciprocity; but reciprocity was withdrawn; that treaty was abrogated in 1866." We may always learn something from history. The House will pardon me if I venture for a few moments to speak of that particular period of our commercial history, because it shows how hollow is that prediction of a future agreement for mutual preferential trade between England and Canada, and at the same time how foolish is the idea that free wheat would endanger our national standing. In 1911 the Minister of Finance said that if we had reciprocity it would endanger our Canadian nationality, and this year, when our friends from the West

are pleading in vain for free wheat, he says your wheat is liable to lose its identity if it is mixed with American wheat. It would be just as wise to say to the people of the county of Rouville, who grow the finest apples in Canada:	"You shall not sell
your beautiful Fameuse apples to England for fear that they may be consumed by the people of Whitechapel instead of by the people living in the mansions of west London." There is as much truth and honesty in this argument as there is in the one given in answer to the unanswerable speech delivered the other day by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver).
Sir, what caused the annexation movement in 1849? It was the repeal of the Corn laws. What was the essence of the Corn laws as regards Canada and some of the other colonies? It was that Canada and the other colonies enjoyed a preference in the British market for certain staple goods, corn included; and it was the abandonment by England of that Imperial preferential policy, and her adoption instead of free trade, whjch created that agitation in Canada in favour of annexation. Our merchants could not compete in the British markets with the exports of the older nations, and our raw products were shut out of the American market by duties as high as thirty per cent. The manifesto, signed by men of all shades of opinion, advocated annexation because the efforts to obtain closer commercial relations with the United- States had failed. Lord Elgin was then the Governor General of Canada, and he was by no means a free trader. I wonder if my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has read Walrond's " Letters and Journals of Lord Elgin." I would recommend him to read the following passage:
How long: can such a state of things be expected to endure?. .1 am confident I could carry Canada unscathed through all these evils of transition, and place the connection on a surer foundation than ever, if I could only tell the people of the Province, that, as regards the conditions of material prosperity, they would be raised to a level with their neighbours.
Writing to Lord Grey, he says:
You have a great opportunity before you. Obtain reciprocity for us, and I venture to predict that you will be able shortly to point to this hitherto turbulent colony with satisfaction, in illustration of the tendency of self government and freedom of trade to beget contentment and material progress.	-
Lord Elgin was authorized to negotiate the reciprocity treaty with the Washington Government. He concluded that treaty in

1854, and it was much wider than the Fielding-Knox pact of 1911. It was, it is true, abrogated by Congress in 1866, but that was in consequence of the difference between England and the United States during the Civil War. So that reciprocity was a cure for the evil of annexation in Canada, and reciprocity helped tire people of Canada to get substantial and remunerative markets for their products in the United States. The result is worth mentioning. In 1854, the exports of the farmers of Canada to the United States amounted to only $10,473,000. In 1855, they amounted to $19,368,000, and in 1866 to $39,950,000. Sir John A. Macdonald, who was jusit as good an Imperialist as the Minister of Finance, was most anxious in 1865 that the treaty should he renewed. In 1878, when he was leader of the Opposition, he moved an amendment to the Budget of that year. He declared that his policy,
moving, as it ought to do, in the direction of a reciprocity of tariffs with our neighbours so far as the varied interests of Canada may demand, will greatly tend to procure for this country, eventually, a reciprocity of trade.
In the tariff of 1879, which was the foundation of the so-called National Policy, there was that famous standing offer in which wheat, barley, rye, Indian corn, buckwheat, and all other grains; flour of wheat, and flour of rye, Indian meal, oatmeal and flour meal, were enumerated. We have there the standing offer of reciprocity to the United States, made by the Chieftain of the Conservative party.
But my hon. friend who is siding with the millers and the interests now implores the farmers of Western Canada to wait patiently until this war is over, when new arrangements will be made with the home Government to obtain a mutual preference. The answer to this is easy to make. First of all, this mutual preference policy lias been to our knowledge defeated twice in England within the last 15 years. We are told that after this war new fiscal relations will exist after the war as between the the Dominion. As to that, Mr. Speaker, l believe that, in the loftier sense, new relations will exist after the war between the dominions and the Mother Country, but 1 say that those relations will not involve the putting of shackles on British trade. The answer to that contention has been given by Mr. Runeiman, the President of the British Board of Trade. Speaking on the 10th of January of this year, in reply to a speech delivered by Mr. Hewins in the British

