1917-05-08

GRAIN FOR BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. EMMANUEL B. DEVLIN (Wright) 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, owing to the high cost of living, and the importance of conserving all food products for the benefit of the consumers of Canada, the Empire, and our Allies, that the Government take steps under the War Measures Act to have the supply of grain to brewers and distillers immediately discontinued.
And leave having been granted,
Mr. SPEAKER:: Before the hon. member proceeds, I deem it my duty to apprise the House that, inasmuch as this motion specifies the subject proposed to be discussed, discussion should be very strictly confined to the subject mentioned in the motion. I hope that hon. members who may speak shall confine their remarks as closely as possible to the subject.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Mr. Speaker, I mean to take up very little of the time of the House in discussing the motion which I have now the honour to present. Since the beginning of the war I have tried as much as possible to confine my time and attention in this House to matters directly affecting our country, the Empire, and our Allies, in the interest of the war which is now being waged. The idea which came into my mind in bringing this matter before the House was prompted by a speech delivered by the Minister of Finance to the congregation of St. James Methodist Church at Montreal. In speaking upon the subject of self-sacrifice and self-denial, the minister 
used these words, which appealed to me, and which, I am sure, must have appealed to every man who has read the report of that speech:
The duty of every man who can produce anything useful or essential for the national good is to strengthen the nation and put forth his utmost effort. Increased production is necessary, increased agricultural production especially. Every acre, every plot of land in the Empire, should he made to produce this year to the utmost of the human energy available for the purpose. The only reason the nation can sustain the burden of the war is because of the enormous expenditures in peace time for luxuries being discontinued; the cutting out of all. but essentials, and there are comparatively few essentials in this world after all.
As I am not familiar as perhaps are others in this country with the use of whisky and beer, I was forced to look up an encyclopedia to find out what were the raw materials used in the manufacture of those liquors, and I find that they consist of barley, wheat', rye, sugar, corn, and molasses. It is imperative, owing to war conditions, that every country should see that its inhabitants are properly supplied with foodstuffs, and secondly that waste 'and unnecessary uses of foodstuffs are eliminated. Whisky, beer and similar liquors used as beverages cannot be considered as amongst the necessaries of life, but the raw materials used in the manufacture of those beverages are without doubt necessaries of life. Following out the advice given by the Minister of Finance, we must eliminate all waste and extravagance, and we must, if we want to be in a position to cope with the situation that faces this country and our Allies, produce from the land as much as possible, to supply not only the consumers of this country, but the Allies in so far as we are able to do so. If we desire to do that, we must do it by the elimination of waste and extravagance. The use of whisky, beer, and similar beverages constitutes waste and extravagance; the raw materials used in those beverages are wasted, and it is an extravagant use of those raw materials. Therefore, if whisky, beer and similar drinks are not necessaries of life, but the raw materials used in those beverages are necessaries of life, it becomes the duty of the Government, and the Government has that right under the War Measures Act, to eliminate from consumption in this country such beverages in order that the consumers may, in the way of foodstuffs, have the full benefit of the raw materials of which I have spoken.
I further want to point out to the House that it will be in the interest of the farm-

ers of Canada that such action be taken [DOT] because the farmers are complaining to-day that, they are obliged to pay too much for their seed grain.
I submit further to the House that the farmers are not getting the benefit of the increased prices of these materials through the consumption of whisky and beer; the benefit is all going into the hands of speculators. From the information which I have been able to obtain we have consumed-let me hope, not in. this country-but there has been consumed in this country in the manufacture of liquor in the year 1916, 2,353,273 bushels of barley, 589,394 bushels of .corn, and 123,801 bushels of rye, making a total of 3,066,468 bushels. I appeal to the House whether it would not be better that the consumers of Canada, those who seek food, those who actually need it, those who are earning small salaries to-day, should get the benefit rather than, the distillers and the brewers, whose only object can be to gain large profits and increase their wealth at the expense of the people of Canada.
My last remark is that with more economy and less wasteful expenditure on the part of the Government there would be less taxation upon the consumers and producers, and more money in the pockets of our people to meet the increased cost of living. But unmindful of the real needs of the people, and thinking only on raising money to meet the necessities of the hour, the Government have gone on increasing taxation without trying to discover where they could curtail expenditure. I am now pointing out to the Government one way in which the production of this country can be saved from waste and used- directly for the benefit of the people of Canada, and if only this one suggestion were adopted, the people of this country would not be called upon to pay quite as much for their foodstuffs; the distillers and brewers and speculators would not make the profits they are now making, and the people of this country would have more foodstuffs at their command.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was in Washington recently, has given an interview since his return to the Montreal Daily Mail of May 7, 1917, as follows:-
Pood supplies, labour, and ship building' were the chief matters which were dealt with by Sir George Foster; finance and tonage production will he the principal matters which will engage the atention of Sir Thomas White.
Joint Action on Food Prices.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce states that as soon as Congress gives President Wilson
the necessary authority, by the passage of measures now in the House of Representatives and the 'Senate, there will he joint action by Canada and the United States for the regulation of food prices, for co-operation in the supply of agricultural labour, and for co-operation in the production of tonnage required to offset the activities of German submarines.
Sir George said that the decision was reached early in the conference at Washington, hut there would have to he joint action by Canada and the United States in order to most effectively solve the problems in which the North American continent is interested through the war. The War Measures Act gives the Canadian Government the authority which it requires, hut Congress has to provide the American Government with similar power before anything effective can he done. Sir George expressed the opinion that Congress would pass the Bills unanimously.
There is a frank admission, and I have no reason to doubt the Teport that the Government have power under the War Measures Act to enact legislation immediately, 'by Order in Council, embodying the substance of the motion now before the House. The same thing is being done in other countries. Down in the Argentine Republic even more drastic measures have been taken. I quote from the Montreal Gazette of May 7, 1917:-
Ottawa, May 6.-A further report, in response to inquiries regarding an article stating that the Argentine Republic was seriously menaced by famine,_ has been received by the Department of Trade and Commerce from Mr. George Mallet, of Valparaiso, Chile.
Mr. Mallet says that the information contained in his first article was telegraphed from Buenos Aires to responsible newspapers in Chile, and was also published in papers in Argentina. In view of the subsequent abnormal exportation of wheat from Argentina, he says, the alarmist story of famine menace would almost appear to have been a hasty exaggeration of the actual facts, were it not for the supporting evidence which is everywhere apparent, on a careful review of the question. He points out that the Government of Argentina has found it necessary to issue a decree with astonishing rapidity prohibiting the exportation of grain so indispensable for home consumption. "The failure of the harvest in the principal grain zone lying between Uruguay, Paraguay and the Andes, naturally produced considerable alarm,'' he says, "totally eclipsing the favorable prospects of the Province of Buenos Aires, which have subsequently been brought to light. This is, however, not of sufficient importance to counterbalance the losses in the remaining provinces."
Without taking up unnecessarily the time of the House, I now submit this motion, trusting that it will appeal to the judgment and intelligence of every hon. member of this House.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: I wish ,to go on record as supporting this motion, though I would like to see it even wider. The Government has received this

session a great number of petitions containing hundreds of names, and certainly representing the views of thousands of people in this country, praying for the enactment of a law this session prohibiting the importation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but it 4s not in order for him to now discuss the question of prohibition. The resolution before us is with respect to the conserving of the products used in the manufacture of liquor.


James Joseph Hughes: I did not intend to take up much of the time of the House, and I think that what I have to say bears directly on the motion before the House. I was simply leading up to my reasons for supporting this motion, if not a wider one, and I should like to have the privilege of addressing the House for a few moments. I was saying that the Government has received a large number of petitions this year praying for the enactment of a law this session prohibiting the importation, sale and manufacture of intoxicating liquors in this country. If ever there was a time when this question should be considered it is now. Members of the Government especially the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), have held meetings in different parts of the country to explain to the people the gravity of the situation, and 1 ave told the people ithat, sooner or l-ater- and much sooner than many expect-we shall have to give up seventy-five per cent of our luxuries, and perhaps twenty-five peT cent-of necessaries. Intoxicating liquors at their very best -are certainly luxuries, and at their worst -are one of the greatest evils from which the country suffers. I believe that public opinion at this time would su-s-tain the Government in taking action along the lines -suggested by this resolution, and in my humble judgment, will condemn the Government if something of the kind is not done during the present session. Last session Parliament passed an Act fixing very severe penalties for the carrying of liquor into prohibited provinces. I know that that Act has been violated extensively in regard to the province from which I come. I had a question upon the Order Paper early in the session, -asking the Government if they were aware that the provisions of that Act had been violated by the carrying of intoxicating liquors into P-rince Edward Island.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Hughes) should confine his remarks to the question before the Chair. We are not discussing the general question of prohibition-the -resolution is -a -specific one against certain grains being used in the manufacture of intoxicating liquor.


James Joseph Hughes: I shall confine my remarks entirely to the subject you have indicated, M-r. Speaker. I say that -at least the action proposed by this resolution would be justified, and more than justified, and that the people would approve such action by the Government. I believe that public -opinion will nfot he met, and that a vast majority of the people will be dissatisfied, unless something of this kind is done.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North):: The hon. member (Mr. Devlin)
who moved this resolution has put his case very -strongly and clearly and has given the House sufficient data to justify the position he takes and the motion he has moved. If the only purpose in speaking were to give further information, it would not he necessary for me to occupy even a moment of the time of the House. But it might appear to be an ex-' pression of indifference on my part if I allowed the motion to go by without saying a word. I understand that this is a resolution that does not come to a division, but is made for the purpose of giving members of the House, and particularly members of the Government, an opportunity to express their opinion upon the subject. The figures given by the hon. member for Wright show that very large quantities of the very essentials of living are consumed in the manufacture of intoxicating liquors; and, while I am not fanatical on the subject, and have no desire to deprive any man of the right to take a drink when he so desires, I think it is time for us to deny ourselves such luxuries as intoxicating liquors and to take steps to stop their production. For, while the stoppage of production of intoxicants is not the object directly sought, the enforcement of the principle declared for in the resolution would have that effect. The direct object is two-fold-first, to prevent the use for other purposes of money which should go to the support of the people; and, second, to conserve for food purposes the grain which would otherwise be used in producing intoxicants. If any steps can be taken by the Government to make it certain

that grains shall be used for food, and so improve our position in relation to the war, those steps should be taken.


Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough) :: I support the motion, both the principle involved and the statement regarding it made by the Finance Minister, upon whose statement, I believe the motion has been initiated.


Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: As has been said, this motion comes before the House practically without notice, and consequently one is not so well prepared as one would like to be to discuss the question. I am satisfied that the suggestion of the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) is in the right direction. We in Canada, I think, are lagging behind our friends in the United States on this question. I see published daily in the New York Times and New York Herald almost whole sheet advertisements by the National Brewers of the United States, trying to justify their position at the present critical time in regard to food shortage, by showing the infinitesimally small quantity of grain they use. One has only to look into the records in our country, and I fancy in their country too, to see that it is not a small quantity of grain that is used by the brewers and distillers, but a large quantity -over 3,000,000 bushels of grain used in Canada last year to produce something which in seven out of the nine provinces is now practically prohibited. I fancy that the year 1915 showed a larger consumption of grain by brewers and distillers than last year, because in September last prohibition went into effect in Ontario, as it had gone into effect earlier in the year in other provinces. I think there is an easy way to meet the difficulty in this matter. A year ago last March the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) had a Bill before the House dealing with the question of the importation of liquors into various provinces. On that occasion I pointed out that the Government should go a step further and that, in the provinces where prohibition had been passed, the licenses of brewers and distillers should be revoked. The Inland Revenue Act provides that brewers' and distillers' licenses may be revoked in any year. That can be done now simply by a refusal to grant brewers' or distillers' malting and distilling licenses for seven of the nine provinces in which prohibition is in force. It would not apply generally throughout
Canada but I am sure that such a course would undoubtedly be in accord with the views of the people of these seven provinces.
I think the House is entitled to some expression on that question from the members of -the Government. One can realize that in Ontario perhaps it is a difficult question for the present Government to deal with. One has only to cast one's eye at Walker-ville, Ontario, wdth its tremendous distilleries, at Waterloo and at the Gooderham and Wort's distillery in Toronto to know that perhaps the Government may have some difficulty in meeting what I -believe is a general demand -at the present time. There are to-day in Canada, I believe, eleven distilleries and ninety-four breweries operating and it woul-d be a very simple thing, and something that the people at this moment expect, for the Government, through the Inland Revenue Act, as it is at present framed, pr by legislation, or by Order in Council under the War Measures Act, to entirely eliminate the -consumption of the grain that is now used by these -breweries and distilleries. Pass it, if you will, as a war measure -because it certainly would be an appropriate measure at the present time. I fee-1 confident that the whole country will support it.


Mr. EDMOND PROULX (Prescott):: 1
know that some of the farmers have difficulty in p-rpcuring grain for seeding their land this year. I think public opinion would support the -Government if it would take measures to relieve the situation. One way of relieving the situation would be by saving the grain which goes into the production of liquor. It is certainly wasted. What is the use pf the Government preaching economy and self-sacrifice if the Government does not do anything to relieve the situation? Something has been done by the provinces. The Government has passed legislation confirming the legislation passed by the provinces and trying to help the prp-vin-ces in having the law observed. But, that is not sufficient. We are certainly passing through a crisis which demands upon the part of the citizens a measure of self-sacrifice and I do not see why the distilleries and brewers should not have their sacrifices as well as other people are having theirs. I am strongly in favour of the resolution- proposed by my hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin).


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I think that something should he done during the \frar to curtail the

amount of grain that is used for distilling and brewing purposes. The 'Government have an opportunity of showing that they are not only in favpur of temperance but that they are in favour of conserving the grain production of the country for food purposes. In so far as my knowledge of the country goes, I think it will be necessary before the snow flies again for the Government to use every effort to conserve the grain in the country for food purposes and therefore I have pleasure in endorsing the resolution. I would ask the Government to take into their serious consideration the question of doing something lailong this line because that is a direction in which they can move and do the least harm and the most good.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin) has every justification for bringing this matter to the attention of the Government. I know that in so far as the people I represent are concerned, nine-tenths of them, Liberals and Conservatives alike, would support and justify the Government in taking action along the line suggested by my hon. friend. I do not intend to refer to this in the sense of temperance legislation in any degree whatever. I altogether agree with the view expressed by my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) a moment ago, that we were facing possibly a much more serious situation than we have any idea of. We heard from the hon. member for Wright of the crop failures in some of the South American countries. There is the Republic of Argentina, which is not at war at all, but which has been compelled to take just such action as the hon. member for Wright has asked the Government to take. There never has been a time in the past, whatever the future may bring forward, when the Government could take this action and cause as little disturbance to the large interests, and there are large financial interests engaged in making whisky and beer. Many of the factories could be used to great advantage in manufacturing, not from grain, but from other sources, spirits to be used in connection with the making of high explosives. The grain and food supplies that are being used to-day in the manufacture of beer and whisky could be saved to the country. With the crop failure in South America, and with the possibility of a light crop in Canada, this saving would be all important. Remember that we are now at the eighth day of May and that this is one of

the latest seasons we have ever had in Canada taking it all around. I know, speaking for the West, that the chances are that we are going to have a very small crop, we are going to have a much less acreage in wheat than we have had in the past and we do not grow a great deal of barley in the West. Our crop will have to go more largely to oats and flax. We are going to have a short crop in all probability of the grains that go to make human food. Then, what about the conditions that exist in England? I am afraid from what I have heard from men and women who have returned from Great Britain in the last month that the conditions there are considerably worse than we have any idea of, that they are extremely serious. When you find a country like Great Britain tearing up their parks and lands that have not grown food products for many years, something very serious is on. Here is an opportunity now for the Government to save many millions of bushels of food products for the people, either for ourselves, or for the Empire, or for our Allies, all in the interest of winning this war. If the Government does not take advantage of this situation, in my judgment, it will be neglecting the greatest opportunity that has ever come to the Government to meet the views of all the people of Canada. If they do take advantage of this suggestion they will meet the views of the great majority of the people and they will be doing something that the people of Canada want to have done. They have the expression of the views of the people on the general liquor question, and I am not going to discuss that. But that helps to justify them to-day in taking action to conserve this great amount of food product and thereby to make not only 'Canada but Great Britain, the Empire, and our Allies that much stronger. I feel that I would not be representing the sentiments of my constituency if I did not make these remarks. I trust that the Government will not be hampered, that they will not allow themselves to be hampered, by the consideration of any particular interest, distilling, or brewing, or any other, but that they will go forward and save this grain to the people, and not only the grain but the sugar and molasses as well. Sugar and molasses are as much food products as wheat, oats or barley. By the course suggested something can be saved, and in saving it no harm would be done to the country, rather a greater good would be done than by letting this grain be converted into whisky and beer. So there is every-

thing in favour of this suggestion and nothing against it except the interests of a few brewers and manufacturers. Therefore,
I hope that the Government will lend a kindly ear to this suggestion, and within a very short time issue the necessary instructions that, until the war is ended, no further grain shall be used for making whisky or beer.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Mr. Speaker, I have attended some meetings in my own province of Ontario, the main object of which was to increase the agricultural production of that province. A great committee has been formed for that purpose, with the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario as chairman. Sub-committees are now at work to ascertain how the resources of the province can be best developed for the purposes of this war. I have read in the press, and I myself have written in the press and advised, that there ought to be a conservation of all our energies for the purposes of the war; and certainly we in Ontario are talking in the direction of increasing the production of food products in this country, not only producing them but using them efficiently. We are devoting barley, rye, corn and wheat in some cases to the production of these liquors and spirits. The province of Ontario has declared in favour of prohibition, while we have declared that we are in favour of increased production and efficient use of what we produce; and so I say that to be consistent with one's self one must support this proposal. Either there is to be a scarcity of food or there is not, and we know pretty well that there is to be from the way in which prices are soaring to-day. This Parliament will not be doing its duty unless it does everything possible in the way of preserving the food energies of the country. When we use grain like barley, rye, corn and wheat in the manufacture of spirits for drinking purposes, instead of devoting it to the feeding of the people and the maintenance of our soldiers and citizens, securing reasonable prices of food for the men working in munition factories, we are not being true to the protestations we make as to our loyalty and desire to win the war. All these grains can be used as ordinary foods. Barley and rye both make splendid bread, and while perhaps the corn which we largely import from the United States cannot be used for bread making, all of these grains can be used for the feeding of stock, and it is as essential to increase our production of livestock in
Canada for food purposes as to increase the production of other foodstuffs. You are lessening the amount of food available for mankind, and you are also lessening the amount of food available for the production of these food animals. That being the case,
I say it is the duty of the Government, and I think they will see it is their duty, to take action in this respect. Certainly it seems to be the logical conclusion of what they have said heretofore, that there must be conservation of these things. I only wish to say that I should like to see iit done.
But we must always remember that while the distilleries are running at high pressure and are producing a great deal of spirits, a comparatively small proportion of these spirits goes into drink. These spirits are used for the production of glycerine and other things essential in the manufacture of high explosives. It may be necessary to continue the operation of the distilleries for the production of spirits for explosive purposes, but to permit the use of these grains for any other purpose except for food would to my mind be a mistake, and would not be living up to the views we are expressing publicly here, and that the Government has stated publicly. At meetings held throughout the country every one says: Conserve your energies. So to be true and just to ourselves we have to take- the position that has been proposed here to-day and, as I said, I think the Government are ready to take that position, at least it is the logical position for them to take, and I trust that they will take an early opportunity of conserving grains of this kind. In a proclamation signed by His Majesty the King the other day it was stated that the greatest care must be exercised in the use of all kinds of grains in the Mother Country, especially in feeding stock. It was stated that even the horses, except those kept for the express purpose of carrying on and maintaining the breed, would have to go without oats unless oats were absolutely necessary for them as work horses. But even that was not mentioned, it was said unless they were essential for the maintenance of the breed, that is, the brood mares and the stud horses. The same thing was said with regard to all cattle; if they had to have superior food .they must have it, hut if food could be spared from the use of animals and was required for the maintenance of the people it ought to be conserved in that direction. With these soaring prices for food and with our farmers in great need of food for their dairy cattle, we must do

everything in our power to conserve what food supplies we have. I was much impressed with what was said about the high price of food for dairy cattle the other day, and also by what my hon. friend from Brockville (Mr. Webster) said about the large amount of food used for the dairy herds in this province. We must make every effort to increase our production of butter, cheese, bacon and meat of all kinds in this time of war. The war is not over. It looks none too encouraging to-day in any quarter, and there may be a danger that Germany will get control of Russia and the great food supplies there, so that the Allies may not have the benefit of that source of supply. In view of all these things, this Government, I think, would be justified in adopting some such measure as that under discussion to-day.


Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver City):: Mr. Speaker, I think that my views on this subject are pretty well known to the House. A year ago I suggested to the House and to the Government that the distilleries of the country should be devoted to the production of spirits for useful war purposes, and the suggestion of the hon. member from Wright contains the same principle, that is, that grains and other food products should be restricted to profitable and productive uses rather than to the production of what is generally looked upon as a luxury. However, in listening to the discussion to-day, I have not observed much effort to deal with some of the difficulties which must present themselves to every thoughtful person. It would be of little value for the Government to restrict or prohibit the use of grain or other food products in Canada for the manufacture of liquors if, by simply exporting the grain across the line, the same grain, or a similar quality, could be absorbed there in any large manufacturing institution for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor. In my estimation, we should go a great deal further. In fact, only yesterday I drew this matter to the attention of some members of the Government, and the suggestion was made that the (Government should prohibit the exportation of any grains except to allied countries for food purposes. That would be going a step further than the resolution of the hon, member for Wright, but would, I think, not go far enough. Up to a dlay or two ago the Imperial authorities had not exercised much restriction with regard to the use of grains in the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, but I noticed in yesterday's paper despatches from the old land indicating

that some action would be taken in that respect. I assume that the- Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is now leading the House, will be able to give hon. gentlemen some information as to the possibility of an understanding being arrived at between Canada and the United States and the Motherland with a view to giving definite effect to this proposal. If by our example and by conference with the other Governments. we could, induce the exercise of similar restrictions in these three countries, some very definite and valuable results would follow.	.
I would like to have had some definite figures as to the quantities of grain that have been used for the manufacture of intoxicating liquors. As a matter of fact, I had intended to bring this matter to the attention of the House by proposing a motion; I have a copy of it in my pocket, and had intended to put it on the Order Paper. However, the matter has been brought up, and I regret that I have not the figures with me and that we are not in a position to know just what benefit would result from a restriction of this kind. I think we are all of the opinion that some such action as is suggested would be of definite benefit to the country. I would like to impress upon the Government the seriousness of the proposal and suggest that it receive their favourable attention at a very early date.


Mr. J. A. ROBB (Huntingdon):: In presenting his resolution, the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) gave statistics to show that in the year 191G over 3,000,000 bushel? of grain were used in the manufacture of alcoholic beverages. Calculating an average of 25 bushels to the acre, it would take 125,000 acres to grow the grain required during one year for the manufacture of these alcoholic beverages. If that grain, instead of being diverted to the purpose of manufacturing an alcoholic beverage, which, as has been remarked by a previous speaker, is, after all, only a luxury, were devoted to the feeding and graining of cattle, it would grain 60,000 milch cows for one year, thus enabling the farmers to produce milk a little cheaper. Including the grain and molasses used, the value of the raw material diverted to the manufacture of alcoholic beverages in one year would be $4,250,000. I submit, therefore, in view of the fact that the hon. Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture-indeed all the Government -are appealing to the people to exercise thrift and economy, that we would be amply

, justified in. accepting the resolution presented toy the hon. member for Wright. It looks to me as if the representatives of the people in Parliament are convinced that the proposal is a sound one, and I cheerfully support the resolution presented by my hon. friend.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (South Renfrew) : This is not a temperance proposal, although, incidentally, its acceptance would be a great step along temperance lines. The proposal, as I understand it, is the diverting of certain food supplies from channels that are non-essential to channels that are essential. I say that it is not a temperance measure, because unless we make the provinces which have passed prohibition bone dry, liquor will be imported. We are asking boys at the universities to go out into the harvest fields and help to produce. In the city of Toronto there is a suggestion that the schools be closed prematurely in order that the young men may go to the farms. In the United States they are taking measures to mobilize, in a way, all the young men between sixteen and eighteen, not so much in order that they may take part in the war at the front as to have them go out into the country places and help production. We are gladly permitting our sons to do this, but should we permit them to do it if the very thing that they are producing is to be diverted from the useful purpose to which the nation intended that it should be devoted?
If the proposal of the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) were adopted by the
Government, a little jar might
4 p.m. result.to certain lines of business.
But the winning of the war is the paramount issue, and all private interests, even though they be far-reaching, must come under subjection to this one great end. There is not a man in this House who does not feel in some way the effect of this war, and the Canadian people, including those engaged in the business affected by this resolution are, I believe, prepared for sacrifices. If the figures just given by the member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) are correct-and I assume they are-we see in this proposal an opportunity of carrying out in a marvellous way the declaration of the Finance Minister with regard to saving. Over $4,000,000 can by this means be diverted into channels contriQuting to the winning of the war which, to put it mildly, do not now tend to that end.
The question of the manufacture of liquor for explosives has been mentioned. Undoubtedly any measure adopted by the Government would have to exclude from its provisions the manufacture of liquor for explosives. As a matter of fact, several of the distilleries in Canada are manufacturing largely for war purposes, and no one would suggest that these industries ought to be interfered with; rather, they should be encouraged to the fullest extent. I am of the opinion that the use of grain for the manufacture of alcoholic beverages in Canada should be stopped and the grain sent into proper channels for the sustenance of the people, thus assisting in the great end which we all have in view, the successful carrying on of the war.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: As the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has very justly observed this is not a temperance or prohibition measufe. Such measures, I understand, are to come before the House before the end of the session, and we shall then all have an opportunity of stating where we stand with regard to them. This is a purely economic proposal. If I were assured that the adoption of the resolution of the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) would shorten the war by ten minutes, it would have my very hearty support. I am not, however, at all clear in mind that that would be the effect of his proposition. It might have some effect upon the war; it is conceivable it might remove the excuse that no doubt some slackers are finding and thereby increase the number of recruits, but even that I think is doubtful. I am not cleat that it would shorten the war by ten minutes.
There is an aspect of the case that has not been touched upon by any preceding speaker that I should like to place before the Government before they tell us their views upon the subject. My hon. friend from Assiniboia, (Mr. Turriff) very properly pointed out that we -are threatened with a very short season this year in Canada. In the northern portions of Alberta that is particularly so; large districts around where I live, including my own farm, did not have a furrow turned ten days ago. In other years on the same date, most of my own seeding and most of the seeding in that district has been finished. The House will at once see that the question of the short season is one which will come very close to the mind of the farmer when he is deciding,

at the last moment, so to speak, what he is going to do with his land. In Alberta barley ripens very much faster than wheat or oats. I do not think there is a remote chance of ripening wheat this year on my own farm-if I may 'mention it again-and the same remark applies to large tracts of land in the middle and northern portions of Alberta. Oats will be a difficult crop to ripen in my neighbourhood; the end of August we are liable to have frosts which freeze out the crop, and as oats, in an average Alberta season, require fully four months in which to ripen, very little calculation will show that only three and three-quarters months are left now even if the land were seeded. But the land is only being ploughed now. I do not happen to have accurate information which I can give to the House; I have not even definite information as to what has happened on my own land in the last few days, because a farmer has to make hi.s decisions quickly; but it is conceivable to me that, having regard to the shortness of the season and the excellent prices that are being received fox barley, a great deal more barley will be grown this year than in other years in the districts with which I am acquainted. If, one of the main outlets of barley happens to be through a trade which the Government takes upon itself under the War Measures Act to cut off in a moment-I undertsand that to be the proposition of my bon. friend-then I personally would have doubt about how far the farmers would go on with the extra cropping of barley that I think it is veiy conceivable and likely they will be undertaking. The War Measures Act is a very necessary Act or Parliament would not, in its wisdom, have passed it; but for the Government to act too rashly under that Act may very easily have the effect of producing results diametrically opposite to those intended by hon. gentlemen who urged the Government to take sudden and ill-considered action. Herbert Spencer, the great philosopher, is responsible in his books for saying that nine out of ten Acts of Parliament passed by any Parliament in Europe had diametrically the opposite effect of what the Parliament intended. That statement is not very complimentary to legislatures, hut he produces a marvellous quantity of information in his books to prove the wisdom of his contention, and I think I have given to the Government good ground for seeing that it is just possible that, a sudden dislocation of industry along this line may produce results disastrous rather 
than helpful, not only to the country but to the farmers. I do not know whether barley is used in this country as human food; we feed it on my place only to hogs and a little to cattle. It is used, however, as a food, and it may be, if the war lasts, that we shall require to use barley more than we are doing at the present moment.
The point I wish to make is that if the Government do anything too rashly under the War Measures Act, they may do more harm than good and may produce results diametrically opposite to those which I have no doubt hon. gentlemen on this side wish to ensue from the recommendations they are making to the Government. We are telling the farmer to produce, to put his land under crop. A farmer must be the judige in the main of what he produces; he knows the markets he has to deal in, and for the life of me I cannot understand a man going to a farmer and saying in one breath: Produce, and in the next: we propose to cut off under the War Measures Act a very important proportion of ypur market. I cannot understand the attitude of mind of one who does that. The other day we had a proposition to commandeer all the wheat in Canada, and that was right on the back of the Government having adopted a resolution to give free wheat to the States, for which boon we had been calling for five years. There is no logical connection between rejoicing over free wheat one day and asking tlie Government to commandeer wheat the next day, because commandeering, I need not tell this House, is a very serious interference with freedom, whether in regard to wheat or anything else. Commandeering is the autocratic action of Government. If you commandeer the wheat to-day and stop the market for barley the next day-well, farmers to my knowledge have had a very hard time for the last thirteen or fourteen years, but as a comparative amateur at-the business who is just beginning to get his head above water, I should not know what to raise next.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, there are some questions which can be quickly elucidated, and on which after a single argument hon. members can vote intelligently; there are others which depend entirely upon facts which will assist hon. members in coming to a conclusion. The motion before the House at the present time is one of those which depend upon facts, and therefore there cannot be the slightest difference of opinion

between any two hon. members except as to the standpoint from which they will view the question. At the present time, with this horrible war raging, I would have thought that every member would be on the side of the Allies, and that therefore there would be no possible question how his vote would go when it was simply a question whether he should vote for civilization or for barbarism, for the Allies or for the Huns. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Devlin) has asked the Government to take steps under the War Measures Act to have the supply of grain to brewers and distillers immediately discontinued, and if by any unhappy chance the Kaiser had been a member of this House of Parliament, he would hold up both hands and most cheerfully vote in favour of the motion. Many of our breweries have, under local provincial legislation, closed their doors so that the quantity of grain used by brewers is comparatively small. We have, however, a large number of distilleries-the Corbyville distillery, the Prescott distillery, the Montreal distillery, the Seagram distillery, the Gooderham distillery, two distilleries at Perth, one at Hamilton, and one in British Columbia- quite an array of distilleries which are certainly using up an immense quantity of grain. The hon. gentleman asks us to stop the giving of grain to these distilleries, not one of which is to-day turning out one drop of whisky, but is turning out what is known as acetone, which is used in the manufacture of ammunition for the benefit of those who are fighting for us
I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more after naming these nine distilleries, not one of which is turning out a drop of whisky. There ore two small distilleries at St. Hyacinthe and Berthier, and also the Walkerville distillery which are turning out some whisky, but when we find nine of our largest distilleries engaged in turning out for the Imperial Munitions Board the acetone they so much require, I think I am justified as a supporter of the Allies in voting against the motion.
: Mr. DEVLIN:	1 wanted to say before
the hon. gentleman sat down that I would willingly consent to an amendment in regard to beverages.


William Barton Northrup: If the hon. gentleman will amend his motion to express what he means, we can then consider it, but at present we are considering the motion before tlie House.


Mr. GRAHAM:: It is not a motion at all.


Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: As has already been said, this question can be argued entirely apart from any predilections we may have as to prohibition or non-prohibition, strict temperance or otherwise. The question involved in this motion is an economic one, and my hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrup) has pointed out the cardinal lack in the motion. It would be impossible for the House, if it had the facts in its possession, to vote for the resolution as it stands. If such a motion were carried and put into effect the result would be the stoppage of a large proportion if not the main proportion of the preparations for war that are being carried on under the auspices of the Imperial Munitions Board in this country. It is well that the facts should be placed before the House, and I have here a statement prepared by the Department of Inland Revenue, giving the figures for the last three years. In the fiscal year of 1915, the distilleries used 83,288,969 pounds of grain, divided as follows, in round numbers: malt, 6,700,000 lbs.; corn, 61,000,000 lbs.; rye, 14,000,000 lbs.; oats, 500,000 lbs.; wheat, 1, 180,000 lbs. In 1916 the total amount used was 44,971,959 pounds of grain, not much more than half the amount used in the preceding year, and that was divided as follows, again using round numbers: malt, 4,800,000 lbs.; corn, 33,000,000 lbs.; rye, 7,000,000 lbs.; oats, 169,000 lbs.; wheat, nil. In 1917 the total rose to 88,007,019 pounds, divided as follows: malt, 8,000,000 lbs.; corn, 69,500,000 lbs., rye, 10,430,000 lbs.; oats, 131,000 lbs., and wheat 27,780 lbs. That shows that the production of 1915, probably most of which was for beverage purposes, fell by almost 50 per cent in the following year, but in 1917 the figures were a little above those of 1915. The figures I have given refer to the distilleries alone. Now for the facts in connection with the increase in these figures. For the purpose of making nitro-cel-lulose powder and cordite, 6,000,000 lbs. of alcohol in round figures were used monthly by the Imperial Munitions Board. Without detaining the House to give the figures in detail I may say that that amount is equal to, if not in excess of, the total producing power of the distilleries in Canada at the present time, and as long as the war goes on with its consumption of explosives on an increasing scale, aqfl as long as Canada keeps the position she occupies in the making of explosives, then entirely apart from food considerations, you have to come to

would have to get some ethereal thing or other to make it go; you would not get an ounce of petrol in Great Britain to carry it around for anything hut an absolutely necessary purpose. To-day, if you were in the United Kingdom, you would have to go without your luxurious dining oars and dinners on the cars. The dining cars are taken off from every railway in Great Britain-there may be one exception or so on a long route. The Pullmans are gone as well. They are reducing themselves down in all these ways to the' old, simple necessities and conveniences of life. They are sacrificing themselves in every respect. On this very question of brewing, months ago, the amount of beer that the brewers would be allowed to make in the United Kingdom was cut down to one-fourth of the average of the years past. Within three weeks a decree has gone out from the Controller of Food in the United Kingdom that no longer shall grain be given, or provided, or used for brewing purposes. They have come to it gradually. They do it, not because they do not believe in beer or whisky, or alcohol, but because the necessities of the case drive them to it. We are fleeh and blood of the Empire. We are part and parcel of this great united Ally war. What it is so necessary to suffer in one country in the way of self-sacrifice it is equally necessary to suffer in another if we are to have equality of service and equality of distinction in carrying and bearing the burden of the great war we are going through.
I fear that my earnestness has carried me farther than I should have gone, but I do want again, before I sit down, to say that what we in Canada could do we have done in many respects but not in all. I wais in the city of Washington for a few days very lately. I had been in the United States more or less since I was a boy, but I tell you that it warmed the cockles of my heart, it suffused me with a feeiing of infinite satisfaction to hear from high and low, from the President of the United States down to the man on the street, the woman in the home, so hearty, so undiluted, so absolutely whole-souled appreciation of what Canada has done in this war. I tell you the sacrifice, the heroism, the splendid gleams of real suffering and sacrifice that have 'been shown by Canadians in this war have cemented uFas Canadians to the people to the south of us as they have to the people in all allied countries. Are we quite worthy of it? Some have gone and fought and died.

Others have gone and fought and been maimed. Others have gone and have fought and will fight and come back whole in body and in mind. But the people of Canada, through and through, by and large, do not know the meaning of self-sacrifice and burdendoearing in this war. We must come up to the standard, and we can only come up to' it by self-sacrifice, by saving and by producing that which is right and good for the necessities of the hour.
I am not going to say what the Government is going to do in this respect. It has not been brought -to the attention of the Government for the first time to-day by my hon. friend (Mr. Devlin). It is a matter which has been at work in men's minds in this country, it is a matter which has been brought to the attention of the Government, and it is a matter to which the Government at the present moment is giving its 6erious consideration. What will happen, we shall see as future events uncoil themselves, but I, for one, -stand by the argument I have made and it is a fair, sound argument which will prevail in our country. Then, I suppose, my hon. friend does not wish the House to adjourn?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: No, I am quite satisfied; I will withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU:: Is the hon. Minister of Agriculture ready to give me the answer promised yesterday by my hon. friend the Solicitor General?


