1917-04-27

PRIVATE BILLS INTRODUCED.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 40, to incorporate La Societe des Artisans Canadiens FTangais.-Mr. Achim.
Bill No. 41. respecting The Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company.-Mr. J. A. Currie.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Thomas White, the recommendation of His Honour the Speaker, laid on the table of the House on the 20th instant, respecting the appointment of Mr. Ulderic Tremblay to the Blue Book Translation Branch of the Translation Staff of the House of Commons was concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 42, to amend the Chinese Immigration Act.
Mr. PUGSLEY:: Explain.


Mr. ROCHE:: This Bill is intended to allow Chinese students to visit Canada without their being subject to the usual head tax. In the past the head tax -has been imposed and collected, but has been refunded upon the students leaving Canada. In the United States they admit Chinese students without any head tax. A great many complaints have 'been made by and on behalf of the Chinese in this matter, and it has been decided to introduce an Act placing the Chinese students on the exempt list, along with merchants, tourists, and others of that class.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN (Halifax) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 43, respecting companies.
Sir THOMAS WHITE:: Explain.


Mr. MACLEAN:: I introduced this Bill at the suggestion of a committee of the Canadian Bax Association, -by whom it was prepared. I would prefer, however, that any explanation of the measure be left in abeyance until the second reading, when the Bill will be printed. The Bill is rather lengthy, and an explanation would also be

lengthy. I trust that the House will agree to give the Bill a first reading so that it may be printed.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. J. D. REID:: The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) asked me a question yesterday in reference to hydro-aeroplane service, and I promised to get the answer to-day. Mr. Desbarats, the deputy minister, has sent me the following memorandum :
With reference to question by Mr. E. M. Macdonald, M.P., on page 838 of the Hansard of April 26, it is not at present the intention of the Naval Department to organize a hydroaeroplane service. The department is not aware that any of these machines have been brought into Canada for the establishment of such a service.


Mr. MACDONALD:: If I did not ask the minister the other day to bring down what papers there were on this subject, I should like to be understood now as asking him to do so.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, the answer I gave was prepared by Mr. Desbarats, whom I instructed to read the question and give me an answer which I could give to the House. I shall ask Mr. Desbarats to get the papers ready and all that can be brought down will be brought down.



INTER-IMPERIAL PREFERENCE-FRENCH TREATIES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A cable despatch appeared in the press yesterday to the effect that at the Imperial Conference now sitting in London an agreement was reached in respect to inter-imperial preference arrangements. I desire to inquire whether the minister has had any official notification of the same. The press also informed us that there was contemplated a somewhat summary cessation of certain treaties with Prance. While the minister is answering the first question, he might inform me as to the second.


William Thomas White: May I ask my hon. friend in what paper or papers these reports appeared?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In all the papers.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: In the Montreal Star, I think, of Monday night.


William Thomas White: I have no information respecting the matter, nor has it been brought to my attention. I shall be very glad to look at the articles in question and be prepared to give a further answer in a day or so. The matter has not been brought to my attention; therefore I should judge that there is no substantial foundation for the report.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Pugsley: In a discussion which took place on April 25 in regard to the Intercolonial railway, I am reported in Hansard to have used the word "loyalty" in one or two portions of my remarks in connection with the employees. I am inclined to think that the report is accurate, but it does not convey the meaning that I had intended to convey. In other parts of my speech I used the word "efficiency." I think that the use of the word "loyalty" was doing an injustice to the employees, and I wish to substitute for it the word "efficiency." What I really intended to say was that the present system had interfered with the efficiency, not with their loyalty, of the employees.



QUEBEC-SAGUENAY RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE:: Nearing the close of the last session, an Act was passed by this House in reference to the Que'bec-Saguenay Railway, and under that Act a case in respect to the value of that railroad was submitted to the Exchequer Court. I understand that the judge of the Exchequer Court has filed a decision which should be interesting to the members of this House in view of the fact that a further investigation in connection with that road will, I believe, come up before the close of this session. I was going to suggest to the Minister of Justice or to the Minister of Railways that if they would be good enough to have copies of that decision distributed, it would be of interest to myself and to the other members of this House.


Mr. COCHRANE:: An Order of the House has been passed for the production of those papers, and they will be brought down in a day or two.



PENSIONS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Might I ask the hon. gentleman who is leading the House whether it is the intention of the Governnment this session to introduce any Bill providing for an amendment to the Pensions law?


William Thomas White: 

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 Tuesday, April 24.
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, it is worth while at all times to review with care the financial position of our country in each recurring fiscal year, but it is doubly necessary that the review in these times be with especial care, fairness and thoroughness. The outcome of the struggle in which we are engaged will he decided by a preponderance of military skill on the one hand and of business organization and financial strength on the other. Which, in the ultimate, will be the controlling factor, it may be difficult to say, but our business is to see to it that whichever is supreme in the end, the one factor or the other, we are the stronger party.
The Budget deliverance this year is the most inspiring message ever given to the people of Canada by any Minister of Finance. This is the fiftieth Budget of this Dominion and it is incomparably the best of all. I say this not to boast nor to ascribe credit to the Administration in particular for these results; I say it because the results themselves are of sufficient importance and sufficiently vital to us at this time to warrant impressing them upon this House and upon the people of Canada. It is a matter of secondary concern who are chiefly to get the credit or what measures are especially to get the credit for the enviable position we are in to-day. The matter of prime importance is that we have attained the commercial strength we have and that, at this critical hour, we can face the balance of the conflict with renewed courage and vigour.
What are the results and what briefly is our position? We find ourselves in the first place in the possession of a revenue unheard of in the history of Canada, indeed undreamed of in any previous year. I realize the significance of the statement made by the leading financial critic of the Opposition, that no one could have anticipated that we would at this time be in the financial position in which we are; that %ve could have attained along commercial lines to the results that we have attained. We find ourselves in possession of a revenue of $232,000,000, or $60,000,000 in advance of our receipts in any previous year of our existence. The advance alone is more than the whole revenue of Canada fifteen years ago. Wie find ourselves in receipt of that revenue without having strangled or crippled or even impaired any line or class of industry in this country or any individual in this country, and we are able to look abroad over the land and to say * that all classes of our people from the humblest to the highest are individually and generally in a better position than they have ever been before. As against that revenue, we have an expenditure, outside of war expenditure (which, for the moment, I leave out of account), totalling $172,000,000, or practically the same as last year, included in which is the capital expenditure of $27,000,000, and an interest and pensions expenditure attributable to the war debt alone of $25,000,000. Did our system of bookkeeping assign to war expenditure all that is in reality its due, we would have an expenditure in this year of

only $147,000,000, and the surplus revenue over that total expenditure, ordinary and capital, would reach the enormous total of $85,000,000. It is argued on the part of Opposition critics-as inevitably it must be and no complaint can be found for that attitude-that even at that figure we are in excess of our expenditure of only four or five years ago. That is correct, but we are in reduction of what we have spent during the past three years.
Last year, not including interest on war debt and pensions, that expenditure of $147,000,000 on ordinary and capital account would have amounted approximately to $155,000,000. The year before it was $180,000,000, and the year before that about $183,000,000. So that within the last four years there has been a most pronounced, a most emphatic retrenchment. Going back of that again, to the times when our revenue was very much smaller, when the scope of the operations of the Dominion Government was very much more contracted than it is to-day, and when the cost of living was very much lower, we find the figure somewhat less. But what is the figure? There is no lesson to be learned, even though the result is truly told and not falsified, by taking individual patches and comparing one year with another. A great historian has said that by taking mere fragments of history you can learn nothing at all, or any lesson you like, but that if you take history as a whole you get great and salutory lessons, valuable for all time. It is the same with the history of our finance.
Looking back to the year 1909, let us say, or I will take any other year that is named, our expenditure for that year was ony 16 per cent less than the expenditure for the year we have just passed, leaving out all war accounts. Just 16 per cent difference in almost eight years of this country's history, and in the course of that time the cost of everything has increased; the scope of the operations of this Government has increased; the services we have performed for the public of Canada have multiplied. So much is this so that it would be impossible for any business concern in Canada with a like increase in its duties to show an equally small increase in its expenditure. While eight years ago we spent a sum of money on capital and ordinary expenditure of $128,200,000, only 16 per cent less than what we spent last year, our revenue in that year was only some $85,000,000. Our revenue this year is $232,000,000, or almost 300 per cent more than it was in 1909. As against almost 300 per cent of an increase in revenue
[Mr. Meiglien.l
we have an increase in expenditure, all things together outside of the war, of only 16 per cent. That is .a broad view of the situation. The figures are almost as favourable for any year you like to take back of 1911; there would be very little difference. That is a broad outlook on the way we are moving, .and on the efforts that have been made to retrench effectively in large sums. Our revenue is $232,000,000, and our expenditure $172,000,000; we have paid all our accounts on capital and ordinary expenditure-and that is what counts, it is neither the one nor the other, but the two together that counts-we have paid our interest on war debt and pensions, and have $60,000,000 to the good. Before this Government took office only in four complete years since Confederation did this country ever pay its way; two of those years were under the late Administration, and two were prior to their time. But there have been four years in which there were surpluses since this Government took office. Last year there was a surplus of about $2,000,000; another year, 1912-13, there was a surplus of $25,000,000, and the previous year a surplus of about $122,000. As I said before, previous to the taking of office by this Administration only in four complete years since Confederation did this country ever pay its way. On the other hand, those who came in Parliament at the same time as myself will remember that commencing with 1908 and going on through 1909, 1910 and part of 1911 there were very large increases in the debt. Taking the first three of those years and not the fraction of the last, this country ran behind in its expenditure over revenue to an amount exceeding $72,000,000. That was the" increase in our capital debt in three years, and part of the expenditure that we have to make to-day, which adds to our total outlay, is the interest charge on that $72,000,000 that the country ran behind in 1908, 1909 and 1910.
Now we have am increase of 16 per cent in expenditure over 1909. I will give a few reasons for that. In the first place, weTe all the conditions the same? The increase in the price we have to pay for our services would account for at least 16 per cent increase in expenditure, and we have other expenses and other services, that we did not have then. It takes a great deal more to run a railway when that railway is making $16,000,000 of revenue than it does when it is only making $8,500,000. The total revenue of the Intercolonial in 1908 was only $8,500,000, but its revenue this year is over $16,000,000, almost twice

what it was in 1908; consequently, the expenditure incumbent upon us to keep up that road is greater than it was then. But whereas in 1908 we lost $800,000 on the Intercolonial, in the year that has just gone by the Intercolonial had a surplus .of oyer $1,200,000.
I will give another reason why our expenditure is greater. There was a government that built the National Transcontinental Railway, and as a result of the necessity placed upon us by our predecessors of running that road, we are out many millions more. If they had succeeded in building another transcontinental road the expenditure, of this country would necessarily be much more than it is.
On the other hand, what is the state of the country generally with regard to trade? There is no figure that is comparable in importance to the people of this country with the figures of out export trade. A country of less than eight millions of people stripped of almost 400,000 of its young manhood by the call of war, produces and manufactures goods sufficient for the consumption of its own population, and then sells to the outside world $1,178,000,000 of surplus. War time or no war time, high prices or no high prices, there is no country in the wprld that can present figures comparable with those. Our total trade is $2,043,000,000 and of the total trade we have a balance in our favour of $314,000,000. So -that $864,500,000 is our total import and $1,178,500,000 is our total export; that is, we sold to the outside world $1,178,500,000 and bought from the outside $864,500,000 worth. The importance of the volume of our sales is very much greater than is the volumn of our purchases.
Ordinarily, large imports are not to be deplored; we cannot become a great exporter unless we import largely also. But the country that regulates and organizes its trade so as to use fully its own resources and to bring those resources to the highest value by its own industries, makes its exports greater than its imports, and so makes money out of its trade. That is the position we are in to-day; we are selling $314,000,000 more than we are buying from the outside world. This is what makes us prosperous. For we are not great carriers of trade, nor have we great investments in foreign lands. Therefore, unless we are able to make goods and sell them to the outside world we could not hope to pay our obligations. Fortunately, we have reached that position, a position of great strength
and one that must be gratifying to every citizen of Canada.
Mr. PUGSLEY-: Do these export figures include the munitions and war supplies furnished to Great Britain and the Allies, and also those for the use of the Canadian troops at the front?


Arthur Meighen: The exports undoubtedly include munitions and war supplies.


William Pugsley: Those for our own soldiers?


