1917-05-03

PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 44 to incorporate Alliance National©.-Mr. Achim. .

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1916, Part VI.-Sir Thomas White.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 45,
. to amend the Insurance Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is almost in the same terms as that introduced by the late Mr. Lancaster a few years ago and in view of the fact that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) has a notice on -the paper for the introduction of a Bill to amend the Insurance Act, I would ask that this also be allowed to go to the same committee and perhaps the two could be taken up together. This amendment which I ask leave to introduce has reference to companies upon the backs of whose certificates were endorsed certain terms as to the payment, and the rate of payment, of the premiums. It is alleged that one company, which I need not name, have, by arbitrary action, gone outside of the terms and conditions which they have at times made with insurers and it is to place these persons who have been insured in a fair position that this amendment is introduced. The discussion of this matter will be of considerable length and I would ask that it be postponed until the bill is before the committee.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE (Montreal, St. James) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 46, to amend the Bank Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to detain the House just now with any lengthy explanation of the question which underlies the principle of the Bill I desire to introduce, in amendment to the Bank Act. An opportunity for the discussion of this question will occur later on. I may say that this is a most important question to the public at large and I believe there are hundreds of thousands of people in Canada who will be grateful for such legislation. The purport of the measure is to have the rate of interest fixed by statute on saving bank deposits at not less than four per cent. The amendment would read as follows:
Section 92 of the Ban'-: Act, chapter 9 of the Statutes of 1913 is amended by striking out
the word "whatever" in the first line of said section and inserting in lieu thereof "not less than four per cent".
My intention is to have an understanding with my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) on the subject of this Bill before its second reading.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

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

Mr. MACDONALD:: What was the cost per calendar month during the winter of 1916-1917 at Pictou, Charlottetown and Georgetown respectively, of handling freight going to and from Prince Edward Island?


Mr. REID:: Charlottetown, November, 67c. per ton; December, $1; January 1st to 10th, 73c. Georgetown, January 10th to 31st, 45c.; February, 44c.; March, 40c.; April 1st to 21st, 38c. Pictou, January, February and March, -626c. At the present time freight is handled at Pictou for Prince Edward at a cost of .434c. per ton.


NEW GLASGOW-MOUNTVILLE MAIL ROUTE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Who is the mail contractor for rural route No. 2, from New Glasgow to Mountville, County of Pictou?
2.	When was the contract let?
3.	When does it expire?
4.	What is the annual payment t0 the contractor?
Mr. PATENA'UDE:
1.	Charles D. McKay.
2.	23rd April, 1917.
3.	31st March, 1921.
4.	$934.


MAJOR ALFRED LEFEBVRE.
Mr. PAPINEAU:: 1.	Where, and at what date was Major Alfred Lefebvre enrolled in the 206th Battalion?
2.	What length of time has he served in the said battalion?
3.	How much did he receive per diem, as officer, for field pay, and for any other item, respectively?
4.	Did his wife receive the separation allowance?
5.	If so, what amount has been paid to her each month, and during what time?
6.	Is the said Alfred Lefebvre still employed in the Active Militia?
7.	If not, when was he discharged?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Montreal; 10th February, 1916.
2.	143 days.
3.	Field pay, 75c. per diem; regimental pay, $3 per diem; subsistence, $1.50 per diem.
4.	Yes.
5.	$40 per month, 10th February, 1916, to 30th April, 1917. A refund is being obtained for the period overpaid.
6.	He is still on the reserve of officers of the active militia, but not actively employed.
7.	His appointment in the 206th Battalion was cancelled with effect from 16th July, 1916.


PAYMENTS TO N. W. WHITE, K.C.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: What was the gross amount paid by the Government to Mr. N. W. White, K.C., of Shelburne, N.S., for services by way of salary, allowance for travelling expenses, etc., in connection with his services as Commissioner of Indian Reservations?


Mr. ROCHE:: Salary, living allowance and expenses paid Mr. N. W. White, chairman and commissioner of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for British Columbia:
1913-	14: Salary, commissioner, March 31 to December 31, 1913; March 14 to March 31, 1914; 276 days at $20 a day, $5,520; living allowance, 276 days at $10, $2,760; travelling expenses, $316.85, total, $8,596.85.
1914-	15:	Salary, commissioner, April 1
to 16, 1914, 16 days at $20 a day, $320; chairman, April 17 to November 30, 1914, 228 days at $25 a day, $5,700; December, 1914, $415; March 1 to 19, 1915, 19 days at $25 a day, $475; living allowance, 263 days at $10 a day, $2,630; travelling expenses, $325.65, total, $9,865.65.
1915-	16: Salary, chairman, April 1, 1915, to March 31, 1916, 366 days at $25 a day* $9,150; living allowance, 366 days at $10 a day, $3,660; travelling expenses, $121.75, total, $12,931.75.
1916-	17: Salary, chairman, April 1, 1916, to July 13, 1916, 104 days at $25 a day, $2,600; living allowance, 104 days at $10, $1,040; travelling expenses, $149.12, total $3,789.12.
Total, $35,183.37.


PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURE, 1916-1917.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What was the total amount of the expenditure in the Public Works Department ending fiscal year 1916-17 upon Public Works (a) out of Consolidated Fund; (b) Capital Expenditure?


John Dowsley Reid: Approximately: (a) consolidated fund, $9,540,239.90;	(b) capital,
$6,408,664.23; total, $15,948,904.13.


CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES.
Mr. DEVLIN:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to propose any legislation at the present session looking towards an increase in the salaries of the civil service, either by way of additional salary or bonus?
2.	Has it been brought to the notice of the Government or any member thereof, either officially or otherwise, that the civil service of the United States have had an increase granted them of 10 per cent to all employees receiving ?1,800 per annum, or less, and 5 per cent to all recelveing over this amount?
3.	If the matter contained in question 2 has not been brought to the attention of the Government, will it take any steps this session towards verifying same, with a view to treating the civil service of Canada as equitably as that of the United States?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	It is the intention to introduce legislation relating to the salaries of certain of the lower grades of the Inside Civil Service. With respect to the Outside Service, the action which may be taken by the Government will be indicated in the Supplementary Estimates.
2.	The information, so far as I am aware, has not been especially drawn to the attention of the Government.
3.	We shall have to deal with the situation here on its merits, and having regard to our financial and other responsibilities, without reference necessarily to conditions which prevail in the United States.


ARMAND DAVERGNE.
Mr. PARDEE:: 1.	Has Armand Lavergne any official position under the direction of the Militia Department regarding recruiting in Quebec for Home Defence?
2.	If so, is he in receipt of pay?
3.	What is his allowance, and how long has he been drawing same?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


HOME DEFENCE FORCE.
Mr. PARDEE:: 1.	How many men have been enrolled for the Home Defence Force?
2.	What will be the duties of the Home Defence Force?
3.	How many men are expected to be in training at various Militia Camps in Canada by June 1st next?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Figures up to date are not available, but the total is small.
2.	In time of peace, much more in time of war, it is necessary to maintain armed forces within the borders of a country for the maintenace of law and order, and to meet emergencies, the exact nature of which it may not be possible to foresee. In Canada, since August, 1914, this function has *been discharged by the considerable bodies of the C.E.F. which have been undergoing training. But with the opening of the great offensive in France has come a change of policy, and it is desirable to be able to send reinforcements overseas as quickly as possible. The presence in Canada of the C.D.F. would enable the military authorities to follow this course, if events should render it desirable. Moreover, it is hoped that many men who enlist in the C.D.F. will later volunteer for service in the C.E.F.
3.	It is regarded as inexpedient in the public interest to submit an estimate-.


INSPECTOR OF MILITARY BUILDINGS.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Is there a position known as Inspector of Military Buildings?
2.	If so, what is the name of the inspector?
3.	When was he appointed, and what position, if any, under the Government, did he hold prior to said appointment? '
4.	What are his duties and salary?
5.	Why was not the position given to a returned soldier?


Sir EDWARD KEMP :: 1.	No.
2,	3, 4 and 5. Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

["Mr. Speaker, from the remarks by the eloquent orators who have hereto taken part in the debate on the Budget, I took it that the main question was that of free wheat. The subect is not wanting in interest. It may be considered from two viewpoints, as to-day's discussion shows.\nThe enhanced price of wheat in the western provinces must necessarily produce an increase in the cost of flour, and so the people in the East must pay a much higher price for this staple commodity. Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr. Turriff) censuring strongly the Government. At every session he was heard in condemnation of the Government because the latter would not grant to the western provinces a greater measure of reciprocity. Yet the gentleman hails from .an eastern constituency, having been bom, as myse'lf, in the county of Rimouski, where he has still important interests and many relatives.\nI think he must remember-having been brought up in that section of my province- that the province of Quebec has some interests it seeks to protect, and he cannot but admit that the western part of Canada\nshould not monopolize all our attention and efforts.\nIn support of my claim, I shall quote from *a speech I delivered last year in this House. I shall read the English version, so as to be understood by the hon. members who -do not understand French. My remarks were as follows:-\nAll the points of the question have been sifted again and again and all its aspects scrutinized, and from all the twaddle what stands out clear to me is that the western members are using the question as an electoral war-horse. They take it up as a good means of boosting their case and ensuring their reelection.\nA while ago one of the western members attacked the Government for not giving the farmers all the help they were entitled to. Yet, if any people should grumble against want of solicitude on the part of the Government, surely not those farmers. Every time they are the victims of some slight mishap, a drought or a frost, they appeal to the Government and immediately millions of dollars are put at their disposal to enable them to tide over the crisis. Our eastern farmers have not the same recourse. If the harvest is bad, or they suffer from frost, they have to shift for themselves without any one coming to their aid. Of ail farmers who have no reason to grumble, those of the prairies are first, for the Government is lavish in its favours to them.\nThe same orator complains that agricultural implements were not allowed to be imported free of duty from the United States, he claims the tariff in that respect is detrimental to them, and in support of his contention he maintains that the higher price paid for the same machinery in Canada than obtains across the border is disadvantageous to the farmer, that it is in fact money taken from the purse of the farmer and given to the manufacturer. So be it, but, in my opinion, when the hon. member further stated that only the manufacturers reap the benefit of the tariff, he is clearly mistaken. The workmen also find) it he to their benefit. It must not be forgotten that in those manufactories are to he found workmen to whom the tariff is a benefit in the form of employment. Granted even that an article he something higher in price in Canada than it is in the United States, it seems to me that if the western people were good patriots, they would' not begrudge this slight sacrifice to allow Canadian workmen to find his sustenance in this, our common country. After all we are not an agglomeration of two or three Canadas, but we form an entity destined to live as a whole in this country, and no section ought to he indifferent to the necessities of another section.\nThere is another subject I would call to the attention of my hon. friend from the West. We have, out of the public treasury, built for their use, at fabulous cost, three railways, designed to move their harvest and bring their produce to the Canadian harbours to be thence shipped overseas.\nWe are now building also, at their request, a request made to the late administration and repeatedly pressed upon the present Govern-", "ment,-a burdensome railway, the Hudson Bay railway, to afford them a shorter route to the European markets. I would like to know the bottom reason for those railroad constructions. Why are we wasting so much money on the Hudson Bay road)-built only for the benefit of our western countrymen, since neither Ontario nor Quebec nor the Maritime provinces can utilize it; why waste so many millions for those western farmers, if those gentlemen are bent on dealing on the American market? Is that fair? Bet them insist with the Government that a stop be put to that useless expenditure on the Hudson Bay railway. It might be after all to the country's advantage to abandon those undertakings and allow the western people freedom of trade with the United States. One of the previous orators stated that in the West the farmer made no money. It appears to me there is not much patriotism in coming here to make such a declaration. If in the West the farmers do not make money, why then ask so much for colonization, why all this propaganda to draw settlers to a region where results are so deceptive?\nI, however, have it in my mind that the farmers of the West coin money much more freely than in the East. Had I spoken in the stead of the hon. member I should' certainly not have delivered myself of such a remark, because it is not in the interest of his province. We all know that for the most part the western agriculturists are well-to-do and that many of them become rich with much less pains than our eastern farmers.\nSuch are the few remarks I wished to make. I make them without acrimony and m the best possible intention, so that our friends from the West may realize that (hey should not be parties to these unhealthy agitations, that they are not the only inhabitants of this country, but that on the contrary, they have to live in close community with the other parts of Canada, and that their first thought should be the general interests of the country, and not those o.f a particular section.\nThese remarks, which I have just quoted from my speech of last year, are very fair and very just, and I still believe that the giving of such advantages to our friends of the West is contrary to the interests of the . East. We in the East are ready to support the measure that has been put into force lately by this Government in order to afford an opportunity to our western friends to sell their wheat at a high price; we are ready to make the sacrifice, but on one condition, and it is that these gentlemen immediately cease thinking that Canada exists only for themselves, and that they should remember that there are other parts of the country that want to be protected. With regard to the continual cry for free trade with the United States, while I admit that this will be a benefit for the West, at the same time it is contrary to our interest in the East, and we are solidly against it, and as a patriot I would ask my friends from the West to advise their supporters that they are not TMr. Boulay.]\nalone in this country, and that they must bear their share of tiie burdens of nationhood, sharing in the disadvantages as well as the advantages that may result from tariff reform. In the East we are patriots from an economic standpoint as well as from a fighting standpoint. I am sorry to see published in the western papers attacks against the East, and principally against the province of Quebec, for not doing its duty in this great war. Let me tell the House that the county of Rimouski alone has furnished no less than 800 soldiers for overseas, and the neighbouring counties of Bonaventure and Gaspe have, to a large extent, furnished their share. As the representative of the county of Rimouski, which has furnished such a large number of volunteers to our Canadian army, I say that such attacks should not be made. When, the other day, I heard the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best) quote from a paper a letter from an officer who passed through the province of Quebec, charging our people with insulting the soldiers when they were passing through that province, I was really sorry to hear such an unjust accusation. I do not say that my hon. friend made that statement in order to insult us, for, perhaps, he thought that it might be true, but I may assure the House and the people of Canada that in my county and the adjoining counties of Bonaventure and Gaspe, Which have furnished so many soldiers, the people are in entire sympathy with the valiant Canadians who go overseas to defend us.\nWhether they come from British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, or any other province we are delighted to see the soldiers going overseas to defend our liberty and fight in the cause of humanity. If there have been any such instances as alleged, I should like to see the facts established, and the responsibility placed where it belongs. It may be that soldiers, just like private citizens, have made mistakes occasionally at some of the railway stations in Quebec, and if they insult the people they must expect to be insulted in return. I know that if the soldiers were insulted at Riviere du Loup and Mont Joli, it would be because of the behaviour of the soldiers themselves, not all of them, but a few. The people had no thought of insulting them until they were provoked. I know of one instance where soldiers have insulted women. In Campbellton, which is not in the province of Quebec, some of them took the liberty of seizing a horse and wagon, shoving the proprietor aside, and taking a ride around\n\nthe town. Other soldiers burst into a liquor store in the same town, and took the whole contents. They must naturally expect to be insulted when they do things like that. But these are merely isolated cases, and bad-will must not be imputed to our people, because we are just as patriotic as any of our fellow Canadians and just as eager to win the war. I trust that steps will be taken by the Government or militia authorities to ascertain whether the allegations made by this officer are true, and if an investigation is held I am sure it will be found that his charges are baseless.\nI would take this opportunity of asking the newspapers of the West to cease their attacks upon us. Soldiers from the West, who have read these articles in the western newspapers, must be prejudiced against the province of Quebec, and in passing through our province on their way overseas, they are apt to take offence at little things which otherwise would pass unnoticed. As soon as this depreciation of the province of Quebec in our western newspapers ceases, the better it will be for all the people of this country.\nIn listening to the speeches on the motion by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), I heard hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House one after the other criticise the Government for not doing so and so. The Government was not doing its duty in trying to meet present conditions, they said. In my opinion these charges are a disgrace to those who preferred them. When we think of the terrible crisis with which the Government is confronted, and of the courage displayed not only by the Government as a whole, but by the distinguished gentleman who presides over the Finance Department, instead of trying ibo deprecate hiim lamid accuse him of not doing his duty, hon. gentlemen opposite should get up and praise him for the ability he has shown in conducting the financial affairs of this country since the beginning of the war. Instead of indulging in criticism of that sort hon. gentlemen should get together and help the Government, regardless of party, to pull through the hard times with which we are confronted. One hon. gentleman opposite asks, What has the Government done since the beginning of the war to meet the situation? It should not be necessary to ask such a question. We had to raise, equip and send overseas in a very short time\n400,000\tsoldiers. The money had to be raised to pay these men, and to meet our\nobligations in connection with the war. Besides that, the Government had to carry on the ordinary public services of this country just as in times of peace. The war made the situation confronting the Government ten times harder than anything a government in this country had ever faced before, and I think when hon. gentlemen opposite'think of these things, they should compliment the Government instead of reproaching them.\nAs a representative of the East, I feel very keenly the hard times through which we are passing. The price of flour we should all be very glad indeed to see come down. Our labourers are confronted with a situation we have never before had in this country, and I am sure that if no other solution of the problem can be found, in order to bring down the price of flour and of meat, our farmers in the East would not grumble if the price of potatoes was cut in half and they received only $1 per bushel. I know, from having talked with several of them, that they would be glad to sell their potatoes at $1 a bushel, provided that the prices of flour and meat were reduced proportionately. I have enough confidence in the Government to believe that if this conclusion can be brought about they will take means to that end. That being so, there is no need for the opposition to criticize and to try to embarrass the situation. For my part, I think the best thing we can do is to act as patriots, to act unanimously, and, if we have suggestions, to make them to the Government, in order that we may be united in carrying on and bringing to a successful conclusion the present terrible war.\nOn motion of Mr. McKenzie the debate was adjourned.\nOn the motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.\nFriday, May 4, 1917."]
Mr. BOULAY:: What was the number of employees of the following departments after 1896, and after 1911, respectively, viz.;.-Inland Revenue, Interior, Public Works, Marine and Fisheries, Militia and Defence, Labour and Department of Trade and Commerce?



[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
John Dowsley Reid: The ihon. member for Pictou on the 27th April asked me to bring down papers with reference to the work of the naval aeroplane service of the country. The answer furnished to me (by the Deputy Minister of the Naval Service is this:
The naval officers state that there are no papers or correspondence in the department with reference to a naval aeroplane service in Canada which could be brought down at the present time, and I concur in the opinion.


THE HIGH PRICE OF FLOUR.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GEORGE W. KYTE (Richmond, N.S.) asked for leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the necessity of taking action to prevent further undue advances in the price of flour in Canada, and to reduce the same to an amount representing the price of wheat received by the farmer, plus the cost of milling and distribution, but eliminating the increase due to stock exchange manipulation.
And leave having been granted,
Mr. KYTE:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the householders of the city of Ottawa on picking up the morning paper this morning were very much disturbed by the information which it contained to the effect that the price of flour, already far too high, had increased $1.20 in the last twenty-four hours. In the market reports of the Ottawa Citizen this morning I find:
Chicago, May 2.- Reports that the German Chancellor had postponed a speech in which he was expected to outline new peace terms, brought about a sensational advance to-day in the wheat market here. After a jump that in some cases amounted to 17 cents, the market closed unsettled at net gains of 4$ to 12 cents, with May at $2.69.
Winnipeg, May 2.-Once again all records of a wild market have been broken. May wheat advanced 26ic to 3lie from the opening


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: If the statement is correct that 47,000,000 bushels of wheat are at the present time held by the farmers of the Northwest, would my hon. friend also commandeer that, and if so, at what price?


George William Kyte: I would commandeer it from any person who entertains the same lack

of consideration for the Canadian consumer that the stock speculators do. The farmers are the growers of wheat; the stock manipulators are not the growers of wheat, but the latter are exacting this undue profit from and they are imposing this undue privation upon the people of Canada simply and solely to enrich themselves. If the Government will commandeer this wheat and will ask the millers upon what terms they will mill and distribute ify and if a satisfactory agreement is not made with the millers, then the Government have the power to take over the mills, mill the wheat themselves and distribute the flour to the consumers in Canada. That is being done in Great Britain. The Government of Great Britain have taken over the mills, in that way guaranteeing to the British consumers that they will have their flour at the lowest possible price consistent with the conditions existing at the present time. Perhaps I may not have succeeded in impressing upon the Minister of Finance the real gravity of the situation as it exists throughout the Dominion and more particularly -as ilt exists in that part of -Canada with which I am most familiar, namely, the Maritime Provinces. I cannot imagine that the Minister of Finance will continue indifferent to the existing situation and I implore him to take immediate and effective steps, not only to prevent any further increase in the price of flour, but to restore the price of flour to that which will be reasonable, having regard to the price which the farmers have received for their wheat. My motion sets forth the necessity of taking action to prevent the undue advance in the price of flour, and the desirability of taking action to prevent further undue advances in the price of flour in Canada and to reduce the same to the amount representing the price of wheat received by the farmers, plus the cost of milling and distributing, but eliminating the increase due to stock exchange manipulation.	_
I do not think there is any hon. gentleman within the hearing of my voice who will state that that is ai) unfair or unreasonable demand. All I ask at the present time is that the element of speculation, for which no return is being given, should he eliminated from the price; that the consumer in Canada should be obliged to pay for his flour only that amount which represents the cost of the wheat to the farmer plus the cost of milling and distribution, but no excess profits to any person who contributes nothing to the production of the

wheat or flour supply of the Dominion of Canada.


Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour) :: Mr. Speaker, the officers of the Statistics Branch of my department have been, from day to day, following very closely the fluctuating prices of wheat and flour and an investigation has been in process in that branch for several weeks past. I noticed the item in the Morning 'Citizen referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Kyte) and I may say that I immediately gave instructions to a commissioner in my department who is a very capable man to go at once to Montreal, and he is on his way there now, to look especially into the matter to which my hon. friend refers, viz., the sudden rise in the price of wheat and flour.


Mr. CARVELL:: Did your officer find that flour was going up?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That is really a very clever question.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He has been a long time finding it out.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. O'Connor, the gentleman to whom I refer, is on his way to * Montreal to see what can be done to remedy the evils which ipy hon. friend has brought to the attention of the House. I might draw the attention of the House to a movement that we find on the other side of the House, and which is not new. One day hon. members opposite start a movement for the purpose of influencing the farmer to believe that they are very anxious that everything he has to sell will be sold at the very highest possible' price, and the next day, they get on foot a movement with
a view to influencing the consumer to believe that they are very anxious that he will get flour and bread and every other article of food at a very low price while they are at the same time pursuing an agitation to ensure for the farmer a higher price.
I will first give some figures touching the pi ice of flour at Toronto and other centres.


PRICE OP FLOUR AT TORONTO.
[Stage Direction]
per	per
	barrel	100 lbs.
1913.		
July	$4.80	$2.45August	4.80	2.451914.	July	5.00	2.55August	5.10	2.601915.	July	6.50	3.32August	6.50	3.321916.	July	6.00	3.06August	7.60	3.881917.	February.. ..	9.00	4.59
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: What	is the
latest quotation?	.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think the last quotation was $11.60.	-


Mr. NESBITT:: It was $13.40 yesterday.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, it went up $1.20 yesterday, and fell 60 cents the day before.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Has the minister the figures for wheat?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The weekly closing prices per bushel of cash wheat No. 1 and No. 2 Northern at Port Arthur and Fort William are as follows:


WEEKLY CLOSING PRICES PER BUSHEL OF CASH WHEAT AT PORT ARTHUR AND FORT WILLIAM.
[Stage Direction]
No. 1 and No. 2 Northern.
No., 1	No. 2
July	1	94	941*	7	974	94411	14	97f	94|M	21	97	94It	28	954	924Aug.	4	96|	93?II	9	. ,	931.	18	944	9311	25	97|	93f..	30	87|	814No. :	1 No. 2July	6	901 88?	11	13	891	: 87It	20	895	; 87?II	27	92	894Aug.	3	984	! 964II	8	1091	1 1074It	17	1021	100jII	24	108J	! 107II	31	115|	1
No. 1 No. 2
July	6 '	129	126ti	13	336|	1332ii	20	137	133ii	27	1364	133Aug,	3	1284	126II	10	1324	131II	17	1081	1062II	23	99J	97i"	30	92|
66J
[Stage Direction]
WEEKLY CLOSING PRICES PER BUSHEL OF CASH WHEAT AT PORT ARTHUR AND FORT WILLIAM-Concluded.
No. 1 and 2 Northern-Concluded.
1917
		No. 1	No. 2
July	3	1135	11211	1148	112gff	18	115*	113J„	25	1204	118Aug.	1	128|	1267	1378	135|M	15	1481	149422	158	156If	29	1548	
I should like to give the House the export and import figures of wheat for the last four or five years:
Exports or wheat from Canada.	.
August 1st to July 31st.	Bushels.
1912-	13	
95,512,0001913-	14	
114,904,0001914-	15	
63,903,0001915-	16	
235,742,000Imports of wheat by Canada. August 1st to July 31st.	Bushels.1912-	13	
619,0001913-	14	
130,0001914-	15	
1,964,0001915-	16	
131,000Exports of flour from Canada. August 1st to July 31st.	Barrels.1912-	13	
4,496,0001913-	14	
4,597,0001914-	15	
5,077,0001915-	16	
7,426,000Imports of flour by Canada. August 1st to July 31st.	Barrels.1912-	13	
60,0001913-	14	
51,0001914-	15	
48,0001915-	16	
39,000Exports of wheat from Russia. August 1st to July 31st.	Bushels.1912-	13	
100,461,0001913-	14	
164,235,0001914-	15	
5,296,0001915-	16	
7,949,000' Hon. gentlemen will see from these figures what a comparatively small quantity of wheat has been exported from Russia since the war. Here are some figures on the world's wheat production in 1913 and 1914. The total production for North America in 1913, which includes the United States, Canada and Mexico, was 1,005,497,000 bushels, and in 1914	1,060,297,000
bushels. The total production for South America in 1913 was 131,490,000 bushels, and in 1914 192,470,000. Withont giving the de-

		No. 1	No. 2
Jan.	2	1774	1744ii	9	1858	182git	16	1889	188:123	1784	174|,,	30	170§	1671Feb.	6	168	1654II	12	1708	1678II	19	1728	168JII	28	1781	174|
tails for each country, I might say that Europe's total production in 1913 was
2,126,370,000	bushels, and in 1914 1,660,173,000; total production in Asia in 1913, 541,-
024,000	bushels, and in 1914 526,281,000; Africa, 83,190,000 bushels in 1913, and in 1914 57,437,000; Australasia, in 1913, 119,-
303,000	bushels, and in 1914 30,408,000. The grand total of the world's wheat production in 1913 amounted to 4,006,874,000 bushels, and in 1914 to 3,527,066,000 bushels, which represents a falling off of about 500,000,000 bushels in bne year.
In conclusion, this matter will be specially looked into at once by the commissioner, Mr. O'Connor, and the Government will take whatever steps are thought advisable.	[DOT]
Mr. W. F. CARROLL (South Cape Breton) :: Mr. Speaker, I had intended making a few remarks on the high cost of living before the Budget debate closed, but I will take this opportunity and say what I have to say now. The motion of my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) is, to my mind, a very important one, and I think the Government should take immediate steps to tackle this question. It is all very well for the Minister of Labour to tell us that his officers have been following the price of flour in this country for the last three or four years. So have the consumers, and the officers of the Government have done nothing so far as I can see to remedy the evil. But the time will come, I hope, in the not far distant future, when the consumers of this country will be in a position to remedy this evil. In my humble opinion, the efforts of the Government to reduce the high cost of living in this country are a .mere farce. Several years ago the Department of Labour appointed a commission to investigate the high cost of living, and, after in-.

quiring into conditions for a year or two, the commission presented a very voluminous [DOT]report. The only actual bit of information I could find in that report, and I perused it carefully, was that the price of commodities in this country was generally regulated by the demand for them. During the two years this commission was making its inquiries the price of commodities in this country was rising higher and higher. I do not remember this commission ever telling the Government or the people of this country how they were going to reduce the cost of living. Since then commission after commission has been appointed by the Department of Labour to investigate the cause of the increase ins the price of the necessaries of life throughout the Dominion. The trouble is, Mr. Speaker, that these commissions, which the people of this country have to pay for, are doing no good. They gather a lot of information which is never acted upon. What will be the result of the visit of the officers of the Department of Labour to Montreal to-day, for example? Will the Department of Labour take,some action that will result in the people being able to get flour for less than the present prices? Or will they simply send in reports and allow prices to continue ito soar?


George William Kyte: What can they learn in
Montreal more than in Ottawa?


William F. Carroll: 
Mr. EDWARDS:: I ask the hon. gentleman's permission to put a ques-
4 p.m. tion: Would he favour commandeering wheat at present prices?


William F. Carroll: I would be in favour of commandeering wheat that is being held, first, by the farmers, without any real good reason-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William F. Carroll: My friends on the other side laugh. And I would be in favour of commandeering the enormous quantities of wheat in the grain elevators, which must be held, I think, for the purpose of securing

a largely increased price. The millers of this country have sufficient wheat, bought months ago-


William Cameron Edwards: I am afraid I did not make my question clear to the hon. member. I asked, would he be in favour of commandeering wheat at present prices?


William F. Carroll: I do not see why I should. Let me make a distinction. The present price of wheat to the farmers is not the price of wheat that is obtained on the grain exchange in Winnipeg and Chicago.


William Cameron Edwards: But would the hon. gentleman commandeer wheat at the price to the farmer of the West now?


William F. Carroll: I understand the Government have tried that, but-


William Cameron Edwards: How many bushels of wheat does it take to make a barrel of flour?


William F. Carroll: If the hon. gentleman will follow up the figures, given by the Minister of Labour-and I presume he is fairly good at calculations of that kind-he will see that the rise in the price of flour is altogether out of proportion to the rise in the price of wheat.


William Cameron Edwards: How many bushels of wheat does it take to make a barrel of flour?


William F. Carroll: I am not a miller-
Mr.. EDWARDS: I can tell the hon. gentleman. It takes five bushels of wheat to make a barrel of flour; and oh that basis-	<


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Cameron Edwards: I asked, and thought I had obtained, the permission of the hon. member (Mr. Carroll) to ask a question. I did not ask the permission of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte).


William F. Carroll: I understand that the hon. member (Mr. Edwards) asked a question and that the question was answered. I have no objection to the hon. gentleman asking a question, for that courtesy is always granted. But I understood him to go on and to give some information which I am glad to have, and for which I thank him. It does not matter, however, for the purposes of my argument, how many bushels of wheat it takes to make a barrel of flour. The point is that the rise in the price of flour has been out of all proportion to the rise in the price of wheat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William F. Carroll: Well, figure it out. In 1915, flour was $6.50 a barrel and wheat $1.29 a bushel. In February last, the price of flour was $9 a barrel, and the price of wheat $1.78 a bushel. But at the present time, the price of flour is not $9, but $14.50.


Mr. BURNHAM:: And wheat over $2.80.


William F. Carroll: Let hon. gentlemen take time to make a comparison of the figures and they will see that the rise in the price of wheat does not justify the rise in the price of flour.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I want to call my hon. friend's attention to the price of wheat and flour. The price of wheat yesterday was $2.82-1 a bushel which will account for the higher price of flour. I think my hon. friend was a little in error in regard to the price of wheat and the price of flour because he quoted the price of wheat in 1913 at 94 cents and of flour at $4.80.


William F. Carroll: Those are the figures I got.
Mr.' CROTHERS: Then, in February of this year he quoted flour at $9-of course it has risen a good deal since then-and of wheat at $1.78. If he follows out these different percentages he will see that there is about the same relative difference between the price of wheat and the price of flour. He is quite wrong in giving the price of wheat to-day at $1.78. '


William F. Carroll: I did not give the price of wheat to-day as $1.78, but I gave that as the price on the 4tli February, 1917.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: But did not the hon. gentleman give the price of flour at $14.50?


William F. Carroll: No, $9.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Are these last figures
which have been quoted by the minister obtainable?	'


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That is the price yesterday. I have nothing later.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Then why did the hon. minister send Mr. O'Connor to Montreal?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: He will get some information in Montreal that he is not in a position to get here.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What information?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I cannot tell you what information he is going to get.


William F. Carroll: In case Mr. O'Connor does not return from Montreal, I can give the minister some information. Wheat in Winnipeg tops the $3 mark. That is the latest information. It jumped 18 points in less than half an hour this afternoon.


Mr. LALOR:: Can the hon. gentleman
tell us the price in Chicago to-day? We have free wheat now.


William F. Carroll: I am not interested in the price at Chicago. What I am interested in is the price at which the consumers of this country are paying for flour. The hon. gentleman can follow out that proportion. But the strong point after all is that the millers of this country are not paying $2.80, neither are they paying $3, neither are they paying $1.80 for the wheat out of which they are making the flour for which they are charging the consumers $14.50 per barrel. The great bulk of the flour that they are selling to the people at $14.50 a barrel is flour ground from wheat bought in February or last fall at $1.13, $1.59 and $1.78 a bushel. They have in their possession at the present time sufficient wheat, according to their own statistics, to keep them going for the next three or four months. Yet, they are charging the people $14.50 a barrel for flour when the wheat out of which that flour was made cost them fifty per cent less than wheat is costing to-day. The Minister of Finance admitted the other day that the millers had been making more money than any other class of manufacturers. If they have been doing that, is it just and fair that they should be allowed to continue to do so in view of the fact that they are not paying this high price for wheat? Is it fair that they should be allowed to raise the price of flour to the people of this country to a point which will make it almost impossible for the great majority to have flour in their possession at all? Of course, it is most humiliating that we should have had from the Minister of Labour a statement of the large amounts of wheat produced in Russia. He tells us, of course, that the figures from Russia are very interesting. That is something that will be most consoling to the housewives throughout Canada when they complain to their husbands that flour is $14.50 a barrel and that there is a possibility of it going to $20. Somebody will say to them: The Minister of Labour says that the figures with reference to wheat from Russia .are very interesting, you must look at the long strings of figures which the Minister of Labour brought down to show that you are
not in need of wheat and flour at all and that it is all right to pay $14.50 a 'barrel for your flour, although labouring men are only making $1.25 or $2 per day. If the labouring classes of this country were getting sufficient pay to enable them to buy these commodities at the present high rates, my voice would not be heard in Parliament to protest against the prevailing prices. But, they are not. There is only one class of labourers who are getting wages somewhat proportionate to what they are- paying for the necessaries of life, and tho-se are the people who are working in the munition factories. They are getting good wages.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I would like to ask
the hon. gentleman if the coal miners are not getting largely increased remuneration?
Mr- CARROLL: I am very well versed in what the coal miners aie getting. The coal miners got an increase of ten per cent last year, -but when it is remembered that many of these men previous, to that were earning only $1.75, some $2 and, of course, -some $6 and $7 -per day, which is all right for those who are getting their coal out -by quantity, you will 'see what a magnificent addition that ten per cent makes to their wages.


Avard Longley Davidson: Is my hon. friend
aware that in Halifax to-day bunker coal is sold to supply vessels at $12 per ton which is an extraordinary price?


William F. Carroll: I am aware of no such fact. The Minister of Labour is only paying $4.20 and we had a most vehement protest from the Premier of this country less than two months ago that they had offered the Dominion -Coal Company and other coal corporations $10 per ton for coal.


Avard Longley Davidson: I suppose my hon.
friend is aware that the cost to the consumer of Nova Scotia's coal has almost doubled since last year?


William F. Carroll: I am aware of no -such thing.


Avard Longley Davidson: I am.


William F. Carroll: Well, I am not. I am sorry -if my hon. friend is -being imposed upon by some coal dealer in Nova Scotia because the coal dealers are not getting those prices. The coal companies have not doubled up, have not increased their prices by fifty per cent or forty per cent or twenty-five per -cent. If my hon. friend will take the trouble to compare the

prices that the Department of Railways and Canals are paying for their coal at the present time with the prices which they paid last year, and the year befpre, he will see that the amounts I stated are perfectly correct.
I have taken up more time on this subject than I had intended but it is a most serious question. It is a question which should demand the immediate attention of the Ministry of this country. There may be difficulties, there may be troubles, in the way, but we are living in troublesome times. The problem may need an extraordinary remedy but we are living in extraordinary times. I have to plead not only for the general consumer in this country hut for the wives and children of the men who have gone to the front. Many of these men were getting very good wages before leaving their homes to fight for King and country. They are getting to-day, I need not tell this House, $1.10 per day, their wives are getting $20 per month separation allowance, if they are privates, and most of them are privates, and they may also he getting a little from the Patriotic Fund which is a God-send in itself. But, at the same time, if for no other reason than the fact that we have thousands and hundreds of thousands of men at the front who have left families, large in number and small in stature, and who are receiving not fifty per cent of the wages that they get in times of peace, this Government should be loyal fo these men and see to it that their wives and children should not be left to starve on the mere pittance they are getting and that the millers of this country should not be permitted to impose on them to the extent of a 100 per cent advance in a few months in the price of flour.
Of those who went to the front from the town of Glace Bay, from which I come, I am sorry to say there are 176 on the death roll. That is a large number for a comparatively small town. There are 176 graves on the fields of France of men who enlisted from my town, and a great proportion of these were married men. I know to my sorrow that these women have had a hard time to struggle on, and they will have an equally hard time under the present pension system, which, after all, is fairly good as compared with other pension systems. But I think that the Government of this country should take some steps to see that these people at least, who are all consumers and dependents on this Government,

are hot further imposed upon by the manipulators, the contractors, and especially the millers of this country, who I think have imposed upon the public at least in their present exorbitant advance in the price of flour.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is rather pitiful to think that the hon. member for South Cape Breton having escaped the dangers of the battalion to which he belonged, which has gone to the front to face bullets, is now face to face with poverty or rather starvation almost, if we are to judge by what he has said.


William F. Carroll: Did I understand the
hon. member to say that I was face to face with poverty?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He said that you had escaped the bullets and are now face to face with poverty.


William F. Carroll: I did not escape them. I was right in the trenches my friend. I did not attempt to escape them-and I did not go there as a colonel-either.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Take that back, take it back.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


William Humphrey Bennett: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


William Humphrey Bennett: I congratulate
him, if he was at the front and escaped.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why don't you take it back like a man?


William Humphrey Bennett: Of all the gentlemen in the House-


William F. Carroll: Perhaps if you have a doubt about it the secretary of the Militia Department will be able to tell you.


William Humphrey Bennett: -an hon. gentleman who for years and years strutted around the country in all the feathers of an artillery major or something else, but who when the war broke out is found safely here and not at the front-the last gentleman who should speak on military, affairs is the hon. member for Carleton. He is at home where he is safe, while the fighting members of his brigade are at the front.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: I think it is only fair to the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) to say that he offered his services to this country, and that the former Minister of Militia declined to accept them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not intend to bring this matter up, but that offer was put in writing. It is in the hands of the department to-day. It is all marked private but one letter. The very moment that the . department or the ex-Ministor of Militia will remove the seal of confidence from that, I will be only too happy to give it to the public.


William Humphrey Bennett: The country has had the proud satisfaction of seeing thousands of brave men from Vancouver to Sydney go to the front who have never written to the Minister of Militia asking if they could go. They went, and that is all they required, and that is all the country required them to do. There was no time on their part to sit down and write confidential letters. They saw their duty and went to it like men, but this gentleman who indulges in letter writing, he is still here and refuses to go.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My letters are not confidential; the Minister of Militia's are. I will read mine any time I get permission from the Minister of Militia to read his. You had better take back what you said, but if you want to get into a fight of this kind you will get all you want. I have the file upstairs in my desk now.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not propose to have any words with the hon. gentleman.


The DEPUTY SPEAKEE:: Order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You can have all you want with the member for Carleton at any time you want it, and I want you to take back the nasty insinuation you have made. It is the mark of a coward, nothing else.


The DEPUTY SPEAKEE:: Order. I want to remind the House that the question before it is the high price of flour.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the honourable and irritable member for Carleton will refrain, I will proceed with my remarks on flour.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Be gentleman enough to take 'back your nasty insinuation.


William Humphrey Bennett: I cannot imagine that I coulld say. anything nasty about that gentleman. He requires something much worse than nasty. The hon. member for Sydney (Mr. CaTroll) was a proper party to rise and address the House, as also was the member for Eichmond (Mr. Kyte), for this reason, that I assume they both stand in the same position; they have no farmers in their constituencies who grow grain, and
consequently they will not jar with any farmers in their localities or constituencies. The debate is about on the same line as the reciprocity campaign of 1911. Everybody knows what happened in the city of Toronto. There was the Toronto Star newspaper store vending all kinds of product brought from the United States, endeavouring to demonstrate to the people that the stuff imported from the United States could be sold cheaper in Toronto than if it was produced in Ontario. Then, on the side lines, were to be found men like my friend from Oxford trying to demonstrate to the people in Ontario that reciprocity would* enhance the prices for the Canadian farmer and the Ontario farmer. Brought face to face, what was the result? In the great province of Ontario, where the right hon. gentleman had sometimes almost 'broken even, the Liberal party returned only some dozen members from that whole province. They know it. And it was by reason of the fact that they endeavoured to carry on a campaign of humbug and cant and hypocrisy in the province of Ontario. So to-day they stand in that position in this debate. What does the hon. member for Eichmond (Mr. Kyte) say when I ask him if they are prepared to take the 47,000,000 bushels of grain that is held by the farmers of the West and commandeer that, what does he say? There is not a gentleman on the other side of the House who says they will do that to-d^y Will the member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) go into the barns of the farmers of his county, or any other man who comes from the province of Ontario, and commandeer the grain that is held by the farmers in Ontario? Certainly not; they will not do it. Why? Because the farmer in Ontario and in the rest of this Dominion is having a chance to-day; that is the reason. Com-, pare the price of all kinds of produce with the price of flour. The farmer of Ontario who feeds corn has to pay what price? According to the Toronto figures, American corn is $1.50 a bushel. Is it not time that the farmers should have a chance and an innings while these high prices rule? Take the price of oats. Oats are proportionately higher than wheat; they are 85 cents a bushel. The hon. member comes from the riding of Sydney. He will not say that he is prepared to commandeer the steel down in that country, which to-day is sold at a price 300 per cent higher than it was in 1914. The hon. gentleman would not dare to open his mouth on that question. The farmer is to-day being taxed abnormally for all his implements. Why? On account of the enhanced price of steel.