Hon. MARTIN BURRELL:: My attention was called yesterday to the remarks made by my hon. friend the member for Temis-eouata (Mr. Gauvreau), who cited a passage in L'Evenement respecting the distribution of grain in Quebec and in the east. That was answered, I believe, fairly fully by the Solicitor General, but my hon. friend and the House will pardon me if I give a little fuller information. The article quoted from L'Eveiiement was substantially correct. About last October, the investigations made by the department led us to believe that there would be a very great scarcity of first-class seed grain in western Canada, owing partly to the fact that there had been a great prevalence of rust, and also to the fact that the demand for the high grades was so strong that a very large proportion of it would likely go to the United States.

So, on October 7, an Order in Council was passed giving powers to appoint a commission for the purpose of purchasing seed grain and grading it, cleaning it and selling it to the municipalities and farmers at cost. It was intended at first to supply municipalities, for the reason that there were about thirty municipalities in the West which, from our investigations, we found would have practically no grain suitable for seed; and, accordingly, on the passage of the Order in Council, a commission was appointed and we commenced operations under that Order in Council. Under that Order in Council the selling was not confined to the West, although it was intended primarily to fill the needs of the West. It was also applicable to the East, and to some extent seed grain, wheat, was also shipped to the East. A little later on we anticipated an unfortunate condition in regard also to seed oats and barley, because there had been injury from frosts in some districts, and we had information which led us to believe that Ontario and the East might be short of seed oats. So in December another Order in Council was passed which enlarged the powers of the commission and enabled them to operate in regal'd to oats and barley practically in the same way as in regard to wheat, and during February and up until the 10th of March we carried on a propaganda in the way of advising the press and the banks and the large grain dealers all through Eastern Canada, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces, as to what the facts were, and that if they applied they would be able to get oats and barley, and, to some extent, wheat, in carload lots. Later on requests came from Quebec, too late for transportation from the West, and we then were able, through our departmental officers, to locate seed grain in the East, in the elevators and at other points. We were .able to get quotations on seed grain which we would, of course, grade and pronounce fit for seed, and we so advised the departments of agriculture and also large dealers in Quebec and the Maritime Provinces. As far as I know the demands have very largely been met throughout the whole of Canada. I may say that some farmers in the West lately have been getting the seed grain at even less than market price for this reason, that we conceived it to be absolutely essential to get in every acre of land we could this year with the best seed grain, and in one or two cases, where the municipalities and the local Governments guaranteed that the grain would be used
76	REVISED
for seed, we let them have it at a price that remunerated us, without giving us any profit, but was substantially lower than the market price. We have bought, cleaned, graded and sold to the municipalities and to farmers more than 600,000 bushels of seed wheat of excellent quality, and we have sent to Ontario and Quebec and the Maritime Provinces alone nearly 200,000 bushels of oats and a little barley. But that will give my hon. friend all the information he desires, although if he wishes it I shall send him a copy of the Order in Council.



THE POTATO SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
['I know nothing of the cable and I have nothing to say on -the matter.\nOn the motion of Hon, Mr. Burrell, the House adjourned at 12.05 a,m. Wednesday.\nWednesday, May 9, 1917.']
Martin Burrell: May I make a remark on a question raised by the hon. member for North Cape Breton, that is, the supply of potatoes. He read a telegram from somebody in Quebec complaining of the shortage and asking what could be done to get potatoes, as they could not get them from New Brunswick. I told my hon. friend that I would secure any further information. We have dispatched .a large number of telegrams all over the country to the officials to try to obtain further information on that question. I have been informed by the Department of Agriculture in Nova Scotia that while there is no available surplus of potatoes there are probably enough for seed and for domestic use in that province. As to Saskatchewan, I have had a telegram from the Minister of Agriculture, in which he says:-
We have ascertained potato supply approximately adequate. We know of a few carloads for sale, and no acute shortage.
I have a telegram also from the Minister of Agriculture for Quebec only this morning, because Quebec was supposed to be suffering from a shortage:
I have not any precise information as to the exact quantity of potatoes in Quebec at present. Certain districts have slight surpluses, placing them in position to supply other districts where there is a shortage. But the quantity available to-day is very small. We have received several applications since a few days.
I have a telegram from Alberta which is not at all clear. Alberta reported a surplus in March of 800,000 bushels. The telegram I got was so vague that it did not make the matter clear, and I telegraphed again for further information.
The other western provinces, Manitoba and British Columbia, I have not heard from; I imagine that they have not more than enough for their requirements. The

only provinces, therefore, which are left, apart from Ontario, which is short, are New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. I am informed by telegram from official and unofficial sources that in New Brunswick there are probably now available for seed outside the province somewhere about 50,000 to 70,000 bushels, and that in Prince Edward Island probably 100,000 bushels will be available for the outside market, that is the rest of Canada. I have passed that information on to the ministers of Quebec and particularly to Ontario, where, of course, they are more or less in need.
It was stated the other day that we ought to take somewhat fuller steps, and I pointed out at that time that we considered the provincial machinery was so much more effective than ours in keeping them in close touch with the farmers through their district representatives, etc., that they would probably be able to deal with the potato question more effectively than we could, because it is entirely different from grain, which we can deal with through the officers of the Seed Branch. As a matter of fact, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture for Ontario was here early in March and informed us that he was taking steps, and I understand that recently they have been bringing in potatoes and doing what they can to relieve the districts which are short. It was stated in the paper the other day that Dr. Creelman, who has lately been appointed Commissioner of Agriculture, had said that I was trying to shift the responsibility from my shoulders. I very much question whether Dr. Creelman ever made such a remark. Indeed I understand that at about the time he was appointed he stated through the press some of the plans he had in contemplation in respect to these questions.
May I also say one word on a different phase of this subject, which the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Duncan Boss) intended to bring up in the House. My hon. friend spoke to me personally about the matter. A great many inquiries have been made as to whether the Government would do something in the way of guaranteeing the price of potatoes. Of course, this raises a very large question which could hardly be discussed at this time. The question of guaranteeing a minimum price is a very difficult one. England has guaranteed a minimum price of potatoes of about $30 a ton, or about 75 cents a bushel. England is threatened with an extraordinary shortage. She is a very heavy importing

country, whereas we are an exporting country of all agricultural products, including potatoes. In my province last year thousands of tons of potatoes sold at as low as $7 and $8 a ton, from 20 to 25 cents a bushel. If, therefore, under conditions of that kind the Government guaranteed a minimum price which would be regarded by some as fair, the Government might have to pay out on their guarantee from $10,000,000 to $20,000,000 on that one commodity. I think those who have looked into the matter agree that under conditions as they are now and promise to be, there is very little likelihood of the price of potatoes being such as not to afford ample remuneration to the farmer. With regard to the question as to whether we should fix a maximum price, I may say that I received to-day, from the same -district as that from which my hon. friend's telegram came, a long letter affirming that the Government should affix a price of, say, $1.50 a bushel, which the writer thinks would be a reasonable price. The House must know that the fixing of a maximum price on commodities is an extraordinarily complex thing. England has not attempted it on any large scale, though she may come to it. In Italy it has broken down; in Germany it has, to some extent, broken down. In the United States they are giving the matter the most profound consideration. Secretary Houston admitted only the other day that the fixing of maximum and minimum prices for foodstuffs would not be a wise measure except as a last resort. The question presents many difficulties; as the hon. member for Bed Deer has suggested, legislative action has often quite unexpected results, and fixing a maximum price might even tend to restrict production. After all, a high price is the very best spur to production, as it is also the very best spur to economy.


Sir WILFEID LAUBIEB:: By your leave, Mr. Speaker, may I ask my hon. friend whether the Government sends the seed grain to the municipalities, or to the farmers direct?


Martin Burrell: First of all to the municipalities, and to the farmer direct as well. It is sent to the dealers and farmers as well as to the municipalities. In the east it is sent only in carload lots, because that is obviously the only possible way.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is this done by the Government itself, or through the commission which was appointed?


Martin Burrell: Through the commission, acting under the direction of my department. Of course, we sell for cash. So satisfactory have been the transactions and so whole-hearted has been the co-operation of all the provinces and municipalities, that up to May 7, the Receiver General has received through our commission, by way of amounts paid in for the grain, no less a sum than $898,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: I observe that my hon. friend has cited two or three Orders in Council which have not been brought down to the House. I think they should be brought down.


Martin Burrell: I had an idea that they had been brought down. If not, I shall be very glad indeed to lay them on the Table.


Edmond Proulx: Has the hon. minister
any more grain available for seeding.


Martin Burrell: Oats and wheat are still available, though it would be rather late to get in wheat now from the West.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: By your leave, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the minister that some time ago he gave an interview in the course of which he said that there were in the country one or two million bushels of potatoes more than were required. He said this afternoon that there were not enough potatoes. Is that the case? In a farming community we are paying as high as $1 a pock for potatoes.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend could not have been in the House the other day when I spoke about that. A considerable surplus was estimated early in March, but since that time a large amount of potatoes has gone out, attracted by the high price in the United States. The condition in the United States is exactly as it is here. Potatoes in the United States are worth $3 a bushel and even more; there is a big shortage. Because of the high freight charges from British Columbia to the East on such a heavy commodity as potatoes, naturally there would be a steady flow of that surplus from my province into the United States. I can not tell my hon. friend the exact amount that has gone out though the amount is large, or what the surplus is now, because I have not received definite word from Alberta, which is supposed to have a considerable surplus. Unquestionably the surplus of a million and a half bushels has been steadily melting away, and I question very much whether
there is now any or much of a surplus in the country. I think I have referred to the two provinces which have an available surplus.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My reason for making the inquiry is this: A great many potatoes were shipped to our section of the country from British Columbia and Alberta, but when the winter came on these shipments fell off, because the railway charge so much for a car for heating, and shipping becomes rather expensive. If there is still a surplus in British Columbia and Alberta, it would be a very good thing if the minister would let the country know about it. Potatoes are perishable, and any surplus might very well be shipped to the East.


Martin Burrell: I can only repeat what I have already said. We have given all the information that wp have received up to date. I wired to the Ministers of Agriculture for Ontario and Quebec this morning, informing them as to the conditions, and told them that as soon as I got fuller information from Alberta, it would be sent to them.



[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Michael Clark: I see my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence in his place, and I should like to call his attention to a matter as to which I made a private communication to him. I have bad a number of letters complaining of some apparent slackness in the way that the separation allowances arrive in the hands of the wives of men at the front. I understand that other members have had similar communications. In the 5 p.m. case of one correspondent a reply was made from the department that when a married man at the front is reported missing the pay is cut off for three months. That seemed to me to be a very peculiar thing to do, because no one would miss the man more than the wife he has left at home, and there would be no moment in her life when she would need the assigned pay more than in those three months. If it is in the slightest degree inconvenient to the hon. minister to reply now I am willing that he should postpone his answer. I am sure that a number of people in the country would be glad to know, in a short statement, the way separation allowance is granted, and to have the assurance that no distinction is made be-

tween one person and another in the carrying out of the regulations.


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: The administration of separation allowances and assigned pay is very intricate and difficult. It will interest all the members of the House and perhaps the public, if I make, with regard to the matter, a complete statement which will cover the whole situation as regards delays, alleged irregularities, and matters of a similar nature. The particular matter to which my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has referred is that of a man who was reported missing and who had his pay cut off. No official notice would come that the man was missing until sometime after the event occurred, and just what action would be taken in this particular case. I cannot say. There are, in connection with the administration of separation allowance, almost - as many combinations as can be made out of the alphabet. Perhaps that is an exaggerated way of putting the case, but it will convey the idea that I have in mind. This is the statement to which I refer:
Separation Allowance and Assigned Pay.
There are now being issued monthly from Ottawa 150,000 cheques for assigned pay, and 90,000 for separation allowance, in all, 240,000 cheques each month. In the past, there has been some delay in getting the separation allowance cards and assigned pay rolls. It is estimated that this delay has occurred in 10 per cent of the cases, and varies from two to six months. If the pay officers were authorized to pay every one on their own application, there would undoubtedly be fewer complaints, but if this were done, a vast amount of public funds would be improperly paid out, as hundreds of claims are received every month, which, on examination and inquiry, are found to be invalid, or outside the regulations, consequently care has to be exercised when placing new names on the list.
Delay has resulted from many causes, viz.,
(a)	Inexperienced paymasters, particularly on
formation of battalion.
(b)	A sudden and large increase in the volume
of business.
(c)	Inexperienced clerical staff.
(d)	Difficulty in getting accurate and quick
information from overseas.
(e)	Soldiers neglecting to fill up separation
allowance cards or to make assignments of pay,-.in a great many cases for personal reasons.
(f)	Battalions suddenly ordered to proceed
overseas, and embarking without leaving assigned pay rolls, or any information respecting them. This has happened in a great many cases.
(g)	Instructions from overseas to stop payment ; usually no reason being given.
(h)	Change of address. Thousands of such
notices are received every month, and some women change their abode every few weeks, and often without notifying the department.

(i)	Incomplete information on the assigned - pay rolls or separation allowance card, necessitating correspondence often with the authorities overseas, if the battalion has left Canada.
Many regimental paymasters failed to do their duty in not ascertaining from the men themselves, by personal interview, whether they had dependents or not. They left it to the men themselves to make application for separation allowance, and to assign a portion of their pay. The result was that quite a percentage of the men in these units, either through ignorance or carelessness, did not make any application. The wife or the mother in the meantime was expecting her allowance, and perhaps some months afterwards would write complaining about it. It would then devolve upon the pay branch at Ottawa to make inquiries, which always takes time, and hence delay.
There has undoubtedly been delay occasionally in the pay branch at Ottawa, owing to inexperience or carelessness of clerks in the pay offices. There has been a great deal of difficulty in getting a competent staff, and often during the past eighteen months, a half a dozen of the best trained would leave at once to join an overseas unit. Many left also to take up permanent positions elsewhere, or because they were offered higher salaries, consequently there was always a very large percentage of absolutely inexperienced clerks. As a rule, however, the clerks have worked long hours and very diligently, and a very small percentage of the delays can be traced to them.
In considering this matter regard should be had to the great distance the force overseas is from Ottawa and as already stated the difficulty in getting necessary information quickly when the soldier concerned is in France or England. Moreover, a great many complaints are received as a result of stopping assigned pay. The instructions to stop payments are received from the overseas authorities, and such cases are very numerous. We have to comply with these instructions, as the soldier's pay account is kept in London, and all assigned pay issued here is charged against him there.
Another grievance is that when a soldier is promoted, action is not taken here at once to increase the separation allowance. The reason for delay is that it takes a long time to get this information from overseas; in fact it is usually necessary to write for it. The soldier, of course, informs his wife or mother immediately he is promoted, which, as a rule, occurs in the field, but the officer dealing with the promotion does not take action so quickly, and when he does, advises London office, which in turn should advise this office.
As an instance of delay, the very last application for separation allowance and assigned pay may be given. This particular case was presented through Mr. F. L. Schaffner, M.P. The facts are as follows: It is the case of the mother of Private P. B. Smillie, whose father died after his enlistment, and consequently the mother claimed separation allowance from that date, on the ground that her son was her sole support. The first letter received from her was in December last in which she stated that her son had enlisted in the 46th Battalion. The records of the 46th Battalion were fully gone over, and no trace of Private Smillie could be found thereon, and his mother was so informed. In her reply dated 19th January, she did not state which battalion he was in, but in a sub-

sequent letter received from her on the 21st January last, she stated he was in the 65th Battalion, not the 46th, as first stated. The nominal rolls of the 65th Battalion were examined, but there was no assignment shown thereon, and Mrs. Smillie was duly advised of this on the 1st of February. At the same time, the chief paymaster, London, England, was written asking if he would communicate with Private Smillie with a view of having him make such an assignment. On the 16th February last, a card for separation allowance from the chief paymaster, London, was received, and this card was forwarded to Reverend J. Hunter, Belmont, Manitoba, asking him to certify on the card that the soldier was the sole support of his widowed mother. On the 27th of March, authority was received from the chief paymaster to open an account for assigned1 pay at the rate of $15 per month from the 1st of February, 1917, and a cheque for February and March was forwarded by registered mail on the same day to Mrs. Smillie. Early in April last, the necessary certificate for separation allowance was received from the Reverend J. Hunter, Belmont, Manitoba, and separation allowance was granted from the 1st of April, 1917, and a cheque forwarded to Mrs. Smillie. On the 13th of April, Mrs. Smillie was advised that the matter was being considered as to whether separation allowance should be made retroactive. This is in accordance with the usual practice of the department.
Private Smillie evidently did not make any assignment until he proceeded overseas, and it was only after the chief paymaster, London, took up the question with him that he did make an assignment. This made it effective from the 1st of February, and not from a date prior to this, as claimed by his mother, Mrs. Smillie, moreover, in her communications to the department did not give her son's regimental number and corps, which, of course, necessitated a great deal of research, as without this information it is necessary to go through a great many thousands of files-there being some 300,000 of these in the registry. In her last letter, Mrs. Smillie makes the accusation that the delay in her case was undoubtedly due to their being a great number of "snobs" in the department, who were inattentive to their duties, whereas, the fault undoubtedly was due to her son not making any effort to obtain her separation allowance and assigning her half of his Pay, until the matter was taken up with him personally by the chief paymaster, overseas. It will thus be seen that the department took a great deal of trouble in order to get the matter adjusted. This case is cited as a very fair sample of the difficulties which the department are up against in dealing with these cases.
I have in my hand a pamphlet containing four army orders of the British army for April, and the British authorities are having in respect of this matter exactly the same difficulties that we are having here, but their difficulties are less complicated as the British authorities are, so to speak, on the scene, having large numbers of soldiers in England and being near France, whereas we are far away. Nearly two pages of this pamphlet are devoted to explanations of difficulties in the way of administering separation allowance, and in some
respects the difficulties are identical with those which I have just cited. We are all in the department very glad to answer any inquiries, but sometimes, before we can give a definite answer, we have to cable to Great Britain. The paymaster of a battalion may be a man inexperienced in keeping accounts; in fact, sometimes officers from the headquarters staff here follow battalions to Halifax to try to get their accounts straightened out and their separation allowance and assigned pay cards so arranged that the soldiers' relatives will get their money at the proper time. Sometimes we have to send officers over to England on the ships in order to get the accounts of some battalions straightened out, these officers returning to Canada on the .arrival of the vessels in England. The 'soldiers arrive in England, then they change their abode in England; they go to the front and their address is changed again. If they are unfortunate enough to be wounded, they are taken from one base hospital to another, then from France to England and from England back to Canada. Their wives and relatives here also change their addresses frequently. Delays are also occasioned by mistakes made by inexperienced clerks. We have in the department many invalided men who have devoted their energies to straightening out thei separation allowance branch and other branches of the department. In that Rranoh at Ottawa there are about 600 clerks employed, and one or two of the heads of that particular branch have already 'broken down through ill-health caused by over-work. - On the whole, however, I can assure my hon. friend from Red Deer that every effort is being made to improve the work of that (branch.


AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS FROM THE UNITED STATES.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
James Joseph Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche) to this telegraphic despatch that has appeared in some of the newspapers published in Prince Edward Island:
Chicago, April 26.-Five hundred students of the Agricultural College of the University of Illinois left here last night for Saskatchewan to help produce the war-winning wheat crop. The Dominion Government has guaranteed minimum wages of $50 a month and board, part of railroad fare, and 160 acres to all who serve six months in the fields.
I wish to ask tho miniater if the statements in this despatch aio correct or partly

correct. Perhaps he could tell me how many persons have been brought into western Canada from the United States for the purpose here mentioned, what privileges were extended to them, and whether similar privileges will be extended to persons who wish to go to the West from say the province of Prince Edward Island.


Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of the Interior):: Some of the statements contained in the despatch are partly correct. There has, of course, been a very great shortage of agricultural labour in the western provinces, and the National Service Commission in conjunction with the Immigration Branch of the ^minion Government have taken the matter up with the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta with a view to getting agricultural labourers from the United States. Our information was that there was a scarcity of labourers in other provinces of the Dominion, and we therefore could not look to the eastern provinces to supply labourers for the West, so an arrangement was made between the provincial governments and the Immigration Branch by which agricultural labourers coming from the United States could receive tickets at three points at the rate of one cent a mile. The three points were Duluth, St. Paul, and Spoibane, and the balance of the fare was to be borne equally by the government of the province to which the labourer went, and the Dominion -Government. The statement as to the granting of 160 acres is, of course, not correct. Any person has the privilege of taking up a homestead of 160 acres, and any person who does so this year will be allowed to- count the time which he spends with a farmer as an agricultural labourer, as residence on his own homestead; that is the extent of the privilege with regard to homesteads. The despatch is wrong in saying that there were 500 students, as my information is that on the 2nd of May there were only 196 or 197 students. I do not think it would be wise to extend the same privileges to farm labourers in our provinces, as our information is that nearly all the provinces are short of labour themselves. Of course, farm labourers from Prince Edward Island, or any other province, would he allowed to count the time they spent with a farmer, just as would these labourers from the United States, but they would not be granted the same privilege -as regards railway fare, because the railways in Canada would not make such an arrangement.


James Joseph Hughes: The telegram said that the Government was guaranteeing a minimum wage of $50 a month and hoard.


William James Roche: I omitted to say that the Dominion Government has not guaranteed any wage at all. The extra agents who have been sent to the United States by the Dominion -and Provincial Governments, six of them from Manitoba,'ten from Saskatchewan, six from Alberta, and a like number from the Dominion Government, would no doubt try to induce agricultural labourers to come here by telling them that the prevailing rate of wages was from $40 to $55 a month, but there was no guarantee at all.


THE BUDGET.
[Stage Direction]
The consideration of the proposed motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) for the Committee of Ways and Means, and the amendment of Mr. Turriff thereto, was resumed from Friday, May 4.
Mr. ONESIPHORE TURGEON (Gloucester) (resuming) :: With your permission, Mr. Speaker-, I will now resume my remarks on the Budget, which were interrupted by the adjournment of the debate last Friday. I am confronted now by somewhat different circumstances, for, instead of the Minister of Finance leading the House, we have now the Acting Premier himself, just returned from the Capitol of the United States, where it has been his lot to take counsel with the representatives of the three great democracies of the world. I am sure that the name and fame of Canada have not suffered through their representative the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am sure he has been able to meet with the dignity becoming a representative of Canada, those great statesmen and orators of our Allies, and I fear that in coming back to this House his first task of listening to me will fall very heavily upon him.


George Eulas Foster: I will suffer that willingly.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I can not promise him that brevity which characterized the speech of the Minister of Finance in presenting the Budget. I have not that command of facts and figures that I can say much in few words. Moreover, I intend to deal with many subjects which are not in the Budget, but which, in my judgment, should have been. Although the right hon. gentleman who is leading the House is very properly giving his attention to international duties there are also duties for him in Canada,

for we are not supposed to neglect our duties at home while we are fighting for the Empire.
The Minister of Finance endeavoured to show the great prosperity of Canada by export and import figures. He showed that for the year ending March 31, 1917, our exports and imports aggregated $2,043,000,000, and the amount of revenue for the last four years was also given. The revenue for the year ending March 31, 1917, amounted to $232,000,000, of which $134,000,000 was derived from customs, $34,000,000 from excise, and $12,500,000 from the business profits war tax, which latter figure the Finance Minister hoped would amount at the end of the accounting period to $15,000,000. Out of this revenue the Minister of Finance has paid off the ordinary and capital expenditure of the past year, and has been able to apply $60,000,000 to the payment of our war expenditure, or about 10 per cent of the war expenditure so far. Before the outbreak of the war, our National Debt according to the Minister of Finance amounted to $336,000,000. It now amounts to $900,000,000, and before the end of the fiscal year the Finance Minister thinks it will likely reach $1,200,000,000. The minister tells us that the most striking aspect of our affairs is the increase in our international trade. And he gives the total of that trade for the year ended March 31 last as $2,043,000,000. He did not give a statement of the imports and exports, saying that he would prefer to give these figures in committee. But the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) tells us that in 1916 we sold to the outside world goods to the value of $1,178,000,000, and bought from the outside world $864,500,000 worth, an excess of exports over imports of $314,000,000. He informed us also that our exports of munitions might be estimated at $300,000,000, and said that, even deducting that amount, our exports would amount' to $878,000,000. But we must allow also for the greatly increased prices since the war, if we are to estimate fairly the increase in the quantity of goods exported. We find that our exports of bread-stuffs to Great Britain for 1916 were valued at $198,281,735, while those of 1915 were valued at $113,140,435, an increase for 1916 of $81,141,300. But the quantity of grain exported in 1916 was not much greater than that of the year before. This shows that the value of such exports was inflated by the increased prices. If the prices of the days before the war still prevailed, the value of our exports would be represented
by very much smaller figures than is the ease to-day. The Minister of Finance regarded our great foreign trade as a sign of prosperity in the country. During the recess of the House many members on the Conservative side, addressing meetings in their several constituencies, have cited these figures as evidence that the country is now enjoying greater prosperity than ever before. I have no doubt that they have placed these figures and this conclusion before their electors in all sincerity. But when we consider the cause of our present prosperity, 1 claim that it is not >a prosperity to gladden the heart of the true Christian, while it must sadden the mind of the economic thinker to contemplate the transition period which our country must face when the bugles sound for peace and we must seek a permanent basis for our manufactures and commerce. All winter in my own town I have observed the movement of the munitions trains on the railway toward our winter ports of St.- John and Halifax. I could not but realize that for every one of these trains that was moving over our lines the Huns were moving ten trains carrying weapons of destruction against the sons of Canada and against all the soldiers of the Allies. And I said to my neighbours:	These cars are
not the signs of progress, prosperity and happiness, but of universal grief and mourning. 'So we (must not depend upon the figures of our present exports of the weapons of destruction and the materials to make and load those weapons as assuring our prosperity, we must look to the future and not merely to present conditions which we know to be but temporary. As true Canadians we are willing to pay the debt which (is now accumulating because of this war. We face our responsibilities with courage, still ready to carry our sacrifices to the limit of 'which we have so pften spoken, " our last man and our last dollar," in order to insure victory for the Allies. When peace comes, we shall be ready, I hope, to do what the French people did in 1871 when they paid the immense indemnity which had been demanded of them, paid it in full and far in advance of the time allowed, in .order that they might be under tribute to their enemy for as short a time as possible. Even though our public debt should amount to nine or ten billions, we will remain Canadians and animated with the same principle of justice and Christianity for which we have battled in this war. For this is a fight for out liberties, it is a

fight R>r the principle of Christianity. And when the war has ended shall we leave the debt to be met by future generations? I believe that we should do everything in our power to meet, while we are living, as large a part as possible of the debt incurred in this war. To my mind, the additional war tax which the Minister of Finance has imposed should have been imposed last year, or two years ago, as was proposed by hon. members on this slide of the House. In order that I may follow more intelligently the remarks of the Minister of Finance, let me read this resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916, by providing :-
1.	That in any business taxable under the Act where the annual profits exceed fifteen per centum per annum the tax shall be increased to fifty per centum with respect to all profits in excess of the said fifteen per centum
_but not exceeding twenty per centum per annum, and where the profits exceed twenty per centum per annum the tax shall be increased to seventy-five per centum with respect to all profits in excess of the said twenty per centum, and such increases in the tax shall be levied against and paid by the person owning such business for each and every accounting period ending after the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen;
2.	That for the purposes of the said Act, the actual unimpaired reserve, rest or accumulated profits held at the commencement of an accounting period by an incorporated company shall be included as part of its capital as long as it is held and used by the company as capital;
That any enactment founded on this resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on and from the eighteenth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen.
What I regret most is that it has not been made to date from May, 1915, instead of May, 1916. It was then that the largest profits were made by those making munitions. We all remember that after the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), in his speech in this House, made the accusation that excessive profits were being made by some contractors and Government agents, many of these profits were curtailed. If for nothing.else, the hon. member for Richmond deserves the gratitude of the people of Canada in calling attention to these excessive profits. But this resolution, after all, allows the big corporations from 15 to 20 per cent on theiir paid up capital before they are touched by the Government taxation. In these strenuous times, and in the presence of this horrible war, the Minister of Finance should have grasped for the country the whole of the remaining percentage above that profit. Perhaps, as in the case of the war profits tax at the beginning, the imposition will fall most

heavily on the companies that have been operating with a small capitalization, and which therefore show larger profits. The large interests that have operated from the first and made large profits have generally issued sufficient stock in a'll denominations to increase their outstanding capital to such an extent that they seldom show a profit of 15 per cent, and, therefore, they will not be affected by this new proposition.
We have had suggested-and I have myself suggested-to the Minister of Finance that he should introduce an income tax in this country. The answer is that the revenue derived from an income tax would not amount to more than the expense of collecting it. That might depend on the basis that you adopt for the adjustment of that income tax. Meanwhile, I may say that I believe there are many people, and many classes of people, who should pay an income tax, and that such a tax would give to the country a revenue which would be available for the elimination of the war debt. The railway corporations would not be affected in their corporate capacity, I know, because there is no profit for them in the operation of their railways under war conditions, but our railway magnates have large incomes from other sources, which would be taxable and which would give a good return to the country. The property owners in the cities, as well as in country districts, who are in comfortable circumstances, might also pay an income tax. Some say that the farmer is the one man who will not stand such taxation. The farmer is just as devoted and as patriotic as any one of us in this country. Give the farmer the markets of the world, give -him what he needs for the operation of his great industry at the lowest possible cost and when he has reached the stage of comfort in his circumstances he will pay his income tax as well as his neighbour. Who has been more patriotic during the last three years than the farmer? Who has been of more service in carrying on the war, who has given more to the cause of civilization, than the farmers of Canada? Fifty or seventy-five per cent of the soldiers at the front have gone from the farms which, perhaps, to-day, are suffering from the want of then-labour.
I claim that taxation is more advantageous than loans because it eliminates interest on the amount you raise. If you raise by loan $10,000,000 to pay one item of expenditure during twenty years, at the end of twenty years you have paid $15,000,-

000 to clear off that expenditure. If you pay it by taxation, you take $10,000,000 from the people, the whole amount is paid and their ability to pay further is reserved for further needs of the country. I believe that is .a sound principle which could be applied with advantage to this country. If I buy a property for $5,000 or $10,000 and I have not the money to pay for it, I have to pay interest for ten years and at the end of that ten years I have paid out almost as much as the original debt. That same principle could be applied to all our expenditures and if it were you would avoid interest charges which equal sometimes the revenue the country collects. But, we have not been able yet to get from the Minister of Finance an answer with regard to this matter. May I be permitted to give an. example from the United States now that our hon. friends the Minister of Finance and the Solicitor General who, I do not see in their seats, are willing to truck and trade with the Yankees, inspired, perhaps, by different motives. The Solicitor General may be prompted by his humane feelings for the farmers of the West whom he will assure of his hearty sympathy when next he returns to the western provinces and the Minister of Finance by a consideration of war conditions. There is no doubt that the Minister of Finance and his friends, the manufacturers of Ontario, may be comforted by the hopes of the future, hopes upon which some light has been thrown by the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Morris). However, now that we are permitted to look in that direction, may I be allowed to give these hon. gentlemen and this House a few facts with regard to the new income tax under consideration in the Congress of the United States and which is to be put into operation as soon as it becomes law. It is a bill for the further taxation of the incomes of individuals, corporations, joint stock companies, insurance companies and other possible incomes. They are taxing incomes as low as $2,000 in the United States. In Canada there axe a great many incomes of $1,000 which might be taxed. When a single man with no family to look after and no other responsibility but his own living, receives $1,000 under such conditions as prevail to-day, he will be proud, if he is a Canadian at all, to contribute out of his income a few dollars every year. If such a policy were adopted, the very minimum tax that you might place upon such incomes would represent a large amount of revenue every year. In the United States
it is a graduated tax upon all incomes, for instance, there is a tax of one per centum per annum on the amount by which the total net income is $5,000 or over and within $7,500, and of two per centum if the income exceeds $7,500 and over and so on up to $10,000. If a citizen has an income of $100,OOOhewill pay an income tax of $10,000.
A man having an income of $1,000,000 a year is taxed to the extent of $300,000. On an income of $500,000 a tax of $100,000 is paid into the treasury. This income tax, it is estimated, will provide for the United States Government $250,000,000 this year. You will see by the graduation of this income tax that every class will be called upon to pay according to its means. You will see that the United States have put a large income tax on millionaires. I might be told that millionaires in Canada are but few. I believe that they were not so few after all before the war. We had a good number, and I believe that since the war has commenced we have many more millionaires than before. It is only since the war that Canadian millionaires have beer; able to hand over hundreds of thousand* of dollars to young lady stenographers for past services, and I believe that it was not only in one case that this was done, that it will be found that many others acquired equal wealth as suddenly. Therefore both the old millionaires and the new millionaires, the new especially, should be taxed heavily under the conditions in which we are living, and I believe that if the Minister of Finance will look into the millionaires and dorei-millionair-es he will find enough of them in Canada to products millions of dollars of income tax. Britain is largely paying its war expenditure- by taxation. Germany is meeting it by loans, because Germany can not impose any more taxation. She had imposed so much taxation in preparation for war during forty years that her people were near rebellion, and when she.could impose no more taxation she declared war, the war which we are fighting to-day.
We have heard a good deal of discussion during the debate as to the relative merits of protection and free trade, or protection and tariff for revenue. It has always been a sad moment for me in this House when, on different occasions, I have heard members on the other side of the House, in order to propound the doctrine of protection, give us, for example, the great achievements of Germany under her system of ex-

treme protection in every possible direction. Last year the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) strongly advocated the imitation by Canada of German diplomacy in this respect, pointing to the wealth which the people of Germany had been able to amass through the facilities afforded to them for taking advantage of the opportunities for trade throughout the world. Lately the Solicitor General called the attention of Parliament and of the country to the great achievement of the German nation under her high tariff. Notwithstanding such pronouncements from the lips of those learned men opposite, I yet cling rather to the policy of Great Britain, which, during those same forty years, has built up a commercial and industrial activity which has enabled her, during the war, to save civilization. There is no doubt that in the first months of the war, civilization was saved by the superior tactics at the battle of the Miame by tlhe great man whom we honour to-day on this side of the Atlantic, General Joffre; but we can still claim that since that day the free trade policy of Great Britain has enabled her to save the situation for the last two years owing to her ability to finance not only herself but also France and all her Allies. To-day, with her navy, she is still saving the situation, while Germany is crippled, unable to move, and keeps up the hope of her people only iby the deceptive promise of the submarines, which we are bound to overcome with the assistance of the great nation to the south of us.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Private Bills, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 27, to incorporate The Canadian General Council of The Boy Scouts Association. Mr. R. B. Bennett-in Committee.
On section 1-Act of incorporation, 1914, c. 130, amended:
George Perry Graham: What are the amendments?


Mr. STEELE:: The Bill asks that the
privilege of using all the badges and other special marks of the Boy Scouts Assoeia-

tion shall be given only to the Boy Scouts. It asks, in effect, that these badges and other distinctive marks shall be a trade mark of the Boy Scouts Association.


George Perry Graham: That is all?


Michael Steele: That is all.


George Perry Graham: The Bill passed through the committee without any amendment?


Michael Steele: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 10, to incorporate The Grand Lodge of the Canadian Association of Stationary Engineers of the Dominion of Canada.-Mr. F'ripp-in Committee.
On section 1-Incorporation:
Michael Steele: This Bill is being asked for by the stationary engineers of Canada, both steam and electric.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Is there mutual insurance?


Michael Steele: No, nothing of that kind. They are not asking for any control of the education or training of engineers. They merely ask that the Grand Lodge of the Canadian Association of Stationary Engineers be incorporated in order that the stationary engineers may be joined together for purposes which will raise -the standard of the profession. Certain amendments have been made, most of them of a minor character.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-executive officers:
Mr. MoKENZIE:	Is this an incorporating Bill coming before Parliament for the first time?
Michael Steele: Yes, this is the original
incorporation.
Mr. MoKENZIE:	In the province of
Nova Scotia, and, I assume, in each of the provinces, there is an Act dealing with stationary engines and stationary engineers. I think that there is in the province of Ontario an Act requiring stationary engineers to pass certain examinations, and so on. Would this Act in any way come in conflict with the provincial legislation?