Arthur Meighen: of Public Works was in office, and the aggregate is less than the trade of Canada for last year alone. Take the exports alone -and the exports have grown more rapidly than the imports-and you find that for last year they were greater than the total exports for four years of the late Administration. These are facts that mean a great deal to Canada; they speak of the destiny of our country, and give us courage and confidence to maintain this struggle to the end.
I wish to refer briefly to certain arguments advanced by the hon. member for Red Deer. I refer to them for this reason-that I know he advances them out of regard for what he believes to be a truth, namely, that the fiscal policy of this country at this time is important from a war standpoint. It is from a war standpoint that he discusses matters in this House, and the arguments he has advanced are worthy of courteous consideration for that reason. He tells us that it would be the best thing we could do at this time to throw down our tariff wall entirely and let all goods into this country free. To follow any other course, he says, is to imitate the example of Germany and not that of Great Britain. I am as far as the hon. member from desiring to imitate the example of Germany in anything that pertains to honour, humanity, or other higher qualities of man; but I do not think it wrong to study the methods of Germany in matters of business organization, because we have not yet reached the stage at which we can ignore the results which that country has achieved by its methods. The hon. gentleman pointed out that Germany, at the opening of the war, had thrown down the barriers and had removed tariff restrictions from certain goods, such as bread-stuffs, fats, and other foods. Well, if we were to do that also we should be following Germany's example. But I cannot understand the attitude of mind that would cite this as being a denial of the protective system by Germany in time of war. What is the object of that protective system? It is to give German -producers a better hold upon the German market. After the war broke out and the British navy was on the water, there was not much necessity to use the tariff to keep the home market for the German producer-the British navy saw to it that there was not much competition from outside. Consequently, there was no longer reason for a tariff on foodstuffs-quite the contrary. The hon. gentleman said: The ship of free trade in Great Britain stood the
[Mr. Melghen.l
storm, the ship of free trade is the ship that I go in; free trade has been maintained by Great Britain in this struggle. It is nothing but a misnomer to say that Great Britain is a free trade country. It levies duties greater in amount than those levied in Canada; last year Great Britain collected $350,000,000 in tariff duties. We collected only $134,000,000. And, instead of diminishing or removing tariff duties because of the war, they have put on new duties and increased old ones. And these increases of duty are not on luxuries only, but on necessities also. They have resorted to the tariff to raise revenues for this war, and in doing so they have added to the protective effect of that tariff. Let me give you a few of the articles upon which they have increased their duties. They have diminished duties, as far as I can find, on nothing whatsoever.
# They have removed no duty at all. But they have increased duties on tea, on sugar, on cocoanut, they have put a duty of 334 per cent on clocks and watches, they have put a duty of 334 per cent on automobiles -clearly protective duties- in both cases-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Should not my hon. friend say that that was done to prohibit the import altogether and not for revenue purposes?


Arthur Meighen: I would say so if it
were correct, but it is not.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I submit that it is correct.


Arthur Meighen: The fact is that they
have prohibited many things altogether by special enactment but they have not prohibited these things.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: These articles of clocks and watches and automobiles were subjected to a very high rate of duty purely for the purpose of prohibiting the import, and that was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in bringing down that particular budget.


Arthur Meighen: 

REVISED


[Stage Direction]
that we axe struggling for freedom of trade. The freedom that we are fighting for in this war is not freedom for an individual within a nation to do as he likes. It is not freedom for the people within the country to trade with eaoh other just as they individually please or vfith the outside world as they like. We are not fighting for protection or freedom of trade or freedom in that sense at all; we are fighting for the freedom of our nation and lof every other nation to decide for free trade or protection or to decide for anything else that the democracy of that country demands. We are fighting for the freedom of our nation as a nation, and freedom not only for ourselves, but for every country, within its own domain, to decide upon its own course as it wishes, undisturbed and unprovoked by aggression from without. Freedom of trade is no more what we are fighting for {ban is the protective system. We are fighting for the right, once and for all, to decide which we will have, free trade, protection, or anything else that we may desire.
It is inevitable in Canada, where we have a tremendous geographical extent, where we have a wide diversity of interests, and a wide diversity of activities, and where that diversity is chiefly marked by a long stretch of country that separates the one portion from the other, where we have in one-half of the Dominion a very large, preponderant agricultural community producing a share of the raw material of the world, the foodstuffs of the world, and where we have in the other half of the Dominion, with a much larger proportion of population, a more highly commercialized people, a manufacturing population on a very considerable scale, a population engaged in many industries and many activities and manufacturing to a larger extent than is possible in our western country-it is inevitable, in such a country as we have here, that the protective tariff which we maintain must he only a moderate protective tariff, a tariff that has regard to the preponderant views of tooth sections of this country. It cannot have sole regard to any preponderance of sentiment in the East, nor can it have sole regard to any preponderant sentiment in the West. Both must be most carefully considered with a view to that unity which is essential if a nation is to prosper and which at this time is doubly essential, is vital to our success. It is an inevitable and indisputable fact that the prevailing sentiment west of the Great Lakes, and particularly in the three grain-

producing prairie provinces, favours a lower tariff than does the prevailing sentiment in eastern Canada. That is not only on admitted truth, tout it is a truth that is born of and imbedded in our geography, that is born of and imbedded in the conditions of our national life. The people in those three provinces are the great producers of our grain. They are not a manufacturing people. Consequently they do not get as immediate or as direct results from the maintenance of a protective tariff as do the people in the other portions of Canada. One cannot argue from that that they should not in that country have regard to the whole interests of Canada and not merely to those of the three provinces. Nor can it be argued that the sentiment of western Canada pan he ignored by the citizens of this eastern country, or toy the Parliament or Government of this Dominion in the framing of its fiscal policy.
That brings me to the discussion of a subject that is embodied in an amendment moved in this House by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). On the 16t'h day of the present month the Government of Canada, under the powers vested in it under the War Measures Act, placed wheat and products of wheat upon the free list.
the effect .being that, on the-4 p.m. authority of the Underwood tariff of the United States, the same goods, and, indeed, all products of wheat were placed on the free list entering the United States.
William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend has made a mistake. He states that this Government, on the 16th of April, placed all products of wheat on the free list. Is he not wrong? It only placed wheat, wheat flour and semolina on the free list, not bran and shorts.


Arthur Meighen: I spoke generally. Bran and shorts were not included. I do not see-that the point is material.


William Pugsley: It is quite material to the eastern stock raiser, very material.


Arthur Meighen: To attain the end in view all that was necessary was to place wheat, wheat flour and semolina on the free list, the result being that wheat, wheat flour, semolina and all products of wheat were admitted free to the United States.


William Pugsley: All products go free to-the United States, but they do not come free into Canada.


Arthur Meighen: If the bringing of bran

and shorts into Canada free of duty is a matter of great consequence, it is a wonder that the hon. fnember for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) did not see that it was done when he was in power and could have had it done.


William Pugsley: The arrangement of 1911 provided for it, as I understand.


Arthur Meighen: I do not understand
that. I do know that it did not provide for flour coming in free.


William Pugsley: No, not free, but it provided for a very great reduction in duty.


Arthur Meighen: A great reduction? Ten cents a barrel.


William Pugsley: And I understood that bran and shorts were free.


Arthur Meighen: I never so understood it.


William Pugsley: I think bran and shorts were free and flour was reduced.


Arthur Meighen: I have not looked it up, but I do not think my hon. friend is correct. However, those are fragments hanging to the main issue, and I think it is better to touch the main issue before we touch the outskirts. For many years in the. West, at all events for from five to seven years, there has been a very considerable agitation, growing in extent, in favour of the admission of these products to the free list. It ante-dates the proposal of the late Government in 1911, at which time the agitation assumed the greater scope I have just described. But it has prevailed up to the present time. It has had its source, at all events it has had its chief inspiration, in hon. gentlemen opposite and in the organs of public opinion .which support their views and defend their political interests.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: That has been the chief source of the agitation, and, that being so, the chief source has been political and the object of the agitation in the main has been political. Notwithstanding that truth, that undoubted truth, a truth that was never in plainer evidence than it has been in recent months, and never in so plain evidence as it has been in this House since this debate commenced, never so clearly stated in writing as in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia in this debate-that truth now more manifest than it ever was, that this agitation has been in its source, in its inspiration, and in
541	.	i
its progress mainly political, it does not follow that those who have joined in it, those who have adopted these views, expounded many times in an unfair and most one-sided way, are not sincere and honest in their convictions. For the most part they are. The result of the agitation was that there grew up in this country a conviction that there existed an element of injustice in the tariff as it stood, and that the people of eastern Canada being preponderant in numbers, did an injustice to the wishes of western Canada. Such a fact as that is of a character which all governments that see their duty from every angle are bound to take cognizance of. This Government was elected to office in 1911, chiefly because the party led by the *present Prime Minister refused to accept the reciprocity agreement negotiated by the late Administration; because they opposed that reciprocity agreement as contrary to economic and national interests of Canada. That is why they were elected to office, and it was their duty to carry out the intent of the people in electing them upon that platform. Consequently, this Government opposed until recently, for reasons which I shall Tefer to very shortly, the removal of these duties upon flour, wheat and semolina, because they did not believe that the removal of those duties and the consequences that would ensue would on the whole foe in the best national interests of Canada. I do not need to review the reasons that were adduced. I know that there were not as powerful objections to that course as applied in this way to wheat and flour alone as those that obtained against the reciprocity agreement itself. The arguments that could be urged against the reciprocity agreement were wider in their scope and stronger in their import than were the arguments that could be urged against the placing of wheat, flour and semolina on the free list. I do not think any hon. gentleman who wishes to be fair will dispute that.


William Pugsley: In a very humble way, I would dispute it.


Arthur Meighen: The hon1. member for
St. John believes that all arguments apply equally to the one as to the other. Well, I can quote against the hon. member for St. John the opinion of a gentleman whose views expressed in this House will, at all events in our western country, carry very much more weight than those of the hon. member for St. John. I quote the opinion



*COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark, who, speaking in this House in the month, of January, 1914, used these words-words that were true, honest and manly. They may he found on page 42 of the Hansard of that year:
Many arguments that were used In regard to the reciprocity pact of two years ago do not apply to this matter at all.
Pretty straight language!
This question is not now part of a large general agreement; it cannot he argued that it interferes with our fiscal independence. We simply have to take the tariff off wheat, which would be no sacrifice whatever, and we get entry into the United States market for our wheat.
William Pugsley: The same with the
articles under the arrangement of 1911.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hop. gentleman say that that does not conflict with the view, which he just expressed, that the same arguments are applicable to both?


William Pugsley: I say that the same reasons apply tp both.


Arthur Meighen: As against that, I quote the opinion of the hon. member for Red Deer.


William Pugsley: I am speaking of my
own view.


Arthur Meighen: The words of the hon. member for Red Deer could not more directly or more forcibly contradict the manifestly erroneous expressions of opinion just given by the hon. member for St. John.


William Pugsley: I desire to correct my hon. friend. The hon. member for Red Deer does not, as I understand it, say that the argument against the articles being admitted free under the agreement of 1911 would be stronger than the argument to be made against the admission of free wheat. He says it could not be argued; that is, pepple might not argue in the same way-


Some hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


William Pugsley: Be does not admit the correctness of the argument at all. That is very different.


Arthur Meighen: You will understand, Mr. Speaker, why I said that the hon. gentleman's position was manifestly erron-ous. It was so much so that he himself could not state it. "Many arguments that were used in regard to the reciprocity pact two years ago-not one, but many-do not apply to this matter at all."
tMr. Meighen.1


William Pugsley: The member for Red Deer does not say that they were sound arguments.


Arthur Meighen: far stronger one to-day-I had for saying that the motive on the part of these men, who themselves were chiefly the authors of that agitation, was political and nothing but political.
The war has progressed for many, many months and the activities of German submarines and many other activities have had the result of diminishing to a very great degree the volume of British shipping.
One result of that is that it has been impossible for Great Britain to permit the free importation of goods on the same scale as before. They have been impelled to restrict their purchases to such classes of goods, and to such qualities of those classes, as would bring them the greatest returns in foodstuffs and necessities for the space engaged. As a consequence, they have not been able, notwithstanding the pressure of this Government, to purchase any wheat in this country except of the three higher grades-1, 2 and 3 Northern. The market that obtained for years for the lower grades was wiped away, for nobody else was able to purchase these grades-or, indeed wheat of any kind-for export, except the British Government. The British Commission purchasing in Canada-and no doubt this is true in the United States as well-is the only purchaser for export, for nobody else can get space in ships. In our western country there was a large proportion of the wheat that could not reach any of these higher grades, a larger proportion indeed, by reason of the conditions described by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), than usually has prevailed. There was no export price, because there was no export market. When the duty was taken off, on the 16th of April, the Minneapolis price on 1, 2, and 3 Northern fell at once to the export level, that-


Mr. McCRANEY:: The Order in Council was passed on the 16th of April. When was this Government notified by the United States Government that the duty on wheat entering the United States had been taken off?