William F. Carroll: I accept that challenge. If the price of ordinary steel is enhanced by the Dominion Iron and Steel Company to the extent of 300 per cent, I will certainly say to the Government: take it and give it to the people of this country, who require it for purposes of war.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Humphrey Bennett: ' After the applause has subsided, we will recall what the hon. gentleman said. He referred to the price of "ordinary steel," and he would be all the afternoon heckling as to what the price of ordinary steel was. He may be referring to some particular class of steel, but it is a fact that the price of ordinary steel has not increased 300 per cent. Everybody knows that when the war commenced shell steel was selling at about $30 a ton, andrit is now $90 a ton.


George William Kyte: Is it not a fact that the Munitions Board fixed the price of steel which is used in the manufacture of shells?


William Humphrey Bennett: I am not aware whether or not that is a fact; therefore I cannot answer the question.


George William Kyte: That is a fact. What are you complaining about?


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon gentleman says that there should be no complaint if the farmer has to pay an enhanced price for his machinery.


George William Kyte: The hon. gentleman cannot complain, because the Munitions Board, which represents his own Government, fixed the price.


William Humphrey Bennett: I hope that the whole of the Opposition will not become irritable; they should try to calm themselves a little bit. The price of flour to-day depends on one point, and that is the world's visible supply. The price may be influenced to a certain extent by speculation, but what can the Government do as to that? The grain exchange at Winnipeg, the only large one in Canada, has been closed. Every farmer in this Dominion is a grain speculator. I know farmers in my county who are holding wheat for the increased price that they think will accrue to them; yet hon. gentlemen endeavour to make the people believe that by a stroke uf the pen they could decrease the price of flour. They say that they would do it by fixing the price of wheat and that they would commandeer every bushel of wheat in Canada. I challenge the hon. gentleman to

make a straight motion that the Government should at this time commandeer all the wheat in Canada. If the hon. gentleman should do this., you would not fail to observe the celerity with which hon. gentlemen from the province of Ontario on the opposite side of the House move out of the Chamber.
The hon. member for Richmond made one wild statement. He said that all the flour that is to-day being sold at these enhanced prices was manufactured last February. He does not know -a thing about it. The mills have all been running ever since, and they have been paying their price for the wheat.


William F. Carroll: Does the hon. member not know that a miller in Montreal made a statement to the press-to a representative of the Citizen, I think-that the millers had enough wheat to keep their mills going for three months, and that this wheat was bought several months ago?


William Humphrey Bennett: I suppose that
some millers .bought in a prospective way, but the millers in Ontario have been buying only in car lots, from one day to another. What would the hon. gentleman do with the grain in the elevators which is not owned by the millers? There are gentlemen in the city of Toronto and in every city who from time to time have millions of bushels of grain in these grain elevators. Would hon. gentlemen commandeer that grain? Not at all. Hon. gentlemen will not dare, before this debate closes, to make a motion that the Government commandeer all the wheat in the country. They want this buncombe to go to the country so that the impression will be created that they are the friends of the people.
The hon. gentleman says that the price of coal has not apparently increased in his riding. Well, that is his assertion, but I have the statement of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that while coal was selling about three years ago at $2.75 a ton, to-day the people of the Maritime Provinces are being held up fox $8 and $9 a ton.


William F. Carroll: Your first statement is absolutely wrong.


William Humphrey Bennett: Can bon, gentlemen tell me what the-railway companies are paying per ton for coal?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Minister of Railways has offered $4.25 a ton this year for coal for the Intercolonial railway, and has closed a contract with several com-

panics at that price. If my hon. friend had been here last week he would have heard the Minister of Eailways speak in regard to this question. The nlinister took the position that $4.25 was the ruling price.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman says that the- price is now $4.25; formerly it was $2.75.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The price last winter was~$3.50.	>


William Humphrey Bennett: But in 1914 it
was $2.75. The hon. member for Pictou did not tell the whole story. The companies did not sell at $4.25.


Mr. McKENZIE:: The difficulty-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am delighted to get
such a reception from hon. gentlemen opposite. I was going to say to the hon. gentleman that the difficulty about the price of coal is not so .much the price of'the article as it is the cost of transportation.


William Humphrey Bennett: While hon. gentlemen opposite may not agree with gentlemen on this side as to prices, I can tell the House that in the province of Ontario we know what soft coal is selling at to-day. The price is governed by the enhanced prices in Nova Scotia. Soft coal is 200 per cent more expensive in Ontario than it was in 1914.


George William Kyte: As a matter of fact, is it
not United States soft coal that is consumed in Ontario?


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes. I am informed that the Minister of Railways, in his statement the other night, said that while the offer of $4.25, or whatever the amount may have been, was actually made, the companies were utterly unable to deliver the coal, and the contract has fallen through. They were perfectly safe in making the offer, because they knew that they could not deliver.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You had better get some more information on that point.


William Humphrey Bennett: The House and the country are waiting to see what hon. gentlemen opposite are going to do; whether they are going to make this a matter of discussion or a matter of action. The hon. gentleman this afternoon had a splendid opportunity to move that every bushel of wheat in Canada should be commandeered at a certain price by the Government. If hon. gentlemen are prepared
to vote for a motion of that kind, I am prepared to vote against it. But hon. gentlemen are simply indulging in buncombe, as usual, and do not intend taking any action this afternoon.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate to-day, and I should not have done so had it not been for the very unfair method followed by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. W. H. Bennett) in his remarks concerning myself. There was a time when I should not have expected very much better than this from the member for East Simcoe, but I must say that during the last five or six years he has given considerable evidence of being a gentleman. I am surprised, therefore, at his conduct this afternoon.
It is a fact that I belonged to the Militia of Canada for a number of years down to about seven or eight years before war broke out in 1914. I belonged to the Field Artillery. The time came when I must either take command of my battery or retire, and as I was too busy to take command of the battery, I retired. The facts will be found in the Militia List, and there is no question as to them. At the time of the declaration of war I was 52 years of age, and I was too old to enlist as a private, so I went to the Minister of Militia and offered my services, if they were of any use to him, as an officer, and asked for the right to raise a battery of field artillery. This occurred during the month of August, 1914, about three weeks after the declaration of war. Nothipg further came of the matter until the latter part of April, 1915, when the minister started a correspondence with me which was carried on for some time, all the documents except one being marked "confidential." I got a little suspicious that I was not being treated by the minister as though he wanted my services, and therefore I wrote him on the 4th of September, 1915, a letter which is not marked "confidential," which must be in the public files of the Militia Department and which I propose now reading to the House, and when I have done so, I have no further comment to make upon it. The remainder of the file is marked "confidential"; it is in the hands of either the present Minister of Militia or the ex-Minister of Militia, and as they are both alive and on the earth, they can produce the remainder of the correspondence. I have here all the original letters received by me from the minister and copies of the letters written by me to

105a
him. This letter was written on the 4th day of September, 1915, being the day when the ex-Minister of Militia returned from his trip to England during that summer:
Woodstock, N.B., September 4, 1915. Major-General Sir Sam Hughes,
Ottawa.
My dear Sir Sam:
I wrote you last re my request to be allowed to recruit a battery of Field Artillery on July 2, and on July 8 received an acknowledgment from Col. Winter, stating that * inquiries were being made regarding my appointment, and as soon as a reply was received, I would be communicated with." I have heard nothing from that date, and nearly two months have now gone by. If anything is to be done, there is no time to lose, especially as I would not want to raise a battery to remain in_ Canada during the coming winter. If you think ^ well of my proposition, and as I read the times, the Empire needs all the help possible, I tiust you will set the machinery in motion at once, and if nothing; comes of it, then please let me know and I will know what to do.
Believe me, sincerely yours,
(Sgd.) F. B. Carvell.
The reply to that, also marked "confidential," was received by me on the 10th day of November, 1915, or two months and one week after my letter was written. While I cannot give the contents of the answer, it is needless to say it was not an acceptance of my proposition or I would not be here to-day, because, without casting any reflection upon any other member of this House, I may say that when I made a proposition to raise a battery of Field Artillery I intended to raise it not to leave it in England but to stay with it to the end, and that end probably meant forever so far as I was concerned. I have nothing more to say, but that I am rather sorry that my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. W. H. Bennett), who has been in this House with me for many years, thought it was his business to refer to a personal matter of this kind; but as he has done so, I believe I am justified in giving this much information to the House.


William Humphrey Bennett: Had the hon. gentleman kept his seat and not interfered with me I would have let him alone. He will never interfere with me without having me touch him up.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The law presumes that every man is a gentleman, and there is no presumption that I know of that justifies any man ceasing to be a gentleman, and no provocation ought to be sufficient to any man to make him cease to be a gentleman. All this correspondence is in the hands of my hon. friends opposite and they have 
the opportunity of giving it to the public at any time they so desire.
While I am on my feet I wish to say a word with reference to the motion of my hon. friend. I do not know why the hon. member for East Simcoe and the Minister of Labour should see such wonderful difficulty in trying to reduce, to a certain extent, the cost of living to the people of this country. We have had all sorts of bugaboos thrown broadcast to the country as to the difficulties, and member after member on the other side has asked members on this side: Would you be willing to commandeer the wheat in the farmers' granaries? Would you be willing to commandeer steel down in Sydney? I want to give an answer in language so explicit that there can be no doubt of my position in the matter. I represent a farming constituency that produces more potatoes than any other constituency in Canada, and what is true qf wheat is true of potatoes, because potatoes to-day are just as unreasonable in price as is wheat. Not only would I be willing to see the Government commandeer wheat and potatoes, but I think it is their duty to do so.


Avard Longley Davidson: At what price would you commandeer potatoes?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: At a fair price.


Avard Longley Davidson: How much?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If my hon. friend from Annapolis thinks that he can draw me away from this question he has got a pretty hard task on his hands. I had some potatoes, and when the price reached $1.75 a bag I sold them, because I was ashamed to keep them any longer, and I think I got more than they were worth, and if my neighbours got that much they did pretty well, too. It is not, however, a question what price I would say. I say, under war conditions, with prices soaring, with many people finding it almost impossible to make a living, it is not a question of how much the farmers could get, or would get; it is a question of the duty of the Government to take these matters up and grapple with them as men would do, from the standpoint of fair prices and fair profits. The British Gpvemiment did not hesitate to grapple with these questions. Within the last five months we have seen in the Old Country newspapers such statements as: You shall not sell such and such a commodity at more than a certain price. This Government, only two months ago, took that attitude in Tegard to newsprint; they

said to the newsprint manufacturers: Ypu shall not 'chafge beyond a certain price and the newsprint manufacturers submitted. The whole difference is this. The newsprint is sold entirely to the newspapers publishers of Canada, and the newspapers of Canada were in a position so to bombard the Minister of Finance that he was compelled to comply with their request, and when sufficient pressure was put uppn him he had no hesitation; there were no lions in the path; there were no constitutional difficulties; he had the War Measures Act and under it he said to the newsprint manufacturers: You must sell this paper at a certain price, or I will make you. Those gentlemen at once complied with the request and are selling the paper to-day at that price. I believe this matter of the price of foodstuffs comes within the Department of Labour, but I have grave doubts of his settling it. At all events, the Government as a whole might say to those! in Canada who have wheat or potatoes in store-I do not care whether they are producers ,or middlemen-you must sell them at a fair price. Down in the Maritime Provinces we are paying forty to forty-five cents a pound for bacon. Why cannot the Government say to the men who have thousands of pounds of bacon stored away in the storage houses:	You must sell
that bacon at a fair price. Why cannot they say to the men who have meats and food products of all kinds store ! away, and who have been gambling with the necessities of the people in order to make exorbitant profits, "You must sell these articles at a fixed price." The thing is all very simple. A great many things have been done in this old world within the last few years that people said could not be done before, and perhaps a great many things which would not have been thought justifiable before. But to-day this old world is at war, and thousands of people in Canada are barely able to keep body and soul together. There are women and children in this country who have not tasted meat for a fortnight, and that is true of all our cities and towns. They have not the means with which to buy meat or potatoes. In view of these conditions, why should not the Government interfere? If the Government have not the nerve to interfere, why do they not make way for men who would?


William Humphrey Bennett: Where are they?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The people will show you where they are. There are a great many
people in Canada, both inside and outside 'of Parliament, that could show this Government what they would do, and it will not be very long probably, before they will have an opportunity. I am not here to prescribe a remedy; we are discussing principles. My hon. friend from Simeoe challenges some one on this side of the House to draw up a Bill. But we are not drawing up Bills to-day; we are simply asking the Government to adopt certain measures. We are saying that the time has arrived when it is the duty of the Government to see that the common people of this country get the necessities of life at a reasonable price. There need be no trouble about providing machinery, as ample power is given under the War Measures Act to do all that is necessary. The Government can take over the Ross Rifle factory, they can fix the price of paper, and put wheat on the free list. There is nothing they cannot do, and they can just as easily regulate the price of commodities. It is not merely within the power of the Government to do this, but I maintain that it is their bounden duty at once to take steps to reduce the terribly high cost of living under which the people of this country are groaning to-day.


Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but the subject under consideration is an exceedingly important one, and it seems to me just as well that the opportunity has been afforded of discussing here to-day not only the high price of flour, but the high cost of living generally. We are living in most serious times, the most serious in our history, and I believe in the history of the world. I do not suppose that at any time in human history has there been so much dislocation of commerce as at present. There has never been a time of such profound change; never a time in which there has been so much human suffering in 'the world and so much anxiety, or when public opinion was so sensitive, and subjected to such severe strain as to-day. This is a time when governments charged with the responsibility of carrying on the affairs of a country are the subject of much criticism. It is proper that governments should be subjected to fair criticism, but I believe it to be the duty of the opposition in any House such as this, to approach a question such as is now under consideration, judicially, fairly, and in a statesmanlike manner, and not with the object of making-political capital out of it at a time like

this. I propose, therefore, to discuss this question somewhat at length, as it is a question that should be discussed, and discussed fairly. If the Government is at fault with regard to the high cost of living,
I want to know it, and in what respect, and if it can be shown that we are at fault we shall endeavour to the best of our ability to rectify what may be wrong. We are not seeking and never have sought to evade responsibility for our conduct of the war, and so far as our conduct of these affairs in every respect is concerned, I say there is absolutely no room whatever for national self-depreciation.
With these preliminary remarks, I address myself to. the subject which has been drawn to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), namely, the rising price of flour. The Minister of Labour has stated that the rise of $1.20 per barrel yesterday attracted his attention, as it did the attention of every one in this House, and he has taken the steps which it devolved upon him to take, of setting immediately upon foot an inquiry to ascertain the reason for that rise, and whether it was justified.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why did he not
start the inquiry long ago?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I will tell my hon. friend before I get through what has caused the increase in the price of flour. The hon. member for Richmond, the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll), and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), have not approached this subject with the desire of ascertaining and laying before this country the reasons for the increase in the price of flour, but have rather sought to create the impression that the Government had control of the price of commodities in this country-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Could not control them.
Sir THOMAS WHITE-and was at fault for not having reduced the cost of living. In addressing myself to the subject I intend to inquire first, what is the cause of the high cost of living, and what is it that determines, prices? When we have elucidated that, we can deal with the question under consideration, and ascertain whether or not any blame or censure properly attaches to this Government. The only suggestion put forward of a practical nature by the hon. member for Richmond was this, and it is not often that we get a suggestion from him that even savours, of the 
practical; he is strong on criticism, but not strong on constructive suggestion.


George William Kyte: He gets a royal commission once in a while, though.


William Thomas White: And he fails on that.


George William Kyte: And the Finance Minister is short of a colleague as a result of it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We will discuss that with you some day.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would point out that the Minister of Finance has the floor, and except with his permission no hon. member should interrupt him.


William Thomas White: The hon. member for Richmond put forward the suggestion, and I submit it to the common sense of this House-I put it on no different ground from that-that there are 90,000,000 bushels of wheat in Canada, that we should commandeer that wheat, pay the price, take possession of the mills, mill the wheat and distribute it to the public, thereby reducing the price of flour. I think, myself, that there are 100,000,000 bushels of wheat in this country. Let us see where the suggestion of my hon. friend leads. He lightly puts forward the suggestion that we should purchase 100,000,000 bushels of wheat at $3 a bushel.


George William Kyte: I did not say that.


William Thomas White: Does my hon. friend say $2.50 a bushel?


George William Kyte: No.


William Thomas White: $1.75?


George William Kyte: I said nothing of the kind.


William Thomas White: Would my hon. friend force the farmers of this country to sell their wheat, which has been quoted at from $2.75 to $3 a bushel, at $1.50 a bushel?


George William Kyte: What did the Minister of Trade and Commerce offer when he proposed to commandeer the wheat a year ago last fall?


William Thomas White: I will ask my hon. friend-no, I will not ask him, because I never get a direct reply. My hon. friend dare not suggest that we pay the farmers $1.50 or $2 per bushel for wheat that is quoted at $2.75 or $3 a bushel. Let us see where his suggestion leads. He would commandeer all the wheat in Canada. He puts forward that suggestion right manfully. Now, to buy [DOT] 100,000,000 bushels at $3 a

bushel we should have to raise $300,000,000; at $2.50 a bushel we should have to raise $250,000,000, and at $2 a bushel we should have to raise $200,000,000. The hon. gentleman talks as if all you had to do was to touch a button to raise $200,000,000 or $250,000,000 or $300,000,000, and buy all the wheat in Canada. But let us suppose it done. Where are we when we have done that? The hon. gentleman did not pause to inquire how many bushels of wheat make a barrel of flour. Well, it takes a little less than four and a. half bushels. He vould commandeer wheat at |2.80 or $3 a.bushel. Four and a half times $3 would be $13.50; so that the wheat alone would cost as much as the flour costs to-day. That is the beautiful suggestion he puts forward for the serious consideration, of this House. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more on that head; the members of this House are too intelligent-when they get away from politics-not to know that flour has gone up in price because wheat has gone up in price. And why have the prices of wheat and of every other commodity in Canada gone up-yes, every other commodity in the world? I propose to tell the House why, in my opinion, prices have gone up. Unless we take account of what has happened in the world, we shall not be able to discuss this question intelligently.
The world to-day is at war. Twenty-five millions of men are under arms, taken from industries of all kinds and. now devoting their energies to mutual slaughter. The first effect of that is to cause a shortage of labour, and the effect of that in turn is an increase in wages-an increase not only in those .countries that are at war but in every country. This results in an increase in the price of every commodity which is produced by labour, that is, every commodity in the world, including, of course, agricultural products. More than that, the cost of capital-interest-has gone up. And interest is a factor in price. Interest has gone up because the great governments of the world are pouring out floods of securities in order to raise money to carry on the war. They have taken possession of the market. In Great Britain industrial concerns are not allowed, except under special circumstances, to raise money by the sale of securities. Securities that used to be sold on a two and a half per cent basis are now sold on a five, six and seven per cent basis, and in the case of some foreign governments, their securities are sold on the basis of eight and nine per cent. This is another
cause of increase, in the cost of production. Again, the withdrawal of these millions of men from the fields prevents cultivation of the soil from being carried on upon anything like the scale on which it was carried on before the war. Not only is cultivation not so extensive, but it is not so efficient as it was. And a great deal of territory formerly under cultivation is ravaged by war and is not under cultivation to-day. All this affects supply-and demand and supply regulate pi ices. Another important feature in relation to supply is the shortage of tonnage. The world's transportation system is dislocated. The whole food supply of Australia is shut 5 p.m. up by reason of the submarine menace and the shortage of shipping. The hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) had the temerity to criticise the Minister of Labour because prices were lower in Australia than in Canada. What is the reason for that difference? Australia is four times as far from Great Britain as Canada is, and freights and insurance are greatly increased. Then tljere is the shortage of tonnage. The hon. member for Brookville (Mr. Webster), who made one of the best speeches I ever hbard in this House, pointed out that New Zealand had
400,000	boxes of cheese, and, as I recollect it, 3,500,000 carcases of mutton for which she could not-get transportation. What must be the effect upon local prices? Of course, local prices must be lower than in England, or Canada, or the United States.
Now, there is one point I wish to make, and to make it clearly. You cannot compare this country with England. This is an exporting country, like the United States. We raise wheat and other farm products for export. My hon. friend points out what they have done in England, in taking possession of supplies. But England is in an entirely different position from ourselves, for it is an importing country.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What about the
United States?


William Thomas White: I have no time to stop now, but I will come to that a little later.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why not-


William Thomas White: Will the hon. member be patient? He is the most impatient member in the House, in many ways.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But I notice the hon. minister does not answer my question.


William Thomas White: That is because the hon. member asks questions that should not be answered.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Leaving aside personalities, will the hon. minister allow me a question? Will he distinguish between the United States and Canada, and tell us whether, in the United States, they have passed legislation giving their government power which this Government has not taken?