House of Commons, he used the following language:
The idea of free trade as between the Allies is even more difficult than complete free trade between different parts of the Empire. As he truly pointed out, the action of our Empire has been more individualistic than that of any other Empire in the world. The individual policy of the dominions is not likely to be modified as far as we can see in any measureable time. They are determined to raise revenue in their own way and to foster their industry in their own way, and I think we must dismiss the idea of free trade within the Empire. So far as the zollverein, if you include the Allies as well, is concerned, I would point out that the difficulties are very great. I am certain if a zollverein between this Empire ana the Allies were necessary to end the war successfully a zollverein we should have, for there is no arrangement which we are not prepared to make in order to bring the war to a successful conclusion.
So that Mr. Runciman, the President of the British Board of Trade, dismisses the idea of any zollverein between the various sections of the Empire. He says that if it is necessary and possible to have a zollverein between the Allies-not with the overseas dominions-during the war, in - order to end the war, he is ready to advocate it as a war measure. Therefore the sentimental promise of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to the unfortunate farmers of the West is a sorry substitute for a plain, honest and businesslike answer.
I do not purpose to go very deeply into the taxation measure which has been propounded by my hon. friend, because it is easy to see that he has already been bombarded by the business men in the country with petitions and protests, and that his Bill will be quite different from the resolution he has introduced. I shall therefore await the Bill before criticising its proposals. But, with your permission, Sir, I may he allowed to read the mild criticism of his predecessor, Mr. Fielding, the man who administered successfully the affairs of this country during 15 years, who gave Canada the British preference, and who piled up in successive years surpluses which unfortunately have been spent so lavishly since our friends opposite took office. In the Journal of -Commerce of Tuesday, February 23, Mr. Fielding -says:
The retroactive character of the proposal is a good ground for objection, except perhaps in the case of the munition makers. These had very large profits during the past years-larger, probably, than they will have in the current year-and the retroactive provision doubtless was designed to reach them. But the general application of the tax to business from the beginning of the war, on August 4, 1914, is likely to be the cause of considerable trouble
73	<
affecting, as it does, parties interested in transactions which were long ago settled and closed.
Mr. Fielding goes on to say:
The minister has endeavoured to define what is " capital " for the purpose of his scheme, but the definition, as it stands, will not work out equitably. The holder of a watered stock, which has now become profitable, will escape the tax, because his dividend is less than 7 per cent on the par value of the shares, but on the price he paid-if there was originally any price -his dividend is 15 or 20 per cent on the real capital invested. While this lucky fellow escapes. the holder of shares of a more substantial character, purchased at a high premium, is taxed, because his dividend on the par value is 8 or 10 per cent, though in reality it is only 4 or 5 per cent on his investment. This is one of the most vulnerable parts of the minister's plan.
Bat I understand from the remarks inter-[DOT] jected into this debate by the Minister of Finance that on this question of the definition of the capital of companies he intends, when his Bill is introduced, to give more satisfactory explanations than are found in the resolution as it appears here.
Speaking for myself only, I say that the tax on the war profits of the munition makers is not high enough. We all know fhat their profits have been abnormally high and I say that a tax of 50 per cent would possibly satisfy me with the retroactive clause. But a tax on industry, on business, is objectionable and a retroactive clause applied as against legitimate business and trade is nothing short of confiscation. This tax on business and trade will discourage investment of capital in industrial enterprises. It will prevent the flow of American capital into Canada. I know, as a matter of fact, and I will read the letter when we reach the committee stage, that an American capitalist who had decided to open at least four or five different establishments in Montreal, on reading the resolution introduced the other day by the Minister of Finance, decided to return to the United States and concentrate his business there.
We all know that there can be no war without heavy interest charges to pay. Some day, after this war is over, our customs and excise will not -suffice to pay our interest charges. Then we will have, -as a Government, to face a new measure of taxation. W'hat is the fair and equitable system to be adopted in such a contingency? I say-and I speak for myself only -I commit no one to my views-that there is only one principle of equity and fairness, and it is the introduction of the income tax. Will the Minister of Finance