Arthur Meighen: The duty on wheat entering the United States was actually taken off on the 17th of April, but.we were notified of it only two days ago. I will come to that later. The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCraney) need not think that any one could sanely argue that the effect of taking off the duty did not appear the very next day. Because there was no question

as to the fact, it was known to everybody. It took some days to carry out the formalities to be gone through in the United States Treasury Department, but the duty was actually taken off as of April. 17. In this connection, I may read-perhaps I *should have read it before-the very interesting comment of the Manitoba Free Press on the market of April 17, the day after the duty was taken off:
When the bell rang this morning there was a moment of silence, then a small voice offered to sell wheat at $2.29, at $2.28g, and at $2.28|. No response was made and the voice shut up. For a period of about thirty seconds the crowd waited, holding their breath. When Minneapolis was put on the board' six cents under the previous close there was a howl.
I wonder if the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) was there:
Thus started one of the most upset markets in history. Winnipeg May was offered down from $2.28 to $2.25 without a trade. At that point the Government agent bought a little and the prices took a sudden swing back to $2.27|.


William Pugsley: Is the Government also speculating on this exchange?


Arthur Meighen: Better put that question to the British Government. We are not.


William Pugsley: I thought the British Government was advised in all these matters by the Canadian Government.


Arthur Meighen: They are purchasing of their own volition entirely, and I think they are quite capable of doing so. Does any one suggest that free wheat did not have this effect? Let us see what the Free Press says:
The predominating factor, "free wheat," completely upset the spreads between the different months. There were no new spreads made in the morning and very little scalping trade. The market moved too quickly to permit of taking any liberties. The buying credited to the government agents was the only good buying.
If it had not been for the Government buying, where would the market have gone?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the hon. gentleman the latest quotations?


Arthur Meighen: Right down to date. But the margin of five, six, or seven cents in favour of the Minneapolis price has been maintained until now, notwithstanding that the duty is off. So, it is clear that the taking off of the duty depressed the Minneapolis market by the 10 cents duty and did not raise the Winnipeg market, but that

under world market conditions which affect them both, they have advanced together since.


William Pugsley: Both have advanced.


Arthur Meighen: Did the hon. gentleman think they would remain for ever stationary?


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the price to-day in Winnipeg?	_


Arthur Meighen: It is about five or six cents less than the Minneapolis price.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the figure?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know. It is the relative price that counts. Does the hon. gentleman wish now to consider the absolute price? It was the relative prices that we heard of in this House for five years.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the average advance?


Arthur Meighen: There was no advance at all. The effect of free wheat was seen the very next day when the Minneapolis market went down.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) argue that'the Government made a mistake in giving free wheat?


Arthur Meighen: Not at all, I am coming to that in a moment, but I was swerved from it by the very proper interruption of the hon. member, for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney). On the frank statement of the Manitoba Free Press, free wheat was the cause of the market phenomena of the 17th of April.


William Thomas White: On the higher grades.


Arthur Meighen: achieved, and argument on that point becomes academic in view of the result.
Now, as to the alleged point that this Order in Council will die at the termination of the war and that consequently it would he wise now to legislate as to what should he done afterwards, I say, first, that if ever an amendment 'bore on its face the earmarks of political chicanery it is this amendment. It is an attempt to raise a douht in the minds of western Canadians; it is an attempt to raise a douht in the minds of the officials of the United States of America-although it has failed in that object-as to whether or not this Act is not of some peculiar temporary character on which we should not rely. Nobody ever thought of such a doubt before. I never heard it even whispered. The War Measures Act gives to the Government of Canada power to enact Orders and regulations having regard to a number of subjects recited in the Act, and one, if not more than one, of those classes of subjects clearly embraces the action we took. That legislation having been passed, the Government was then in a position to do what otherwise only Parliament could do, enact and enforce orders, regulations and laws binding upon the people of this country. We so enact, and what we do is to enact a law just as if it had been done by this Parliament. It is done by the Government under the authority of this Parliament, which means that it is done by this Parliament.


William Pugsley: Just as if it were in the Act itself.	*


Arthur Meighen: I am glad that I have convinced a legal member of the Opposition.


William Pugsley: It does not need any convincing; it is absolutely clear on its face.


Arthur Meighen: Consequently it takes effect just as if we legislated in Parliament that these duties were removed and it has just the same effect as if this Parliament, by specific enactment, had removed the duty. It is argued by the hon. member for Halifax that at the end of the war the Order in Council lapses and that consequently the duties that were removed under the Order in Council must be restored, or, rather, would be automatically restored. I hardly know how to put the absurdity of that position in clearer form than I put it to the hon. member while he was speaking, that once we legislate by Order in Council under an Act that gives us power 
to legislate, that is legislation, and it has the same effect, the same permanence and the same finality that any other legislation has. All legislation may be amended, may be repealed. This, like all other legislation, may be amended or repealed. It has the same permanence and the same finality as any legislation passed by this House. What is done by Order in Council while the War Measures Act is alive is legislation and remains legislation just the same as any legislation passed by this House.
If it were different, what would be the result? Under the War Measures Act-to take the example that I took before-we by Order in Council appropriated to this country the title to the Eoss rifle factory in Quebec. We have enacted other Acts of a similar character. If the legislation lapses with this Parliament and the effect of what we do must be reversed, what will be the result in the case I have mentioned? In March of this year we declared that the title of Sir Charles Eoss to that factory ceased to be his and became ours. If the hon. member for Halifax is correct, when the war is over that title ceases to be ours and goes back to Sir Charles Eoss, although we have paid for it, although he has the money, although he may be dead or may have spent the money. This is utterly absurd and clearly shows that there cannot be the faintest reason or ground for the contention that the hon. gentleman advances.


William Pugsley: I am afraid the hon. gentleman has not read the War Measures Act.


Arthur Meighen: I helped frame the
statute; perhaps that is sufficient for the hon. gentleman.


William Pugsley: I do not believe the hon. gentleman drafted it.


Arthur Meighen: I had to do with framing it, and that would likely give me some information concerning it.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman must have forgotten its terms, since he argues as he does about the Eoss rifle factory.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The diaftsman is usually a poor interpreter.


Arthur Meighen: Under the Order in Council based upon the War Measures Act, on April 16 we removed the duties on wheat, wheat flour and semolina. Does the hon. gentleman argue that these duties, which have been wiped away, come back again

when the war is over any more than the title of Sir Charles Ross in the Ross rifle factory goes back to him when the war is over? What is the diflerence? The hon. member for St. John would, I know, very much like to expatiate on this question; let him tell me now what the difference is.


William Pugsley: I will endeavour to answer the hon. gentleman when-


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
will not answer now, when he may be caught on the very point. He will not stand on his feet and attempt to draw a distinction, because there is no distinction. If when the war is over the duties again apply to wheat, wheat flour and semolina, the title of Sir Charles Ross also reverts to him.


William Pugsley: Is the hon. gentleman serious in that?


Arthur Meighen: Much more serious
than the hon. member for St. John. If he were serious, he would get up and state the difference.


An hon. MEMBER:: He does not look very serious.


William Pugsley: I would not like to look as serious as hon. gentlemen opposite have looked this afternoon.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
is about as serious as he was when he made those famous charges in the House of Commons about a year ago.


William Pugsley: Was that the charge
which showed a waste of $80,000,000 on ' shells?


Arthur Meighen: The charges that were investigated and declared false by the Mere-dith-Duff Commission, yes.


William Pugsley: Oh, no, you refused an investigation ,on that.


Arthur Meighen: It would be rather unfortunate for Canada if my hon. friend's argument were correct. I will tell you something else that would go hack, besides the title of the Ross rifle factory; the title to about 23 acres of land which hon. gentlemen opposite, without the slightest reason or justification, conferred as a free gift upon a political friend or favourite of some kind, without any remuneration to the people of Canada. The title to this land, which hon. gentlemen opposite filched or took from the people and presented to Sir Charles Ross, would revert
back to him if their argument .on this question were correct.
Here is an amendment to a motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means. It calls upon us to pass a vote of adulation on hon. gentlemen opposite, tp pass a reflection on this House and on the law officers of the 'Crown, and to do so for no purpose in the wprld except that of meeting the political exigencies of hoft. gentlemen opposite. What they are sorry for is that this grievance in which they have revelled for so many years is now removed. They want to keep alive the agitation which has been their chief hppo in western Canada. They are anxious to stir up and keep white the embers of a controversy without which there is not very much light for them on the horizon. Now that that controversy is removed and removed with such permanence as it is within the power of this Parliament to effect they are not satisfied; they want to dp something which will retain to them some of the advantages they hoped to gain by that agitation all through these years. That is the purpose of this amendment. The Deputy Minister of Justice says that the legislation has the same permanence as any legislation ever passed by this Parliament. We must be governed in matters of law by the opinion of the law officers of this Government; otherwise we are untrue to our trust. The amendment of the hon. member for Assiniboia, boiled down, is nothing more or less than this: " Whereas I, John G. Turriff and somebody else whose name I will not give, should be accepted on matters of law by the Parliament of Canada in preference to the responsible law officers of the Crown; therefore be it resolved that we do over again something that is already done, with all the finality and permanence that is in the power of Parliament to do it." That is the amendment which the hon. member for Assiniboia solemnly asks us to pass.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: Would it not be possible for this Government to repeal that Order in Council by another Order in Council? And, if that is -so, how can the hon. gentleman say that the Order in Council has the same weight and permanency as though it were an Aot pf Parliament?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly it is in our
power to repeal it, and if we pass this resolution and bring in a statute we could also repeal the statute. They are both on the same ground exactly.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Arthur Meighen: The authority under which we may remove duties as a war measure is the very same authority under which we may impose duties as a war measure. Both aTe exactly on the same basis; consequently, if we pass the amendment and introduce the legislation that it calls for, that legislation would be temporary in the same sense that this is temporary and it would be permanent in the same sense that this is permanent.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: That is, if your majority did not change its mind.


Arthur Meighen: Exactly so; the hon. member for Red Deer has the point exactly.


William Pugsley: But you could not do it behind the backs of the representatives of the people.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the power would undoubtedly exist. I have to thank the House for the patience with which my altogether too much prolonged discourse has been received. I refer again to the matter of greatest moment in this Budget. The motion of my hon. friend is not the matter of greatest moment; it was my duty to refer to it fully and at length because I, in part, represent western Canada in the Administration. But the outstanding feature is the successful commercial course that this country has pursued, the strong position that it occupies, the course that we have taken in bringing business to Canada and in retaining business here by our policies. And in the bringing of some of that business to Canada no one deserves more credit than the ex-Minister of Militia himself. The outstanding feature is that by the business we are doing, the goods we are producing, we are able to sustain our country through this struggle and can sustain it to the end. That is the gratifying element of this Budget. It is important that no one should allow any mere secondary feature or any amendment, whatever be its design, to draw our attention from this great achievement, and it is important that the people of Canada, reviewing the statement for the year, take from it that renewed inspiration, courage and confidence which the awful tasks confronting us require, and which an enlightened study of our deeds already done can scarcely fail to command.


Michael Clark: 
Arthur Meighen: 
Michael Clark: My speech as reported in
Hansard will show that I was epeaking purely of exports at the time, and I spoke of $2,000,000,000 as'the exports of Britain in one year, not the total trade.


Arthur Meighen: It is $3,000,000,000. The hon. gentleman is well within the mark.


Michael Clark: 
Arthur Meighen: No.


Michael Clark: I am, not at all sure that
my hon. friend did not make a mistake, because I took the precaution of going to the Hansard office, and if the hint is worth anything to my hon. friend, I would like him to look up the report of his speech (before the unrevised Hansard appears. If I made a mistake, it was one that tended to weaken my argument because I was showing at the time what Britain was able to do in time of peace, being my argument upon the assertion that she had actually exported in round figures $2,000,000,000 worth of goods in one year. It appears that I was a little below the mark, and to the extent that I was below the mark, I weakened my own argument. That is a form in which I should always like to err.


Arthur Meighen: 
Michael Clark: In no case could a quotation from last year have been any correct tion of what I stated, because my figures

were quoted from some recent year in time of peace.


Arthur Meighen: The export trade would be about 32,000,000,000 in time of peace.


Michael Clark: A little over.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure as to whether my sympathies ought to 'be extended more to the gentlemen who are sitting behind the Government benches than to my hon. friend the Solicitor Generali during the course of his speech this afternoon. It is evident that the hon. gentleman's efforts were directed entirely to justifying the conduct of the Government in the eyes of their supporters. There could be no other reason for his long speech, first in condemnation, and, secondly, in justification of this Order in Council. The hon. gentleman devoted a good deal of his time to showing that the Government had been right in resisting the demands of the Liberal party and of the people of the West that wheat and wheat products should be placed upon the free list. He gave very strong reasons, and I think anyone reading that portion of his speech in Hansard would come to the conclusion that there would be a very great danger to-morrow, or within a week, or within a month, if the hon. gentleman had his way in the Cabinet of having this Order in Council repealed, because, as I have said, the hon. gentleman has told us that he has not changed his mind, and that he believes the refusal of the Government in the past to place wheat and wheat products upon the free list was entirely in the best interest of the country and in accordance with the great principles of the national policy. But, Sir, the hon. gentleman was obliged, of course, to give some reasons why the Government had acted. The extraordinary thing which the hon. gentleman has done is that at last he seems to have been driven by the peculiar workings of his own mind to justify this Order in Council on the ground that it has given to the small millers in Canada a market for their flour in the United States.