Michael Steele: This proposed legislation
gives to the Grand Lodge no power whatever to license engineers. The province of Ontario grants licenses to stationary engineers, but this Bill is prepared in such a way that it asks for no rights or privileges which will interfere with those held or conferred by the provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-objects and purposes:
Michael Steele: In this clause the words
"and electric" are inserted after the word "etearn" wherever it occurs. The clause as amended reads in part: "the efficient operation of steam and electric power plants," and "steam and electric users."


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-general meetings:	'
Michael Steele: There is a slight amendment to that clause. After the word "as" in the third line, the words "the executive officers of" have been inserted, -making the sentence read:
The first general meeting of the association shall be held during the year 1917 at such time and place and upon such notice as the executive officers of the association may decide.


George Perry Graham: If I were a stationary
engineer I would w'ant that provision to be more explicit as to the time of meeting. Under that clause the executive could call a meeting within twenty-four hours. Were representatives of the -stationary engineers who attended the meeting of the Private Bills Committee in agreement with that amendment?


Michael Steele: Yes.
Mr. MoKENZIE:	Is there any provision
for the making of by-laws?


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are they subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, or is there any safeguard of that kind?


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It seems to me that
notice of, say, eight days should be given before a general meeting is called.


Michael Steele: This clause refers only to the first general meeting of the Association, which is to be called by the executive officers of the Association. The subsequent general meetings shall be held annually as the by-laws of the Association may provide.


George Perry Graham: That covers the point.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-by-laws:
Michael Steele: This section is struck out entirely owing to the fact that section 7 covers the matter. The section has relation to the making of by-laws.
On section 14-real estate:


Michael Steele: To this section an addition has been made of a clause which has been inserted for some years in Bills similar to this. This section has reference to the amount of real estate which the grand lodge may hold. There is added after the words :-
Not exceeding in the aggregate tt'.e value of one nun red thousand dollars.
These words:-
And may sell, mortgage, lease or dispose thereof, but so that the association shall apply all its profits, if any, or other income, in promoting its objects, and shall not at any time pay any dividend to its members ; hut the provisions of this section shall not prevent the remuneration of members of the board of directors or officers of the association for services rendered out of any surplus remaining after the ordinary expenses of the association have been met.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 38, respecting certain patents of George C. Breidert and Burton W. Mudge.- Mr. Rainville-in committee.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Who is the promoter of this Bill-Mr. Macdonell?


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: The Minister of Agriculture left a memorandum on his desk and requested me, if he were not in bis seat when this Bill came up, to read it. This appears to be one of those cases where the application, through inadvertence, had not been filed in time, and the committee, after consideration, thought that it might -go through. The memorandum is a long one, and I will not read it -all, but it-says in part:-
In view of the foregoing facts and section 8 of the Patent Act, the commissioner has no power to deal with the applications. The object of the Bill is simply to empower the commissioner to deal with the applications as though they had been filed within the prescribed time. The facts as set forth in the preamble having been established by solemn declaration, and the committee being satisfied that the failure to file the applications within the prescribed time was due to an oversight of the Auto Utilities Manufacturing Company, considered that the petitioners were entitled to the relief asked for

and reported the Bill.' During last session a similar Bill, viz.: that of Mr. James W. Owen, was passed.
The minister says that the Bill has been gone over by the Deputy Commissioner of Patents, [DOT]and that he is satisfied with it.


George Perry Graham: Are any other rights interfered with?


William Sora Middlebro: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What are the patents for?


Mr. REID:: The Bill says that the patents are for ventilators.
On section 1-power to issue patents:


Michael Steele: A certain amendment to this section ought to be noted. The words after " on the " in the third last line of this section are all struck out, and the words " 9th day of June, 1933," inserted, so that the date when the patent shall expire is made definite instead of being left indefinite as the original wording of the section left it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-certain rights saved:
Michael Steele: There are certain amendments to this section. The dates in the Bill as drafted are not inserted. The section as amended reads:-
If any person has since the 9th day of June, 1914, and prior to the 13th day of January, 1917-
And so on. The words " or construction " are added after the word " manufacture " in the fifth line, so that it reads " manufacture or construction in Canada." After the word " manufacture " in the third last Mne the word " construct " is added, so that the clause reads:-
May continue to manufacture, construct, sell and use-
And so on.


Mr. MURPHY:: Is the date mentioned by the hon. member the date on which the patent was indefinitely allowed to lapse; that is, the date in respect of which other rights may have been acquired which are to be protected?


William Sora Middlebro: In the memorandum to which I have already referred, the Deputy Commissioner of Patents says:-
The day fixed for the expiration of the patents in clause 1, viz.: 9th June, 1933, was determined by adding to the date of the first foreign patent, viz.: 9th June, 1914, nineteen years; eighteen years, viz.: the term of the Canadian patent fixed by section 23 of the

Act, and one year allowed by section 8 of the Act. The date, 13th January, 1917, in the second clause of the Bill is the date of the first publication of the notice of the application to Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the preamble:
George Perry Graham: I am not objecting in
[DOT]any way to this Bill, but I am inclined to agree with the Minister of Customs that when a member allows a Bill to be put in his name,' he ought to know something about it and be on hand when the Bill comes up in order to see it put through. The Acting Chairman of the Private Bills Committee has done very well in giving us what information he had, but he evidently is not posted on these measures. I think it is a good rule that the member in whose name a Bill stands or somebody who knows about the Bill should be in the House to explain these measures when they come up. Bills like that we have just been discussing, for instance, relating to patents have provoked more discussion in the House in the past than any other kind of Private Bill. I have no doubt that this ore is perfectly all right as the Government has approved of it, hut the House knows very little about it.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree that it would be well if the member in whose name a Bill stands was present when his Bill comes up for discussion. I am sure, howeveT, that this Bill has the approval of the Department of Agriculture for Mr. O'Halloran makes a point of examining these Bills very thoroughly. The Acting Chairman of the Private Bills Committee has told us that both Mr. O'Halloran and the Minister of Agriculture approve of the Bill, so I do not think there can be any objection to its going through. But here is the Minister of Agriculture himself.
M,. LEMIEUX:	The House would like
to know whether any rights will be interfered with by this Bill?


Martin Burrell: The Department does
not think so. We have no objection at all to the Bill.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


THE BUDGET.
[Stage Direction]
The Order for Private Bills having been exhausted the House proceeded to Government orders and resumed consideration of the Budget.
Onésiphore Turgeon: When the House adjourned at six o'clock I was endeavouring to show the fallacy of the policy which Germany has pursued for the last forty or fifty years, and which has brought upon her the misfortunes from which she is now suffering. Germany's policy of extreme protection has been the ruin of her prosperity. Capital and labour have been diverted from their natural productive employments into unprofitable and unproductive lines. Protection, to my mind, spells selfishness, egotism and defiance. Selfishness, in that it wishes to get for itself every possible profit at the expense of every other country; defiance, because it lacks confidence to meet other nations in equal competition. Free trade in itself implies brotherhood among the nations. In times of peace when Napoleon Bonaparte, who was a great civic father as well as a great general, found time to conduct the trade affairs of his beloved France, he always tried to make reciprocal treaties with the other nations of the world, but although he required the goods of England as much as the goods of any other land, he always refused to make a treaty with England because he abhorred that country. Germany abhors every nation in the world that she is not able to shackle, and I would advise this House and the country not to seek inspiration from the policy of the German people. The great emperor Francis Joseph, who perhaps had a longer reign than any other sovereign, unfortunately allowed himself to be captivated by the alluring prospects held out to him by Bismarck in the early part of his reign. Bismarck held out a prospect of battle and conquest, and the first step was. to Prussianize the universities of Austria, to divert the aims of education from the noble traditions of Austria-Hungary and adopt the system of education which has brought about the present catastrophe. This is no educational system for us. We should give no consideration to it at all or to their political, financial or industrial activities. We know what effect their education has had in corrupting the sentiments of the people and diverting them from humanitarian ideals. The industries developed under that education have marked their products " made in Germany." But though there was a. great increase in industrial production there was no increase in Christian education. And consider some of the things that have been "made in Germany." Poison gas to be projected across their
trenches to our lines where our soldiers fell by the thousand in agony; shells made to sink unwarned our hospital ships, with nurses and wounded, Germans among them; guns made to murder Edith Cavell because of her humanitarian activities-all these have been " made in Germany." Surely no lover of humanity, no Christian to-day who looks at the aims of . education in Germany will hold up that country as an example to the world' in -any respect whatever.
I wish to refer to another remark of the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) whom I am pleased to see now in his place. It may be considered that I am not in my place in coming into conflict with the hon. gentleman. He knows the high opinion I entertain of his ability. That ability is now universally recognized, but I am proud to say that I have appreciated from the day when he came into this House. I cannot close my eyes to the fact that, as it seems to me, sometimes his skill and subtlety in debate have been used in directions the contemplation of which in the future will not always bring him pleasure. Upon him has been placed the task of pulling the Government out of difficulties into which, from time to time, they have fallen. While recognizing his great talents, I cannot agree with his views on many questions, but especially upon questions, of the tariff. In the utterances to which I have referred he speaks of the increased duties made about a year ago, in Great Britain, on tea, coffee and chocolate, on clocks and watches, and on automobiles. As to the duties on tea, coffee, and chocolate, the object has been only increase of revenue, and not protection. When a tariff is imposed upon articles, whether necessaries or luxuries, the importation of which does not mean competition with home producers, the duties that are paid by the people go direct into the public treasury, while duties that are imposed for protective purposes go largely into the coffers of manufacturers. It is true also that duties were imposed on clocks and watches. But this was with a view of introducing economy. As to the duty on automobiles, it was designed ter save shipping tonnage which even then was growing scarce, and which was needed for the transport of munitions and food. Another reason for this duty, as stated by Mr. Asquith, the former Prime Minister, was that the duty would discourage the buying of automobiles in many cases, which would

have the advantage not only of promoting economy but also of saving gasolene and oil needed for the operation of automobiles used for war purposes. The Solicitor General also mentioned the dye industry and said that it could never be revived for the British Empire except by means of high protective duties. The modern method of producing dyes was the invention of an Englishman. This inventor could not convince the British Government of that day of the benefits that would result from his invention. So he went to Germany, and the Germans bought his secret and kept it as a secret. That has been their method in everything-to maintain secrecy. Their widespread secret service, for instance, was never suspected until war broke out. It was by keeping their operations secret that Germany was able to command the markets of the world in the dye industry. This was one of the mistakes made by the British Government, and governments make mistakes just as individuals do. It is only twenty-five or thirty years ago that the Liberal Government of Ontario offered to the Government of Great Britain control of the nickel properties of this province. But this was in a time of peace, and, unfortunately, the advantages to result from such a measure were not realized by the British Government of that time, and consequently the offer was refused. That such things will happen all history attests. Napoleon Bonaparte was approached by Fulton, the American inventor of the steamboat. Fulton went to France and securing the support of some of Napoleon's generals tried to convince the great Corsican of the benefits to be gained by the use of his invention, pointing out that by the use of steam the would-be conqueror of England could send ships across the Channel in a few hours, regardless of the weather conditions. But Napoleon replied that he had fools enough in France without importing them from abroad. Fulton went to England and had his invention adopted in that country, leaving to Napoleon only the remorseful recollection of an opportunity lost. As to the dye industry, when the war is over the scientists of France and England will seek out new chemicals which will be as advantageous and as profitable to commerce generally as the old secret has been to Germany.
I think the Solicitor General did not do justice to England when he compared its financial position with that of the United States. That I may not misinterpret the

hon. gentleman let me quote from his speech as reported at page 889 of Hansard:
We And the United States at this time not in the position in which Great Britain finds herself in this regard. We find the United States selling goods in volume away beyond the goods which she is importing, selling goods last year to an extent of double the imports of that country. The balance of trade in favour of the United States is over $2,000,000,000 as compared with a balance of trade against Great Britain of $1,500,000,000. That is the inevitable result of failure adopting systematic and well reasoned means of bringing to their full development within the country itself all the resources of the country before they are sold.
May I be permitted to say that this comparison is certainly, in my opinion very inappropriate. The Solicitor General has given the figures fpr 'the last year. He has compared the position of Great Britain, one of the principal belligerents, after two years of war, with that of a great nation at peace. Notwithstanding the fact that Great Britain has made all the munitions of war that her own people could possibly manufacture during the past year, and that she has had t,o import from other countries, mostly from the United States, a great part of the munitions that she was in need of, not only for herself but for her Allies, a great portion of these munitions being charged f,o Canada and for which we will have ourselves to pay, she is made the subject of comparison with one of the greatest manufacturing nations of the world, a nation at peace, a nation with a hundred million people and great resources and a nation which had been manufacturing and shipping to Great Britain everything that she could manufacture and not only shipping to Great Britain but to France, Russia and Italy as well. In consequence of that you -might naturally expect an immense balance of trade in favour of the United States while England naturally could not expect any thing else than an adverse balance of trade.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Does the hon. gentleman not know that practically the same proportion of balance of trade against her has existed for nearly twenty years and that, on the contrary, the balance of trade has been in favour of the United States for almost that time, not so great as now, but nevertheless in their favour.


Onésiphore Turgeon: of the United States at the time, would have meant immense prosperity for the country from that time until now.
The Government a few days ago granted free wheat to the western farmers in order to secure their sympathy or, as the Solicitor General put it to the House, in order to remedy a grievance which existed; and, although according to the Solicitor General it might not have been the international interest to give free wheat, it had become a necessity for the Government to appease that grievance in the West. May I say to the Solicitor General that if every grievance in the different parts of the country is to be appeased in that way, he might have come down to New Brunswick and given us free potatoes also. The farmers of New Brunswick would have been better pleased to have received a little less for their potatoes and to pay less for the flour or the boots they have to buy. A farmer has to sell three or four barrels of potatoes in order to secure a barrel of flour, even today when he gets $3 or $4 for his potatoes. Then he has to sell two or three barrels of potatoes to get a pair of boots for himself, or his wife, or his son helping him on the farm. The Government, under the Underwood tariff, had power to place potatoes on the free list on the same conditions as wheat, and my hon. friend could just as well have included potatoes in the Order in Council. If that had been done, the people of Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto would to-day be paying perhaps a dollar a barrel less for their potatoes. If I may appeal to the sympathy of the minister, I would ask him to-day to pass an Order in Council in the morning to put potatoes also on the free list. If to-morrow morning potatoes would go down in the markets of Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa a dollar a barrel, it would not disturb the farmers from the southern part of New Brunswick, from the county that first brought into evidence the talents of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who must not forget that he is a product of the province of New Brunswick and of York county.


George Perry Graham: Some potatoes !


Onésiphore Turgeon: If potatoes were on the free list the new potatoes from the Southern States could be placed on the markets of Toronto and Montreal to-morrow morning at a much lower rate than they are to-day, and the people of Toronto and Montreal would get their potatoes a great deal cheaper. This is a practical suggestion.
FMr. Turgreon-1
The Solicitor General does not seem affected by my request.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The elections are over in New Brunswick now.


Arthur Meighen: I was rather wondering how the request suited the hon. gentleman's friends who asked for an embargo on potatoes.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I believe my friends to-day would accept my suggestion very freely and be ready to vote for it. It would have the effect of admitting the new potatoes from the southern states in greater quantities, and the farmers of my province would be able to keep what they have for seed, of which they will be short within the next two or three weeks. It is true that the Minister of Agriculture tells us that in New Brunswick there are about 100,000 bushels of potatoes beyond what are required for seed. I believe that he has had that information, but I doubt very much its accuracy.


Martin Burrell: Of course, I cannot
vouch for the accuracy. I got the information from the provincial Minister of Agriculture, who is one of my friend's friends.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Yes, sometimes such information is calculated a week or two ahead, and a week or two has made a big difference every time during the last month in the stock of potatoes. I know that before I came to this House in my own county one dealer alone held 1,500 barrels of potatoes all the winter because there was no means of transport. The Caraquet railway was blocked for from three to six weeks, and the merchants were unable to move their freight. The moment the railroad was again in operation that quantity moved up to Toronto at once, with practically everything that was in the stores of that part of New Brunswick, and it may be that that 1,500 barrels was included in the account which represents 100,000 bushels. However, I would not be greatly incensed if to-morrow I heard of an Order in Council being passed under the War Measures Act to admit potatoes free. Our friends have said, also, that the reciprocity treaty was refused by them because it took away the 9 p.m. fiscal independence of Canada.
I should never submit my judgment to that proposition. I cannot understand it, and I really cannot understand men of the dignity of the Finance Minister of Canada to-day putting that argument before the people of the country. How could it interfere with the independence of Canada when Canada and another country