William Thomas White: I will come to that. I usually finish up a question before I get through, I believe, and I will try to do that on this occasion. I have shown that the food supply of the world has been greatly diminished by reason of conditions arising out of the war. I failed to mention that the supplies of Russian wheat have not reached their usual market by reason of the closing of the Dardanelles. So much, for the side of supply.
Now, what about demand? While supply has fallen off, demand has increased. Why? One reason is that the armies in this war are better fed than armies ever were before in the history of the world. There are thousands, if not millions, of men, especially in the continental armies, who are better fed to-day than they have ever been fed in their lives before-many of those that were en-gage*d in industrial life are very much better fed. Consequently, the demand for food for these armies is very great. In addition, the high wages paid to workers in munitions and other industries mean that the people have money to spend. Besides that, there is less unemployment in the world than ever before in the lifetime of any man in this House. And the people, having good wages, spend more for food than they did before. The hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell) talks of the '*'misery" in this country at the present time. There never was a time in our history when there was less unemployment and less distress than there is at this moment. I give my word that since this war broke out-or, at least since a few months after its outbreak, because there was a complete dislocation of business in the early days of the war-it has never been suggested to me in my public position that there was any real distress.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. minister ought to go to some of our towns and cities and learn the conditions of some of the people-


William Thomas White: The hon. member (Mr. Carvell) poses here as the tribune of the common people. I have as much sympathy with the common people as he has- I ought to, because I am one of them myself. They are the best people in the world, and that is the reason why the Lord made so many of them. As I was saying: there is greater demand from the armies and greater demand from the European centres of population where the people are earning higher wages than before. This is another reason besides the shortage of supply, why the cost of commodities has risen. It is a world condition. Now, I am not speaking about combines. If there are combines and monopolies to enhance prices, that is an entirely different matter, and is to be considered by itself; I am speaking of the ordinary conditions under which the farmers of this country work.
Prices are determined by the laws of supply and demand, by world laws which it is within the power of no Government 'to wholly control. Great Britain herself tried to do it in regard to sugar at the outbreak of the war and signally failed. The British Government's effort to deal with the sugar question was a failure. The hon. member for Richmond says that it is due to wheat manipulation. There Is an element of truth in that but it is not nearly so great as my hon. friend suggests. Another hon. gentleman-I think my hon. friend from Carleton or some other.hon. gentleman opposite said: Never mind Chicago; do not bother about Chicago.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No.


William Thomas White: I accept the disclaimer of my hon. friend from Carleton. But how ban you absolutely ignore market conditions for wheat in Chicago and Minneapolis when you are dealing with the prices in Canada? There is an approximation between the prices at Winnipeg and Chicago. It is true, there may be a corner or something of that kind at one place or the other but the condition created in that way is only temporary. Suppose you undertook to fix the price in Canada? Suppose you said that you would not allow a higher price in Canada than $1.50 a bushel at a time when you are appealing to the western farmer to raise more grain? Here is a point I desire to make: Things tend in this world to cure themselves. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) who is one of the best economists in this

House, would, I think, agree with me in saying that if you have a high price for anything the tendency is for industry and capital to flow into that particular industry and to remedy the situation. If farming is profitable, farming will be prosecuted. My own opinion is that the prevailing high prices are more than likely to be ameliorated by the farmer feeling that he is getting a fair price for his labour than they would be if we were to step in and say: No, you must take an artificial price.
- Suppose you fixed a price for wheat in this country lower than it is in the United States, would the farmer in the West sow his grain this spring for the harvest next fall? Would he not rather say: I will go to some place where I can get the world price for my wheat? Would he not say: I will go across the line and engage in farming.
I am indicating some of the difficulties in dealing with this question. It seems to be a very simple question for hon. gentlemen opposite. Do hon. gentlemen opposite say: Take away from the farmer the world price, cut it in half? The farmer might very well say: Why should I be put in such a position of disadvantage in an exporting country? I doubt very much if hon. gentlemen opposite would suggest that the farmer should be deprived of the fair world's price for his product. The hon. member from Brockville (Mr. Webster) showed the House conclusively the other night that the cost to the farmer for labour and for the commodities which he uses has greatly increased. We cannot therefore say to the farmer: You must take the price that you get in ordinary and normal times, notwithstanding the fact that your cost has increased. I do not believe there is an hon. gentleman opposite who would dare get up and say that to the farming community and I think it would be a most unwise course for the Government to pursue.


Mr. TURRIFF:: If that is the case, will the minister explain why this Government, within the last five or six weeks, tried to buy the whole of the western crop at $1.30 a bushel at Fort William when it was quoted 30 cents higher at Chicago?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend is wrong in his facts; this Government did not attempt to buy the wheat crop of this country at all. More than that my hon. friend from Assiniboia knows this just as
well as I do. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) pa-ssed on an offer from the Imperial Government, not from this Government, in respect to the western wheat crop. It has been stated that the Government might reduce the high cost of living by some action it might take. It is very easy for hon. gentlemen to get up and say: Reduce the cost of living. Where are you going to start? You start with the farmer and the farmer will say to you: I wo'rk long and I work hard, I rise early and I retire late, my costs have gone up all along the line, I am not in any combine, I want my fair price and I submit that my profits are not abnormal. That is what the farmer says.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Do you think that the farmer who is selling potatoes at $8 a barrel ox $4 a bag is getting a fair pTice?


William Thomas White: I do not know
what kind of farmers my hon. friend has in his district, but I have no doubt there are a lot of honest men there. I will say that I have neveT known the farmers of this or any other community to obtain profits to which they thought they were not reasonably entitled because I know how hard they work. I have worked on a farm and I have worked in an office. I have heard people talk about the heavy responsibility that men have in offices but I take notice that an hon. gentleman like my hon. friend from Carleton, and myself, and the rest of us, would very much rather have the responsibility, with six hours a day in an office, than get up at five o'clock in the morning and finish at eight o'clock with the very slender profits derived by the farmer. It is all right enough for hon. gentlemen opposite to attack the farmers but while I am just as much interested as any body in reducing the high cost of living I maintain that the farmers of this country are entitled to a fair deal.
My hon. friend asked: What about the millers? And he spoke about the large profits of the millers. I would like to point out to my hon. friend that the Government have not been unmindful of its duties regarding the millers. Of all the profits that the millers make, and they have been pretty large in the last two or three years, the Government steps in and takes a large portion by virtue of the business profits war tax. I will point to another thing, and I do so because after all we should deal with these matters fairly and try to reach a sound conclusion. The profits of a particular industry may be large, but they may



bear a very small relationship to, indeed, they may be only a fraction of one per cent of, the volume of business transacted. I should not be at all surprised if all the profits derived by the millers of this country would be a very small percentage indeed of the increase of the price which has taken place in regard to flour. If I were arguing this with the idea only of political expediency, it is possible that I would not say this, but I think it is desirable that in this House we should ascertain the truth. What is the fact? If my hon. friend would distribute all the profits made by the milling companies in Canada over the cost of living in Canada, they would represent an exceedingly small percentage indeed. I am not in sympathy with these large profits at all. I like to see men make fair profits, but it must be borne in mind that traders, keen traders, capable men, even under world conditions, that are not subject to control by combines, make large profits.
As long as there are no combines, as long as there is no monopoly, as a general thing you do more harm than good when you interfere. But what a Government could do and what this Government has done is to say to people who make enormous profits in war time: Gentlemen, we are going to take away from you a very substantial portion of those excess profits for the prosecution of the war. Hon. gentlemen have charged the Government with not reducing the cost of living. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers), I know, has used his best endeavours in this most difficult matter. We have accomplished something. It is not possible for any Government to accomplish very much with respect to the reduction of the cost of living. At all events, I have never seen a practical suggestion put forward, apart from that one question: Is there a monopoly, is there a trust, is there a combine? If you have a monopoly, a combine, a trust, then something can be done by a Government in order to take away the undue advantage which a trust or combine or monopoly possesses. But, generally speaking, outside of that, the laws of supply and demand govern. Left us see what the situation is in regard to the United States, a question raised by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). What is our position? Here we have a boundary line of 3,600 miles from east to west, with their products flowing over to U3 and ours flowing over to them. Can you fix the price of wheat in Canada without the price being fixed in

the United States also? Does my hon. friend think that if you fixed the price of wheat at Winnipeg at $1.25 a bushel it would at once affect Chicago to the same extent? It would mean that the business of Canada would be done in Chicago.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is the hon. minister aware that a Bill has been introduced in the Congress of the United States providing for the fixing of minimum and maximum prices of all food products? There is no reason why this Government, under its War Measures Act, could not do that, and why Sir George Foster should not arrange about this question while he is in Washington.


William Thomas White: I would like to give my hon. friend the advice which I think Sarey Gamp gave. She said: Do not proticipate. She meant, do not anticipate. My hon. friend has referred, as if he had a monopoly of the knowledge, to the fact that some legislation is being proposed in the United States to fix maximum and minimum prices. We read the newspapers on this side, just as my hon. friend does. The legislation, I believe, has been introduced. My hon. friend may be surprised to learn that one of the subjects being discussed at the conference at Washington by Sir George Foster, whom he criticises, is this very question.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then he is doing something, although you said he could not do anything.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He asked me a question.


William Thomas White: With the exportable surplus of food products in this country to-day being bought practically by the British Commission, for Great Britain and the Allies, it is almost impossible, if not impossible, to deal with a situation on one side of the line unless it is dealt with also on the other side of the line.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is coming pretty near to trucking and trading.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend seems to be sore on that point. He does not-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I admire the volte-face of my hon. friends on that subject.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must say that it does not make for decorum of debate when hon. members insist on interrupting from their seats. If they wish to ask questions, they should at least rise.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.


William Thomas White: So that the question of the fixation of prices for food products in this country must depend to some extent at least, and I think to a considerable extent, upon common action being taken on both sides of the line. Upon the question whether that will he advisable or not, I pronounce no opinion, for this reason-, that it is so full of difficulty; but I do know this, that it is one of the questions at present under consideration at Washington in a conference in which Canada is represented in the person of the Right Hon. Sir George Foster.
There is another matter. It is an extraordinary thing to have a debate on a subject like this taking place without hearing diatribes against the tariff. Strangely en

 ough we have not heard anything from the other side about the tariff. The price of flour has been going up. But we took all the duty off flour, not only with regkrd to the United States. Flour comes into Canada free from all over the world. We made it free to Australia, free to Great Britain, free to any country in the world, as well as .to the United States. And yet the price of flour has been going up.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This is politics.


William Thomas White: No, it is not polities. I will tell you what was politics, the suggestion that this Government is blam-able for the manipulation by speculators on the Chicago and the Winnipeg exchanges was politics; and if it was not politics, I will tell you what else it was not, it was not sense. I would like to make one more observation about the Winnipeg situation. The committee of the Winnipeg Exchange took steps a short time ago to prevent the speculation to which my hon friend refers;
I tell him now that so far as Winnipeg is concerned, I have reason to believe that these price fluctuations are not due to manipulation in the sense he puts forward to-day. I will tell him to what they are due, because some of us go into thdse questions more deeply than the hon. member for Richmond. The principal buying in Winnipeg and even on the other side of the line is on behalf of the British Commission, and what I think is that the export buying of these contract grades has about exhausted the available amount, and the result is that others who have contracted for wheat are working on a much narrower margin than before. And I will tell my
hon. friend another thing, that if we commandeered all the wheat in this country, most of the wheat we would commandeer in the West would be wheat that is owned by the British Government and bought by the British Government for the purposes of the people of Great Britain. That is the wheat he wants us to take away from them.
My hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) does* not realize, when he approaches a world question like this, that it cannot be dealt with so flippantly as to say: Why does not the Government reduce the price from $3 to $1.25? That is the unfair feature of charges brqught by hon. gentlemen opposite against this Government, especially in a time like this. We all realize that this is a serious question, the question of the high price of flour, the high cost of living generally. We all realize that, but the world is out of joint. The world is upside down. And the unfairness of it is aggravated by the fact that, the country being at war, the public mind is under a great strain and speeches such as we have heard, unless the facts are presented at the same time, are apt to disturb the public mind and to create a most erroneous, a most unfair impression as to the Government and its powers over the price of commodities.
It was only for the purpose of clearing up the situation and indicating the conditions which underlie world prices, that I have risen to my feet. In a way, I am glad that it has come up, not only because we are able to meet the charges of the members for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) and Carleton, N.B., (Mr. Carvell) but also in order that this discussion may to some extent inform the people as to the conditions Which have brought about these high prices, from which we all suffer, but over which even governments have comparatively limited powers of control.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) was more interested in making a defence of the Government against real and imaginary criticisms than he was to deal with the critical situation now confronting the people of Canada and, indeed, most of the countries of the world. I am sure that the House is grateful to the member for Richmond (Mr. G. W. Kyte) for having introduced by his resolution a subject which, as the Minister of Finance says, is exceedingly

grave. Hon. gentlemen, in this House should he glad to avail themselves of the opportunity-indeed, should he glad that the hon. member for Richmond has presented the opportunity to them,-of discussing a problem which is serious, which is world-wide, and which will he a grave question for several years to come.
The Minister of Finance complains that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House have interjected a political tinge into the debate. I deny that most emphatically. I heard the remarks of the hon. membeT for Richmond, the member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) and the member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) and I am within the judgment of the House when I say that every fact presented by these hon. gentlemen was relevant to the resolution. Who interjected politics into this debate? Did not hon. gentlemen on the other side interject small politics, personalities and irrelevant issues into the discussion of a matter that is of paramount importance to the people whom we represent?
I agree with the Minister of Finance when he says that this is a very serious question and that we should discuss it in a serious way, in the hope that some light may be thrown, upon the problem and that some advantage may accrue as a result of our deliberations. What I complain of respecting the Government and hon. gentlemen opposite is that while they admit the existence of the problem, they do not give evidence of any effort to procure a solution. The Minister of Labour read us a great array of figures which were known, in a general way, to every member of this House and to everybody in the country. The figures may 'be interesting, but only in an academio sense, whereas the cost of the necessaries of life is a practical question. The Minister of Labour produced figures showing that the world's production of wheat was much less than that of one or two year's ago. Well, that was a mathematical proof of one of the causes of the problem confronting the country. He ended his 'speech, however, without proffering any suggestion or telling us what his department was doing in the premises. In fact, he displayed no interest whatever in that question. He informed us that an officer of his department was sent to Montreal this afternoon. What has that to do with the question? Of what possible interest can the departure of that official from this city be to this House? It would be just a6 in-
teresting had he informed Uo of his having dispatched that officer of his department on an aeroplane flight three or four miles above this city. This is the theatre of action for the Department of Labour; here is where the minister and his officers should work. The dispatch, of his official to Montreal, while stated in very serious fashion by the minister, cannot but be regarded as a deliberate evasion of a serious question.
I should like to emphasize what the Minister of Finance said this afternoon, that a very serious problem confronts us. If the Government would sincerely view it in that aspect, they would endeavour to do something to 'meet the situation. It may be difficult to secure from people generally the interest which this subject justifies, because we are blinded by an artificial prosperity, and our perspective is out of focus. Nevertheless, the problem before us, while recognized as acute at the present time, is well known to be a problem which will stay with us for many years. As the Minister of Finance has properly remarked, the labour of 25,000,000 people has been transferred from productive spheres into war fields. That condition necessarily involves a dislocation of the economics of the world, and imposes serious responsibilities upon us charged with the administration of public affairs.
In some countries the seriousness of prevailing conditions is realized. In England the seriousness of the situation in Great Britain was recently impressed upon the public by Lord Davenport, who, I think, is Controller of Foodstuffs. They are even contemplating the destruction of dogs and the rationing of horses; the 24th day of this month is being set aside for the making of a nation-wide appeal against waste. These things all indicate serious thought on the part of the people in that country. So important do they regard the shortage of wheat and the high price of flour that they are seriously considering the abandonment of meatless days, which are causing a greater strain to be made upon the bread supply. Take the United States; are they not exhibiting a more intelligent and active interest in this question than we are, although, perhaps, there is less reason for their doing so than we of Canada? An investigation is now being conducted before the United States Trade Commission, assisted by the Department of Agriculture. Forty states of the American Union are represented in that convention. They recognize the seriousness of conditions

there; there has been a failure of the winter wheat crop.
There has also been a failure of the winter crop in Canada. The weather prevailing in the past few days is regarded as a very serious matter by wheat growers in this country,, and if the unfavourable weather conditions of the past week continue, the result may be very serious. These unfavourable weather conditions seem to be recognized more keenly and acutely in all other parts of the world than they are in Canada. The question of the shortage of flour and the high price of bread is very serious; it is a more serious one for the industrial classes than for the well-to-do classes, who can substitute other foodstuffs for bread, but bread is the staple foodstuff of the industrial classes and it is necessary that they have sufficient bread to maintain industrial efficiency. The high price of foodstuffs affects the whole social and economic fabric of this and all countries. It aggravates social unrest; it intensifies the labour difficulties of the country. The Minister of Finance asks what can be done; he proclaims to us that the Government are willing to do anything if the way is . pointed out to them. Many things might be done and should have been done long ago, aye, even years ago. Desperate diseases require desperate remedies. We all know, as does the Minister of Finance, the general conditions that in normal times affect the prices of all commodities. There are the causes of demand and supply, transportation, waste, extravagance, the cost of high living and other things. These are well known to the world. There is available to every one who chooses to read it a wealth of literature which will give him in all amplitude the general reasons and causes for high prices of foodstuffs in normal times. But we are not living in normal times, and in order to meet the conditions, measures, which in ordinary times might be considered quite radical, must be taken. That is the only way in which we can meet the situation with success. Everything that is uneconomical and unlawful should be prevented by law, and we should not hesitate to take action. Anything that tends to the withdrawal of products from the markets of the country is in some degree preventable. There is nothing wrong in our endeavouring to control by license or by some other method every one who is engaged in the manufacture, transportation, sales, storage or distribution of food. This cannot be done effectually by any one formula, but there vis surely some remedy available to 'the Government if they chose to study the situation carefully and were fully seized of the seriousness of it, and if they really desired to ameliorate conditions. Under certain circumstances the Government would be fully justified by the people of this country in fixing prices; there would be no objection to the Government taking absolutely under their control the flour mills of this1 country. What possible objection could there be to that in all the circumstances prevailing to-day? Would there be any objection to the Government taking control in certain localities of our railway systems, so as to effect a more direct and effective control over transportation and rates? There is no limit to what thq Government might not attempt to do if it were fully seized of the seriousness of conditions. I have followed very carefully what the Government have done during the past two or three years with respect to these matters, and I say emphatically, seriously and honestly that there has not come to my notice any single effort in this direction on their part, which I consider indicates a lively and intelligent interest therein. I do not think the Department of Agriculture has been alive to the situation in this country since the beginning of the war, it has carried on no propaganda throughout the Dominion in regard to the matter of production. We have had the Minister of Finance and a few other hon. members during Parliament intermittently stating:	We
want production and more production, but that does not mean anything; that does not produce results. We can produce results by propaganda, but it must be properly organized; it must be energetically and intelligently carried on, not spasmodically and in restricted localities, it must be nation-wide and carried on persistently, and systematically from one end of the country to the other. No man will say in this House that the efforts made by the Department of Labour in this connection have been intelligent or serious. I do not like to say of any public administrator that his work lacks sincerity, but one is compelled to use that expression in regard to the work of the Department of Labour in respect to this matter. The Minister of Finance gave to the House this afternoon the general and fundamental reasons for the high price of commodities, and in a general way he was correct. But why did he not tell that

to the Minister of Labour a year or more ago? Why did he go to the expense of appointing commissions which never investigate and which never will report-and it is just as well they do not report, as their reports at this late date would be absolutely useless, because conditions change so rapidly these days that one can hardly predicate upon existing facts an opinion to-day that would be worth anything to-morrow. The Department of Labour should be active-and the country expects it to be active-upon this question. The Minister of Finance complains that the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) charged the Government with stock manipulations in the wheat market. I deny that. I think that was rather an unjust, an incorrect imputation against the hon. member, and I certainly did not understand him to say that to-day.


George William Kyte: Had I known that the Minister of Finance had intimated that I made any such statement, I should have denied it on the spot. I did not understand .him to impute that to me.