Arthur Meighen: I said that?


William Pugsley: Yes, because, as I understood him to say, it gives them the opportunity to dispose of their finished product. The hon. gentleman says that it is much more important for the people to have a market for their finished product than for their raw material, and that on that ground the Order in Council may be supported.
I intend to deal with the points which my hon. friend has made with regard to this Order in Council, to refer to the amendment, and to show that instead of being the very horrible thing that my hon. friend thinks it is, it is an amendment which ought to commend itself to all the members of this House. Before doing this, however, I should like to refer very briefly to the remarks which my hon. friend made with reference to the state of the trade of the country. That was the subject of my hon. friend's remarks in the earlier part of his discourse, and after the lugubrious performance which he had given us with respect to free wheat, he returned to this cheerful trade condition in order, I suppose, to bring his supporters out of the slough of despond into which he had driven them by his reference to the free wheat policy. The hon. gentleman referred to the fact that the trade of Canada-and in this respect he followed the Minister of Finance -had reached, during the past fiscal year, the enormous sum of upwards of $2,000,000,000. He spoke of this, as did the Minister of Finance, as being a most cheering condition of affairs. Think of it, said my hon. friend, that in a very few years the export and import trade of Canada had risen from $600,000,000 to upwards of $2,000,000,000. I almost wondered why my hon. friend did not come down with a resolution thanking the Kaiser for the magnificent prosperity which he had brought to Canada, because it is the Kaiser who is responsible for it all; it is not the Minister of Finance nor the Solicitor General; it is not the Government of this country; it is not the ordinary business development or the ordinary prosperity of the people of Canada; it is by reason of the bringing about of this bloody war by the Kaiser and his Government. Surely, when we are considering as to whether Canada is in a prosperous condition or not, we ought to have regard to the normal condition of affairs; we ought to consider whether the manufactures of Canada are developing in such a way as to bring permanent prosperity to the people of this country; we ought to consider whether the country is being developed by new settlers who are coming in and cultivating our vacant land. If that were the condition of affairs, we might rejoice at it. But instead of rejoicing at the fact that this condition of affairs exists to-day, the people of Canada ought to have a feeling of sadness because it is owing to these terrible war



number ol other articles would ihave been afforded easier access to that market- lumber, hay, potatoes, cheese, and many others-but wheat stood at the very top of the list. The hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) tells us that this granting of free wheat is a very different proposition from the reciprocity arrangement. It is different only in degree. Suppose that there was no statute of the United States permitting the free entry of wheat into that country on our making it free in this country, and suppose that the Minister of Finance, impressed toy the reasons that induced this Government to pass the Order in Council in favour of free wheat, had gone to Washington to secure for Canada that benefit; discussing the matter with the Secretary of State of the United States he would say: we do not wish to arrange for the free admission of a large number of articles, but we would like to make an arrangement for free wheat, wheat flour, and semolina, but it must be understood that each country is to be absolutely free to repeal this legislation whenever it thinks it in the interest of its own people. Had this been done, in what respect would it have been different from that which has been done to-day? When these gentlemen were confronted with this problem did they draw up an Order in Council having no regard to what the United States had done? Not at all. They consulted the statutes of the United States and .adopted the very wording of their statute on this subject. They did not even use words broad enough to confer upon the eastern farmer the boon of free bran and shorts from the United States with which to feed his cattle. They did not use t'he words they might have used, " wheat and wheat products," but they used the words " wheat, wheat flour, and semolina," the very words used in the statute of the United States.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) interrupted me to say that the reciprocity agreement made these products free, but I find that it provided a duty of $2.45 a ton on bran. Will the hon. gentleman explain why t'he Government of which he was a member did not give the farmers at that time the " boon " of which he speaks?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman may be correct as to its not being free, but at all events the arrangement made a great reduction.


Arthur Meighen: No reduction, I think- it was 12i cents per hundred pounds.


William Pugsley: I will be glad to have that looked into. It will probably be found that the duty on bran in Canada was equal to that in the United States-it was equalized.	.


Arthur Meighen: But why was not the
" boon " of free bran given?


William Pugsley: Perhaps it could not be got at that time.


Arthur Meighen: But there was nothing to prevent the Government taking the duty off bran coming into Canada?


William Pugsley: To-day my hon. friend has found that the United States has allowed free into that country wheat and ail wheat products, because Canada has allowed free entry of wheat, wheat and semolina. Why were these words, " Wheat, wheat flour, and semolina," used unless this Government was guided by the statutes of the United States? I doubt very much if the Solicitor General knew what semolina w.as until he found the name in the United States statute. I frankly confess that I did not.
There is another question I would like to ask: Why did not this 'Government wait until Parliament opened before it passed this Order in Council? Here is the inauguration of a policy of enormous importance affecting the trade between these tw.o countries. It applies to the most important product of Canada. It is the chief natural product of the two countries and here it is proposed to take advantage of the reciprocal provision-you cannot call it anything else- in the statutes of the United States under which this great product will pass freely between the two countries. This Government, and the party which stands behind it, had, in 1911, told the people of Canada that our great railway systems had been built east and west for the purpose of carry, ing trade east and west instead of north and south. They had taken the ground that it would bring down the very keystone of the National Policy if this should be adopted. They had taken that ground when, in 1911 it was proposed to make an arrangement with the United States, not an arrangement binding either country for all time but an arrangement which, just like this statutory arrangement could have been repealed at the will of the Parliament or Congress at any time, as clearly appears from the correspondence which took place between the Hon. Mr. Fielding and Secretary Knox. Now, they are proposing to reverse the policy for which they had asked

the approval of the people of Canada. Did they wait until the representatives of the people had gathered in this Parliament from the Western shores of Canada, from the East, from the great provinces of Ontario and Quebec and from other sections of Canada? Did they await to consult Parliament's opinion? Did they even wait to consult their own supporters? No, Sir, instead of doing that they gave them no opportunity of presenting their views, and the views of the people who sent them to this Parliament, but on the 16th April, three days before Parliament re-assembled, behind the backs of the people's representatives, they passed this Order in Council.


Arthur Meighen: Is my bon. friend
aware that the hon. member for Assiniboia, a year ago, complained that we had not done this very thing by Order in Council?


Mr. GRAHAM:: When Parliament was
not in session.


William Pugsley: We were demanding that this should be done in the interest of the people, of the country and gentlemen on the other side of the House were saying that it was utterly indefensible to do it, that it was contrary to the policy which the people had sustained in 1911, that it would be contrary tp the pledge they had made to the people of Canada upon which they secured their support and upon which they relied to get into this Parliament as their representatives that they should dp anything of the kind. Why did they not consult their friends? It was because they knew that they would not be likely to support them in caucus. But they know also that when they get a measure passed in Council so that they are committed to it they can rely upon their friends not going back upon them and sustaining them even though it is with many heartburnings. The Government perhaps felt a greater degree of confidence in getting support after the order was. passed.


Arthur Meighen: Did the hon. gentleman consult caucus in 1911 on the reciprocity pact?


William Pugsley: In 1911?-yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
^r- PUGSLEY: Yes, and it was submitted to, and had to meet with the approval of Parliament before becoming law. By the terms of the letters which passed between the two negotiators it was expressly stated that it should be submitted .both to the Parliament of this country and to the Congress 554
of the United States before it should go into effect. Our Government would, not have so defied public opinion as to enter into am arrangement of that kind, except it was subject to the approval of Parliament.
Was there any great urgency? Can you think of any urgency that there was? It was the 16th of April. The wheat had practically all passed out of the 1 ands of the farmers in the West. We know that in the West the farmer threshes his grain in November. He gets it to the elevator and markets it just as speedily as he can. There are very few farmers, I venture to say-my hon. friends from the West will correct me if I am wrong-who hold any large quantity of grain in their hands after the first of February, or the first of March, subsequent to the year in which it is har->
vested. All the elevators are filled with grain. It is largely in the hands of the speculator. Can any one suggest any great object In passing that Order in Council on the 16th of April when Parliament was reassembling on the 19th of April and when their supporters in .Parliament should have been consulted before taking that step?


An hon. MEMBER:: And the Budget speech had not been delivered.


William Pugsley: The Budget speech had not been delivered. I venture to say that the people will want to know the reason for this hurried action. I would not charge that it was intended to put money into the hands of these sepeculators for the reason that it would raise the price of wheat and would make a product which they had bought from the farmers at from 75 cents to $1.25 a bushel very largely worth from $2.25 to $2.40 a bushel. I would not suggest anything of the kind. What, then, was the reason for it? Why not wait until Parliament and the people's representatives could be taken into the confidence of hon. gentlemen? Parliament is the great council room of the nation. It is the place where the people, through their representatives, ought to be informed as to these questions and consulted in regard to actions of this nature which the Governrhent propose to take. But, no Sir, they passed it through without first consulting their own supporters.
Now, my hon. friend the Solicitor General makes the statement that the Deputy Minister of Justice says that this Order in Council has the effect of legislation. I am glad that my hon. friend and I are in

accord as to the effect of the Order in Council. The Order in Council has exactly the same force and effect as if it had been made part of the statute. There is no doubt about that. That is the way that it is construed always.


Arthur Meighen: It has the force of any statute.	%


William Pugsley: It has the force of any statute on which it is based.


Arthur Meighen: Of any statute.


William Pugsley: Of any statute on which it is based. It is like the rules made under: a judicature Act. These Orders |n Council are not unknown at all, they are not unusual and they are not unique in character. Take a statute providing for a judicature Act; in England and wherever a judicature act has been passed; the Legislature has given to the Supreme Court the power to make rules which have the force of the statute just the same as if they were enacted in the judicature Act itself. So, in regard to boards of health; every board of health act provides that the provincial board of health may make rules and regulations which have the force of law just as if they were enacted by statute. In England and in this country you will find numbers of statutes which are passed giving to certain bodies, sometimes to the Governor in Council, sometimes to another public body, power to make orders or rules and regulations which are to have the force of law. Now, Sir, these rules and these orders are what are known as subordinate legislation. But, Sir, they must depend for their validity and their endurance must depend upon the basic Statute upon which they are founded and for the carrying out of which these different parties are given power to make such orders. Take the case of a Board of Health which is created and power given to it to make regulations which are to have the force of law just as if they were enacted in the Statute creating the Board of Health. But that Board of Health is to last three years, the Act creating it is to come to an end in three years. Would it be argued that when the Board of Health goes out of existence as the result of the expiry of the temporary Statute that the regulations would still stand and that they could still be enforced?


Arthur Meighen: The effect of them would stand.


William Pugsley: Not at all.


Arthur Meighen: Anything done under
them would stand.


William Pugsley: There are two kinds of Statutes known to the law, as my hon. friend knows. One of them is what is known as a perpetual Statute and the other a temporary Statute or Act. A perpetual Act is one to which there is no limitation. While it can be repealed at any time by Act of Parliament, it is known as a perpetual Act. You will find that distinction in all text books. Now this War Measures Act happens to be a temporary Act. My hon. friend has not called attention to that. He has spoken of this as if it were like any other Statute; it is called the War Measures Act but he treats it as though it were like any other Act. Some parts of it are perpetual but some parts and the most vital are temporary and are to expire at the termination of the war.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Private Bills, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Bill No. 8, to incorporate the Bishop of Mackenzie River-Mr. R. B. Bennett in committee.
On section 1-incorporation:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the hon. gentleman explain the Bill?


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: It is a Bill in the usual terms for. the incorporation of the Bishop of Mackenzie River, who happens to .live without the bounds of the province. It involves nothing contentious in any sense. The Private Bills Committee made the necessary amendments to make it conform to other Bills of a similar nature.


George Perry Graham: Does the hon. member
know what the amendments are?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Merely verbal.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-investments:
William Pugsley: I see that the corporation may invest its funds and moneys in first mortgages on freehold property.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Corporations of
that character in western Canada have in

many instances found it advisable to invest what little funds they have in productive mortgages rather than in other forms of securities, and that power has been granted by the provinces. The only reason why this Act is ibefoTe the committee is because the corporation is in the unorganized territory of the Dominion. Otherwise the matter would be dealt with by the provinces.