120&
come together and say: We will give you this product provided you give us the other product. It was a quid pro quo in every sense of the word. Canada gave what she chose to give and got what she desired to get in exchange. This pact was based on the idealistic aspirations of free nations for the interchange of the products of the earth. Certainly it was suggested by the most noble aspirations on the part of each of the contracting nations. The pact, or treaty, had to be ratified by the Parliament of Canada. But it would have been an obligation that could have been revoked by the Parliament of Canada at any session, and I cannot understand how it would have interfered with the independence of Canada. Hon. gentlemen opposite think, that they have done better now, because they have given the farmers free flour, which was not a provision of the proposed reciprocity . treaty. I would call the attention of the Solicitor General to this fact. If the reciprocity agreement had been passed, the farmers of the West and the consumers of the country would have the benefit not only of free wheat, Ibut of free oats, free 'barley, free flax; everything the farmer produced would be free of duty. The country at large would have got free lumber and free fish from the United States. In the Maritime Provinces the people interested in the lumber business and the fish business suffered intensely during the two or three years subsequent to 1911. In 1913 the lumber export trade to Great Britain was reduced to practically nothing, and only for the dictum of Providence through the medium of the Underwood tariff legislation in that year, the lumber manufacturers of New Brunswick would have been bankrupt before war was declared. This was the condition until a year or two ago, when the trade with Britain was revived by the necessities o'f war. To-day England is not aible to import our lumber, and she has resorted to her own supply, depleting the forests which have been preserved there for centuries. Only for the opening of the American market, I say, our lumbermen would have been bankrupt.
The consumer who formerly had to pay 50 cents a barrel duty upon his flour, under the new arrangement get6 his flour free. Under the reciprocity pact the consumer would have got his meat, his potatoes and his vegetables free. It is .a matter of necessity that the consumer should get his food free, particularly during those seasons when we do not produce the necessary food supplies in our own country. The advantages of that
proposed arrangement have not been properly appreciated; only to-day are some of the people realizing what we have lost by not accepting it. The West has lost a large portion of its farming population. Immigrants who bad come from the United States went back to their native land in hundreds and thousands. A large immigration would have been coming into Canada every year since 1911 but for the rejection of the reciprocity proposal. Its rejection caused a depression among the farmers of the West and a decrease in production has been apparent ever since. Had the reciprocity proposal been in operation when war was declared, we would have had an additional 100,000 farmers in the West to produce wheat and grain and food of all kinds. Through the rejection of reciprocity, the farmers of the prairie West suffered a loss of $25,000,000 on their crop of 1911, owing to congestion of traffic and lack of transportation, their grain remaining out and depreciating in value. , In 1912 the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself had to make arrangements with the United States authorities for certain transportation facilities in order that he might allow the wheat of the West to reach the ports of the United States.
We are told that the reciprocity arrangement would have been an interference with the fiscal independence of Canada. I do not appreciate the force of that argument. The reciprocity agreement would have been adopted by the people of Canada but for the exploitation of prejudices in Ontario and Quebec, arguments having been advanced in these two provinces designed to influence the unguarded electors in each.
We are asking the Government, through the amendment of the member for Assini-boia, to give to the Order in Council granting free wheat to the farmers the effect of permanency. The farmer of the West always looks to the future. He is interested in the war as much as any one in the cities of Montreal ot Toronto, his heart is set upon winning the war as quickly as possible. He is getting the benefit of the American market and of the markets of the world for his wheat, but he does not know what is going to become of that Order in Council when the war is over. We are told that it has the same effect as an Act of Parliament, but the farmer of the West will never believe that the same degree of permanency is afforded by an Order in Council under the War Measures Act as is secured by an Act of Parliament, which



could only be abrogated by another Act of Parliament. If the war is over before the farmer of the West can reap his crop next fall, he will not know how he stands in the matter of a market for his wheat. He knows that if he has access to the markets of the world, he will be able to compete in them, hut if he has to depend upon the markets of Canada he will be poor in the midst of plenty. It is said that it is better for the farmers to have the benefit of good prices temporarily, but what about the future? If the farmer of the West is assured that he will have free access to the markets of the United States and of the world, he will know that at all seasons he will be able to enjoy the benefits of those markets, and can govern himself accordingly.
Reference has been made to the fluctuations of prices in the markets of the world under conditions of war. I am not a farmer, but I follow with interest all things pertaining to the welfare of the West. I believe that the mind of the West is directed more towards the future than the mind of the East. The farmer of the West is looking to the future, and he has always under consideration the extensive markets of the world. In order to show why our western friends demand that this matter of free wheat be made permanent and not dependent upon the fluctuations that are occurring daily under war conditions, I will read a few lines from the same western paper from which the Solicitor General quoted certain figures the other day. This article was written in September, 1915, or nearly two years ago, when conditions were normal, as they are not to-day:-
Why free wheat is wanted.
During the summer, when the grain-growers of the West had no wheat to sell and quotations Were really nominal, wheat prices in Winnipeg were higher than in Minneapolis.
Yet we are told that on such and such a day wheat is higher in Winnipeg than in Minneapolis, and that, therefore, the United States market is not worth while considering :-
Upon that unstable foundation the Conservative Press throughout the country built up the argument that the removal of the wheat duty on both sides of the border would result in the "flooding" of the Canadian market with American wheat.
Now that the season for marketing grain has again come round the Minneapolis price is, as usual, higher than that in Winnipeg. The difference is indicated by the following comparison of prices on Tuesday last:

Winnipeg.	Minneapolis.
No. 1 N.	.	Slg	S5|	to	86i No. 1 H.No. 2 N.	.	80|	831	to	864 No. 1 N.No. 3 N.	.	78J	80J	to	S3i No. 2 N.Oats	33	to	341	34J	to	37J OatsBarley ..	..42	to	45	50	to	67 BarleyFlax No. 1	118	138 to 141 No. 1 Flax
Canadian wheat is graded more strictly than American, and Winnipeg's No. 2 Northern is as good a grade as the No. 1 of Minneapolis. The American price is, therefore, about five cents a bushel better than the Canadian, and the grain-growers are clamoring for the removal of our wheat duties, which will automatically wipe out the American countervailing duty of ten cents, and let our grain in duty free to the Minneapolis maker.
The ^difference in the price of oats is not so marked, hut it must be remembered that Canadian oats weigh 34 pounds to the bushel, the price being a little under a cent a pound, while United States oats weigh 32 pounds, and the price is a "little over a cent a pound. As the United States duty is six cents a bushel, with no provision for its removal if Canada takes off her duty on oats, there is no immediate prospect of doing business in oats. Under the agreement of 1911 oats would have been duty free on both sides of the border.
When one considers this statement of conditions in normal times one sees why our friends from the West are demanding that the matter of free wheat be made permanent, and I hope, when this debate is concluded and a vote taken, that the amendment of my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) will be carried with a large majority.
I wish to refer now to the shipping industry, in regard to which the people of Canada are to-day very much agitated. We have recently heard a great deal of the necessity of reviving the ship-building industry in Canada. I wish that industry had been revived six or seven years ago; I wish it had been revived when the people of Canada and this Parliament were unanimous as to the project of building a Canadian navy in Canadian ports by Canadian workmen for the protection of Canadian commerce. Some years ago we heard our friends on the other side arguing as eloquently as any hon. member on this side for the establishment of a Canadian navy. When my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce introduced his resolution in 1909, we all listened to him as he waxed eloquent over his subject, and as his speech progressed and he was demonstrating the feelings of Canadians, he carried me with him into lofty heights of patriotism. He spoke of the mineT carrying from the bowels of the earth, of the coal and the iron ore in the blast furnaces where Canadian engineers and Canadian workmen were transforming the iron ore

into steel for the construction of Canadian ships, and he demonstrated to this Parliament the advantage of our commerce travelling side by side with its protector- a Canadian navy-across the sea. During the last six years, however, and more particularly during the last three years, Canada has produced the commerce but Britain has produced the protector. That is the state of things owing to the change of mind on the part of my right hon.'friend and his supporters on the other side who refused to accept the Laurier Navy Bill, as it was called, and therefore refused to give Canada and the British Empire the advantage of those ten cruisers which were to be built. Although at that time they were looked upon as a tin pot navy, the experience derived during the war prove that they would have been the best possible gift to the British Empire and to the British navy. When war was declared, we would have had some of those cruisers ready to defend from German warships the Pacific coast, where the people took freight, removing their bonds and gold from the bank and hiding them in their cellars, and where the local Government rushed to buy two submarines in order to defend the coast. Had the Liberal policy been accepted by hon. gentlemen opposite, submarines would have been built in Canada by Canadians. It is with sorrow that I say that during these last three years of war the Government has taken no steps to remedy the position of Canada so far as shipbuilding is concerned, and that it has not up to this date made any effort to build a single warship for the assistance of Great Britain. We see Australia, who has a treaty with us whereby our cruisers were to assist theirs in defending our trade on the Pacific coast, doing her duty and carrying off the honours of the war, and at the same time, in the absence of our Canadian cruisers, having to call upon the cruisers of Japan to come to her rescue.
However, better late than never. Like many another step we have urged hon. gentlemen opposite to take, it has been taken at last, but very late in the day. At the very beginning of the war we suggested that the Government should take over the Transcontinental shops at Winnipeg, Quebec and Moncton for the manufacture of munitions of war at cost price, thus saving the British Government millions of dollars. But they refused to do it. The British Government sent out Lord Rhondda to investigate the shell business in Canada, and he
endeavoured to persuade the Canadian Government to nationalize these shops, but nothing came of it. The Minister of Railways and Canals at one time seemed to have been influenced by the suggestions of Lord Rhondda, but after consultation with his colleagues, I presume, he told Lord Rhondda that he had no data on which he could fix a price.
I believe the time has come when we should give more attention to the building of ships. It is true that by an agreement with the United States, who have now become our Allies, that country is to build ships for the protection of commerce and. to replace the tonnage sunk by the German submarines. The daily shipping losses are certainly large enough to attract the attention of this Government. I have always been in favour of shipbuilding in this country. I think that if from the beginning of the war the shipyards of Vancouver and Victoria and Halifax and St. John had resounded with the incessant reverberations of the smith's hammer, it would have had a most potent influence on recruiting. I would urge the Government to encourage the building not only of steel ships but of wooden ships. Wooden ships, of course, do not afford so much protection, but they will be of immense value to Canada after the war. When peace is restored other nations will be coming along to buy	our	steelships as fast as we	can	build
them, but the wooden ships will remain our own property to be used in our coastal and perhaps trans-Atlantic trade. I trust the Government will make every effort to satisfy the Canadian people that they are doing their utmost to win this war as speedily >as possible. Every Canadian today is determined to do his part, but if we .want to w.in the war we must not depend upon the patriotism of the people alone. Canadians command the admiration of the world to-day. In the first year of the war they enrolled in hundreds of thousands, just as fast as the militia authorities could accept them. Canadian women have also done splendidly, and have shown great patriotism. In this the third year of the war Canadian women from the Atlantic to the Pacific are making every possible sacrifice. After giving a son or husband to the cause they are working night .and day for the comfort of our soldiers, helping the Red Cross and Patriotic funds, watching and praying for victory and the return of loved

ones. Let me tell you, Sir, as a representative of the Maritime Provinces, that in this great harmonious concert of virtues the Evangeline of to-day in the Maritime Provinces has revealed herself a worthy sister in nobility, patriotism and devotion. Let us pray that that will continue.
I havie to express one regret. I do not know where the idea originated, although the ex-Mmister of Militia attributes it to the Prime Minister himself, 'but I know the opinion has been expressed in the Conservative and independent press, that the man who was working in a munition factory or on a farm was doing his duty just as much as the soldier in the trenches. I oonfess I admire the man who leaves home [DOT]Jo work in a munition factory, but he is *uot to be compared with the man who voluntarily leaves Ms fireside and offers the supreme sacrifice of hie life on the altar of Ills country; there is no comparison between them I want to see every man who cannot go to the front doing his duty on the farm or in the factory, but a man making munitions at $3 or $4 a day and sleeping in peace and quietness at night is not to be compared with his brother in the trenches who goes sleepless for nights and sometimes weeks. I think this idea has done much to hinder recruiting and accounts for the sudden falling off in enlistments. When I think of the 400,000 young men who have gone overseas, I am filled with admiration for the Canadian youth; they have done well, but I do not say that Canada has done enough. We must do our best every day until the war ends, every day and every night until the bugle calls for peace throughout the world. It makes me mad to see the number of young men going into our movie shows; hundreds of thousands are wasting their time in these places when they should be in the factories or at the front, and I think the Government should take some steps to empty these theatres of our young men, so that their brothers in the trenches could be relieved for a while.
I say that Canada has done well, but Canada must continue to do well until the end. As one who believes that Canada cannot do too much in this great cause, and who is willing to accept everyone who may have failed in his duty in days gone by, hut is willing to tender that duty to his country now, I feel it my painful duty to mention the Teport that appears in the daily papers to the effect that there was disturbance at a public meeting in Montreal addressed by Hon. Mr. Blondin, now

colonel of a French-Canadian battalion. With the many and varied elements in a great city like Montreal differences of sentiment and of opinion are not unlikely to be found. Yet I believe that the disturbance in the meeting to which I have referred was the work of a very small number of persons, as compared with the great audience that had assembled. I confess, however, that I fear the effects that the report of such disturbances will have upon the mind of the world at large and of Canada in particular. It will be said that the French-Canadians of Quebec have forgotten their duty. Speaking as a French-Canadian, I yield to no English-speaking person in my patriotism, and in my loyalty to British institutions. I realize that under Providence it is to these institutions and their successful working in Canada that the French Catholic subject owes the liberty of speech and of worship which he has enjoyed. It is to the effect of British liberty upon public sentiment that we owe the fact that the false doctrines of the French Revolution have not invaded our country. So, as I say, I fear that the reports of disturbance at the public meeting to which I have referred will be interpreted against my race. I am not here as a representative of Quebec, but I am of that province native born, and I am jealous of its reputation. As I have said, I am willing to accept the return of anyone who may have misinterpreted French-Canadian sentiment in the past and now has changed his opinion, but I cannot but feel that these disturbances at public meetings are the residue of the false doctrine propounded by certain hon. gentlemen on the other side of this House in 1910 and 1911, when they preached that Canada owed nothing to the Empire and should not participate in her wars, or give her assistance in time of danger. The effects of the sentiments then inculcated cannot at once disappear, but let us hope that these effects will not last much longer. I trust that this untoward incident will not be represented as indicating that French-Canadians do not share the loyalty of their fellow-citizens. I trust that when called upon they will do their duty by enlisting under the command of Colonel Blondin, or anyone else who is sent upon similar duties, and that the province of Quebec will no longer be afflicted with reports which convey so false an impression of the sentiments of the people of that province.
I have to apologize for having occupied so long in view of the fact that the House has been anticipating the more interesting

speaker who is to follow me. I thank hon. members for the attention with which they have heard me, and if my words should have the result of sending even one more recruit into our overseas forces, or one more man 'into the factories by which those forces are equipped and supplied, I shall feel that I have not wholly failed' in my purpose.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: If
we gave due consideration to the figures of our trade with the world during the last fiscal year, I am sure" we should all feel proud and pleased with the encouraging message presented to us by the Finance Minister. I feel that I might go further and say that in the facts and figures presented to us by the Finance Minister we have undoubted proof, at least to my mind, of the ability of this Government to successfully face difficulties and responsibilities, the like of which have never been placed upon the shoulders of any Canadian government since or before Confederation. The facts and figures presented in that Budget speech are also a tribute to the resourcefulness and energy of the Canadian people.
I have followed the speech of the hon. member (Mr. Turgeon) with interest and attention. With many of his sentiments I am in hearty accord. I do not agree with him in everything; particularly do I differ from Slim in regard to trade matters. I wish to say also that I sympathize most heartily with him in his feelings in regard to the prosecution of this war. I appreciate the position he is in, for I understand that he has the honour of having a son at the present time fighting for liberty and humanity, and as I am in the same position he and I can shake hands in a deep and common sentiment. I am sorry to see his , countenance beclouded by what he regards as the tariff woes of Canada at this time, but I congratulate him, a man of'his years, upon the vigorous manifestation he has given of the elemental forces of his nature. He has come out strong in denunciation of protection. I believe I state history correctly when I say that the hon. gentleman was a candidate for election to this House in 1896, and in that election was defeated. It is only natural to suppose that inasmuch as the Liberal party which he supports, had been denouncing protection for eighteen years, that in that election he also denounced protection. The result was disastrous to him; he was defeated. But he has been successful in the succeeding elections from 1900 down to the present time.	\
During all the time that he has had a seat in this House he has been an enthusiastic and loyal supporter of the leader of the Opposition who, during all his career as leader of the Liberal Government, advocated and backed up the principle of protection. That is the policy which he followed during the time he was in power. The hon. gentleman has said that he would like to see potatoes placed upon the free list. 1 do not know how he is going to square himself with the hon. gentleman who sits behind him, the member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), who, in speaking in the House the other day, was very pronounced in that regard and was going to place an embargo on potatoes in order to keep them from going out of the country. So we find to-day, as we have found in all the years that have passed, the Liberal party has as many different policies as there are constituencies represented in this House by Liberal members. It is not to be wondered at when we look back over the career of the Liberal party and recall the fact that the right hon. gentleman who is to-day the leader of the Libera] party had as many different policies as he fought elections in Canada. He never had the same policy for any two elections in which he fought. He advocated free trade as they have it in England, unrestricted reciprocity and so on.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have had more practice than we have had on this side of the House in jumping from one policy to another and I congratulate them on their frequent exhibitions of acrobatic agility during the last fifteen or twenty years. The hon. member for North Cape Breton is something of a joker, something of a wit, and the hon. member for North Cape Breton has got off some very spicy wit at times in this House. He is always sure that he will have at least one person in the House who will thoroughly appreciate bis humour and that is the hon. member for North Cape Breton. The hon. member for North Cape Breton and the hon. gentleman who has just taken his .seat have expressed some very decided opinions in regard to the record of the Liberal party and I am going to answer these hon. gentlemen by quoting the opinion of a gentleman who sat in this House as a Liberal member from the West, a man of very strong personality and a man who still occupies a very prominent position in the public life of this country and is now the manager and editor of a paper called the Winnipeg Tribune. I refer to
12] 0