William Thomas White: What is the
statement that the hon. member for Halifax has made? Let me answer it in anticipation by saying that if he gathered the impression that I said that the hon. member for Richmond had charged us with manipulations of the stock market, he is quite in error, but he did charge us with being responsible for permitting them to continue-which is a very different thing.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I accept the explanation of the Minister of Finance. Nevertheless, he did seek in some form or another to leave the impression on this House that for political purposes, and he emphasized "political purposes," the hon. member for Richmond in speaking to his resolution, connected the Administration with' wheat market speculations. The Minister of Finance says it is unfair to charge the Government with the high prices prevailing to-day. That is a fair statement for him to make, and in a sense it was absolutely unnecessary for him to make it, for we do not think the Government are absolutely bl aim able for the high prices prevailing throughout Canada to-day. But we do say that in many oases the high prices are preventable, and might be modified. We do not ascribe to hon. gentlemen opposite divine powers. We recognize that their limitations are very, very great indeed; but great as they are, we say that if they would only 
display a more active interest in these matters, they could not help bringing about an improvement in the conditions which we are discussing and which bear so heavily on the great mass of our people to-day. It is true that there is prosperity in this Dominion, but it is largely an artificial prosperity, and there are thousands of people to-day in this country who are living either just on or below the poverty line. They are earning large wages, it is true, but the purchasing power of that wage is much below the purchasing power of their wage some few years ago, when it was considerably lower. We are not as prosperous as would appear on the surface, and the Government should not let themselves be lulled to sleep by the fact that wages are high. They should not fail to recognize that the question involved in the resolution introduced by the ihon. member for Richmond this afternoon is a very serious one, and deserving of their most serious consideration and drastic action. If it should mean fixing minimum and maximum prices, let us have it. If it means the taking over of the flour mills of this country, let that be done. If it means a more direct and effective control of the transportation agencies in this country, I say let that be done. If it means the closing of the wheat exchanges of this country, let that be done, although to my mind that might be a very doubtful procedure.
I should also like to enquire why the Government was not in consultation long ago with the Government of the United States on this question. It is all very well for the Minister of Finance to say that at this moment the Minister of Trade and Commerce is in consultation with the British and French Commissions and with the Government of the United States. I venture to say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce would not be in the United States at all if he were not there on the invitation of the British Commission. Instead, he would be wasting his time, as he has been doing for the last two or three years on some abstract questions from which the people of this country can expect nothing in the wdy of results. If the United States and Canada could but act together they would exert a tremendous influence in settling this problem in some degree, not only on this continent, but throughout the whole world. Though the Minister of Trade and Commerce is at Washington, his time no doubt is taken up with many other questions. This problem alone is big enough for any one man, or for

many men, to study, and I think it should be taken up as a special and distinct question with the United States, and a joint commission be appointed by the two countries to study and deal with the whole problem.
I shall not detain the House any longer. I think hon. gentlemen should he grateful to the hon. member for Richmond for having introduced this subject. It is one, I think, we should have discussed in this House long before now. If it might appear that we upon this side of the House are discussing this matter in rather a censorious spirit we may be forgiven because we think that that is the only method by which we can urge this Government to action. We would like hon. gentlemen opposite to participate in this debate, giving friendly advice to the Government and exhorting them to the accomplishment of the results which hon. gentlemen opposite, I am sure, feel this country desires to see attained.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. A. B. McCOIG (West Kent):: No resolution could be more timely or opportune than the one we are now discussing, for the high cost of living is the burning question now before the people. Of course, there are many to whom that question is comparatively unimportant, because their incomes are sufficient to enable them easily to provide for their wants, but to the average mechanic and labouring man it becomes a very serious and pressing problem, especially in view of the possibility of even the higher prices in the future. But I believe that this problem is one that the Government can deal with. The workers who are called upon to increase production are responding nobly. When at home at last week-end, I found that a number of men had taken up the question of cultivating garden plots in the city of Chatham. But one of these gentlemen, who, by the way, works at his regular occupation from seven in the morning until six at night, brought to my attention one serious handicap under which those engaged in these operations must work. If they send to the United States for seeds, as many of them do, believing that they can get a better class of seeds for their purpose, they have to pay specially high duties. On seeds in packages weighing over one pound each the preferential tariff is five per cent, and
the general tariff ten per cent. But when the packages weigh less than one pound each, the duty from the United States is 25 per cent, with the addition of 74 per cent war tax, making 324 per cent altogether. Most of these people order less than one pound of any one kind of seed, and so they have to pay this higher duty. In order to be sure of the matter I took it up with the Commissioner of Customs, and he gave me these figures. These people naturally ask how it comes that, with everybody urging them to increase production, they should be put under this handicap when they seek to comply with the demand..
The high cost of foodstuffs is particularly the problem of the labouring man, and we hear it on every side from men of this class that the Government is not in sympathy with them. We hear it said that the Government is made up largely of millionaires who do not feel the pressure of the present high prices. It is said also that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Crothers) is a man not in sympathy with the workers. He may be a gentleman, so far as that is concerned, but he is a professional man, they say, and never did a day's work in his life, and knows nothing of the needs of the labouring man. I have heard that said by many labouring men. It is a point which any future Government in this country will be called upon to consider. Whoever may be at the head of that Government, it will be necessary to have a practical man as Minister of Labour, because the labouring men are going to have something to say about that matter. But we leave that to the electors for the time coming.
Many believe that the prices of foodstuffs are unduly raised through the action of cold storage concerns. When a fire took place in one of these establishments in Lindsay, it was shown that there were thousands of dozens of eggs stored there, as well as other foodstuffs. These were not put on the market, but were held for high prices and exorbitant profits. That is something that, it seems to me, the Government could regulate. Of course, no person will dispute the advantage of the cold storage system; but, on the other hand, nobody will say that that system should be made the means of holding foodstuffs back from the people for unduly high prices. It is a subject of general complaint that the prices of bacons and hams are exorbitant. But it will be , remembered that while there was a large crop of producing hogs last year, there was

a great shortage of feed. The result was that the farmers had to take almost any prices they could get for stock which, if it were in existence flow, would help to keep down prices. This is a case where the Minister of Agriculture was sleeping on his job. In the part of Ontario in which I live, this problem of shortage of feed for hogs was a very serious one, hut the minister never once visited that section that he might find out how the people were placed. Government reports inform us that fifteen per cent of the grain crop of the West was practically unfit for market as grain. But, though we needed it so badly for feed, we could not get it, and so, as I have said, had to dispose of hogs at far less than their real value. And the same was true, to a large extent, of cattle. In the county of Kent dozens and hundreds of cattle were sold at low prices because the farmer could not get feed for them if he wished to hold them over. Had the Minister of Agriculture taken his duties seriously, and had he kept in touch with the wants of the producers, he could have taken steps which would have resulted in a vastly better situation for the consumer to-day. The Minister of Agriculture has not visited that part of the province of Ontario west of Toronto except on one occasion, and that was to address a political meeting. The Department of Agriculture should be largely non-political, and the head of it should keep in touch with the affairs of the country. But how can he do this unless he keeps going around among the people? Let me give one instance of how this shortage in feed worked out. One farmer in the township of Dover sold a part of his farm and gave the money to one son to move west, while the other son stayed on the home farm. The brother who remained at home wanted feed for his animals. The brother who had gone west had the material to spare. But when the westerner tried to ship the material there was an embargo that would prevent it coming east of Fort William. So the man in Kent county had to sell his stock at sacrifice prices. I believe that the Government should have seen to it that such an embargo was not placed on feed coming east of Fort William, considering how much it was in the interest of the country that that material should he transported to where it was so much needed. We are told that there was no rolling stock to be had, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that at the very time when we were told they could not get cars

to bring in feed for the stock in Ontario, the automobile concerns were getting trains of cars in which to ship their output. Automobiles, a mere luxury, could be shipped, but necessaries could not.
The Minister of Finance has stated that we on'this side are obstructive, that we are merely critical. I myself proposed that the duty on tractors should be removed, but that motion was voted down by the Government. The hon. minister cannot pretend that that would not have been an assistance to greater production in Canada.
We have the Provincial Government using them and we have enterprising farmers doing the same thing for the purpose of working more land and producing better crops. When we have a matter which is really vital, which is important, which is in the interest of greater production, and when we have a proposal of that kind made from this side of the House and every man on this side of the House votes for it, we have the Minister of Finance, who leads the Government, standing up and calling on every man at his side to vote it down. The same thing applies to the removal of the duty on seed -beans with regard to which we expect an answer from the Minister of Finance in the near future. Petitions signed by nearly every member of the council of Kent, signed by the warden and leading farmers throughout the county, have been sent to the Minister of Finance. Every section of that part of the country is anxious for it. The farmers are stalled. The unfavourable condition of the weather at the present time means that whoever puts in a crop will have to put it in later in the season than usual and that it will have to be either beans or corn because it will be too late for the farmer to put in oats and barley. It will not be surprising if we find that the same fate meets the resolution embodying that request. Yet we have the statement of the minister to-day that we are not trying to give the Government assistance by suggesting something which might be practical and in the best interests of the country.
I am glad to be able to say a few words on behalf of the resolution which has been introduced by my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) because I feel satisfied it is not any too soon that a resolution of this kind should be introduced or that some steps should be taken to assist the consumers if at all possible by the Government to at least get food supplies at prices

in keeping with the wages that labouring men are able to earn in the factory.
Mr. COCKSHUTT rose to speak.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford):: I am not quite sure, Mr. Speaker, whether the fact that I have risen in ordeT to say a few words on this question is the occasion of your caution. I generally try to stick fairly closely to the text I undertake to speak upon, but 1 feel that it is a little unfortunate to be confined simply to the question fit flour when every hon. gentleman who has spoken has covered a rather wide field. However, I have a very few remarks to make and I shall endeavour as far as possible to stick to the subject at issue. As far back as March 1, 1915, I introduced to this House the following resolution :
That, in the opinion of this House, the circumstances arising out of the present war are such as to justify the Government of Canada in exercising supreme control over the quantity and destiny of our food exports, thereby regulating the prices at which bread, meat and other food products shall be sold1 for home consumption, while at the same time directing that our surplus food exports should only reach British or friendly countries.
It is upwards of two years since I introduced that resolution, and in January last, in further discussing the subject during the present session, I again drew attention to this proposition of mine submitted as an humble member of this House, for the regulation ,of prices and the control of food products.
I think the resolution brought forward by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) is a veTy fitting one and coming as
I do from a constituency composed pf 25,000 city residents and 8,000 or 10,000 residents in the country, I have to sail fairly close to the wind in order to satisfy both interests and not to offend either. However, I feel it is my duty as a public man not to be afraid to express the opinoin which I hold and have held strongly for the past two yeaTS, which is that the country being at war cannot be expected to live up to the .ordinary regulations which are sufli-cient in times of peace. In order that I may be fully understood, I do not think I can do better than to cite from Hansard what I said on the subject two sessions ago:
I said: The resolution standing in my name is one which I deem of great importance at the present time. It has no political significance, so far as I am concerned. It has appeared to me that for some months past it was the duty of those in charge of the Government of the country to keep a very good eye upon the food supply of the Dominion of Canada, and also to assist in every way possible the Mother Country in the tremendous struggle in which she is now engaged. I am aware that the principle contained in the resolution upsets to a certain extent what has been deemed proper economic law, that is, that the law of supply and demand regulates the prices of all commodities.
At the same time this war has upset a great many business axioms, has upset the calculations of many political economists and has brought to our attention the fact that a worldwide war is not dealt with by ordinary means nor controlled by ordinary circumstances. Supply and demand as a rule is a safe criterion for the fixing of prices of commodities. As far as I have been able to judge, Canada is the only country at present at war that has not given more or less consideration to this very important question. Very early in the war the Government of the sister Dominion of Australia, that great Commonwealth, which is also a large i producer of food, took possession of all supplies of wheat and arbitrarily fixed the price at $1.25 per bushel. That was done in one of the leanest years that Australia has seen in a long time. Their wheat crop was comparatively a failure. The supplies for home consumption were away below the requirements of that great country. New Zealand is in very much the same position and has been obliged to appeal to Canada for its supplies.
It is only consistent on my part that I should now again advocate the principle of the motion which I placed on the Order Paper then. The 7,000 workmen of the city of Brantford look upon this as the leading question of all the questions that are before this House or the country .at the present time. 'We are not asking this Government, nor are we asking this House, to dp anything that has not been already done by every one of the warring countries ex-

cept Canada. We take up the paper tonight -and in regard to the United 'States which has only ibeen about a month in the war we read in the Evening Journal this despatch from New York:
United Press Despatch.
New York, May 3.

"Submarine destruction has been steadily increasing for six weeks. The situation is one of extreme gravity, make sure of that."
With this warning Herbert C. Hoover, who is to be America's food dictator, arrived to-day from Britain. He left immediately for Washington.
Declaring that deaths in the industrial districts of Belgium had been "multiplied by three" on account of submarine operations during March and April, Hoover said the U-boats were the one big menace which must be eliminated in order to win the war.
"The European food situation as well as the general food situation there requires every possible effort we can make,'' he said. "What Europe needs most is wheat and what it must have is wheat, but it must also have beef and pork products. As for Belgium, the relief system is struggling to its feet after having been practically knocked out by the submarines. Five of our ships have been lost since March 1."
This further statement from one of our agricultural authorities, Mr. W. J. Black, appears in the same paper:
All over Canada the situation is grave. The prospects are far from bright, and the people may as well know it now. The seeding has been lamentably delayed by the weather this spring, and in the western states even less land is ploughed than has been heretofore the case. In Saskatchewan alone there were 1,500,000 acres less land ploughed last fall than the year previous.
This was due to the fact that the harvest was taken off the fields so late there was not time to get the land ploughed- before winter set in.
I think those quotations prove conclusively that we are at an acute crisis in the food situation. I have no political axe to grind and no particular desire to please either the farmer or the workingman beyond that desire which every citizen should have, to help -humanity whereever he can help it. I speak on behalf of the -workingmen of Canada, and especially of those who reside in my native city of Brantford, and I feel it is my duty to impress on the House the desirability of more control of food supplies. That applies not alone to flour but to all otheT food products. The day is near at hand when we must have a food dictator in Canada. I think we might with advantage have had one long ago. I do not mean by a food dictator a tyrant, a despot, or a czar, but one who
[Mr. Cockshutt.I
would make kindly suggestions to the people, appeal to them in the way of humanity, and ask them if they are not willing in time of war to sacrifice a little. It is all very well for you, someone may say to me, living at a first-class hotel, to propound a proposition like this. I should be only too glad if the -Government would tell the hotel keepers of this city and of all Canada that khey (must limit their menus to the barest fare, as they -have done in Great Britain, in France and in practically all European countries. Why should we be served with twice as much on our plates as any reasonable man should eat? Often it would be much better foT a man's stomach if he did not eat so much, but he iinust eat it all or waste it, and in my judgment the time for waste has passed. If this war continues-, we shall need a food dictator or a man who will come to us with propositions with regard to flour, meat, potatoes and1 all those necessities of life, and tell us that we should -not have more of them than is good for us, and should save all the food we can on behalf of those not so fortunately situated as we are. It may be said that the workingman has hi-s increased wages. So he has. But I want to tell you, as one who represents a working class community, that the wages have not advanced in nearly the same proportion as have the prices of foods. That is in the knowledge of every man who gives the slightest thought to it. We know that food prices have increased enormously. Wheat, which was 80 cents to 90 cents before the war, is $3 to-day. Flour, which sold at about $3 to $3.50 per hundred weight, is now $6 or $7 per hundred pounds. And the increase .does not apply to food only. Take coal, woollen goods, almost any textile goods and the same thing applies all through. And what has the workman got? He has got a very small wage increase over what he was obtaining before the war to pay for all these advances that have been placed upon the necessities of life.
May I make a few suggestions that I think, if followed up, would be of advantage. I have always appealed to the farmer in the same way as to the workingman. I am not saying anything here that I would not say before an audience of farmers or workingmen, and if I cannot be re-elected in my constituency I am quite willing to stay at home. I want to speak what I believe to be right and true and I declare that, in war times such as these, to say

that the law of supply and demand must continue to regulate the prices of all articles of commerce is to my mind to beg the question. I say that it wants something more drastic and these kid gloved methods that have been in vogue for so long will not do if this war continues. I say that with regard to recruiting as well as with regard to the food supply. We want to wake up and give a lead to the people of Canada, who, I believe are ready for a lead right now. They want somebody to suggest something practical that they can do to help the situation. They are anxious to have suggestions made as to ways in which they can assist, and if they can assist by cutting down the cost of living, I am sure that they will be ready to do so. Where is there a man who, knowing the suffering that exists to-day in Belgium, in Serbia, in Poland, in almost all the countries of Europe, where is there a man who is going to spend $3 o* $4 on a high-class dinner, and leave two-thirds of it on his plate, when he knows that his brethren of almost all the civilized nations of the earth are dying day by day for the necessaries of life? We say here every day, give us this day our daily bread. How many of us are thinking of the other chap who is not getting his daily bread? How many of us are ready to surrender any of the things that we have been squandering on ourselves in war times? When I read that lecture I apply it to myself as well as to anyone else. I know that I have spent money that I should not have spent. I know that I have not given as much as I should. I have tried to give and to do, but I know that I have not done half of what I should, and I know that if every member in his heart will only examine his ability to sacrifice and to do for others he will find that he, too, could do more.
We have before us to-day a proposition with regard to flour, but it applies to almost every article of food that goes on the workingman's table, and I say we have to remember those who work behind the benches as well as those who till the soil. I am not here to speak on behalf of one or the other, but to say a word for the honest working men of Canada. According to the census of 1911 there were 900,000 workers besides those on the farm who were dependent upon their daily wages for their daily bread, and while you may say that the farmer's lot is the hardest, I have tried a little of the farmer's life and a little of the workingman's, not a great deal of either, and I declare that the workingmen of the Dominion of Canada to-day put as much honest
labour on their daily task as any other class of the community, and that is not said with any disrespect to anybody. They have to work winter and summer, day in and day out, from seven in the morning until six at night, with one hour off, with a taskmaster often over them to see that they are on the job, and if they are two or five minutes late they are docked for it. That is the way the workingman of this country has to put in his time; he has a watch-clock on the job and has to be there on the moment and he must not knock off a moment before the time is up.
Now, what about these workingmen? Are they exercised about the prices of food? I think they are. I say they are very much exercised about the prices of food, and I believe that in the very near future this Government, or some other Government, must take in hand the prices of foodstuffs in the Dominion of Canada. I say that believing it to be true. It has been done in all other countries, and it can, and, I think, will have to be done here if this war continues. It is a practical necessity of the situation, absolutely. We have been living in a kind of fool s paradise here, it appears to me, for quite a while. We think we are m the war, but, barring the men we have sent across and the occasional thoughts we give to the caisuklty lists, I fear our efforts on behalf of the war are mighty small, our self-denial mighty little, and, I think, it is time that we all realized that the sufferings of humanity are our sufferings, and that we must bear our share of this white man's burden in the way a white man should.
These prices, which can be and ultimately must be controlled, can be controlled in ten minutes under the operation of some such resolution as I have proposed. There is no doubt about that; prices have been controlled in every other country in the world, and they can be controlled here. The United States, only a month at war, is talking of controlling prices immediately; why not Canada? Great Britain has done it, Australia, and India have done it, France has done it, Germany and Austria have done it. Belgium, Poland, and Serbia, unfortunately, have not any food to control, but every other war country that professes to have a Government at the head of affairs is controlling its food to-day and securing a fair distribution of it among the people. That is one of the duties of a Government; if necessary, we should even be put on rations. Owing to the high cost of living,
I think that that is a practical suggestion.


Mr. MARCIL:: What about controlling exports?