George Perry Graham: The stock in which they invest has to pay a dividend of three years?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Last year similar legislation was passed in respect of a Catholic corporation in the northern country.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-lands conveyed in certain deeds, letters patent, etc., vested in corporation :
Richard Bedford Bennett: The power of vesting property would not belong to this Parliament were it not for the fact that the district concerned is outside of organized territory. There is no doubt as to the right of Parliament to exercise that power.


George Perry Graham: If this Parliament did not do it, no power could.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to. Bill reported.
Bill No. 14, respecting the Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited, and to authorize it to change its name to "United Grain Growers, Limited."-Mr. Bradbury-in committee.
On section 1-power to change name:
Mr. STEELE:: This Bill went through the Private Bills Committee without amendment except one slight change in clause 3.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-head office and other places of business:
Michael Steele: There was a slight amendment to that clause. After the words "place or places" in the second last line the words "in Canada" were inserted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-grouping of shareholders in local societies based on territorial districts:
Richard Bedford Bennett: This had better stand until the member for Selkirk comes. It is an important section.


William Thomas White: I would suggest that it stand. This section seems to have
some unusual feature, and I think it should be explained to the committee.
Section stands. Progress reported.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 25, to incorporate the British American Telephone and Telegraph Company.-Mr. Jameson.
Bill No. 31, respecting The Cariboo, Bark-erville and Willow River Railway Company.-Mr. Stevens.


George Perry Graham: Might I ask the indulgence of the House to complete a statement that I made yesterday, by reading a telegram?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: That can be done only with the consent of the House.


William Thomas White: If any one ot>
jects, the hon. member is out of order. I have no objection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no objection.


George Perry Graham: The telegram reads:
Montreal, April 27, 1917. Hon. George P. Graham,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Referring to Mr. Bennett's statement and your denial respecting an alleged agreement of the late Governmtnt to hand over the Intercolonial Railway to thel Canadian Northern Railway, a press report represents Mr. Bennett as having said in the House of Commons yesterday that if you (Graham) would consult the former Minister of Finance, you would find that the capital value was fixed, the rate of interest on this capital agreed' upon and the term of years of the agreement fixed. I desire to give this statement the most unqualified contradiction. I never saw or heard of such an agreement. I never had any negotiation or discussion with anybody representing the Canadian Northern Railway Company respecting transfer of the Intercolonial Railway.
.	(Signed) W. S. Fielding.




Mr. BURNHAM:: With the consent of the House-


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Order. The House will now resume the adjourned debate.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend (Mr. Graham) having brought to the attention of the House a matter that can be

dealt with only by consent, possibly members will be willing to extend similar indulgence to the hon. member for Peterborough, who, I understand, desires to make a brief statement.


George Perry Graham: As this is Friday night, if the statement is not made now, there will be no opportunity to make it until next woek. We, on this side of the House, have no objection to the hon. gentleman s making a statement.


John Hampden Burnham: I wish to rise to a
question of privilege. On Thursday evening, the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Niclcle), as appears by Hansard, spoke regarding my remarks on venereal diseases.
I wish to say that my reference was to the question of venereal diseases and the war at large, and not to aiiy specific army, as a perusal of the reporter's notes will show.
I have re-read the reporter's notes and find no instance of the use of the word " Canadian " by me in that connection, but simply a reference to Canada's possibly being in danger after the war, meaning, of course, to refer to immigration, although I did not use the word " immigration."



THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) for the Committee of Ways and Means, and of the amendment of Mr. Turriff thereto, resumed.
Hon. Mr. PUGSLEY i(resuming):	Before the House rose at six o'clock, I was proceeding to argue that this Order in Council was of a temporary character. It is in the nature of temporary war legislation, and the Solicitor General and myself both agreed-in fact, he was rather pleased, as he thought, to convince me of his assertion, but I did not require any convincing because it was absolutely clear law that any subordinate legislation which any body, whether the Governor in Council or a' Board of Health, or any similar body has the power to make, has the same effect as if it had been enacted by Statute.
Arthur Meighen: What I said was "in any statute."


William Pugsley: I said, if the order had been included in the Statute of 1914, in section 6, it would necessarily expire at the termination of the war. My hon. friend dealt with the matter this afternoon as if the War Measures Act were a permanent measure. I stated that there are some clauses in it which are of a permanent

character and the effect of which may be spoken of as perpetual, whereas there are other clauses- and the most important clauses so far as the present question is concerned- which are of a temporary character. I would call the attention of hon. members to the War Measures Act, from which they will see that I am correct in that statement. This Act was passed on the 27th of August, 1914. First is the citation:
This Act may be cited as The War Measures Act, 1914.
Then by section 2, it provides:
All Acts and things done or omitted to be done prior to the passing of this Act and on or after the first day of August, A.D. 1914, by or under the authority of or ratified1 by,-
(a)	His Majesty the King in Council;
(b)	any Minister or officer of His Majesty's Imperial Government;
(c)	the Governor in Council;
(d)	any Minister or officer of the Government of Canada;
(e)	any other authority or person;
which, had they been done or omitted after the passing of this Act, would have been authorised by this Act or by orders or regulations hereunder, shall be deemed to have been done or omitted under the authority of this Act, and are hereby declared to have been lawfully done or omitted.
That, of course, has no application to the present question. Then it is provided by section 3:
The provisions of sections 6, 10, 11 and 13 of this Act shall only be in force during war, invasion, or insurrection, real or apprehended.
Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 12 are in the nature of perpetual legislation.
Now, it is under the 6th section, which is declared to 'be temporary and to remain in force only during the war, that this Order in Council was passed. Section 6 says:-
6. The Governor in Council shall have power to do and authorize such acts and things, and to make from time to time such orders and regulations as he may by reason of the existence of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms, it is hereby declared that the powers of the Governor in Council shall extend to all matters coming within the classes of subjects hereinafter enumerated, that is to say:-[DOT]
(a)	Censorship and the control and suppres-' sion of publications, writings, maps, plans,
photographs, communications and means of communication;
(b)	arrest, detention, exclusion and deportation ;
(c)	control of the harbours, ports and territorial waters of Canada and the movements of vessels;

(cl) transportation by land, air, or water, and the control of the transport of persons and things;
Next is the clause under which this Order was passed.
(e)	trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture;
(f)	appropriation, control, forfeiture and disposition of property and of the use thereof.
To make my argument at this point clearer, let me ask, if this Order in Council is to have the same effect as a statute what would have been the effect if, instead of paragraph (e), which gives authority to make Orders in Council relating to trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture, the Act had declared that wheat, wheat products and semolina should be placed on the free list? I admit that the Order jn Council is just as strong as would have been a clause to that effect in the Act, but in that case it would, of course, come under section 6 and, toy section 3, section 6 is to be in force only during the war. Therefore, unquestionably, if, instead of the Order in Council passed by the Governor in Council under the authority of section 6, Parliament had exercised this authority itself. its effect would cease at the end of the war. Now, the question is, does the Order in Council have a more extensive operation than the section of the statute on which it is founded? I submit not. It is merely subordinate legislation which Parliament, instead of enacting itself, has given authority to the Governor in Council to enact. As I have said, it is similar to the case of 'boards of health established by provincial legislatures and given power to make regulations. If the Act establishing the board of 'health is temporary in its character the moment the time arrives when the Act 'becomes inoperative then ipso facto any orders or regulations made by the hoard of health cease to have any effect. If there can be found in the statute itself any evidence of an intention on the part of Parliament that any Act which was done by Order in Council should remain in operation after the Act itself went out of force, then a court would construe it as being the intention of Parliament that it should be so continued in operation after the Act had terminated, but under the authorities there must be a clear intention on the part of Parliament that anything which is done shall continue in force after the Act has ceased to operate. My, hon. friend the Solicitor General said, " If the suggestion of hon. gentlemen opposite is correct, how would it be with regard
to the Ross Rifle factory? The Government has expropriated that property; suppose they should not pay for the property until after the war ceases, would the property revert back to the Ross Rifle Company?" Well, Parliament had that in view, and by section 7. which is of the nature of perpetual legislation, provides that the Government shall pay for any property7 that has been expropriated. Parliament realized that if all the sections of the Act were to be of the same temporary character as sections
6,	10. II and 13 there might 'be' cases where grave injustice would toe done, and section
7,	therefore, provides:-
Whenever any property or the use thereof has been appropriated by His Majesty under the provisions of this Act, or any order in council, order or regulation made thereunder, and compensation is to be made therefor and has not been agreed upon, the claim shall be referred by the Minister of Justice to the Exohequer Court, or to a Superior or County Court of the province within which the claim arises, or to a judge of any such court.
That section does not end with the war, as do sections 6, 10, 11 and 13. Section 7 provides for the payment of any property which has been expropriated under the temporary Act.


Arthur Meighen: Does not my hon. friend see that Section 7 simply provides the means for paying for the factory? It does not affect the point at all. If what my hon. friend says is correct, the title would revert back to the Ross Rifle Company after the war. Section 7 makes no provision of that kind whatever.


William Pugsley: Anything that has been completed while the temporary Act is in force is carried to a conclusion and becomes effective.


Arthur Meighen: This is completed.


William Pugsley: Parliament may have taken the property, but not have paid for it before the end of the war, and to meet such a case, Parliament provides the means of paying for the property even after the war has come to an end; section 7 was passed for that purpose. But, as I have said, section 6, under which this Order in Council was passed, is temporary in its character, and ends immediately on the conclusion of the war. It has very often happened that a question has arisen as to the effect of a temporary Act, and there is one important case referred to in a very valuable book entitled Craie's Statute Law, which is based upon Hardeastle, an authority of the very greatest merit. In this text book a

case will be found where a question arose as to whether a temporary Act had the effect of repealing a franchise under which certain tolls were collected, or whether it merely suspended the operation of the franchise. The court held that it would depend upon what was the apparent intention as expressed by the Act of Parliament. In one case it was provided that the temporary Act should continue for a certain period of time and until the close of the then next session of Parliament, and the court was convinced that the intention of Parliament in passing the temporary Act was that, at its expiration application should be made to Parliament to deal with the matter. The court held that as the intention was that application should be made to Parliament, the franchise was repealed. It is always a question, no matter whether the Act deals with regulations, tolls or anything else provided for by another. Act, whether the latter Act is simply suspended in its operations, or repealed.
There is not a line or a word in this statute from which it could be inferred that Parliament had any intention of continuing sections 6, 10, 11, and 13 or anything done under these sections one day beyond the termination of the war. If that be so, this subordinate legislation, this Order in Council, must end with the basic legislation upon which it is founded. It certainly could not have been intended by Parliament to give a subordinate body, which is what the Governor in Council is, greater power than that which is exercised by Parliament itself. Parliament in this legislation is dealing with temporary matters, it is enacting that which it is desirable to enact because of the exigencies of war. Had the provisions of this Order in Council been enacted directly by Parliament as part, of section 6, instead of as subordinate legislation by Order in Council under that section, it would have come to an end with the war. The Solicitor General admitted that-he was obliged to do so. As the authorities show that subordinate legislation is to be construed as if it were contained in the basic Act itself, and as this section of the statute comes to an end with the war, the Order in Council based upon it cannot have a longer life. On this point I will refer to this same authority, Craies. At page 262 he gives examples of what in England are called "statutory rules"-subordinate legislation having the force of law. He says:
The most salient examples or statutory rules are the Rules of the Supreme Court (infMr. Pugsley.J
eluding' the Crown Office Rules), the County Court Rules, the Summary" Jurisdiction Rules, the Regulations to Prevent Collisions at Sea, and many, if not most, Orders in Council.
There is nothing sacred about an Order in Council any mpre than about a regulation made by any other authority given power by statute to make it. Craies further says:
Under certain statutes it is directed-
(1)	That Orders in Council, etc., made under the statute are to have the same effect as if enacted therein; or
(2)	That rules when made are to lie on the tables of both Houses of Parliament for a certain time; or
(3)	That the validity of the order, etc., shall not be judicially questioned.
The case of Institute of Patent Agents, v. Lockwood suggests that in the first of these cases "the proper canon of construction is to read the original Act and the subordinate legislation together as if they were one Act and were to be construed together ;'* and it is submitted that the same rule applies to cases (2) and (3).
Thus, when a statute gives authority to any body or person, whether the Governor in Council, or a board of health, or a court, any order made under that statute is to be constructed with the statute on which it is founded, and when, by effluxion of time, the statute becomes of no effect, the order made in pursuance of it and based upon it also comes to an end. That is subject always to this consideration-that if Parliament has clearly shown an intention that the subordinate legislation is to continue after the expiration of the statute, the courts will give effect to it. In cases where a temporary Act suspends the operation of a franchise or the levying of tolls, then, when the temporary Act expires, the statute whose operation was by it suspended ipso facto comes into force again, just as before the temporary Act was passed.
That nothing can be done under a temporary Act after it expires has been established in a number of cases. There is one rather interesting case to be found in Craies at page 338. Mr. O'Connell was charged with an offence under a temporary Act. When brought to trial he pleaded guilty. But he was not punished, and many thought that this was because of political pressure having been brought to bear. But when inquiry was made it was found that, though he had been tried and had pleaded guilty during the continuance of the temporary Act, afterwards that temporary Act had expired before sentence and there was thus no power to sentence him.
I have spoken of instances in which Parliament has clearly made provision that


John Hampden Burnham: If the Government advance a certain opinion they are certainly denying the contrary but when the hon. gentleman finds a certain section demonstrating that this Government can do a certain thing would he interpret it as being intended to prevent them from doing that thing?