allow me to refer him to the classics? Will he allow me to read some lines written on the subject by masters in political economy? Let me refer him to Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations," book 5, chapter 2. He says:
The subjects of every stati? ought to contribute to the support of the Government as nearly as possible In proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.
Let me read now what is said by Adolphe Thiers, the first President of the Third Republic, who served the French monarchy under the Restoration, and who opposed the second Empire in the time of Napoleon III. M. Thiers said-
Every kind of revenue, without exception, ought to contribute to the needs of the state, for ail depend upon it for their existence. Every exemption from taxation is an injustice.
.. . Society is a company of mutual insurance, in which each man should pay the risk in proportion to the amount of property insured... . Society is a company, in which each man has more or less shares, and it is just that each should pay in proportion to their number, whether they be ten, or a hundred, or a thousand, but always according to the same rate imposed on all. There should be one rule for all, nothing more or less.
Let it he well understood that I speak for myself only. I do not propose to the Government the introduction of an income tax at the present moment; but I say that the day will come, after this war is over, when, this country being saddled with a huge war debt, the Government will have to adopt the system which has been propounded by Adam Smith in his "Wealth of Nations" and by Adolphe Thiers. I invite the Minister of Finance to read again these classics on political economy, in order to find a better system .than has been devised by him to meet the exigencies of the present situation.
One word more and I am through. I wish, as a French-Canadian, or, if you please, as a Canadian of French descent, to offer my most hearty thanks to the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross), and to the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) for the words which' they . spoke in praise of my old Motherland, France. It is well that we should speak of the existing relations between France and England at this tragic moment, when France is fighting so valiantly to stem the

tide of barbarian hordes around Verdun. For many a century England and France were enemies, but they were not enemies in the sense that Germany is an enemy to the civilized countries of the world. Even Sir Philip Sydney himself always spoke of France as "la douce ennemie de l'Angle-terre "-the sweet enemy of England. You. Sir, will remember that when the English and the French were facing each other at Fontenoy the commander of the French very gallantly said, "Tirez les premiers messieurs les Anglais." To one of French descent who has travelled in Europe and lived here in Canada under British institutions, it is always difficult to realize that England and France should for centuries have lived in a state of hostility. 1 read not many years ago a book which well reflects the sentiments which France entertained. for England during the latter part of the last century. The book was written by a French lady residing just across the channel on the French coast, and was published under the very suggestive title of "Pile Inconnue"-the unknown isle. In a lesser degree we might say that the average Englishman of that day spoke of France as a " terra incognita." The two races did not understand each other, because of secular conflicting interests, until our good and gracious King Edward VII established the entente cordiale, which I know will endure as long as the French-and British live. The admiration of my English-speaking friends for the courage and bright qualities displayed by the French in this war seems to be a little mingled with astonishment. Mr. Speaker, I find nothing astonishing in the brilliant part played by France in this war. It is not a new France which is fighting to-day so nobly and so valiantly against the Hun. France is what she has ever been, the knight errant of civilization, of justice and of freedom. I have heard many people in days gone by speak of the French frivolity. My answer to that is the same as was given by the American war correspondent who accompanied the French troops the days following the glorious retreat from the Marne. "A frivolous people? Why," he said, "they are the most thoughtful people in the world; their frivolity is nothing but a disguise. There is no miraculous regeneration in France. You cannot remould a nation's soul in a day, ire a week or in a year." Mr. Speaker, the France of Poincare, of Joffre, of Castelnau, of Pau, of Foch is the France of Joan of Arc, of

Desaix, of Hoche and of Marceau. Her internal dissensions of the past are but evidence of the intense intellectuality of the French people, and of their keen pursuit of ideals. No, Mr. Speaker, it is the same old France. Even one of our enemies, Count von Bulow, says in his book, " Imperial Germany": "It is a peculiarity of the French nation that they place <- spiritual needs above material ones." I can quite understand that a prapounder of German kultur thought this peculiar.
Before concluding, I should just like to give the House a description of the French by a Frenchman, and a Frenchman of no mean ability, Alexis de Tocqueville, who wrote on the American democracy more than half a .century ago/ I think, after listening to this, the House will better understand how France is France and how the French are the French:
When I contemplate this nation itself, it strikes me as more extraordinary than' any of the events in its history. Was there ever in this world a people so full of contrasts, so extreme in each one of its actions, more guided by emotions and less by principles? Thus always doing better or worse than was expected, at one time below the common level of humanity, at another far above it; a people so stable in their principal instincts that they are still recognizable in portraits that were drawn two or three thousand years ago, and at the same time so changeable in their daily thoughts and in their tastes, that they themselves are finally astonished at the spectacle they present, and are often as surprised as foreigners at the sight of what they have just done ; the most stay-at-home creatures of habit when left to themselves, but once they have been forced, against * their will, to abandon their accustomed dwellings and uses, ready to carry all before them to the ends of the earth, and to dare anything; intractable by nature, and nevertheless submitting with a better grace to the arbitrary and even brutal rule of a prince, than to the orderly and free government of the principal citizens; one day the avowed enemy of all allegiance, the next day serving with such a passionate devotion as even the nations most prone to servitude cannot attain; people who can be guided by a thread as long as no one resists, but who become ungovernable as soon as the example to resist is given anywhere; thus always deceiving their masters who fear them either too little or too much; never so free that it is hopeless to try and subjugate them, nor so utterly enslaved that they cannot throw off the yoke; qualified for anything, but excelling only in war; worshipping chance, force, success, show and glamour, rather than true glory; more capable of' heroism than of virtue, of genius than of common sense, -better able to conceive immense schemes than to consummate great undertakings; the most brilliant and the most dangerous of the nations of Europe.
And he concludes with the following sentence, which is often quoted:
And the most apt to become in turn an object of admiration, haired, pity, and terror, but never one of indifference.
This is France as depicted by one of the foremost French writers and thinkers. I said a moment ago that for many centuries the French and the English of the old world did not know nor appreciate each other well. So it is ,so it has been between the English-speaking and the French-speaking Canadians. May I say to my Englishspeaking fellow-members, after having sat in this Parliament for twenty years, counting as many friends amongst the English as amongst the French, knowing my compatriots as I know them, understanding their traditions and their aspirations, that they are one of the best assets of the British Empire. Bear always in mind that their language and their traditions are a barrier, not to British influence, not to, British civilization, not to British ideals, but to Americanization, which is- admittedly the greatest danger of Canada.
In conclusion, may we not hope that this war,_ in which French-Canadians and Eng-lish-Canadians fight and die for the same ideals, may be the promise of a brotherhood exhibiting harmony and strength at home, may substitute for disunion, misery and contention, the actual arrival and the yet richer promise of a reign of peace for our common country.