William Foster Cockshutt: That is exactly what we have here; it is plainly set forth in the resolution. I say that the control of exports will result in the control of the price of food, immediately and absolutely-and not only food, but manufactured articles as well, if you wish. I do not want to be left out of this; let nobody make a mistake about that. I am prepared to submit to the very same regulation that 1 ask every citizen in Canada to submit to. I do not propose any class legislation, but I say that the control of all food exports would provide that after a certain maximum price has been reached-fix it where you will, but fix it where it is fair and just-no more goods shall go out until the price goes down. That will fix it, and fix it quickly. We may beat about the bush; we may have investigations; we may curse the middleman and every one who deals in food and every individual citizen who is not our own self; we may say that the other fellow is responsible, but when it comes to the final analysis the responsibility lies at the door of every citizen. We all have to do our share; we all have to give; we all 'have to practise self-denial, if need be, in order that all may live.
The workingmen have suffered much on account of the high cost of living. I do not say that there is any acute suffering at present, but they have been obliged to deny themselves many things that they would like to have upon their tables and that we, perhaps, have upon our tables. Their wages cannot pay for these luxuries that others are, perhaps, provided with. You say that the farmer will cease to produce if you begin to limit his prices. I do not think that that will happen. I am sympathetic with the farmer. In my own county I have many farmer friends of a lifetime whom I esteem as highly as I do any class in the community. I know that they are rational; I know that they are human. I know that if a woman or child knocks at the door of a farm house in the county of Brant or any other county in the province of Ontario, the farmer or the farmer's wife will say: you shall not go hungry from this door. It is the instinct of humanity to help the suffering. If in ordinary times $1.50 or $2 is a fair price for wheat; if $1.50 or $2 is a fair price for a bag of potatoes, 35 or 40 cents a fair price for a pound of butter and 25 cents for a pound of cheese,

it is no hardship on this or any other Government to say that owing to the exigencies of war, those prices should not be exceeded. Britain has a food dictator. He has not gone about with a big stick, but he has made suggestions with a view to the limitation of the cost of all the necessities of -life. Every hotel and restaurant in the great cities of Great Britain have a menu beyond which they cannot go. They are obliged to serve so many ounces of bread, so many ounces of meat, so much potato, and so on, and their meals are confined to two or three courses, according to the necessities of the case. We are asked to deal with a question such as this. I hear an hon. gentleman say:	"How would he reduce ploughs,"
if I am not mistaken. I am quite ready for my hon. friend to fix ploughs at his own price. The day has gone by when I can be held up with a threat about ploughs. I have explained in this House time and again that I have had absolutely nothing to do with the manufacture or control of ploughs for twenty years and if anybody in this House thinks that he can hold me up by shaking a big stick over me and talking about ploughs, I would like him to get up and try it. I have had that shot at me from both sides of the House and I tell you that it does not count with me worth a cent. I did not think that my hon. friend should have whispered that quite so loudly. The suggestion of ploughs is supposed to answer all arguments, and it has been made to me whenever I have attempted to say anything about the necessities of life. It has nothing to do with the question so far as I am discussing it, and, besides, I am propounding nothing now, as I have already said, that I am not prepared to submit to myself. I am trying to make valuable suggestions that will help to secure the control of food prices, and I am doing it in a serious way, because I think that is absolutely necessary.
It gives me a good deal of pain to have to dissent from my fellow-members. I would not do it unless a strong sense of duty led me to the conclusion that, representing a constituency such as I do, in a time of war such as this, as a citizen of Canada I should say what I think upon this great question. The time is near at hand, if this war continues, when some such suggestions as I have made will have to be put into operation. And if they are put into operation as I have suggested them, I guarantee that they will be effectual. What every other country has done

Canada can do. We want something of the heroism in onr acts at home that will, even if only in a very feeble way, compare with the acts of onr heroic sons across the water. If our heroism at home was half or quarter as great as that of our dear boys over the water, we would not have to speak as we do on this occasion. We should be ready to make sacrifices; we should be ready to deny ourselves in time of war. The ordinary influences of supply and demand are set aside by the unusual conditions. In the face of a world-wide war, millions of tons of food have gone to the bottom of the seas and we shall be months or years overtaking the loss that is being occasioned by the submarines. If in the face of these conditions we continue our wasteful methods, a sudden call of halt will come to us, the food supply will be gone and we will have only ourselves to blame, simply because we have thrown away the lavish gifts of nature that are scattered broadcast over the Dominion. I trust that the resolution that my hon. friend has introduced will be the means of causing the powers that be to think seriously about the regulation and control of all food prices and of all the necessities of our daily life, and particularly of the life of the workingman. That is a practical suggestion; it is one that will come in the near future; and in all kindness, but with full sincerity, I make these suggestions from one of the back benches, and I trust that my remarks will not be thrown away but that in the early future, we shall have, if not a dictator, some one who will come out with a lead and ask the people of Canada to live and let live, to sacrifice and to give, to help those who are in need, and to try to lighten the white man's burden, as represented by the workingmen of this country, for whom I say we cannot appeal too strongly. They are worthy of the utmost sacrifice on the part of every one of us, and we should endeavour to lighten their load which, I am sure, they find very onerous at the present time. Let the heroism shown by our boys at the front be shown in some measure by those of us who remain at home, and all these questions will be duly solved.


Mr. F. N. McCREA (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Government are, to a large extent, responsible for the high price of flour and the high cost of living in general. They are having a large amount of munition work done in this country and they are paying such prices to the manufacturers of munitions that the latter are making immense profits and are paying very high wages to their employees. I can understand that, at the start, it was necessary to pay extreme prices for munitions in order to get the business started, because the manufacturers were not equipped for making munitions and were unwilling to engage in a new business unless there was good remuneration in sight for them; but once the business was started and once the munition manufacturers throughout the country were clamouring for business, the Government should have adopted a little more business-like method and should have said to the manufacturers, when they wanted one or two million shells: Give us a bid; how many can you make, and at what price? Instead of doing that, the Government have fixed a price for munitions so high that the manufacturers have made huge profits and have been able to pay their employees-not all skilled labourers, but some of them men who were common day labourers-ten dollars, fifteen dollars and even more than that a day. The call to arms has come to every man in this country, the farmer as well as every one else, is supposed to send his sons to the front, and they have gone. Consequently, the farmer must have some one to cultivate Ms farm and I ask: Where is he to get the help to do his chores from five o'clock in the morning until nine o'clock at night at ordinary wages, if a man can make ten to fifteen dollars a day in a shell factory? Had the Government adopted more reasonable and intelligent methods of dealing with this matter, they would not to-day have to ask the munition manufacturers to cough up 75 per cent of their profits, because they would not have made those profits and it therefore would not be necessary to ask the manufacturers to give them back. Unfortunately, all of the labouring men of this country are not in the shell business. Employers engaged in ordinary lines of manufacture cannot afford to pay excessive wages to their employees, although they are probably paying wages from thirty to forty per cent higher than they were a year ago, and as the cost of living has increased more than thirty or forty per cent, the man who is working for the ordinary employer is up against a hard proposition to support his family, whereas the man who is employed on government work and is making five or six times the wages of his less fortunate brother is not to be pitied. It is the Government,

however, wh.o are responsible for the high cost of living by having this 'Government work done at higher wages than the ordinary business man or farmer can afford to pay. It may be late in the day to remedy this matter, but it is said: " Better late than never." I understand the Minister of Finance made the statement this afternoon that the law of supply and demand was the governing factor. I wish he had thought so when he was dealing with the newsprint proposition. He did not appear to think of the law of supply and demand then because he fixed the price of newsprint at least at one per cent per pound less than it can be made for.
The high cost of living is going to be a serious problem for the man in the ordinary walk of life or working in the ordinary factories, and the farmer also is up against a very serious proposition. The farmer is asked to produce more. Most of his sons have gone to the front and he has to go into the labour market fpr help and he cannot get any. The Government ought to consider this question, even at this late hour, and see that the men working on Government orders are paid about the same wages as the men working in the .ordinary factories. If the Government do so, they will be going a long way towards remedying the cost of living.


John Gillanders Turriff: Mr. Speaker, the course that the debate has taken this afternoon and evening must satisfy the Government that this question is one of the greatest importance, and that it is not, as the Minister of Finance has stated, a matter of party politics. The Minister of Finance is usually fair, but I think to-day he was absolutely unfair to the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) who introduced this resolution, and to other members on this side of the House who spoke on it, when he characterized it as being largely political. I am sure nobody in the House will accuse the hon. member fpr Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) of making a political speech, and I think he has shown to the Government and to the House that it is not a matter of politics but a matter of absolute necessity that something should be done if conditions are going to continue at all reasonable in this Canada of ours. I congratulate the hon. member for Brantford on having foreseen this two years ago, long before any of us on this side of the House or on the other side of the House saw it in the same light. What is our position in this country? Can-[Mr McCrea.]
ada is a food producing country, and today is overflowing with food. Why, then, should there be such high prices as are asked to-day? It is only a few days ago that the Minister of Agriculture told the House that we had a surplus of 1,500,000 bushels of potatoes over and above the food and seed requirements of this country. If that is the case, how comes it that the price of potatoes is $4 a bag? Who is to blame for it? My hon. friend the Minister of Finance says it is a question of supply and demand. I do not for one moment think it is the law of supply and demand that has raised prices up to their present level. I want to be absolutely fair; I do not want to blame the Government for more than they are responsible for, but it does seem to me that if the Government had used foresight or even common sense, we should not be in the position we are to-day. If it is the law of supply and demand that is forcing prices up, how is it that the juice of wheat at Liverpool has not gone up $1 a bushel in the last few days? Liverpool, as we all know, sets the price of wheat for the world, but there has been no such advance there in the past few days. What I blame this Government for is that they have simply let matters drift until they have got into their present position. It is only a short time ago that wheat was at a reasonable pric.p in this country. Within the last six weeks the Minister of Trade and Commerce had representatives of the farmers' organizations in the West come to Ottawa, and he wanted them to sell the whole western crop of No. 1 Northern delivered at Fort William at $1.20 a bushel.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Who wanted to buy it?


John Gillanders Turriff: Sir George Foster.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all. You have
been told that several times.


John Gillanders Turriff: He was acting, as the
Minister of Finance has told us this afternoon, as agent for the Imperial 'Government.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Did he try to buy the wheat, or simply submit the offer of the British Government to the farmers?


John Gillanders Turriff: to looking after the interests of the farmer. Or I thought that, at the very least, he had decided to run for an agricultural constituency. But what we want him to do is not for the farmer, but for the consumer.
The hon. minister said that some gentlemen on this side of the House had dared to suggest that the farmers' wheat ought to he commandeered. I represent a constituency that is almost altogether a wheat-growing constituency, and I say that, when the farmers offered their wheat at $1.70 for No. 1 Northern, delivered at Fort William, if the Government thought it in the interests of the consumers of Canada they should have gone ahead and commandeered that wheat. If they decide to do so, they will hear no word against it . from us. The farmers are willing to be fair, they offered to sell their wheat at a fair price. I 'believe that if t'he Minister o' Finance had been in charge of that question, and not the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell), that he, being a good business head, would have seen the advantage of acting upon, that offer, especially in view of the fact that, as he told us this afternoon, he had all the information as to the conditions that have led to the high price of flour.
I say the Government is to blame, very much to blame, for not having taken action. It has been pointed out a number of times in this debate that every country engaged in this war has taken action along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cookshutt). Why, then, cannot Canada do something? The Minister of Finance told us that we had 100,000.000 bushels of wheat in Canada. Now, the people of this Dominion could not eat, between now and the threshing of the next crop, more flour than would be produced from 25,000,000 bushels of wheat-not if they eat up nights to do it. So, according to the Minister of Finance, we have 75,000,000 bushels of wheat in Canada more than we want. Yet we have wheat jumping in price twenty or thirty cents a day. Caused by the demand in Britain? No, but caused by speculation. And the Government has eat idle all these weeks, and has allowed things to drift into their present condition, and now they are afraid to do anything except to send a man to Montreal to ask the price of flour and wheat.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The Minister of Finance said that the wheat in warehouses in Canada [Mr. Turriff. 1
was largely owned by the British Government. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Turriff) must have heard him say that.


John Gillanders Turriff: What about it?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The hon. member says that we have 75,000,000 bushels of wheat above our requirements. But the Minister of Finance told us that that was largely owned by the British Government.


John Gillanders Turriff: I imagine that my hon. friend must have an option on a good bunch of wheat, by the way he talks.	.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I may tell the hon. gentleman I do not own a bushel of Canadian wheat.


John Gillanders Turriff: Then, I congratulate the hon. gentleman on having sold out his option and pocketed hie profits.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Let me tell the hon. gentleman I have not, nor have I had, a bushel of Canadian wheat.


John Gillanders Turriff: Of course, I accept the
hon. gentleman's statement. The Government reports show that, of the wheat in the West, twenty-one per cent is still in the farmers' hands. This means that 21,000,000 bushels of wheat at all events is not owned by the British Government. But even of that in warehouses, a good part is owned by .millers, grain dealers and speculators. No doubt, the British: Government owns a good share of wheat, too. Why could not the Government have appointed somebody to declare that the price of wheat should not be higher than a certain figure? The British Government and the French Government have taken similar action. All the governments that are at war have fixed the prices of food supplies. While we were paying 55 cents and 58 cents a pound for butter, the British Government refused to allow it to be sold at more than 50 cents a pound in that country.
What are the United States doing? They have introduced a resolution that munition manufacturers shall not be allowed to make more than 3i per cent profit, and that the dealers in foodstuffs shall not be allowed to make more than 6 per cent profit. How does that compare with what has been going on in Canada, wheTe they have been making, not 6 per cent, but in some cases close to 600 per cent on some of food products? Again, the Government have refused to take any measures whatsoever to protect the consumers or anybody in Canada, and they have allowed the speculators,


S, 1917
[Stage Direction]
the manipulators and middlemen to so manipulate prices that the price of food is almost out of the reach of the average working man in Canada. The Government are to blame and are greatly to blame. It is time that they were waking up, and time that they were realizing the position that the country is in. It has been stated to-day, and I want to emphasize it, that we do not know exactly where we are in this war. With German submarines sinking vessels at the rate of fifty to sixty a week, as reported, and it is very probable we are not getting the worst of the reports, the condition- is most serious. I add my voice to the voice of my hon. friend from Brantford, and I call on the Government to take action at once along the line of appointing some man in charge of the food of the Dominion and see that the price is not put out of reach. It is just as likely to-day that flour could be put up another $5 a barrel, as it was two weeks ago, that it would be put up to the price it is to-day. If it has gone up $5 in the last week or two, what is to hinder them from putting it up another $5?
I would be afraid to contemplate the condition of the people of Canada with flour at $20 a barrel. In a country that has much more food than it oan use, with flour at $14.50 a barrel, potatoes at $4 a hag, and lots of other things not quite in proportion, but also very high, surely the Government will realize their position at last and come forward and do something in the interest of the people of Canada. If they do not- and I want to say this as moderately as I know how take some action the people will hold the Government responsible, and absolutely responsible, not for the total advance m the prices of foodstuffs, but for not taking any action to regulate prices. There is no question at all that the great big advance that has been made in the last few days is not due to supply and demand, but is nothing more or less than speculation and allowing these manipulators of food, for _ their own profit, to put prices away up in order that they may make millions. Every working man will have to pay his share of the millions of profits that are being made to-day out of the huge advances in the prices of wheat and flour and other foodstuffs throughout Canada.
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, it is with some hesitation that I rise to offer a few remarks on this motion, for the reason that I have not been able to be present during this debate, and have only had the privilege of hearing the hon. gentleman who has just spoken
68	REVISED
(Mr. Turriff) and the hon. member who preceded him (Mr. McCrea). However, I feel that I can with fair safety assume that the character of the discussion, at all events the character of the attack, has been throughout much of the same nature as that to which I have just listened from the hon. member for Assiniboia. If the level of the discussion prior to that had been such as would accord with the dignity of Parliament and the seriousness of this time, I could not believe that the hon. member for Assiniboia would allow himself to descend to the plane that he occupied for so long.
Now, we are asked, in the first place, to believe that there is "something" that should have been done. I have heard that word "something" so often, in these two speeches, and indeed during many years, as the peculiar name of what ought to be done, that I have begun to long to have that "something" defined. What is this miraculous, mysterious "something" that should have been done, or ought now to be done, or has not been done, and so on? The hon. member for Assiniboia says that we have lain back and done nothing. While dealers in food supplies have made millions, while other countries have done so much, and while things were in such an excellent condition the world over, all but here, it is said we have lain back and rested on our oars. We have all listened to very considerable in the way of general criticism of that sort, but we have heard very little in the way of comparison with other countries. About the last remark the hon. gentleman made was this, and it is a remark I have heard from him times without number: These middlemen, he says, and these people of a general character that he feels safe in attacking, are making millions piled upon millions, while in other countries they will not permit such thing at all. In good old England they never permit anything like that, he says, and they have a dictator to see that nothing of that kind takes place. What are the only figures available to compare all the millions that are being permitted to be made in this country and all the millions that are permitted to be made in other countries? Fortunately, we are in a position to make a comparison, that I do not claim is final, but that at all events is useful, on this very subject. We have now information as to the excess profits war tax, which I think has been very fully collected-collected with wonderful success for the first year, much beyond in amount the expectations of hon.


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
gentlemen on this side of the House, and far beyond the expressed expectations of hon. gentlemen on the other side. The collections for the first year of 25 per cent of the excess profits tax over 7 per cent on corporations in Canada gave $12,500,000, and are expected to reach $15,000,000 when all are in for the first year. For the second year it is expected that they will reach $20,000,000. Let us take that first year and compare it with the amounts got by Great Britain, and we will learn a lesson that will be very useful if we just let it sink down far enough. If 25 per cent of excess profits over 7 per cent amount to $15,000,000, the whole excess over 7 per cent will reach $60,000,000. That is for this country with a population of about 8,000,000. In Great Britain they collected for the same purpose 50 per cent of the profits in excess of what was for each business the average for three years prior to the war. Now our average for three years prior to the waT would be over 7 per cent. However, our total profits over 7 per cent were approximately $60,000,000.
In Great Britain they took their 50 per cent of what was over and above a higher amount than 7 per cent-namely, the average profit for three pre-war years.
In this way they collected £139,800,000, so that their total profits (excess over the average for three years before the war), would be twice that sum, or about £280,000,000. This is roughly $1,400,000,000, or 24 times the excess profits in this country. Their population is approximately five times ours. So that, man for man, in that country they had in the first year of the war excess profits in Great Britain of nearly five times the excess profits in Canada.
Before I pass to another phase of the discussion I want to make clear once more to the House-I know it long ago was clear to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) if he would do himself and the House the justice of stating it, instead of misstating it-the relations of the Government to the recent offer of the British Government to purchase the surplus export wheat of this country. The British Government have what they call a Wheat Commission, which deals through agents in this country and the United States with the necessary wheat purchases for themselves and their Allies. They are the purchasers for themselves and in the main their Allies the world over. It is they who want the wheat for this purpose, and not the Government of Canada. That Wheat Commission met the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster)
[Mr. Meighen. 1
when he was over in London, and they made a proposition to purchase the surplus wheat of this country, as they had made similar propositions to purchase the surplus of Australia, New Zealand and the other overseas dominions. At that time the United States was not our ally, but was a neutral nation. They had already consummated their negotiations with the other dominions and they made their offer to purchase our wheat on such a footing, having regard to 'the ocean rates between the other dominions and Great Britain and us and Great Britain, they controlling that, to a large extent, as would make our wheat cost in Great Britain what the wheat purchased in the other dominions would cost there. However, after some discussion, Sir George Foster was able to show them that it would he fair to pay a little more for the Canadian wheat, and consequently he was able to get them to raise the offer a little; but it was their offer from the beginning, throughout and to the end. They advanced certain reasons to him why, in their judgment, keeping in mind the higher interests of this war and of this Empire and doing justice at the same time, as they felt, to the farmers of Canada, that offer should be accepted. Having arrived in Canada, Sir George Foster felt it his duty-and the Government felt he was only pursuing his duty-to lay the subject before such organized body -in this country as best represented the producers. Consequently an invitation was sent to the Canadian Council of Agriculture to come to Ottawa and to discuss with the Minister of Trade and Commerce the offer that had so been made, and to ascertain whether or not they would recommend its acceptance on behalf of those whom they represented. That offer was made in that way, and the reasons adduced by the British Government through their wheat commission why in their judgment the offer should he accepted were passed on by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as it was his duty to do, to the representatives of agriculture in Canada. They refused to give an opinion. They went back and consulted their associations in a body, and then refused the offer and made a counter proposal. The counter proposal was as stated by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), and it was at once communicated to the British Wheat Commission, who did not act upon it. Now those are very plain facts. I am not bringing them forward in order to erect the Government of Canada
[Stage Direction]
into any great position of credit. We simply did a simple and a plain duty. But on such simple elementary facts, why does an hon. member stand in this House and seek to attack this Government alleging as he does, that we tried to persuade the farmers of Canada to .sell at $1.30 and refused afterwards to pay $1.70 when, as a matter of fact, we as purchasers were never negotiating with the farmers of Canada at all? These men speaking for the producers of Canada refused the offer	made by
the British Wheat Commission and the British Wheat	Commission has	not
acted upon their counter proposition. So if any attack is to be made in this House, it is to be made on the British Government and the British Wheat Commission. But I do not stand in this House and attack them, nor do I stand in this House and praise them. They know the situation better than we do and in the light as they saw it they refused, or have not so far accepted the offer. There the matter stands.
One who has listened to the hon. member for Assiniboia for eight years in this House as I have, who had listened to his diatribes against the Government for their animosity to the farming community, who had listened also to his pleas for the poor workingman to be allowed to buy his flour cheaper by the removal of duty, would not have thought that, two weeks after the duty on flour was removed, the hon. member would stand in this House and attack the Government for doing nothing to bring down the price of the breakfast of the workingman. He wants a dictator too. He wants a dictator to dictate not what the farmer should get for his wheat, but what the workingman is to pay for his flour. Could humbug go farther? I do not know whether he wants the same kind of a dictator as we heard proposed by an hon. gentleman behind me, a dictator who' does not dictate. We were asked solemnly by an hon. gentleman behind me to appoint a dictator who would assume his duties and prosecute his duties by making " kindly suggestions" to the people of Canada. I want to say that we have just a little less than 7,000,000 of this kind of dictators already. We have " kindly suggestions " being made until we need an embargo on suggestions in this country. We welcome the man who will say specifically what can be done and help to do it. Suggestions, " kindly suggestions" -we have had them from the beginning of the war. Talk about giving a lead. There
68J
is not a man in this House who has not given a lead, if that is giving a lead. Most of us have spoken on platform after platform, gentlemen on the other side of the House as well as on this side; there is scarcely one who has not given that kind of a lead ever since the war began, asking that we exercise thrift, asking that we produce more, asking that we help the boys at the front and behave ourselves in Canada . something in the way that they have behaved themselves on the battle fields of Flanders. That is what thousands are doing. There has been leadership in abundance of that kind. We do not want a czar, we do not want anything in the way of an imperator, according to the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). We want a dictator who will make something in the way of suggestions as to what may be done to keep down individual expenditure in Canada, and the waste of our food and our resources. Why, everybody knows what to do to keep down waste in this country-do not waste. Everybody in the country knows that already. It may be, and I am not going to say the time has not come or is not soon coming, when we will need to go further than make " kindly suggestions." It may be that the time will come when something will be done by way of compulsion. But if we are to have compulsion, let us call it by its proper name, and not endeavour to introduce it under all these dead phrases about doing " something," and all the rest of it. There is one step beyond the suggestion step, and that is compulsion, and if any one thinks we must have compulsion let him stand up like a man and say it, and not pursue these soft glove evasions all the time.
We have been listening to-night to much in the way of encomium of the United States. Well, I am not going to offer any criticism of the United States, of what they have done or of what they have failed to do, but I do not think the time has quite come for passing encomiums on a country, or deprecations of our own country by way of comparison, merely on the basis of the introduction of a Bill into the United States House of Representatives. We, too, have had a few Bills 1 " introduced " into this House. We had a few " resolutions " last night. For example, we had one resolution not only introduced, but actually going ,through-^or failing to go 'through-with the imprimatur on it of the Liberal party in Canada, which, if it had become law, would have taken out of the pockets of people who happened to have saved money
[Stage Direction]
and had left it in the banks for Jive years, all the money that they had there, giving them not a dollar find no indemnity whatever in return. We have had all kinds of "resolutions" and " introductions," too. But it is time enough to pass encomiums and eulogies when the United States gets something done towards winning this war and towards prosecuting it the way we are prosecuting it. The other day a magazine in United States sent a message to Great Britain to Lord Northcliffe, perhaps the severest critic of British policy that has arisen since the war began, or that ever arose, and asked him if he had any suggestion to make to the United States as to how they could best address themselves to the duty of prosecuting the war. What was the suggestion that he sent? !He said: " If you enter the war, you will find that waging a great war under democracy is a new and vast experiment " 'If he had stood in this House of Commons and listened to this debate, he would surely have thought it was indeed a vast and perilous experiment. He said, further: " If you come in, I have one thing to say to you, and it is this: you can learn a great deal from the example of Canada." Those words are printed on the pages of Everybody's Magazine, where all the world can read them. Theodore Roosevelt wrote an article in a United States publication. He, perhaps, has been the severest critic of American policies since the war began. His name stands out in this country as unexcelled among his fellow-citizens. He said: "I am not an adherent of the principle of the voluntary system. But the voluntary system has achieved much, and Canada has shown to the world the utmost that can be done by the voluntary system." That is what the world's biggest men looking on Canada impartially from without thinks of what this country has achieved. Now if hon. gentlemen opposite want compulsion introduced in the military forces of this country or in the civil forces in the matter of fo.od dictatorships and prices, let them say specifically that they will back up compulsion and they will gain their wishes at least much faster than they will by this infinite amount of aimless and pointless talk.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I always listen, with
interest to the very eloquent speeches of the Solicitor General. He has made a reputation for himself of steering away from the real subject at issue, and I can assure him [Mr. Meighen.J
that in the art of keeping away from the subject and of not touching the issue at all he never did himself better justice than he has done on this occasion. It is sad to watch the tactics of the generals of the Government and the dope which they deal out to their followers around them when a question of this kind is brought up. The first thing they do is to get their supporters gopd and mad against the Opposition so that they will take a plunge into anything and vote for the Government whatever the question may be. That dope has been meted out by the Solicitor General and it has been dosed all over the members on the other side by the great leader of doping, the Minister of Finance. Hon. gentlemen,
I think, have been sufficiently doped and dosed by this time to accept almost anything that may be submitted to them. But the hon. generals of the 'Government on that side of the House must not forget that the electors of Canada, supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite, the men who sent them here, are not partaking of this dope which the 'Solicitor General is spraying around. Sitting in their houses or going about their business, they have opportunity of deliberately considering the question from a proper point of view and outside the baneful influence of this dope that is being cast around.
I think that the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. G. W. Kyte) is entitled to much credit and commendation from both sides of the House for bringing before the House the very important matter that he drew to our attention this afternoon. If the discussion had been participated in only by members on this side of the House, it might be said that the subject was a partisan one and had in it no value or virtue besides that of partisanship. But we find the Minister of Finance, who is leading the Government, the Minister of Labour and the Solicitor General, and such able and eloquent men as the member for Brantford (Mr. W. F. Cockshutt) taking part in this discussion; therefore we feel that it must be a question of grave import and should be dealt with in that spirit.
I must apologize to the Solicitor General on behalf of some of us on this side who suggested that the Government might be doing something. The member for Assini-boia (Mr. J. G. Turriff) suggested that the Government might have taken steps to procure a large quantity of wheat at a certain price subject to their control in order to meet present necessities. The hon. Solicitor General said that the Government would