George Perry Graham: Put it on the Statute Books so that there would he no mistake.


William Pugsley: If I were in power I would say absolutely that I would feel bound to take the position that this is a temporary Act, and that the customs duties would nt its termination come into force. The temporary Act expires when the war terminates and the customs duties again become operative. The Deputy Minister of Justice says that the order has the effect of ^legislation-we all admit that-of subordinate legislation-and then he says that these duties are removed by this temporary Act, which, of course, is entirely consistent with the position I take that they are temporarily removed, and that they can only come into operation again by the authority of. Parliament. And he says that wheat, wheat flour and semolina will remain free unless fresh duties be imposed by or under the authority of Parliament.


Arthur Meighen: Read the whole of the last sentence, please.


William Pugsley: I will read it.
Therefore, I am of opinion that the Order in Council became effective as from its date permanently to remove the duty imposed by the present customs tariff on wheat, wheat flour and semolina and that these products accordingly become free of customs duty, and will remain free unless fresh duties be imposed by or under the authority of Parliament.


Arthur Meighen: What . does ''perman-nently" mean?


William Pugsley: Upon reading it again I am inclined to think that Mr. Newcombe

must mean permanently. The idea I had before was that it was until the duties were reimposed under the authority of Parliament, but the word "permanently" would rather indicate that Mr. Nevvcombe's opinion is that it is permanent, and I should be disposed to leave it at that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Pugsley: It is the pride of members of the legal profession that they admit at once when they make an error, and I gladly admit that I misinterpreted Mr. Neweombe. But, while I have great respect for Mr. Newcombe's opinion, I am inclined to think that there has been a failure to call his attention to the authority of Hardcastle and Craies, because these authorities are absolutely clear that when an Act temporary in its character prevents the collection of duties and tolls and the exercise of franchises, that Act, at the end of the time when it is declared that it shall be in operation, shall cease to be in force, and, ipso facto, the ancient franchise will be restored and1 the tolls or duties provided by statute will go into force again unless there is an expression of a clear intention on the part of Parliament to the contrary. '
Supposing I should be in error as to this, then there is the other fact which cannot by any possibility be gotten over, that the Governor in Council is expressly given by this statute the power to revoke this order at any time during the war. They cannot do it afterwards because the authority ends with the war. Under section 6 they have authority to revoke it at any time during the war. These are the words contained in section 6, sub-section 2, the. statute under which this order is passed, and they are as clear as language can be:
All orders and regulations made under this section shall have the force of law and shall he enforced in such manner and hy such courts, officers and authorities, as the Governor in Council niay prescribe, and may he varied, extended or revoked hy any subsequent order or regulation. *
There is the clear authority given by section 6 of this statute, the same statute which, during the war, gives the power to make an order and to enforce it during the war and also the power to revoke it. There is no question about that. That shows that the order is temporary in its character. It shows that if the Government should desire to do so, they might, behind the back of the public and behind the backs of members of this 'Parliament, in secret
fMr. Pugsley.]
session, in council, at any time, revoke this order and restore the duties on wheat, wheat flour and semolina under the Customs Act.
So that whether its temporary character is ensured Iby the fact that that Act is temporary and wi'll expire at the termination of the war, or whether it is temporary in its character because, without reference to Parliament, the Governor in Council has the power, to-morrow or at any time it pleases to do so, to revoke this Order and to place these products again under a duty, the argument which is made by the gentleman who moved the amendment and those who support it from this side of the House in favour of placing these products on the free list by Act of Parliament and so doing away with its temporary character, takes on the greatest possible force. Gan anybody dispute that? And if any one were to pay attention to the argument of the 'Solicitor General to-day I should say there would he the greatest possible danger, if that hon. gentleman can carry weight with Council, that the Order may be revoked very soon, and particularly in view of the fact that we had not a full Cabinet Council in Canada when the Order was passed. The Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), another important minister representing a Manitoba constituency, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) were all absent; indeed, I think even the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) was away at the time; so that 'four very important members of the Cabinet were absent. Now, what may happen a little later on, when, perhaps, a different view may prevail? The Solicitor General, if any weight is to be given to his argument to-day, has endeavoured to convince this House and this country that he and his colleagues were right in the view which they took a year ago, when they stood up in this House and voted against free wheat. His argument is along these lines, and I am sorry to say that his argument places the Solicitor General and this Government in the rather unenviable position of bringing down an Order in Council which they do not believe will be in the public interest, if we may credit what they say. Because what is the fact, and what does the Solicitor General say when you boil it down? He says, as a 'last reason why this Order should have been passed, that while he thinks that a majority of the whole people of Canada would be against it, yet out in the West, through the act of these dreadful Grits, through their repeated agitation,

they have really convinced the people out there that free wheat would be in the interest of the country; the majority of the people of Canada do not believe that, but the people in the West, these poor easily misguided farmers, have been persuaded by Grit 'speakers on the platform and in this House, and it is not desirable, particularly when an election is at hand, to have any large section of the people dissatisfied.


Arthur Meighen: Election?


William Pugsley: Yes, that is the effect of what the hon. gentleman says.


Arthur Meighen: What election?


George Perry Graham: Alberta and Saskatchewan.


William Pugsley: What does it mean? It means that upon a great question, a question of the trade relations between these two great countries involving the greatest natural products of both countries, upon a great question upon which the Conservative party came into power in 1911, upon which they asked the people to give them their support and their confidence, and upon which they succeeded in getting a majority of the representatives of the people, the hon. gentleman in effect says: Notwithstanding all that, notwithstanding our position at that time and ever since upon the trade question, notwithstanding that we have asked our followers to stand up in this House and vote down resolutions of a similar character in the past, and although I thought then we were right and I think still we were right, yet for fear that we shall lose some Conservative support out in western Canada, we are going to swallow our principles and give to these dreadful Grits what they have been asking for.


George Perry Graham: It hurts but we are going to do it.


William Pugsley: I should like to read this Order in Council. I think it is the most unique document ever presented to Parliament, particularly coming from a Government that thinks it was unwise to pass it, particularly coming from a Government whose Solicitor General has eagerly searched the newspapers from day to day in order to present to this Parliament evidence that it was unwise to pass it, that instead of having the effect of increasing the price of wheat it has' really lowered the price of wheat.


Arthur Meighen: No I did not, not at all.


William Pugsley: Let me read it Mr. Speaker:
At the Government House, Ottawa, Monday, the 16th day of April, 1917. Present:	His
Excellency the Governor General in Council.
Whereas the Minister of Finance reports that certain conditions arising out of the war seriously affect prices obtainable in Canada for wheat, especially of the lower grades-
And, Sir, bear in mind that that was passed at a time when Canadian wheat was quoted at $2.20 per bushel. On the 16th day of April, the very day when this Order in Council was passed, wheat was quoted ,at more than $2.20, and yet the minister says:-
Whereas the Minister of Finance reports that certain conditions arising out of the war seriously effect prices obtainable in. Canada for wheat, especially of the lower grades

Now, you see, that is rather put on the ground that it is owing to the low prices of wheat that they have been brought to the serious consideration of the passing of this Order. Wheat was only 2.29i when this Order was passed. Why, what sympathetic consideration the Minister of Finance must have for the farmers of Canada when he will violate every principle which has animated him for the last five years on this trade question, when he recognizes that he got into this Parliament upon the *cry of "No truck or trade with the Yankees." How tremendously he must have been overwhelmed by the low price of wheat, $2.29 a bushel, when he sat down to write this recommendation to Council. He says:
Whereas in normal times there exists a good commercial export demand for milling purposes from Great Britain and the Continent for wheat of all grades

Now Sir, what 'are meant by normal times? They would he times of peace, would they not? And what is the highest price of wheat in times of peace? Not one dollar a bushel and in normal 9 p.m. times the minister would do nothing for the farmers, when the farmers were getting only one dollar a. bushel.


George Perry Graham: Less.


William Pugsley: Less than a dollar a
bushel. In 1915 it was only ninety cents a bushel.
Whereas in normal times there exists a good commercial export demand for milling purposes from Great Britain and the Continent for wheat of all grades

\

There was no necessity of doing anything for the farmer when wheat was at the price it was in normal times, ninety cents per bushel.
And whereas this demand has for some time past almost entirely ceased on account of shortage of ocean shipping due to submarine warfare, practically all available tonnage being required to transport grain of the higher grades and flour made therefrom, purchased in [DOT] Canada and the United States by the British and Allied Governments for their respective needs.
One would suppose that, getting as they do a price 100 per cent more than they ever got before or even dreamed of getting in normal times, the farmers would not have found it a very great hardship to pay the duty upon the lower grades of wheat going into the United States. Even then they would not do too badly as compared with their condition in normal times, when their appeals never touched the hearts of members of this Government. This order proceeds:
And whereas in consequence of this condition wheat is being exported to the United' States market for sale there, notwithstanding the customs duty payable thereon under the provisions of the United States tariff.
So it is in consequence- of the fact that the farmers are getting $2.29 a bushel for 'their high grade wheat and that they are sending their lower grade wheat to the United States and paying duty thereon, that the attention of the Minister of Finance is directed to this most important and most disturbing question. So they would have us believe, by this beautiful Order in Council.


George Perry Graham: Disorder in Council.


William Pugsley: They must get this thing through quickly before Parliament reassembles, and they make inquiries from the Grain Commissioners. The order recites:
And whereas from inquiries recently made from the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada and other authentic sources the Minister of Finance is satisfied' that the prices now prevailing in Canada for wheat, particularly of the lower grades, are, owing to the cause above mentioned, much lower than the prices obtained therefor in the United States.


George Perry Graham: No.


William Pugsley: " Much lower than the prices obtained therefor in the United States."


George Perry Graham: Who admits that?


William Pugsley: The farmers are getting, as I said before, $2.29 for wheat of the

higher grade, and they are selling large quantities in the United States, paying duty of 10 cents a bushel. Then the order proceeds:
In fact, there are strong grounds for the belief that advantage is being taken of the situation to maintain prices of the said grades at figures lower than are warranted by general market conditions, and from information at hand it appears that there still remains a large amount of last year's Canadian crop unmarketed.
And whereas it is desirable at a time when a special appeal Is being made for increased agricultural production to supply grain and foodstuffs to Great Britain and her Allies, which now include the United States of America, that the Canadian farmer should feel that he will obtain the best market prices obtainable for product of his industry.
But the Government having waited until April 16, after the cropping season is opened, the farmer will not be able to avail himself of this order so as to enlarge his crop during the present year.- If my information is correct, the people whose unfortunate financial condition appeals to the Minister of Finance and his colleagues are the speculators who months ago bought up the wheat from the farmers and have it stored in the elevators all the way from Calgary to Montreal and Quebec. The order proceeds :
And whereas, the Minister of Finance is of the opinion that it is in the circumstances advisable that such action should he taken which would give to Canadian wheat free access to the markets of the United States-*
Now the minister is beginning to talk upon broad principles.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He was against that.


George Perry Graham: One year ago.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is when he began to be again-st it.


William Pugsley: How pitiable it is that when we come near the time that we have to face the electors, pur principles are scattered to the dust. " In the circumstances." In what circumstances? In the circumstances that Western wheat to-day is 100 per cent higher than it has ever been in the history of the country. (Reading):
It is in the circumstance? advisable that such action should be taken which will give to Canadian wheat free access to the markets of the United States in lieu of the .commercial markets in Great Britain and on the European continent.
In lieu of them! A man is sometimes appointed to a position in lieu of somebody that is dead. The minister is now going to

seek the American market in lieu of the European market. He goes on:
In lieu of the commercial markets in Great Britain and on the European continent, forjn-eily available under the conditions then existing, and, with this object in view, he directs the attention of His Excellency to certain provisions of the Customs Tariff of the United States.
Have you not, Sir, often heard the Prime Minister and other members of the Government, speaking in this House of the reciprocal statutory arrangement which was to be made under the negotiations between Mr. Fielding and the Secretary of State of the United States, assert in tones of thunder that we should legislate in the interests of Canada independently of what the Congress of the United States might do in the way of legislation? And yet the Finance Minister calls the attention of His Excellency to certain provisions of the United States tariff. He goes on to say:
By item 644 thereof wheat, wheat flour, semolina, and other wheat products, shall be entered free of duty from countries which do not impose a duty on wheat or wheat flour or semolina imported from the United States; otherwise the duty upon wheat is fixed at ten cents per bushel, and upon wheat flour at forty-five cents per barrel, and upon semolina and other products of wheat ten per centum ad valorem.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Read that again, to make sure that you are quoting the United States tariff.