Mr. G. H. BRADBURY (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour I do not intend to enter into a discussion following my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux), who has delivered such an eloquent speech. I have risen for the purpose of criticising just for a few moments some of the remarks which have fallen from the lips of the member for Assi-niboia (Mr. Turriff). We have read a good deal during the last few months of the sniping that is going on at the front, that most cowardly kind of fighting in which men hide themselves in a bush and shoot those-who have no chance to defend themselves t but there is political sniping going on in this House of such a nature that is utterly unworthy of any man either in or out of the House. I am very sorry that the hon. member is not in his seat, because I would like him to hear what I have to say regarding a statement which he made in reference to a loyal citizen of Canada. I had just left the Chamber or I would have called him to order when he made the statement, but after I came back I was informed of what he said. Speaking of

some of the employees of the Public Works Department, he said:
Some years ago, when my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works canje into power, he was very ready at firing men and putting Germans into their places.
That statement is absolutely without foundation, and the hon. gentleman ought to have known that. He went on to say:
In charge of the dredging works at the mouth of the Red river he has a man named Sw.eney, a pro-German.
That statement is also absolutely incorrect and without the slightest foundation. Tt is unfair, and, if I dared use the language that I feel like using, I would use much stronger language in regard to it. The hon. gentleman who made this statement in this House regarding Mr. Sweeney, would not dare repeat it outside the 'precincts of th-s House, because the laws of the country would call him to account for it. He said further:
If you went into his office at any time, you would find him, with his feet up on the desk and a cigar in his mouth, reading p:o-German oaners, and every time the British lost anything in the way of a battle, he was exulting over every one that came within sound of his voice' when the Germans won a battle, he was 111 happiness. That is the class of man who lias been brought down east and put m charge of the Toronto harbour improvements.
The hon. gentleman has been stuffed by some one who has told him what is absolutely untrue and who has made* him convey to the House and to the country statements that are absolutely unfounded and - untrue. There should be some fairness on both sides regarding public officials. I have known Mr. Sweeney ever since he came to Winnipeg to take up a position m the Public Works Department. He is, without any exception, one of the brightest young engineers in Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is lie a German? The name does not sound German.


George Henry Bradbury: He is not a German.
He is a loyal Canadian; lie is a British citizen, and lie has done what the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) lias not done; he has volunteered and joined Colonel Sharpe's regiment, the 184th. Yesterday he told me in the corridors of this House that he had asked the Minister of Public Works two weeks ago to relieve him in order that he might join Colonel Sharpe's regiment. He has given up a position worth $4,000 a year in order to don His Majesty's uniform and fight for the Empire. The conduct of the hon. member is unmanly, unfair, and unjust, and should not be permitted frpm [Mr. Bradbury.!
any member of this House. I cannot help thinking that the hon. gentleman who has been guilty of this gross unfairness owes to Mr. Sweeney a public apology, and I believe that, when this matter is drawn to his attention to-morrow, he will be man enough to get up in this House and take back what he has said.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Can -the hon. member
tell me if the gentleman who is under discussion was engaged in work in St. John some two or three years ago?


George Henry Bradbury: I believe he was.
On motion of Mr. Oliver, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Hazen, the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Monday, February 28, 1916.