Mr. R. L. Richardson. I think I am correct in saying that he sat in this House at one time as a Liberal member. This gentleman makes certain comments in his paper on a statement made by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) regarding the promise supposed to have been made by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) to Mackenzie and Mann with respect to the handing over of the Intercolonial to the Canadian Northern. The Globe says that the Liberal party would not follow any leader, who would do any such thing.
I wish to read a few comments made by the Winnipeg Tribune upon that statement of the Globe in regard to the Liberal party:
If the Globe by the expression "Liberal party" refers to the parliamentary "rump" led by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Hon. George P. Graham, "Big Mac" and the others, the Tribune will point out, in the first place, that any body of men which follows such leadership could not by any possibility be a Liberal party. Their assumption of the name would not make them such. That is so easy of demonstration that the Globe has only to refer to the administrative record of the Laurier party to convince itself.
Then again, if the following of Sir Wilfrid Laurier is the Globe's "Liberal party" what warrant has the Globe for saying or thinking that, if the leaders had made up their minds to alienate the Intercolonial, or, for that matter, any other public property, "the party would have refused to follow?" Is there anything in the record of the group which would justify such a declaration? Surely the Globe has not forgotten the Crow's Nest Pass Railway enormity? It has special reasons for remembering it. In that scandalous deal alone, there was alienated by the Laurier Government, entirely without any real consideration, public franchises, public cash and public resources of a value as great probably as that of the Intercolonial railway. Did the party as represented by the parliamentary rump, refuse to follow? Not that we wot of.
Then came the astonishing series of Mackenzie and Mann deals in which the Laurier Government not only alienated the franchises, cash, and credit of the Dominion, but aided and abbetted the Government of Manitoba in its even more nefarious alienations. These transactions were debated in Parliament, and thoroughly analysed and exposed in The Tribune and other journals. Did "the party" as represented by the parliamentary rump, refuse to follow? Not observably.
When that crowning hybrid monstrosity, the National Transcontinental Grand Trunk Pacific nightmare, in which hundreds of millions of public money have been literally wasted, was suddenly put before the public, it also was thoroughly dissected in the press and its criminal insanity demonstrated. Did that demonstration induce "the party" as represented by the parliamentary rump, to refuse to follow? Unhappily, no.
But why go on? In view of this record and much more that could be cited, does it not look like infantile folly for the Globe to talk about

the "Liberal party" and of its assumed refusal to follow.
The Globe would be much better and more patriotically employed, if it would tell its readers the truth, that there is at present no organized Liberal party in Canada (although it needs one badly), instead of trying by false inference to cover up the huge ineompetencies and scallawaggeries of the rump which arrogates the name. That is merely performing the function of the whited sepulchre.
I might remind the House again that that article, with all the adjectives it contains/ was not written by me but by Mr. R. L. Richardson, a former Liberal member of this House. I commend it to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat and to those who sit near him, who have tried to work up their courage to the point of finding something pleasing in the past record of the Liberal party, and I would ask them to compare carefully the statement made in that regard by a former Liberal member of this House with their own statements as recorded in Hansard, give the matter some further study and see which party is right. The date of the paper is May I, 1917.
The hon. member for Gloucester invited comparison in regard to Canada's debt, revenue, expenditure, trade, etc., between the record made by the party which he supports when it was in power and that made by the party which is now holding the reins of Government. I wish to take up that challenge briefly and first let me refer to that which we have always had in Canada, namely, the national debt. The national debt of Canada was increased by the Liberals during the fifteen years that they were in power by $87,000,000. The national debt was' increased during the last three years that the Liberals were in power by $62,250,000. There is some little explanation for that if you look back and note events in Ontario. In 1905 the Liberal Government in Ontario went out and the Whitney Government came into power. You might wonder how that would affect the Federal situation. It was in this way that the grafters and hangers on who had loaded themselves on the Liberal party of Ontario for the last ten or fifteen years they were in power, finding themselves out of a job in the provincial arena, -proceeded to besiege the fortress in Ottawa, and the party in power, the Liberals, could not refuse them. The result was that, following the election of 1908, when the Liberal party, the Laurier Government were returned to power in this country, they

lan
thought that they were invincible, and they became absolutely recklesss in their extravagance and expenditures. With the fiscal year ending 1909 this party, which had denounced the Tory Government for extravagance, added $46,000,000 to the public debt of Canada in one year. In the next fiscal year, ending March 31, 1910, they added $12,500,000 to the public debt, and in the next year, 1911, they added $3,750,000, or a total addition to the national debt of Canada in the last three years of Liberal rule of $62,250,000. Then Providence very kindly intervened to save this country from those who were despoiling it, and up to March 31, 1914, the Borden Government had not only met its obligations, paid its expenses as it went along, but had shouldered some $120,000,000 of obligations incurred by the Grits while they were in power, and had reduced the debt from $340,000,000, what it was when they assumed the reins of office, down to $336,000,000. That was before the war broke out. Then the war came on and we have this to say, and I challenge contradiction of the correctness of my statement, that from the time the Borden Government assumed the reins of office, so far as the national debt of Canada is concerned, it has decreased that national debt by several millions of dollars, and that to-day we on this side of the House are in a position to say that not one dollar of debt has been added to the national debt of Canada since this Government came into power except through the war. During the last fiscal year not only did the Government meet all its obligations, current and capital expenditures, and meet a large pension call upon its funds, hut it also paid the interest on the national debt, and do not forget that in paying interest on the national debt they were paying interest on some $87,000,000 added to that debt by
10 p.m. the Liberal party. In addition to paying all this during the last fiscal year, this Government paid some $60,000,000 on war account.
A word or tw.o in regard to the aggregate trade of Canada. In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1911, the aggregate trade of the Dominion of Canada amounted to $752,000,000, exclusive of coin and bullion. That was the amount of our aggregate trade for the last year the Liberal party was in power. The first year after the Conservatives came into power, that is the fiscal year ending March 31, 1912 the aggregate
trade of Canada had increased from $752,000,000 to $841,000,000. The next year, 1913, it had still further increased to $1,063,000,000. The next year, 1914 it had still further increased 'to $1,090,000,000. Now that was before the war, when we might fairly well assume that conditions were about as normal as when the Liberals were in power. The next year, 1915, the aggregate trade was $958,000,000; in 1916 it was $1,309,000,000; and for the last fiscal year, 1917, it reached the enormous total of $2,043,000,000. These figures are exclusive of coin and bullion so that as regards comparisons 'along the line of our trade, I think we on this side of the House have nothing to apologize for and have very much to be proud of in the record made by the Borden Government.
But hon. gentlemen say that these figures representing the trade of Canada are entirely due to the war and to the enhanced prices caused by the war. I submit that that argument, whatever cogency it may have in regard to the trade of Canada for the years 1915, 1916 and 1917, cannot have any application to the figures I have given previous to that date, from the years 1911 to 1914. But, Sir, let us consider that statement for a mpment. I freely admit that the figures representing the aggregate trade of Canada are enhanced or enlarged because of war conditions and of increased prices due to the war. But, at the same time, let me point out that the total trade of the United States for 1916 was $6,500,000,000. The United States has all the advantages, so far as we can call them advantages, from the trade due to the war that we have had. Any enhancement of prices that there was in Canada would apply in the same degree to prices in the United States. Their trade was $6,500,000,000, while ours was over $2,000,000,000. But their trade, according to population, should have been, not $6,500,000,000,000, but from $12,000,000,000 to $15,000,000,000. And let me say to those who may take objection to that argument, that the aggregate trade of England since the war has pretty closely approximated its increase to the proportion which England's population bears to ours, so I think there is~something in that argument.
Eet roe refer to some of our exports, and I want to give figures for three years, the fiscal years ending on the 31st of March, 19H, 1914 and 1916. The exports from Canada of Canadian products in those years wereas follows:

Exports From Canada of Canadian Produce.
1911	1914	1916Mine	$42,787,000	$59,039,000	$66,589,000Fisheries . .	15,675,000	20,623,000	22,377,000Forest . . . .	45,439,000	42,792,000	51,271,000
Animals and
produce . .	52,244,000	53,349,000	102,882,( 00
Agricultural
produce ..	82,601,000	198,200,000	249,661,000Manufactures 35,283,000 57,443,000 242,034,000 Miscellaneous 285,000	122,000	6,792,000

day he denounces the Government because they do not negotiate with the United States for the free, admission of potatoes into the markets of that country-this is when they have an extra crop and potatoes are low in price-and recently in this House he announced that he would force the farmers. of New Brunswick and other parts of Canada to sell their potatoes at $1.75 a bag. And why? Because he had sold his potatoes at that figure, and had not any more potatoes to sell. He is so envious that he would not allow his neighbours to make twenty-five cents a bag more on potatoes than he had made himself. Well, for once the hon. gentleman was consistent with his former action. Some years ago, when he was purchasing hay, looking out for a profit for himself, $8 a ton was the maximum price he would give the farmers of Carleton for their hay. He took care to have a penalty in his agreement with those who bought on his behalf in case they should pay the farmers more than $8. The farmers of Carleton did not want to sell their hay at that price, and he determined to bring them to time. He sent to the province of Quebec to get a few carloads of hay, and then he told the people of Carleton that he could get hay elsewhere. He had them tight, and so they had to accept his offer. Yet now he sheds crocodile tears of sympathy with the farmers of this country, while at the same time he would force the farmers to sell their wheat at a certain price and their potatoes at a certain price. I venture to say that if this Government undertook to carry out suggestions made by the hon. member and certain other gentlemen on the other side, he would be one of the first to raise such a howl as could be heard from the Atlantic to the Pacific in protest against the Government's action.
A great deal has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite about the cost of food. I think that, to a great degree, the increase in the cost of food is due to natural causes, to the relation of supply and demand. The people in Canada to-day are paying the penalty of their action in past years. As was pointed out the other day by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), for years in this country, while the Liberal party was in power, there was an exodus from the farm to the city. People were leaving the farms because the farmers were not making one half of one per cent on the money they had invested. There was no
fMr. Edwards.]
encouragement for the boys to stay on the farm, and so they flocked to the towns and cities. As a result we have not more than one man to every hundred acres on the farms in the province of Ontario. Last year in that province we had 365,000 acres less under cultivation than the year before. I have had placed in my hands by the hon. member for Brockville (Mr. Webster) a short newspaper article which gives facts on this point that are very startling. The article is as follows:
Why food will be scarce.
Figures furnished by the United States Department of Agriculture, which is now as interested in promoting food production in the United States as is our own government here in Canada, place the number of men removed from productive pursuits by the war at 56,000,000. Of these, 6,000,000 men have already been killed; 4,500,000 are in prison camps; 15,000,000 have been wounded, of which number 1,500,000 have been permanently incapacitated. There are now 5,000,000 men in the hospitals. Those under arms at the front total approximately 35,000,000 men.
Think of it! 56,000,000 of the able-bodied men of the world withdrawn from the ranks of producers. Half the population of the United States, counting every man, woman and child; almost eight times the population of Canada. When we consider the small crops of the last year, the small surplus of food that there is now in the world, and the great reduction in the number of producers, it is easy to understand the worldwide dread of famine. Conditions call for the greatest production of foodstuffs that is humanly possible.
Let 'me give some figures to show the position in relation to the potato crop. There was an excess of production in 1916 over 1915 in certain provinces, as follows:
Bushels.
Maritime Provinces	 6,729,000
Manitoba	 1,600,000
Saskatchewan	 850,000
Total	 9,179,000
There were shortages in the potato crop in 1916 over that of 1915 as follows:
Bushels.
Ontario	  6,250,000
Quebec . .		 2,800,000
Alberta	  500,000
British Columbia	 1,100,000
Total	 10,650,000
On the whole, the shortage in Canada's potato crop was over 1,470,000 bushels, as compared with the previous year. In the face of that shortage, where can we get our supply of potatoes? In the United States? In the nineteen northern states of the Union, which produces on the average sixty-one per cent of the total potato crop of the country, they were forty-four per cent

short in 1916 of the production of 1915, and fifty-five per cent short of the average production of the previous five years. That is, in 1916 the potato crop in the United States was over 75,000,000 bu/shels short of the previous year. In Great Britain and Ireland there was a shortage of 77,224,000. On the whole in Canada, the United States and Great Britain and Ireland, there was a shortage in 1916 as compared with 1915 of over 153,000,000 bushels. Knowing that there is a shortage of potatoes, it is only natural for the people to turn to other things. But Canada's other crops were short to the following extent:
Bushels.
Wheat	 200,000,000
Oats	   172,000,000
Barley	 19,380,000
In the United States, there were shortages in the crops as follows:
Corn.. . . Wheat . . . Oats .. .. Barley .. Rye . . .. Buckwheat
Bushels.
411.000.	0TTO
386.000.	000
249.000.	000
147.000.	000
6,000,000
3,000,000
Total
1,202,000,000
When I make the statement that the increase in the cost of food stuffs is very largely attributable to natural causes, I think I am absolutely borne out by the figures I have given, In England and Wales the wheat crop was 12,000,000 bushels short of that of the previous year. Argentina, which has been referred to by the hon. gentleman who preceded me, and by others in this House, has found it necessary, because of the failure of its crop, to place an embargo upon the export of grains which embargo took effect in March of this year. The figures of the food grains of the world, I am informed, up to March 31 of this year, showed that they were 150,000,000 bushels short of the world's requirements up to the month of August. That is the situation that we are in and it does not seem at all remarkable that there should be such a marked increase in the price of grain.
With regard to the price of flour, if hon. gentlemen will take the statement made by the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll), if they will take the statement made by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) and if they will look these statements over very carefully, or even casually for that matter, and compare the trices of wheat with the prices of flour at
the various dates which these hon. gentlemen mentioned in trying to make out their argument and to show the House and the country that the millers were taking the people by the throat, they will see that the prices of flour in the instances in which they gave for last year and for this year conforjn to the advanced prices of wheat. If you assume that it takes five bushels of wheat to make a barrel of flour, the price of flour conforms very closely to the price of wheat. It is folly to talk of forcing the millers to sell flour at a certain price without touching the price of grain. In order to reduce the price of flour you have to go back to the man who raises the wheat and force him to sell his wheat at a certain price. There is not an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who will dare get up and advocate any such thing and fix the price. These hon. gentlemen will travel all around the price, but yet they say that the Government should commandeer the wheat. They take mighty good care to steer clear of fixing the price. They are afraid to fix it too high because that would put up the price of flour and they would get hit on the heat with a brick when they went down East and they are afraid to fix the price too low because it would interfere with the chances of the man who wanted to get elected in the West. They axe playing a double game in this as they have played a double game all along and as they played it in 1911 when they told the consumers that if they got reciprocity they would get everything for nothing and the producers that if they got reciprocity they would get higher prices for everything they had to sell.
1 am in hearty accord with the statement made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), and I think some other hon. gentlemen, with regard to the taxation of war profits. We are approaching the time, or we have come to the time, when wealth has got to contribute more largely than it has in the past towards the expenses of this country. I think that taxation of war profits is a step in that direction, and I hope that in the years to come those who have accumulated large quantities of wealth will by legislation be made to contribute more largely than they have in the past towards the running expenses of our country.
The hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) touched upon the Highway Improvement Bill which' my hon. friend the Minister of Railways proposes to present to

this House. He said the Government could not go to the money markets of the world and obtain money for any such purpose as that outlined by the Bill. I differ entirely from the hon. junior member for Halifax. I want to give it as my opinion that this Government, or any Government, could go to the money markets without going to the world outside of Canada, that they could make their appeal to the people of Canada for a loan for such a purpose and get it subscribed ten times over if they should see fit to ask for it. I am surprised that there should be any opposition to this idea. There certainly ought not to be any opposition from any hon. gentleman coming from the western part of the country who is interested in freight rates in so far as carrying his grain is concerned. You have, in carrying your grain, to consider the rate on the railways, you have to consider the rate across the ocean, but you should also consider what it costs to carry your grain from the farmer's granary to the elevator or to the railway track. I venture to say that in many cases it costs more to haul the grain of the western farmer who lives some distance away from the railway, 12, 15 or 20 miles, to the railway track than it costs to transport that grain from the railway track clear across the ocean to Liverpool. If any hon. gentleman thinks that is an extravagant statement, let him consider it for a moment, let him work it out and he will find that I am pretty nearly right. It is of the highest importance to the farmers that there should be highway improvement, and that some of the money of this country should be used for this purpose. I regret exceedingly that the Bill which was passed through this House twice should have been twice thrown out by a partisan Senate under instructions from the leader of the Opposition, because if it had been carried out it would have resulted in these sums of money being paid for highway improvement to the various provinces from 1912 to 1915.
Alberta	$ 287,(*55
Saskatchewan	 377,259
British Columbia	 300,6S4
Manitoba	 349,048
New Brunswick	 269,591
Nova Scotia	 377,186
Prince Edward Island	 71,811
Ontario	 1,933,069
*^Quebec	 1,534,311
Total	$5,500,000
This sum, between 1912 and 1915, would have been spent in the various provinces of Canada in improving the facilities of the farmers to carry their produce to the closest 
railway market. The $40,000,000 which was squandered by the Liberal Government in connection with the Transcontinental railway would have constructed thousands of miles of roads in the various provinces just as good as the state roads on the other side of the line and to the great advantage of the people.
There is another matter in regard to which I wish to say a word, and that is in connection with military service. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) made the statement in this House in 1914:
Well, Sir, the militia is a different organization from what it was when I belonged to it if it helps anybody's morals, manners or religion.
I have told you What the hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell) did with his farmers down there in regard to hay, and what he would do with them in regard to potatoes. I call your attention to his own remark which refers to his morals. With regard to manners, well we have had a lot of discussion during the last eight years in which I have been a member of this House with regard to the Militia Department. That department has come in for some hard hits, but the toughest and hardest thing ever attributed to the Militia Department of Canada is this statement of the hon. member for Carleton. If his manners are the result of his connection with the Militia Department of Canada, I say that is the saddest and hardest thing ever said of the Militia Department of Canada. The hon. member talks about their expenditures for drill balls and armouries and the mistakes they have made, but this is the greatest burden the Militia Department has had to carry, if they are responsible for the manners of the hon. member for Carleton, N.B.
There is another member from the East to whom I wish to refer, who represents Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair). In the Montreal Gazette of yesterday, I noticed a report of an address by the hon. member to a Liberal Club in the province of Quebec, in Montreal I think. He had a perfect right to go to Montreal or to any place else and address a Liberal Club. If they can stand it, I have no objection to make. And I suppose he had a perfect right, if he so desired, to discuss politics. That is naturally what he would discuss at a Liberal Club. But, in the course of his remarks on that occasion, as reported in the Gazette, the 'hon. member for Guysborough took occasion to throw a sneer at the Orange Order of the province of Ontario, and it is to that I wish to allude. Mr. Speaker, I want to call your

attention to this, that within twenty-four hours of the declaration of war, the heads of the Orange Order in Canada sent out a circular to their members calling upon them to enlist and fight in this war. I want to call your attention to the fact that there are at present in the trenches over in France upwards of 50,000 Orangemen from the Dominion of Canada. I want to call your attention to the fact that some 2,000 Orangemen from Canada are buried in France; they gave their lives for this cause. And when the hon. member for Guysborough refers to the 11 p.m. Orange lodges in sneering way let me remind him that these Orange lodges have been recruiting centres since this war started, and that they have also been collecting centres, that the Orangemen of Canada have put their hands in their pockets and given liberally to the Belgian relief fund, to relieve the condition of the Roman Catholics of Belgium, and have given their lives fighting alongside of French and British soldiers in defence of Belgium, and to maintain her rights. I say it ill becomes the hon. member for Guysborough at this time to throw out any sneers in regard to the Orange Order. The Orange Order is represented at the front by men who are risking and laying down their lives in defence of this great country, while men of. the stamp of the hon." member for Guysborough descend to vilifying the Orange Order. I for one resent that, and I think I have a perfect right to resent it. I say it is unworthy of any member of this H.ouse, and that only a member who has a mighty small mind and takes a mighty narrow view of things would get up in any assembly in this country and at this time cast aspersions upon an order whose members to-day by the thousands are risking their lives at the front, while he, the member for Guysborough, is here in perfect safety in Canada.
Hon. gentlemen have been much concerned in regard to food production and in regard to conserving the food of this country. The hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Lanctot) would go further. The hon. member, speaking in this House, said he would not send any more Canadians overseas; in fact, he says we have sent entirely too many men from Canada overseas. He would go further than that; he would place an embargo upon the food products of this country, and not allow them to go overseas. The hon. member for Laprairie is in this position: He refuses to allow, or, if he had the power, would Tefuse to
allow, our men to go across and take part	in this. war, and he
would punish those who have gone over by denying them even the means of keeping soul and body together. He would actually starve those who have gone to the front. That is the position he assumed in this House during the present session. Well, the hon. member is welcome to take that position if he likes. I do not think he is doing his province any good when he takes that position. There are those in this House, sitting on the other side, who frequently throw bouquets to their leader. That is all right, I do not blame them for doing that. Occasionally we find men on this side of the House who express their admiration for the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier)_ If it is a matter of admiring the right hon. gentleman for his personal charm, for his eloquence, for his strict attention to his duties in this House, I can certainly express my admiration for him also. But I have to stop there. When it comes to expressing my regard for him as a statesman,
I say I have to stop. I cannot express admiration for a leader who denounced an annual expenditure of $38,000,000 by the Conservative Government and promised better things if put in power, yet who succeeded in the fifteen years he was in power in raising that expenditure from $38,000,000 to $122,500,000. I have no particular admiration for a party leader who pledged his word to reform the Senate, but who used that body for party purposes to block useful legislation emanating from this Government. Nor have I any particular regard or admiration for a leader who denounced protection as a thing accursed of ' God and man, and promised free trade, and yet for all the time he remained in power maintained that so called curse in practically the same position as it was when he assumed the reins of office. I cannot admire a leader who pledged his word to conserve the public domain of this country and who allowed his party followers to rob and steal from the public domain grazing lands, timber limits, and so on. I cannot express any great admiration for a leader who said: No coercion, so far as Manitoba was concerned, and who fastened the shackles on Alberta and Saskatchewan. Nor do I approve the course of a leader who said "hands off" one province; and would take another province by the throat, as he gave evidences of doing last session.
I have no great admiration for a leader