not do such a thing; he became indignant at the idea that the Government should be doing anything on behalf of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, and who may not have an opportunity of speaking again. I must apologize to every member of the Government for supposing for one moment that they would do anything of a practical character.
We are told that so far as the subject matter of the resolution is concerned we in Canada are in a better position than the people of other parts of the world. The hon. member for Richmond, in speaking the other night, made it plain from reliable facts and figures that cannot be controverted that the cost of living in this country has gone up 44i per cent, while in the Commonwealth of Australia-a sister dominion inhabited largely by the same class of people, having the same kind of industries, being more like Canada than any other part of the Empire-the cost of living has increased only 9J per cent. Does the Solicitor General think that our country compares favourably with our sister colony in the matter of the cost of living? I submit that it does not. The cost of living has been kept down to an increase of only 9} per cent in Australia by reason of governmental action, and there is no reason why the same governmental action should not take place in Canada and produce similar results.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman not realize that Australia is not surrounded by a country with ten times its population, and that there is no method of export save by the transports provided by the British Government, whereas we are 4,000 miles along the American border, and our prices are naturally controlled by theirs?
Mr. McKENZIE .* The argument of the hon. gentleman would be cogent and to the point if it were found that we had not in abundance in this country the commodity with which we are dealing, and if by reason of the exportation of that article and by reason of the large demand for it elsewhere, it had gone out of the country, but we have the articles here in superabundance.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman say for example that we should put an embargo on wheat.


George William Kyte: The embargo is on now.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I care not what the
thing is called-embargo or protection or prohibition or injunction or whatever the
hon. gentleman may call it-I say, we have a population to feed; we have responsibility to our country and to our people, and we should do whatever is necessary to feed them in the cheapest and best possible way. That is why I say all those prohibitions, or extraordinary remedies as we would call them in law, are necessary. Let the Government apply those extraordinary remedies. That is what we are discussing; that is what we want.


Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. member actually prevent wheat going out of Canada into the United States now?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would prevent flour or fish or potatoes going out of Canada if their going out was making the cost of living beyond the reach of the people of this country.


Arthur Meighen: Is it beyond their reach?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would say so to-day.


Arthur Meighen: You would prevent
wheat going out?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would prevent anything going out if that was raising the price to the point where our own people could not make a living.


Mt. MIDDLEBRO:: Would the hon.
member prevent wheat going out of Canada if our soldiers were starving in the trenches in France?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is no need of putting an extraordinary and absurd situation. If our soldiers in France were starving, we would divide our last bite with them. I would go on one meal a day and send the other' two meals to the soldiers in France; I would do anything to help them; but the situation is not pressing nor present, and we should deal with facts and circumstances and situations as they are, and not take impossible ones that are not yet in sight and ask how we should deal with those things. This Government refuses to deal with conditions that are impelling, conditions that cry for remedy, conditions that are in the acutest possible stage. Therefore what is the good of asking me to tell what should be done in an extraordinary condition which has not yet arisen? We are trying to stir the Government up to take some steps in regard to the situation as it is, and then after we get them agoing, perhaps they will do something if such an extraordinary circumstance as the hon. gentleman has mentioned should arise.

I wish, for a moment, to refer to the manner in which the motion of my hon. friend from Richmond was received by the Government. I always sympathize with a man who keeps within his limits and who does not try to fly beyond the atmosphere and heights to which God and Nature intended him to soar. I, for that reason, sympathize with my good, congenial friend the Minister of Labour when he quietly and complacently accepts the situation, knows that he did nothing and smiles when he is told of it. I am sure that he must have enjoyed and quietly laughed to himself at the comedy that he has put on this afternoon. He told us about the heaps of wheat and straw, and particularly chaff that there were in Russia. It is a great consolation to the child down in the county of Cape Breton, where I come from, who may be crying for bread, to be told that there is abundance of it in Austria, Russia and other places. What I want to deal with, what the resolution deals with and what we want to stir this Government on, is the actual question that is now before Parliament. The Minister of Labour was honest enough to say that he did nothing at all except, forsooth, to send a man down to Montreal. That mission to Montreal has about the same effect as if one's house in the city of Ottawa were "burning and the fire brigade arrived on the scene and they all stood back, and when a man would ask them: Why do you not put out the fire? they said, we have sent to Montreal for a bucket; when the bucket arrives from Montreal we will try to put out your fire. The one reason is just as effective as the other. Seven million people, we are told by the Solicitor General, are deeply interested in this question of the price of flour, and yet the only step the Government can take is to send a learned gentleman of my own profession to the city of Montreal to make -slight inquiries as to whether the price of flour has gone up or down. I cannot for the life of me see what possible effect that will have. I was speaking about the way in which this proposition was received, and I was delighted to find the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) speaking on this question, not as a new one, because he has given us largely the same views that he presented to this House two years ago. He cannot be accused of being favourable, from a partisan -standpoint, to any ideas we put forward on this side of the House. He has spoken more strongly than anyone on this side along the line of some action being 
taken by the Government. I think the hon. member for East Si-mcoe (Mr. W. H. Bennett) stated that this was all political buncombe. That is strong language, and I venture to say that he will not take the responsibility of telling the hon. member for Brantford that -he, as a good, strong, straightforward party man, always, a party man, came into this House this evening for the purpose of embarrassing this Government and talking political buncombe. Therefore, I think we must all reach the conclusion that the language used by the hon. member for East Simcoe was ill-advised and ill-considered, and that when in the -quiet of his chamber he will think over it and think of the great question that is at stake, he will revise his opinion, and that if he had to speak again he would not use that very strong language. He was, how-' ever, to some extent, justified in his attitude by the speech of the Minister of Finance, who was very irritable. I was just thinking to myself what was the most distressing circumstance that I could put him in from a physical standpoint, that would put him in the irritable position he was in, and I was thinking that if I could get a lobster dragging a Scotch thistle down his spine that would be about the -sensation mat would put him in the nasty position he was in. It would be well for a man in the high sphere that the minister is in not to appear as if the lobster and the Scotch thistle were going down his back when he deals with questions of this kind. When men take high and responsible positions they must know that with the position goes the responsibility of receiving criticism and sometimes criticism that will not be just. The hon. member for Richmond approached this question this afternoon in a most reasonable and rational frame of mind, and there was no justification for getting into this apparent fury into which the Minister of Finance worked himself unless it was for the sole and only purpose of spraying around this dope in order to get his men behind him into that frame of mind where their party spirit would be up and they would be determined to vote for him, regardless of every other consideration, because he represented the Government. I could understand the Government's reception of this subject to-day if it was a new question, but it is not a new thing for a Government to deal with matters of private concern in this country. It is not a new thing, for instance, for this Parliament to establish a railway commission, whose duty it is to deal with private business, to-

regulate prices, not the price of food, but prices of commodities in this country are nevertheless regulated to some degree by the rulings of that commission. I venture to say that every province in this Dominion has its utilities board. In the province of Nova Scotia we have one, and I think there is also one in New Brunswick, and I am pretty sure there is one in Ontario, and in the other provinces of the Dominion. There are some cities and towns in this Dominion that do not own their own water supply; in some cases it is owned by corporations, and if the water supply is not properly furnished or if too much is being charged for it, the utilities commission of the province has the right to regulate the supply and control the price of the water. In like manner the price of lighting, telephones, and other public utilities are subject by legislation to the control of independent men appointed by the Government. The principle is therefore admitted. This Government not only admits the principle, but they have acted upon it in regulating the price of news print. Having acted upon the principle, having thus put themselves in the position of dealing with cases of this kind because too high prices are said to he charged, why do they not deal with flour or wheat or any other commodity just as readily as they deal with the raw material that goes into the making of a newspaper? I submit that a newspaper, while an excellent thing to have, is a luxury to a great many people, and we can do without luxuries. We can do without newspapers, although perhaps life may be very dull without them, but it is much more important that a workingman should be able to buy butter, bread and cheese for his wife and family than that he should open up the newspaper to them. The Minister acted quite properly, I presume, in helping out the newspaper people, but he gets into a passion and says that we are unrighteously and unfairly attacking the citadel of the Government when we suggest to him that the price of flour and other foodstuffs in the country should be brought down to that level where the purchasing power of the poor man could buy them. The principle, therefore, has been adopted in local politics, and has been acted upon by this Government. For that reason the Government have no ground for looking upon this as a new thing, or for taking umbrage at myself or the hon. member for Richmond or any other member who has spoken in support of the idea presented in this motion.
The Minister of Finance pointed out to us this afternoon that we have 100,000,000 bushels of wheat in this country. If there is any country in the world where flour should be cheap, that country is Canada. Canada, the United States, the Argentine Republic and other countries producing wheal in large quantities-these are the countries in which flour should be cheap. I cannot conceive of any good reason why the Government will permit the
10 p.m. price of flour to soar beyond what is reasonable. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) told us that a fair price to the farmer, and one that he was willing to accept, was $1.70 a bushel. This is a fair basis to start with, and if the Government can secure to the people of Canada wheat at $1.70 a bushel, what justification is there for them allowing it to go up to something like $3 a bushel as it is now. I submit to the minister and to the Government that if it is true that flour i3 selling in the neighbourhood of $13 a barrel here, the miner at Glace Bay or Sydney will be paying at least $16 a barrel. My hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) says it was selling down there at $15 a barrel last week. Since then the price has gone up $1.20 a barrel, so the miner down there must be paying $16 or more. I should like to point out to the minister that a miner with a family of seven or eight children would consume about two barrels of flour a month. A barrel of flour does not last in a house of that size more than two weeks, perhaps not that long. I venture to say that the earnings of the miner are not more than $48 or $50 a month. When you take $32 out of that for two barrels of flour, it leaves him only $16 to pay his rent and buy coal, groceries, clothing and so forth for his family. With flour at this price he cannot live at all, and the hon. member for Richmond and all of us come here and plead in the only place where we can seek for a remedy for this condition. The Government might well find fault if we had any other way open to us of trying to cut down the price. They might well say then, "Leave us alone, we are running the war; go somewhere else for a remedy." But we have no other place to go, and that being so, we are justified in coming here to the only power that can deal with questions of this kind.
According to the Minister of Finance we have 100,000,000 bushels of wheat in this country. That means 22,222,222 barrels of flour, allowing, as the minister said, four and one-half bushels of wheat to the bar-

rel. I presume we have in this country about 100,000,000 barrels of flour, besides the wheat that is not ground. That is an enormous quantity of flour, more than we could expect to consume in this country for some time. But supposing we had nothing in the shape of ground flour in this country to-day, this 100,000,000 bushels of wheat that the Finance Minister speaks of would mean three and one-quarter barrels of flour to every man, woman and child in this country, and we are told we must pay something like $16 a barrel for every barrel of this flour. Surely there is no necessity for one moment for us to pay such an ex-'hofbitant price, and we come to the Minister of Finance and ask him to take this matter in hand. These speculators occupy the front seats in the commercial synagogues and temples of this country. I submit to the minister that they pollute and contaminate the blessed streams of fair and righteous merchandising, and we are now asking the Minister of Finance, the Zac-dheus of the Government, to take the knotted cords in his strong right arm and drive from the temples and synagogues, as was done of old, these men who are polluting the temple and contaminating the trade of this country. He may not have any precedent in his Government for this, but if he will look to sacred history he will find the One of old took the cords and drove those rascals out of the temple that were trying to rob and destroy the people and contaminate the trade of the country. We appeal to the Minister of Finance now to do the same thing to those men who are polluting our trade, and I am sure he will have the people of Canada behind him.
Of course, it may be a new departure for the Government to do something; but I would remind the hon. minister that before they came into office the people were accustomed to a Government that did things and saw to it that the people were protected. And if those now in power wish to gain the confidence of the people in the same degree that their predecessors did, they must come down, as Zaccheus of old came down from the tree, and do something to remedy public grievances. This Subject is one of such vast importance to the people that I, representing here, as I do, a large body of working men, even though I could not bring anything new to the discussion I deemed it my duty to make myself heard in support of this motion. It has been said that we are attacking the farmers, and we are told that this is the day of the farmer. We 
are not attacking anybody, and I submit that this is not anybody's day to make undue profits. The dire distress of the country in this awful war is not anybody's opportunity to make undue profit or charge exorbitant prices. Every one of us owes a great deal to his profession or line in life, but none of us must take advantage of present circumstances to profit unduly by what we produce. The lawyer, or the doctor, has no business to charge more because there is a war, and the farmer owes a duty to the public to which he looks for the purchase of his goods. No man should take advantage of the fact that the war is on to demand prices that he could not possibly get at other times.
I trust the Minister of Finance and his colleagues will consider this matter carefully, and above all that they will disabuse their minds of the idea that there is any polities in the motion under discussion. Speaking for myself, nothing could be further from my mind. Nor do I see how political capital could be made out of this matter. It is our simple duty to the people to make Canada a good country to live in;, and if prices of foodstuffs are soaring, making it impossible for men with small wages to enjoy reasonable conditions of life, it is the duty of this Government to try to remedy that evil, and it is my duty as a member of the House to point out what seems to me the way in which the Government can be of service to the people.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford) :: The times in which we are living are such as we have never before experienced. The liberty of the nation and of the individual is at stake. We are asked by the resolution now before the House to adopt very radical measures indeed with regard to one of the staple articles of food, and we have heard a good deal of criticism from hon. gentlemen opposite of the lack of action on the part of the Government with regard to this and other questions. I know that the tendency under ordinary conditions is to seek to make as much political capital as possible out of any question that comes up in Parliament. But at such a time as this I believe anything of that nature should be foreign to our minds, but that we should look on these questions honestly, and wholly in the interest of the country and of the cause for which we are contending. The slogan for the last few months has 'been " greater production." We have heard from practically every urban centre in Ontario, and we might almost say throughout

the whole Dominion-men and women, everybody, urging upon the farmers the need of greater production in view of the danger confronting the people of the whole world. I 'believe it is wise that this should be done. The danger thus far is only one that is apprehended, but it may become a very real danger indeed. But I do not believe that the present situation has come about altogether as a result of this war. I believe we were leading up to this condition for a number of years before the war. There was an exodus from the rural districts to the urban centres for many years prior to 1914. I have viewed that movement with a good deal of concern, and have satisfied myself-and have so expressed myself on many occasions within the last fifteen years -that the time would come when the folly of the course pursued would become apparent to the people. It is unfortunate that a critical period should intervene at a time when we are called upon to put forth every exertion in the struggle in which we are engaged. I view with a good deal of concern the statement in the press that flour advanced by $1.20 ra barrel yesterday. The strtement has been made by a number of hon. gentlemen opposite that we should commandeer the wheat in the hands of present owners. The Minister of Finance has told us that a good deal of that wheat is owned by the Government of Great Britain, and is to be made available for the men who are contending in the struggle at the front. We also know that if you wish to promote production of food you must not hamper, but must encourage those who are engaged in that work. The argument has been advanced by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) that the British Government, having made an offer of $1.30 a bushel for wheat, we should have appointed a dictator and should have purchased wheat at the same price. He suggested the price fixed by the Farmers' Association of Western Canada. I do not know that there is any other profession under the sun that is more of a gamble than farming. The farmer of Western Canada have no certainty -as to what the result of bis harvest is going to toe. Seeding has just started now in a great deal of Canada and as to what the result will be nobody can tell. It may be that a great injustice would have been done to many farmers in Canada if the price pf wheat had toeen fixed at even $1.70 a bushel because such a price is of very little use to the farmer if he has little to sell. It is the same in many of the older sections of Canada. You find that
people are continuously referring to the enormous profits that the farmers aTe making I know tenant farmers who have the greatest struggle pf their lives to make both ends meet. High prices are absolutely useless to the farrnef if he has nothing to sell and he has much to purchase. That is the very condition that is confronting a great many people to-day. To commandeer the wheat crop of Canada is a very serious matter but it has been glibly suggested by a number of speakers that it should be done with regard to wheat and a great many other commodities as well. Potatoes have been referred to as another commodity which the Government should take control of. It is a remarkable thing that this scarcity of certain products has practically taken place in almost all parts of the world at the same time. It is something unique in the experience of the world that a shortage such as we experienced last year in the potato crop should have been so general in other countries. The same thing applies to wheat. With a thousand million bushels of wheat short last year, is it any wonder that the price of wheat has risen? Yet some hon. gentleman opposite say that the law of supply and demand should have nothing to do with this. Why should it not have anything to do with it? What other law should apply but the law of supply and demand? I believe that is the law that is regulating prices to-day. I believe the prices that -are being fixed in the great markets of the world are a result of this condition. I wish that the law pf -supply and demand was the only law in fixing all prices. One of the reasons given for the high cost of living has been the large wages paid to the workmen engaged in the manufacture of munitions. I do not think that has had so much to do with it as spine other things. This is a condition that has not arisen since the war but it is one up to which we have toeen gradually approaching for many years past. In Ontario, during the last twenty years, 125,000 people who were producers have moved to the towns and cities or to some of the other provinces. If this condition is general throughout the country what else could you expect but a food shortage? That is the very thing that we are confronted with to-day and the fixing of prices is not going to increase the quantity of foodstuffs but production will be increased only by the people who will get out and work on the land. Then, let the law of supply and demand govern. We have reached a stage to-day