William Pugsley: I will read it again, because it seems hardly possible that the Minister of Finance should quote the United States tariff. The Minister of Finance actually ppints out to His Excellency the Governor General, that the United States has made a statutory offer to this Govemmeht to admit wheat, wheat flour, semolina and other wheat products into the United States free of duty if the Canadian people through their executive authority or their Parliament will place them on the free list. Is there any negotiation there? None, my hon. friend says. Is it not this, that when this legislation has gone into effect under the authority of the Order in Council, the admission of the products of the one country into the other is dependent upon the reciprocal legislation which these two countries have passed? How different is that from the arrangement of 1911, except as to the number pf articles which were to he admitted under reciprocal legislation?


George Perry Graham: It is the same thing.


William Pugsley: These hon. gentlemen have said that they want no entangling alliances with the country to the south of us. In 1911 it was agreed that there should be no entangling alliances; it was agreed that each Parliament should be free and independent to legislate at any time to alter the duty in any way that might be thought in the best interest of its people. So, today, this Parliament is free; so to-day the Congress of the United States is free. Both cases are exactly similar. As I have said, there is not the slightest difference except as to the number of articles which were in the reciprocal arrangement of 1911 and the number in the reciprocal arrangement which you have to-day. What did my hon. friend do? Did he have no truck or trade with the Yankees? Did he not, the moment this Order in Council was passed, send a copy of it to the United States consul, so that he could inform the authorities at Washington that Canada would allow wheat, wheat flour and semolina to enter the United States free of duty? Then the Order in Council says:-
And whereas, if Canada should place wheat, wheat flour and semolina on the free list, our wheat and wheat products would gain free entry to the markets of the United States.
For the last six years you have said that Canada is going to legislate in her own interest; that Canada is to have no truck or trade with the Yankees that Canada is not going to base her fiscal policy on that of the United States. It is, however, pu't forward to His Excellency as a reason for placing these articles on the free list, not that that is to be of any advantage to the Canadian people, but that thereby we will get free entry into the great American market for the wheat and wheat products. Then the Order in Council says:-
And whereas it is desirable, in the national interest that, for the reasons stated above, free access should be obtained to the markets of the United States for Canada's wheat.
Not for Canada's low grade of wheat, not for this wheat that it is said we cannot sell to anybody else, but for Canada's wheat, her Manitoba hard, everything, all kinds of wheat. This Order in Council says, under the guiding hand of him who was once a strong Liberal, under the teachings which he had, in years gone by, when he was taught to believe it was desirable that Canadians should be given access to all the markets possible, and that there should be the greatest freedom possible in trading between these two great countries-under the guidance of the Minister of Finance, he-

cause it is ihe that makes this report, not the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Acting Premier-


George Perry Graham: Not the Solicitor General.


William Pugsley: No, it is not the Solicitor General, but the Minister of Finance, who says:-
And whereas it is desirable in the national interest that, for the reasons stated above, free access should he obtained to the markets of the United States for Canada's wheat. Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council, under the authority of the War Measures Act, 1914, section 6-
This temporary section, which expires when the war ends.
.-is pleased to order and it is hereby ordered that wheat, wheat flour and semolina be transferred to the list of goods which may be imported into Canada free of duty or customs.
The minister says that this is desirable in the national interests for reasons stated above. In view of the allegation that it is, as we on this side say that it was, that it has been for the last six years, and that it always has been, in the national interest that there should be a free exchange of wheat and wheat products between these two countries, what are the reasons that' animate this Government in advising His Excellency that Canadian wheat should have free -access to the United States? One is that a large amount of tonnage of wheat goes to the United States for shipment to Europe. I do not see that that would be any reason, because wheat could go into the United States under the law as it was before this Order in Council was passed, simply on the payment of the customs duty for bond, I think, of about one cent a bushel, or it may be even less than that. I have here a communication from the Secretary of the Board of Trade at Quebec. This is a public document, copies of which have probably been sent to other members of Parliament. It is dated the 14th of April, and says:
I would draw your attention to the following questions specially dealt with in this report:
1. The alarming- diversion of the grain trade of the Canadian Northwest to the United States ports. Notwithstanding the sacrifices made by Canada in building three transcontinental railways, 181 million bushels of our grain went to New York and other United States ports for shipment in 1916, as against 131 million bushels to points in Canada, for consumption as well as for export, of -which 40 million bushels subsequently went to Portland.
If the Quebec Board of Trade is right, then 221,000,000 bushels of Canadian grain

during the last year went through the United States to United -States ports, as against 91,000,000 bushels that went to points in Canada for consumption as well as' for export. Yet this is one of the actual conditions existing at this time which have induced the Minister of Finance to tell to His Excellency that it would be in the national interest that all restrictions should be taken away from the importation of wheat into the United States. Another circumstance is that the lower grade wheat cannot be marketed in Canada, and vast quantities of it-and that would seem to be borne out by the report of the Board of Trade-are marketed in the United States, notwithstanding the duty of ten cents per bushel, and-and this is one of the important and convincing circumstances-as at the present time the Canadian farmer is only able to sell under present circumstances his first class wheat at $2.29 per bushel, and is obliged to pay a duty of ten cents a bushel on even inferior grades of wheat imported into the United States, as he is to-day selling vast quantities of wheat in the United States and paying the duty, and as it is desirable to supply all the goods possible to the United Kingdom and her Allies, of which the United States is one-under these circumstances and in the national interest it is desirable to waive the duty and -so to secure these wheat -and wheat products shall go into the United States free. Have I not given the circumstances just as they are divulged by the Order in Council? If there are any other reasons to be given, tell me what they are. The Solicitor General, in one part of his speech, dwelt upon this fact, that it was desirable to send all the Canadian wheat possible through United States ports so that it would get to the Allies.
The fact that last year this vast quantity of Canadian wheat went into the United States would seem to destroy the argument which the solicitor submitted in that particular. No, Sir, the only justifiable ground upon which it can be put at all, is that this provision ought to be of a permanent character; that in times of war and in times of peace, so far as food products are concerned the tariff wall between the two countries should be torn down and the producers allowed to secure the best markets wherever they can in either one country or the other and the consumers buy at the lowest possible price. In setting forth their reasons hon. gentlemen opposite are deceiving themselves, and they think they can pull

the wool over the eyes of the people of this country, but they will not be able to do it. They have done what they have done, because they have not been able to stand up against the strong expression of opinion from the farmers of the North West. Let them confess that they dare not face the electorate in those constituencies with the tariff wall unremoved, and that in order to secure votes they have sunk the principles upon which they professed to stand here in Parliament, principles to whioh they asked their supporters in this House and the people of this country to rally. Let hon. gentlemen opposite confess that they have thrown away those principles because they feared that if they did not give the farmers free wheat they would lose a vast number of votes in the North West of people who hitherto had been ranked among their supporters. I am happy myself that these hon. gentlemen are gaining knowledge; they are improving slowly. It is true that we have been hammering away at them for a number of years, as a teacher hammers away at a dull boy to develop his mind. I am only one humble member of this party who has been seeking to instruct hon. gentlemen opposite. They have had good instructors on this side of the House and in a great many people in this country, and they have been learning slowly, and it is not ohly on this question that they have made progress. I wonder if my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sevigny) is in the House? If I may digress for a moment,' I would like to call attention to the wonderful development that has taken place in his intellect in the last few years. I happened to read in the Montreal Star the other night the report of a banquet that was given to my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue at Valleyfield on the 16th of April, the very day, by the way, when this other marvellous intellectual development was manifested in the passing of the Free wheat Order in Council. The Minister of Inland Revenue is reported as follows:
When, said Mr. Sevigny, only thirty years of age, lacking the experience I acquired later,
I declared I was opposed to all contributions by Canada to the wars of the Empire and opposed to a local navy. I won't deny that I committed that error. I frankly admit, etc.
Can you condemn him, 'Sir, very much for that? He was only thirty years of age when he appealed to the electorate in 1911. It is true that the younger Pitt was Prime Minister of England when he was only
twenty-one. But there are not many William Pitts, and perhaps it is not wonderful that this young man was not fully developed intellectually at the youthful age of thirty. He said at the banquet that he had learned much since then. Now that the hon. gentleman has had six years of intellectual growth., and has come to the conclusion that Canada ought to participate in the wars of the Empire, and that we should have a Canadian navy, let me express the hope in all sincerity, and with, the best intentions, that he will endeavour to exercise that influence which his ability and high standing and excellent qualities entitle him to exercise; let him have the courage and confidence that should distinguish those who have arrived at intellectual maturity.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What did he say at the banquet?


William Pugsley: I will read it again as I see the Minister of Inland Revenue has just come in. The Montreal Star gives a report of a very delightful banquet at Valleyfield on the 16th of April at which the Minister of Inland Revenue was present; it says:
When, said Mr. Sevigny, only thirty years of age, lacking the experience I acquired later, I declared I was opposed to all contributions by Canada to the wars of the Empire and opposed to a local navy. 1 won't deny that I committed that error. I frankly admit, etc.
I was saying in the absence of my hon. friend that he was only thirty years old when he declared that he was opposed to all contributions by Canada to the wars of the Empire and opposed to a local navy, and that we cannot expect too much of a young man only thirty years old. I was speaking of the delight it gives me to find the Solicitor General and his colleagues developing along intellectual and patriotic lines, which development if carried to a conclusion, must inevitably result in benefit to this country.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will tell us how old he was at the various times he changed his political views.


William Pugsley: Let me tell my hon. friend that never in my political life did I change my views except upon justifiable grounds, and if the Minister of Finance will tell us what age he was when he performed a similar act,-


William Thomas White: I never tell my age.


William Pugsley: If the Minister of Finance tells me that I shall endeavour to tell my age, but I can tell my hon. friend	that I never	changed
my political views except on justifiable grounds, for whenever I appealed to the people to approve of my conduct they never had any hesitation in supporting me, and therefore I feel pretty comfortable so far as my public life is concerned. Let me give just a little attention to the Minister of Inland Revenue; the Solicitor General must not think he is the only pebble on the beach, and try to attract all the attention to himself.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How old was he when he changed his views?


William Pugsley: I was glad that the Minister of Inland Revenue made the statement he did at that banquet, and I hope that during the short time he will occupy a position in the Cabinet he will be able to influence for the good of his country the gentlemen with whom he has heretofore been associated in the province of Quebec. Yesterday a very deplorable incident took place in this House. We had the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best) bringing in, without making inquiry as to whether its statements were true or not, an article from a newspaper, which 1 regret to say, has done a great deal to stir up race and religious feeling in this country. The Solicitor General and the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sevigny) did not call him to task or rebuke him. The Minister of Inland Revenue stated what he would have done if the hon. gentleman had made a motion to adjourn the House, -and also said that the outrageous statements in that article were untrue. Let me express the hope that the fact that the Minister of Inland Revenue did not at the time rise in his place and take advantage of his position -as a member of the Government to rebuke the hon. member for Dufferin was the result of an oversight, and that the minister will take the earlist opportunity, in caucus, to rebuke hon. gentlemen who are disposed to follow that course, and will use his undoubted influence-


Mr. SEVIGNY:: Was the hon. member (Mr. Pugsley) in -the House when the statement was read by the hon. member for Dufferin?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Albert Sévigny: Does not he know that at that time I tried to speak and was called to order by the Speaker?
[Sir Thomas WhiteJ


William Pugsley: I said that I trusted it was an oversight. I am glad to know that it Was because he was prevented from speaking. Let me express the hope, and I do it in all sincerity, that if any of his colleagues are disposed to take the improper and ill-advised course taken by the hon. member for Dufferin he will endeavour to prevent such action in the future.


Albert Sévigny: I am ready to do anything to prevent discord between the two races, but I shall succeed better if the hon. gentleman will stop the Liberal party from campaigning as they did in the county of Dorchester in J-anuary last.