who posed as a man desiring interprovincial amity and concord, and has encouraged his compatriots to the verge of revolution. Nor do I admire a leader who said that he would not seek to open the doors of office writh a bloody key, and has smiled approval on tactics which have encouraged the enemy, retarded enlistment, and were intended solely to serve party ends. That, I think, is a fair indictment of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition.
A good deal has 'been said as to whether or not we should have an election; as to whether or not there should 'be an extension of the life of Parliament. Well, Sir, if there is to be no extension of Parliament, the reason for not granting an extension must be found in such events as have taken place since the last extension of Parliament was granted. The first persons we should consider in this matter are the soldiers. The British Columbia elections demonstrated the impossibility of asking the soldier to vote over in the trenches. It would be a disgrace to the Dominion of Canada if an election were held at a time when it would be impossible to poll the soldiers' vote, because if there is one person more than another who has the right to express an opinion at the next election, it is the man who has gone overseas and is to-day risking his life in this war. But to any one who follows the press, other reasons are obvious why it would be inadvisable to hold an election at the present time. Speaking from a party standpoint, I would certainly say, bring on your election. But there is something bigger than party. Perhaps hon. gentlemen have read in the papers about what took place in the city of Montreal the other night at a meeting which one of the members of this Government tried to address. Any person who brings an election on in Canada at	this
time is assuming a grave responsibility, for I firmly believe that the adoption of such a course would result in bitterness which would not die out during the lifetime of any man who sits within the four walls of this building. Let those who wish to assume that responsibility assume it. One cannot help being saddened, as the hon. member for Gloucester said this evening, by the spectacle presented in Montreal the other night. A minister of the Crown seeks to impress upon the audience the importance of their duty in regard to the war, and he is hooted and jeered at and howled down by young men in that audience who evidently do not wish to listen to any ap-
peals along the lines of recruiting or enlistment. The reason for this, Mr. Speaker, is clear. The man who is responsible for the condition of affairs that exists in the province of Quebec is the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition. Follow the right hon. gentleman's career back as far as you wish and you will find expression after expression, statement after statement, made use of in times past by the right hon. gentleman which had a tendency to weaken regard for British institutions in certain parts of Canada. The right hon. gentleman sowed the wind, and we are reaping the whirlwind. His teachings, more than any other cause, are responsible for conditions prevailing to-day in the province of Quebec -and sad conditions they are.
Almost fifty years have passed since Confederation. There were big men in those " days, though they had their differences, just as men have their differences to-day. I suppose there were some little men in those days also, but a sufficient number of men were big enough to lay aside political differences and political ambitions in order to effect a great purpose. There is a great purpose before the people of Canada tojday, which demands that public men should lay aside their differences and their aspirations, and that purpose is the winning of the war. If the men who figured in the public life of Canada in days gone by could come upon the scene to-day what would they say? They would be filled with pride to see Canada taking its place side by side with Britain and France in this great struggle for liberty. I venture to say that men of ' the stamp of Howe, Tupper -and Tilley would not approve the attitude of the Carvells and the Kytes. I venture to say that men of the stamp of Blake and Macdonald and Mackenzie would not endorse the attitude of men like the Turriffs. And, Mr. Speaker, men like Cartier would not endorse the attitude which the right hon. leader of the Opposition has taken since the war began. These men, I say, were big enough to bury their political differences and to lay aside their aspirations in order to effect a great purpose, the Confederation of the Canadian provinces. But to-day we have men who for party and partisan reasons are risking the future of the community by encouraging a condition which has brought a part of our population almost to the verge of revolution. This is not as it should be, and I greatly deplore it. It does not matter very much whether a Tory Government remains in power or whether a Tory Gov-

ernment gives place to a decent Liberal Government-and I am not going to say that you could not find, if you searched diligently throughout the country, enough decent Liberals to form a Government. But, Sir, what does matter is this: it is very material to the future of this Dominion that the next Government which holds the reins of office should be in sympathy with Britain and with the British Empire, and should not be composed of the antiBritish and the foreign element in Canada.


Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Laprairie-Napier-ville) (translation):: Mr. Speaker, (the
deputy speaker, Mr. Riainville, in the chair) I followed with close attention the address just made by the honourable member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) and it is my intention in due course to reply to what he said about me in his closing remarks.
The Opposition had some cause for surprise in this year's budget. The Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) gave us free wheat. My only regret is that he did not go the whole way. I welcome his repentance; it is something in the right direction. Last week the Minister of Finance stated that with wheat on the free list the western farmer might secure a higher price for his wheat and the consumer purchase it at a lower cost. My honourable friend from Frontenac does not seem to .share that opinion, as for me, I do think, with the Minister of Finance that free wheat will be a boon to the farmers.
My object is to discuss shortly the situation of the farmers in the East. If, on his return from Washington, the Minister of Finance announced that hay would be allowed into the United States free of duty, 1 should congratulate him in the name of the Eastern farmers. This year free hay would be of more consequence than free wheat, because wheat is selling very well while the .price of hay is very low, there being no market for it. The Department of Agriculture at the beginning of the war had bought large quantities of hay in Quebec, but this year very few orders were placed, so that with the British market closed, we have only the American buyer to look to. If the duty of $2 per ton were taken off, it would help that much the export of hay to the neighbouring states.
I am sorry that the Minster of Trade iand Commerce (Sir George Foster) is not in his seat at present, but I hope that some of his colleagues present will advise him to take steps to obtain free hay for Quebec and a good part of Ontario.
I am always taken aback when I hear reciprocity discussed in this House. It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance admitted that free wheat would result in more money for the fanners. On the other hand, he was taking to task the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfred Laurier) because in 1911 the Liberals had a different policy for different localities, because, said he, you told the farmers that with reciprocity the produce of the farm would fetch a higher price and in the city constituencies the candidates told the electors that goods would fall in price. The conclusion is quite logical, both the city and the farm would be benefited. The Minister of Finance 'states that free wheat means money for the farmers; he must then admit that free hay would mean the same to the Eastern farmer. If now butter, cheese, vegetables, all the fruits that we do not grow in winter, eggs, etc., were on the free list, the people in the cities would be the gainers. Is it not true that right now and through the winter, Canada has imported from the United States fruits and vegetables in very large amounts and millions of boxes of eggs, on which we have to pay a duty of three cents per dozen. So with butter and cheese. If there were no duties on such products, some kind of competition would be introduced, not against the farmers, but against the speculators, against those who store up those goods to. raise prices. Consequently, reciprocity with the United States in the exchange of the fruits of the soil would be of equal benefit to the country and the towns.
To me the reply of the Minister of Finance to my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) on this question of free wheat was no small cause of surprise. The hon. minister apparently has a deep regard for the farmer's interests; nothing better; but I think the Government might have found a different answer for my hon. friend from Richmond. According to the minister's own statement, the situation is without remedy; the Government is powerless. The responsibility, said he, rests with the Imperial Purchase Commission. I claim, Mr. Speaker, that the Government could secure what they want if they had at heart the people's interest. But it must be taken into account that the common people who are in greater need of bread than the well-to-do, are not always in touch with the Government. It is not from the people that the Government springs, but the real rulers are the big wigs, not only the ministers, but the magnates that, surround them. Gould not an in-



vestigation find out in a very few days the quantities of wheat piled up in elevators, how long they have been stored -and the prices at which it has been bought? Then, allowing for the cost of storage, the interest on the investment and a fair profit on the cost price, the Government would have been in a position to say: we commandeer so many bushels of wheat for the people of this country.
What difference does it make whether it is the Imperial Government, the speculators or the millers who corner the wheat? The Government's first care should be the interest of the people who appoint them and I submit that it is not fair to let the people of this country suffer for the sake of the Imperial Purchase Commission. If I am rightly informed, very few goods are shipped overseas, because we have no ships and there lie one hundred million bushels of wheat stored up or in the hands of the growers. Why not in that case take from those speculators twenty or twenty-five million bushels at a little over cost price and have it milled in order to distribute the flour among the people at a reasonable price? The thing is as simple as a, b, c. The matter, Mr. Speaker, is where it always is: the big fellows must not be interfered with. Here is an instance: during the month of December, 1915, the Government put an embargo on Canadian wheat, prohibiting its export to the United States. They had a right to do so and I raised no objection because the big speculators cannot corner hay as they do wheat. Hay is not listed on the Exchange, as it is too bulky and cannot be stored up like wheat, and it takes too long to make millions out of it.
On the 23rd of February, 1916, in the course of my remarks on the Budget, I warned the Government that they might be right in placing an embargo on hay provided they took over the supply of No. 1 hay from the farmers of the province of Quebec and elsewhere, otherwise the embargo was ill-advised. You know the facts, Mr. Speaker, and at the time you yourself inquired as to the quantity of hay purchasable. I told you then that there were 55,000 tons of hay ready for shipping in the Maritime Provinces and all the way to lake Superior, and the Government required 100,000 tons. I further stated that in my constituency and elsewhere there would be some hay left over from last year when the new crop was ready for the market. Have *'my calculations turned out true or wrong?

Many members could find out from their electors that my statement is correct. The embargo was maintained until June, 1916. The Government, apparently aware of their mistake, raised the embargo but for a few weeks only.
What was the effect of the embargo on the hay dealers? They lost large amounts; the time being limited, they exported too heavily to the United -States. Hay is not like ordinary merchandise; the farmers must empty their barns to make room for the new crop. So with the dealers; their sales and consignments to the United States were too heavy -and, as a result, they lost $50 to $75 on every carload. Many kept their hay, and it brings $10 a ton to-day. And all that time, Mr. Speaker, our Government was buying hay from the United States. They paid no heed to the suggestion I had made on the 23rd of February, 1916, but went to Ohio, Michigan and New-York -State for hay for which they paid $20 a ton, although it was nothing but culled hay, that would have fetched barely $12 in New York and Boston or, I dare say, on any other American market. Hay sells well in the United States provided it is of good quality. The hay dealers of Ohio an-d Michigan arranged to sell to Canadian dealers-who resold to the Government at a profit of $5 a ton. I state without hesitation that profits were made amounting from $100,000 to $125,000 to .the detriment of the Canadian farmer who was debarred by the embargo from shipping to the United States.
, Now, Mr. Speaker, all this talk by Government supporter-s, about the country's prosperity being greater than ever before comes to me as a surprise. Let us investigate the facts. For instance, the Minister of Finance heralded that $134,000,000 were collected in customs duties from the people of this country. Does that indicate that we have been buying more than before the war? I think not: an imported article valued at say $40 in pre-war days and paying 30 per cent duty brought into the treasury $12; that same article is now valued at $80, $00 or $100, so that the same duty of 30 per cent increases the revenue by $30 instead of $12 with the additional 7J per cent war tax; thus three times more duty is paid on the same article than was paid some years ago.
-Shall we quote the high price of living, which has doubled or trebled, as proof of the country's prosperity?
Again, the manufacture of steel for war munitions has greatly increased the total production, but that, I think, will end with

the war. As a farmer and a business man, I claim that in our estimate of the country's business, we should not take into account our output of shells and munitions and other things necessary for our soldiers, the cannon fodder, as they were labelled in 1910-1911. When the war is over, the Minister of Finance and the Government supporters will find it impossible to boast throughout the country about the country's prosperity. The people see through the misleading statements made by the Minister of Finance and spread broadcast about the country.
Now for my hon. friend from Frontenac (M. Edwards), who saw fit to compare the liberal Government in 1896 with the present regime. It was terrible to have such a man as the Right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) at the helm for fifteen long years, from 1896 to 1911. Let us see. What was the national debt at the advent of the Liberal party in 1896? The net debt amounted to $258,000,000 and on the 21st of August 1911, it had increased to $318,000,-OOP; in 1896 the gross indebtedness was $362,000,000 increasing to $474,000,000 on the 21st of October, 1911; so that during fifteen and one-half years of Liberal rule the net debt has increased by $60,000,000 and the gross indebtedness by $112,000,000. Will you call that extravagance? If so, it is far less than under the present Government, with a great deal more to show in development of the country. From 1878 to 1896, Canada remained at a standstill, while it made gigantic strides from 1896 to 1911, with no expenditure for military purposes. Hon. gentlemen opposite blame the war for their enormous Budget and claim all the credit for an increased revenue.
Suppose a farmer lives on his farm for twenty years, working every bit of it, ploughing it, harrowing it, weeding it carefully and then sells it, the purchaser is bound to reap good crops for some years to come; but if now the owner does not work the farm properly, the crops will fall off. Hon. gentlemen talk incessantly about the Country's prosperity and a buoyant revenue; why not show alongside the increase in the expenditure? I will say openly that expenses cannot but increase with a minister in the cabinet like Robert Rogers who wherever he has been has squandered the public money. As one instance, look at the public works undertaken in the county of Laprai-rie, which had to be rebuilt three or four times. Were they intended to benefit the people? No, but to get votes. It is useless for hon. members to attempt to inspire faith
in the present Government; our farmers are fully alive to what is going on here at Ottawa.
Now, in what position do we stand today? Last year, I .predicted for this year a net indebtness of $850,000,000 and a gross indebtedness of $1,200,000,000. I fell short of the truth; the Minister of Finance puts the present figures at $900,000,000 and $1,365,000,000 respectively; and predicts for the end of the present fiscal year an increase in [DOT] each case to $1,300,000,000 and $1,700,000,000 to $1,800,000,000. Who dare talk of prosperity when the expenditure exceeds three or four times our revenue?
You, Mr. Speaker, represent as I do a farming constituency; could you convince a farmer of Chambly-Vercheres that a man is more prosperous when he borrows money than otherwise. Will you get a serious man to believe all the stuff that is meted out in newspapers such as " La Presse " and " La Patrio " of Montreal, papers paid by the Government to deceive the people? Do you think the electors are not better informed? At any rate those in my constituency know better and I take care that they be informed as to what is being done at Ottawa. With another year of war-I fear that unfortunately, it may last longer than we wish -what will our debt amount to? The people have a right to know the whole truth. I have no hesitation to state, knowing that I am stating to the House and to my electors what is true, that after the war the national debt will amount to not less than three billions of dollars. Are the munitions of war included in the figures given out by the Minister of Finance last week? Shall we not have to settle with the Imperial Government after the war? If I am rightly informed, there is an agreement whereby the Canadian Government will reimburse to the Imperial authorities for the upkeep of the Canadian soldiers an amount equivalent to six shillings per unit per day. In that case, how many millions shall we have to hand over to the Imperial Government after the war? To this expenditure, which will fill the people with dismay, add the cost bf expropriating the railways for, according to the report of the commissioners tabled a few days ago, they are mostly all bankrupt and sooner or later the Government will have to take them over. No small sum to add to our Budget. It were better for tin* Government to rent the roads at one dollar a year for a period of twenty years or more and put at the head a capable manager like Shaughnessy and run the roads at reasonable rates. In any ease, I do not blame


Edmond Proulx: He worked on Sundays.


Roch Lanctôt: Apparently. I shall
call the attention of the Dominion Alliance to his case. How could he have worshipped, when he worked every Sunday during six months? Another champion of the Empire at twentydive doll are a day. It is readily seen that he does not work for nothing.
And they wish us to believe that we have a good economical Government !
Now, Mr. Speaker, I had a few more things to say that I expected would be of interest to my honourable friend from Chft-teauguay; as he is not in his seat, I shall cut my remarks short. A word about recruiting. I am quite aware that to-morrow the Ontario press, headed by the Orange Sentinel and the News, will publish that the member for Laprairie has made an attack against the Empire. I deny it. The member for Laprairie is just as devoted to the Empire as those who vilify and calumniate the member for Laprairie. For many months past we are told in the press that, recruiting is at a standstill throughout the country; that immense sums are spent for the sake of a few recruits enlisted here and there. A host of recruiting agents are employed. The same thing takes place in the province of Quebec; lieutenant-colonels, majors, captains and others that I forget, not (being versed in military matters, are

mating vain efforts. On this point, I have a final suggestion to make to the Government: If you wish to have a battalion to go to the front under Lieutenant-Colonel Blondin, it is all ready. Just gather together the (recruiting agents,, (for whom there is no further utility -and as an appreciation of their work s-end them overseas. There is Mr. Blondin'-s opportunity to satisfy his desire of going to battle.
I wish to express my thanks to the House for their kind attention, especially at such a late hour of the night.
On the motion of Mr. Morrison, the debate was adjourned.


THE HIGH COMMISSIONERSHIP.
George Perry Graham: Will the Government make any statement regarding the cable despatch signed by Windermere in to-night'a (papers stating that the Hon,. Robert Rogers is likely to return to England to assume the High Commissioner-ship?


Martin Burrell: I know nothing of the cable and I have nothing to say on -the matter.
On the motion of Hon, Mr. Burrell, the House adjourned at 12.05 a,m. Wednesday.
Wednesday, May 9, 1917.