where agriculture is coming into its own. its own.
We have a country extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific, almost 4,000 miles, in extent one of the grandest stretches of agricultural land in the world, and instead of finding about fifty per cent of the people living in cities and towns, we should find a larger proportion out cultivating these broad acres and endeavouring to do something to meet the conditions with which we are confronted to-day. It is all very well to get up here, on the very next day aftei this unusual increase in the cost of wheat and flour, and advance the arguments that have been advanced. It would have been much better if we had realized that we have been approaching these conditions for a number of years past. I believe one of the chief reasons for the condition that confronts us to-day is the organization that has taken place in almost all other classes except those engaged in agriculture. The labour unions, we know, have organized themselves and the pay of the wage earner has been increased. I do not say it has been unduly increased hut it has been increased to such an extent that the farmer has been unable to pay the price being paid by the manufacturers; consequently the labourers have drifted into the towns and cities and that is one of the things that has brought about the present scarcity. But it does not apply to Canada only. It is general'throughout the whole world. In the United States, in the early days of the war, it was necessary to pass a war tax. Conditions became as acute there as in Canada. The removal of the dirty on wheat and flour by the Government a few days ago, I believe, was a wise measure. It was something I was opposed to in years gone by hut under the *abnormal conditions- with which we are now faced I think it was a wise measure on the part of the Government. I could not help thinking, as I listened to the hon. member for Assiniboia and other members opposite who have been condemning the Government to-night, what an outcry they would have raised if the Government had not taken the action they did in regard to this question.
. I do not intend to say anything more in regard to that but I do feel that we must not lose sight of the fact that the people who have been endeavouring to keep the flag flying on the farms of Canada are entitled to some consideration at this time and that the future welfare of the country 
is bound up in these men who have been working long hours, who have been struggling under a mighty and heavy handicap in order to keep themselves going. We have practically reached the breaking point hut I do not think for one moment that it is possible for the Government nor should we expect them to rescue us from the results of our own action. It will take time and the men of this country and .other countries must realize that they have to till the soil in order to get food products. *You cannot live on manufactured articles but you must live as a result of the fruits of the soil. No one regrets the suffering, which undoubtedly is in existence to-day in many places as a result of the high cost of living, more than the farmers of this country. I say further that the farmers have done their best. There is no class of people in Canada, the United States, or, I believe, any other country, that have laboured more diligently and with less reward ,for their services than have those who have been and are engaged in agriculture.
Mr. GEORGE W. KYTE (Richmond, N.S.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the very interesting debate we have had this afternoon justifies me for making the motion which I presented at the opening this afternoon. While we have not received any assurance from the Finance Minister, who spoke more particularly on behalf of the Government, that the very fair and reasonable request which I made will be taken seriously into his consideration, we have the satisfaction of knowing that the Liberal opposition does not stand alone in the desire to improve the conditions as outlined by me in this motion. We had a very interesting and illuminating address from the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) this afternoon, and his address ought to be a complete and effective reply to the allegation made by the Finance Minister that we on this side are actuated by motives of partisanship in the resolution which is now before the House, and which has been debated. The Finance Minister endeavoured to argue that it would be quite impossible for the Government to take any such action as suggested by me, and that in face of the fact that similar action was taken on a very important commodity to which I referred in my opening observations. I have a little more fully looked into that question since I addressed the House this afternoon, and I desire to communicate that information to the House. The proposal to fix the price of news print that was made to the Min-

ister of Finance some weeks ago was accepted by him as a fair and reasonable proposition. What did he do? Officers of his department were sent to the manufacturers of pulp, and these officers proposed to the paper manufacturers that they must dispose of their paper at a price $10 in excess of that which they received a year ago. That price was not acceptable to the manufacturers of paper, and a subsequent offer was made by the officials of the Finance Department, which was to the effect that the manufacturers of paper must accept the sum of $2.50 per hundred pounds, or $50 a ton, for 20 per cent of the produce of their mills, which was estimated to be the quantity required for consumption in Canada. As to the balance of that production, they were free to sell it in whatever market they	could and	at whatever price
they could obtain. With regard to the	question of the price of flour
and wheat referred to in my resolution, my proposition is solely that we eliminate the influence of the stock speculators in increasing the price of these commodities to tne consumer. The total consumption . of wheat in Canada for many years has been about 50,000,000 bushels. It was pointed out by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) that the total population of Canada could not consume more than 25,000,000 bushels before the next crop is harvested and garnered. It is not then a matter of commandeering the whole wheat product of this country,, because we have in Canada, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance, 100,000,000 bushels of wheat. It resolves itself down to a question ito be disposed of in- a manner similar to the manner in which the Finance Minister disposed of the question of news print at the request of the newspaper publishers.
The Solicitor General asked many times: What is it that the members of the Opposition ask the Government to do? He reiterated time and again that the doing something was entirely too indefinite, and that it was up to the Opposition to make some concrete suggestion as to what ought to be done under the circumstances. He was not present during the debate when other hon. members on this side of the House addressed themselves to the subject, and so had no opportunity of knowing what suggestions came from this side of the House. For his benefit I would repeat once more what my suggestion has been. It is to take over all the wheat outside of that which is in the actual possession of the
farmers at present-and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) is willing that even the wheat at present in possession of farmers should be taken over-that that wheat be controlled by the Government; that the Government should go to the millers and ask them to mill that wheat at a reasonable price and distribute it to the consumers in Canada. If the millers should be unwilling to do that, the Government should then take control of the mills, should themselves mill the wheat at a reasonable compensation to the millers, and distribute it to the consumers. That is a concrete proposition, and I think the suggestion of the Solicitor General that we have not offered any proposal looking towards the solution of the difficulty is not justified in the light of speeches from this side of the House. The Solicitor General, while sidestepping the real question under consideration, went into some figures to show that Great Britain obtained a very much larger amount of money out of its war taxes, relatively, than did the Dominion of Canada. I do not know why the Solicitor General offered that argument to the House except to show that the manufacturers in Great Britain were making very much larger profits, relatively, than the manufacturers in Canada. Of course, the Solicitor General did not point out to the House that the basis of taxation in England differs vastly from that which is applied in Canada at the present time. The Chancellor o'f the Exchequer, a few days ago, brought down his Budget proposals, which include taxation of war profits up to 80 per cent. The total taxation to be exacted by the Finance Minister in Canada under the new war taxes does not amount to more than 30 per cent at the veTy outside, so that if a larger proportion of taxation is derived from the taxation of war profits in England than in Canada it is due to the larger proportion which is exacted by the Government, and not to larger profits by the manufacturers.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Is it not a fact that the British Government took over a certain percentage of the excess profits over and above the average profits for a certain number of years?	*


George William Kyte: The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer two days ago was that they were taking 80 per cent of the total profits for the present year.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I think the hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken. The British Govern-

merit, according to the new regulation, takes 80 per cent of the excess profits over and above the average profits of a number of years.


George William Kyte: That is true, 80 per cent of the total profits over and above a reasonable interest upon their investment.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: No, that is not it at all, over and above the average profits they were making for a number of years.


George William Kyte: But not including the profits since the war broke out-over and above the average profits for a number of years previous to the outbreak of the war.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: That is absolutely correct.


George William Kyte: The hon. member for Haldi-mand (Mr. Lalor) would like to convey the impression that it was 80 per cent over the average profits for the last three years, which is not the case.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I do not think the hon. gentleman wants to be unfair. I did not want to lead anyone to suppose that it was the,average profits for the last three years; it was the average profits for the three years previous to the war, and over and above that a percentage was taken.


George William Kyte: That was my understanding, so that there is no difference of opinion between us. Now, with regard to the conditions existing in Australia. The Government of Australia exacts 50 per cent of the profits upon all manufactures during the first year and 75 per cent during the second year.
The case made out by members representing the Opposition in the House this afternoon is absolutely unanswerable. The reply of the Finance Minister is to the effect that nothing can be done; that a disruption of trade would result if any action were taken. At the same time he intimated that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is in Washington for the purpose of looking into this question. He further intimated that it would be impossible for us to do anything here unless some action were taken in the United States. I read in the New York Herald to-day a statement made by Mr. John Dillon, trade expert before the Senate Committee now considering the legislation proposed to fix the price of food products in the United States. Mr. Dillon said:
I think it is a crime that men should have produced such a large volume of wheat last year and then the speculators should have obtained such high prices. The Government

should take away their stocks of foods. If I knew to-day the speculators bought wheat a.t $1 and were selling it at $3 I would not hesitate to recommend the Government to take over the wheat and adjudicate prices.
That is just what we desire this Government to do at the present time. In the New York Times of May 2, I find the following:
Wholesale grocers and food dealers who submitted bids on the big navy orders of April 19 have received notice from the Navy Department that they are to All them at once at prices to be fixed later by the President of the United States. The notice was received while the dealers were anxiously awaiting news as to whether the department had accepted their bids, based on the prevailing high market prices. The action of the Navy Department was taken under a provision of the Naval Appropriation Bill adopted last March, giving the President the power to purchase war supplies "at reasonable prices." This is the form of the notice received by New York firms:
In accordance with the authority conferred on the President by the Act of Congress March 5, 1917, I am directed to place with you the attached order. You will deliver the goods specified therein as directed, and the price to be paid therefor will be determined by the President In due course.
Any representations you desire to make as to the price you claim for these goods should be submitted to this office with your bill on delivery. The attached order is based on proposals submitted by you to this office on April 19. Please acknowledge the receipt and acceptance of this order under the conditions of the same.
C. T. Williams,
Paymaster United States Navy.


Mr. MORPHY:: May I ask the hon. gentleman to repeat the items that he mentioned?


George William Kyte: Perhaps it is further on. (Reading):	-
This is the first time local jobbers have ever been called upon to deliver goods to the Government without knowing what prices were to be paid. The general opinion was that the Government had adopted the system for the purpose of making sure that it got the goods and at the same time preventing the advance in market prices, which was made about the time the Government asked for bids on the navy orders. One jobber ventured the opinion that in the future dealers might be rather slow to submit to the Government estimates of what they could furnish if they got a. certain price, to be used as a basis for virtual commandeering of supplies, but the general sentiment was willingness to trust the President to see that prices were fair.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. gentleman read them in the first part of the quotation.


George William Kyte: Yes; I assume that "wholesale grocers and food dealers ' would cover such products as wheat and flour. Hon. gentlemen will observe, therefore, that

practical action was taken by the Government of the United States a few weeks after they declared war. Canada has been a belligerent country for three years, and up to the present time no effective action in that direction has been taken by the Government. The arraignment of the Government on account of this dilatoriness and want of activity which was presented to the House by the hon. member for Brantford this evening was well deserved and absolutely justified. The Government having heard this discussion and having received intimation from one of its followers that he is dissatisfied with their lack of action in regard to this matter, I do trust that the consumers of Canada may reasonably hope that something will be done in the near future.	*
Motion of Mr. Kyte to adjourn the House negatived.


THE BUDGET.
[Stage Direction]
The consideration of the proposed motion of Hon. Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) for the Committee of Ways and Means, and the amendment of Mr. Turriff thereto, was resumed from Tuesday, May 1.
Herménégilde Boulay: Mr. Speaker, from the remarks by the eloquent orators who have hereto taken part in the debate on the Budget, I took it that the main question was that of free wheat. The subect is not wanting in interest. It may be considered from two viewpoints, as to-day's discussion shows.
The enhanced price of wheat in the western provinces must necessarily produce an increase in the cost of flour, and so the people in the East must pay a much higher price for this staple commodity. Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr. Turriff) censuring strongly the Government. At every session he was heard in condemnation of the Government because the latter would not grant to the western provinces a greater measure of reciprocity. Yet the gentleman hails from .an eastern constituency, having been bom, as myse'lf, in the county of Rimouski, where he has still important interests and many relatives.
I think he must remember-having been brought up in that section of my province- that the province of Quebec has some interests it seeks to protect, and he cannot but admit that the western part of Canada
should not monopolize all our attention and efforts.
In support of my claim, I shall quote from *a speech I delivered last year in this House. I shall read the English version, so as to be understood by the hon. members who -do not understand French. My remarks were as follows:-
All the points of the question have been sifted again and again and all its aspects scrutinized, and from all the twaddle what stands out clear to me is that the western members are using the question as an electoral war-horse. They take it up as a good means of boosting their case and ensuring their reelection.
A while ago one of the western members attacked the Government for not giving the farmers all the help they were entitled to. Yet, if any people should grumble against want of solicitude on the part of the Government, surely not those farmers. Every time they are the victims of some slight mishap, a drought or a frost, they appeal to the Government and immediately millions of dollars are put at their disposal to enable them to tide over the crisis. Our eastern farmers have not the same recourse. If the harvest is bad, or they suffer from frost, they have to shift for themselves without any one coming to their aid. Of ail farmers who have no reason to grumble, those of the prairies are first, for the Government is lavish in its favours to them.
The same orator complains that agricultural implements were not allowed to be imported free of duty from the United States, he claims the tariff in that respect is detrimental to them, and in support of his contention he maintains that the higher price paid for the same machinery in Canada than obtains across the border is disadvantageous to the farmer, that it is in fact money taken from the purse of the farmer and given to the manufacturer. So be it, but, in my opinion, when the hon. member further stated that only the manufacturers reap the benefit of the tariff, he is clearly mistaken. The workmen also find) it he to their benefit. It must not be forgotten that in those manufactories are to he found workmen to whom the tariff is a benefit in the form of employment. Granted even that an article he something higher in price in Canada than it is in the United States, it seems to me that if the western people were good patriots, they would' not begrudge this slight sacrifice to allow Canadian workmen to find his sustenance in this, our common country. After all we are not an agglomeration of two or three Canadas, but we form an entity destined to live as a whole in this country, and no section ought to he indifferent to the necessities of another section.
There is another subject I would call to the attention of my hon. friend from the West. We have, out of the public treasury, built for their use, at fabulous cost, three railways, designed to move their harvest and bring their produce to the Canadian harbours to be thence shipped overseas.
We are now building also, at their request, a request made to the late administration and repeatedly pressed upon the present Govern-

ment,-a burdensome railway, the Hudson Bay railway, to afford them a shorter route to the European markets. I would like to know the bottom reason for those railroad constructions. Why are we wasting so much money on the Hudson Bay road)-built only for the benefit of our western countrymen, since neither Ontario nor Quebec nor the Maritime provinces can utilize it; why waste so many millions for those western farmers, if those gentlemen are bent on dealing on the American market? Is that fair? Bet them insist with the Government that a stop be put to that useless expenditure on the Hudson Bay railway. It might be after all to the country's advantage to abandon those undertakings and allow the western people freedom of trade with the United States. One of the previous orators stated that in the West the farmer made no money. It appears to me there is not much patriotism in coming here to make such a declaration. If in the West the farmers do not make money, why then ask so much for colonization, why all this propaganda to draw settlers to a region where results are so deceptive?
I, however, have it in my mind that the farmers of the West coin money much more freely than in the East. Had I spoken in the stead of the hon. member I should' certainly not have delivered myself of such a remark, because it is not in the interest of his province. We all know that for the most part the western agriculturists are well-to-do and that many of them become rich with much less pains than our eastern farmers.
Such are the few remarks I wished to make. I make them without acrimony and m the best possible intention, so that our friends from the West may realize that (hey should not be parties to these unhealthy agitations, that they are not the only inhabitants of this country, but that on the contrary, they have to live in close community with the other parts of Canada, and that their first thought should be the general interests of the country, and not those o.f a particular section.
These remarks, which I have just quoted from my speech of last year, are very fair and very just, and I still believe that the giving of such advantages to our friends of the West is contrary to the interests of the . East. We in the East are ready to support the measure that has been put into force lately by this Government in order to afford an opportunity to our western friends to sell their wheat at a high price; we are ready to make the sacrifice, but on one condition, and it is that these gentlemen immediately cease thinking that Canada exists only for themselves, and that they should remember that there are other parts of the country that want to be protected. With regard to the continual cry for free trade with the United States, while I admit that this will be a benefit for the West, at the same time it is contrary to our interest in the East, and we are solidly against it, and as a patriot I would ask my friends from the West to advise their supporters that they are not TMr. Boulay.]
alone in this country, and that they must bear their share of tiie burdens of nationhood, sharing in the disadvantages as well as the advantages that may result from tariff reform. In the East we are patriots from an economic standpoint as well as from a fighting standpoint. I am sorry to see published in the western papers attacks against the East, and principally against the province of Quebec, for not doing its duty in this great war. Let me tell the House that the county of Rimouski alone has furnished no less than 800 soldiers for overseas, and the neighbouring counties of Bonaventure and Gaspe have, to a large extent, furnished their share. As the representative of the county of Rimouski, which has furnished such a large number of volunteers to our Canadian army, I say that such attacks should not be made. When, the other day, I heard the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best) quote from a paper a letter from an officer who passed through the province of Quebec, charging our people with insulting the soldiers when they were passing through that province, I was really sorry to hear such an unjust accusation. I do not say that my hon. friend made that statement in order to insult us, for, perhaps, he thought that it might be true, but I may assure the House and the people of Canada that in my county and the adjoining counties of Bonaventure and Gaspe, Which have furnished so many soldiers, the people are in entire sympathy with the valiant Canadians who go overseas to defend us.
Whether they come from British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, or any other province we are delighted to see the soldiers going overseas to defend our liberty and fight in the cause of humanity. If there have been any such instances as alleged, I should like to see the facts established, and the responsibility placed where it belongs. It may be that soldiers, just like private citizens, have made mistakes occasionally at some of the railway stations in Quebec, and if they insult the people they must expect to be insulted in return. I know that if the soldiers were insulted at Riviere du Loup and Mont Joli, it would be because of the behaviour of the soldiers themselves, not all of them, but a few. The people had no thought of insulting them until they were provoked. I know of one instance where soldiers have insulted women. In Campbellton, which is not in the province of Quebec, some of them took the liberty of seizing a horse and wagon, shoving the proprietor aside, and taking a ride around

the town. Other soldiers burst into a liquor store in the same town, and took the whole contents. They must naturally expect to be insulted when they do things like that. But these are merely isolated cases, and bad-will must not be imputed to our people, because we are just as patriotic as any of our fellow Canadians and just as eager to win the war. I trust that steps will be taken by the Government or militia authorities to ascertain whether the allegations made by this officer are true, and if an investigation is held I am sure it will be found that his charges are baseless.
I would take this opportunity of asking the newspapers of the West to cease their attacks upon us. Soldiers from the West, who have read these articles in the western newspapers, must be prejudiced against the province of Quebec, and in passing through our province on their way overseas, they are apt to take offence at little things which otherwise would pass unnoticed. As soon as this depreciation of the province of Quebec in our western newspapers ceases, the better it will be for all the people of this country.
In listening to the speeches on the motion by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), I heard hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House one after the other criticise the Government for not doing so and so. The Government was not doing its duty in trying to meet present conditions, they said. In my opinion these charges are a disgrace to those who preferred them. When we think of the terrible crisis with which the Government is confronted, and of the courage displayed not only by the Government as a whole, but by the distinguished gentleman who presides over the Finance Department, instead of trying ibo deprecate hiim lamid accuse him of not doing his duty, hon. gentlemen opposite should get up and praise him for the ability he has shown in conducting the financial affairs of this country since the beginning of the war. Instead of indulging in criticism of that sort hon. gentlemen should get together and help the Government, regardless of party, to pull through the hard times with which we are confronted. One hon. gentleman opposite asks, What has the Government done since the beginning of the war to meet the situation? It should not be necessary to ask such a question. We had to raise, equip and send overseas in a very short time
400,000	soldiers. The money had to be raised to pay these men, and to meet our
obligations in connection with the war. Besides that, the Government had to carry on the ordinary public services of this country just as in times of peace. The war made the situation confronting the Government ten times harder than anything a government in this country had ever faced before, and I think when hon. gentlemen opposite'think of these things, they should compliment the Government instead of reproaching them.
As a representative of the East, I feel very keenly the hard times through which we are passing. The price of flour we should all be very glad indeed to see come down. Our labourers are confronted with a situation we have never before had in this country, and I am sure that if no other solution of the problem can be found, in order to bring down the price of flour and of meat, our farmers in the East would not grumble if the price of potatoes was cut in half and they received only $1 per bushel. I know, from having talked with several of them, that they would be glad to sell their potatoes at $1 a bushel, provided that the prices of flour and meat were reduced proportionately. I have enough confidence in the Government to believe that if this conclusion can be brought about they will take means to that end. That being so, there is no need for the opposition to criticize and to try to embarrass the situation. For my part, I think the best thing we can do is to act as patriots, to act unanimously, and, if we have suggestions, to make them to the Government, in order that we may be united in carrying on and bringing to a successful conclusion the present terrible war.
On motion of Mr. McKenzie the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Friday, May 4, 1917.