William Pugsley: Let me tell my hon. friend I am not aware that any hon. member on this side of the House has ever sought to introduce race or religion here. I come from a province in which one-quarter of the people speak the French language -usually they speak English as well, but they are French-speaking. They are among our very best citizens. English-speaking and French-speaking people do business together, they associate together, their children go to the same schools, and they live in the utmost harmony. I think it is greatly to be deplored that there should be found gentlemen who will raise these race and religious issues. I was not able to follow the speech of the hon. gentleman as I should like to have done. I am sorry that I cannot follow French easily, nor understand it perfectly; it would be the greatest delight of my life if I could do so, for I admire the French language as much as I admire the French people. I liked the hon. gentleman's speech, but I think he failed in this, that he did not offer rebuke to the hon. gentleman who followed the course of which I have spoken. It seems to me that if those who have influence would show a disposition to prevent in every way possible the repetition of conduct such as that of the hon. member for Dufferin, the effect could not be other than good.
My hon. friend stated at Valleyfield, that in 1911, when he was only thirty years of age, and his mind was not fully developed, he had opposed a local navy. There is a feeling in this House and in the country that the reason this Government returned the tenders and refused to give a contract for the construction of ten war vessels-cruisers and destroyers-under the Naval Act of 1909, was the pledge which the Minister of Inland Revenue and his associates had exacted that there should be no Canadian navy. Now, after a lapse of

six years, and when his mind has presumably, as he himself says, developed far beyond what it was when he was thirty, he regrets his conduct at that time in opposing a local navy. Let me appeal to him to say to his colleagues, with all the influence which he ought to be able to command as coming from the great province of Quebec, so wealthy and With such a large population, that the time has come when the Government of Canada might well follow the example of Great Britain and the United States and engage with all its resources and all its energies in the building of ships. If he does this he will not only si ow that he regrets his action in 1911, but be will take the most effective measures to undo the harm done by the pledge which he and his associates exacted from the Conservative party at the elections of 1911. In view of the difficulty which England and her Allies are experiencing in getting foodstuffs, in view of the appeals made by Mr. Balfour to the United States, to send whatever ships they can, whether wooden ' vessels, cruisers, destroyers, or even tug boats,
I say that the greatest crime that any government ever committed against the people was the deliberate determination on the part of this Government not to build ships in Canada. We have lost five or six years, during which great results' could have been obtained.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And we have lost prestige.


William Pugsley: And we have lost prestige. Incalculable harm has been done to the Empire and to Canada. Let me implore my hon. friend to declare at an end the promise which he is alleged and believed to have exacted from the Prime Minister in 1911 j let him declare that the past is forgotten and that we must, even at this late date, begin to do our duty to Canada and the Empire by engaging in the building of ships, not war ships -alone, but also commercial vessels.
I was going to read some numerous Orders in Council which have been passed under the War Measures Act rescinding Orders which had been previously made, but I do not think it is necessary to do so because no one can question that this Government to-morrow could revoke that Order in Council and that it is merely temporary in its character. Therefore, I think that the mention of the fact that orders have been passed over and over again repealing 56
previous orders will be sufficient without taking up the time to refer to them.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, let me cftl your attention for a few minutes to this amendment proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. Turriff) and which my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) says is wholly political in its character. I would have thought, had it not been for the remarks of the Solicitor General, that it was one of the most-inoffensive amendments that was ever presented in this House of Commons by a member of the Opposition. There is not one word in it, not a breath, of want of confidence in this Government in so far as the present is concerned.


George Perry Graham: I think they ought to accept it.


William Pugsley: One would think so. My hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) says that it was not intended as a party resolution at all. It is not intended as a vote of want of confidence. If it were carried by the unanimous vote of this House, even against the Government, we would not ask -the Government to resign because it is not a motion of want of confidence.
I am authorized by the acting leader of this side of the House to-night to say that the gentlemen who will be called upon, and who will cheerfully, we hope, vote for this resolution, will not be doing it as expressing any want of confidence in the Government in the ordinary -sense. Therefore, if they can support this resolution, they can support it in perfect confidence that it will only express what this House ought to express and that no immediate harm can bo done to the Government because we must wait until the people have an opportunity of exercising their judgment -in reference to their conduct. Let me read it and see just what it says:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and' the following substituted therefor.
The hon. gentleman says that it contains a great laudation of the Opposition. It does not. It says:
This House desires -to take the earliest opportunity of expressing its pleasure that the Government has at last yielded to the persistent demands of the Grain Growers of the West as frequently set forth by delegations and resolutions of the representatives of the farming interest, and repeatedly voiced by the Liberal party in this House, by placing wheat, wheat flour and semolina on the free list, and thereby securing a free market for wheat and wheat products in the United States.



Is not every word of that true? Is there any objection to be taken to our expressing our gratification that this has been done? We do not take a childish view of this order. We do not want to gain any political kudos from it. We might seek to embarrass the Government, but what we say in effect is that we as members of the Liberal party in this House and in this country have been for years demanding, in the national interest, that wheat and its products be placed on the free list, we have been calling attention to the opportunities for vast growth, development and increased prosperity in our western country if this were done, and we have been urging that it should be done in the interest of Canada. Well, now, should the Government object to our expressing our gratification that they have at last yielded to our demands and the demands of the people of the West and passed this order? The Solicitor General himself has said that everything here is true, because he says in effect that the western farmers kept agitating and agitating, and that the Liberal party helped them during all these years, that the Liberal party egged them on and encouraged them until it got to be so infernally hot that the Tory Government could no longer resist the demand made upon them. Is not that in effect what the Solicitor General said? Why should we not express pleasure that the Government have at last acted upon our suggestion and placed wheat on the free list? That is all we ask you gentlemen to do. Are you not gratified that you have done it? 1 beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, may I ask, through you, Sir, if they are not gratified that they have done it? We are accustomed to see their smiling faces, but, looking at them this afternoon and seeing how glum and solemn they looked while the Solicitor General was giving utterance to his very eloquent, but, it seemed to me, laboriously conceived speech, it indicated that perhaps they were not so gratified as the Government would like to think them to be. But pretend to be; let me appeal to them to look as if they were gratified, to join with us on this side of the House and as a unanimous Parliament, representing the people of this country, let us declare that we are all gratified that at last this great measure of trade freedom has been passed into law, and that hereafter the farmers	of our western country can
move ahead with hope and confidence	in	their farming operations
towards the realization of Canada's destiny 
as the granary, the greatest grain-producing country in the world. Let us all join together so that word will go out to the people of the East, tp the people in our western country, to the people in the United States who are casting longing eyes on our fertile prairies and who desire to go there and to live and to help to develop the country that they can continue permanently to have this free market of the United States. What a wonderful effect it would have if we could pass this resolution unanimously declaring our satisfaction, our gratification, that the Government have at last passed this Order in Council giving to the people of this country free wheat and free flour! What a glorious thing it would be ! Is it possible that for purely partisan purposes the Government will vote down a resolution that reads like that? Well, to go further:
This House is of the opinion that if the policy of Free Wheat is made permanent it will enormously increase the prosperity of the West and be to the general advantage of the whole Dominion.
Why do you object to our agreeing in the reason which the Minister of Finance has set forth in his ordeT along with the passing of the order? The minister has said that:
And whereas If Canada should place wheat, wheat flour and semolina upon the free list our wheat and wheat products would gain free entry to the markets of the United States, i And -whereas it is desirable in the national interest that, for the reasons stated above, free access should be obtained to the markets of the United States for Canada's wheat.
All we ask you, as supporters of this Government, as members pf this House is to join with us in saying that the Finance Minister was absolutely correct when he stated to His Excellency the Governor General that it is desirable in the national interest that free access should 'be obtained to l/h>e markets of the United States for Canadian wheat. Are you going to vote that dpwn? Are you going to vote down a resolution couched almost in the very words of the Order in Council that you yourselves have passed?	,


Arthur Meighen: If it is in the words of the order why pass it again?
Mr. PUG'SLEY:	My hon. friend says
that the people are divided in opinion as tp the desirability in the national interest of placing wheat on the free list.


Arthur Meighen: No, I do not say that- it was of placing wheat and wheat flour on the free list.


William Pugsley: Yes, the 'hon. gentleman said that while he thought in the west they were strongly for it, he thought that would not be the opinion of the majority of the people of Canada.
If we all believe in it as I think we do, let us unanimously declare that it is in the national interest to place wheat and Wheat products on the free list. Let us take this question, not as the Minister of Trade and Commerce says out of the realm of trade, but out of the realm of politics and make it part of the permanent policy of this country, and by our legislation say to the Government of the United States: So long as that provision remains in your tariff, so long will it remain the policy of the people of Canada; so far as we, a united Parliament, can speak for the people of Canada, so long will it remain on the Statute-book of this country. I hope that will commend itself to hon. gentlemen. The concluding paragraph of the amendment of my hon. friend from Assinaboia (Mr. Turriff) reads:
In order that the country may be assured of such permanency and that the action of the Administration is not a mere temporary expedient which may be revoked at any time by the Government without reference to Parliament, this House would urge upon the Government the desirability of submitting early in the present session a measure to place by statute wheat, wheat flour and semolina on the free list, and thereby encourage the farmers to engage in the largest wheat production possible.
Now that is the resolution. Will anybody dispute that? Will anybody dispute that it is desirable? If it is in the national interest, if it is the universal demand of the farmers of the West, is the mere fact that we, the Liberal party, have beei^ in favour of it and have been pleading with gentlemen opposite to finally establish this policy, any reason why we should not to-day give to it the stamp of permanency? Why should it not be permanent if it is good and if it is in the national interest? Why should it be made permanent? Well, that is manifest to everybody. The object of the opening of these markets is, as is alleged by the Order in Council and as we all know, to encourage the farmers to increase production. What does increasing production mean? You cannot go out into the fields -as the Minister of Agriculture, even with his slight knowledge of farming knows- you cannot go out into the field and wave a magic wand and say to the wheat and oats and turnips:	Come forth from
the ground to feed the people of
56J
this world. No, Sir, the farmer has got to get to work to get his ploughs and horses and oxen or his gasolene tractors, he has to get his seed, he has to increase *hi.s acreage largely.	He has to go to
large expense, to 'borrow money from the his acreage largely. He has to go to heavy expense before he can 10 p.m. very largely increase his production. It is not desirable that he should know that there is to be permanency about this policy? He will not engage in. increased production, he will not go to the increased expense involved unless he knows that this policy is to have the character of permanency. Everybody knows *that this is not going to be a 'bit of good this year so far as increased production is concerned. The land, in order to be available this year, should have been broken up and prepared last year; the seed bed should have been got ready last year in order to give good results this year. Therefore these gentlemen have passed this Order too late to be of any good to the farmers this year, so far as increased production is concerned. If they wanted to pass this by reason of the conditions, which must have been pressed home upon them months and months ago as much as to-day, they should have passed this Order last year if it was intended to operate this year, or they should have passed it as early at least as last July so that the farmer could have got the seed bed ready for the crop of this spring. Therefore, if this is to be made of any value in relation to increased production, the farmers must begin next summer to plough their land and get ready for the seeding of the.spring of 1918. And one year would not be enough for them. They want, as I have said, permanency in order to warrant them in going to the expense necessary to insure increased production.
The hon. Solicitor General says that this is a political resolution and that our course is political. I fail to see on what he bases that statement. 'Is it political in the sense in which the course of my hon. friend and of bis colleagues appears to be political? They say in effect that they have swallowed their principes in order to meet the views of the people of the West, even although they are not satisfied that it is going to be of any great advantage. That is what the Solicitor General says to-day.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.


William Pugsley: And he has argued for the purpose of convincing the people that he was right last year to take a position di-

rectly opposed to this resolution. But it does seem to me that it is absolutely necessary to make this policy permanent in order that it shall have that beneficial effect that we desire that it should have. In our western *country, out of perhaps one hundred million acres or perhaps two hundred million acres of arable land, we have only about twenty million acres under cultivation. We want to encourage settlers to come in from the United States. They form perhaps the best settlers who can be brought into that country. I know one section of our Northwest where up to 1900 or 1902 there was scarcely any settlement at all. There had been a railroad running through that section for six years, but for sixty or seventy miles there was not a settler upon that line. About 1902 American settlers began to come across. They had experts analyze the soil, they undertook the cultivation of the land, and in that section of the country to-day vast areas are sown with wheat, and it is among the very garden spots of the Dominion of Canada., Americans make splendid settlers. Now, if you can show to these people that it is the permanent policy of the people of Canada to have free wheat, you will encourage people to come over from the United States, not by thousands but by hundreds of thousands, because they will look forward to farming in that country becoming very profitable indeed.
They know that' the large market of the United States is of enormous benefit to the farmer. They will be encouraged to come in, and our country will move ahead with very much greater rapidity and certainty. Leave the matter indefinite, leave it to have a temporary character, leave it so that the Government might tomorrow or three months from now or next fall even, when the war is over or before, cancel this Order, destroy the effect of this Order altogether and re-impose a duty on wheat and wheat products, and you m^ke the farmer timid, you make the settler timid and you will not achieve any important results either in the way of immigration or in the way of development of our country or advancement of prosperity.
Will you allow me, Mr. Speaker, sincerely to apologize to the House. I had not the slightest idea that I had taken up so much time. I hope it has not been entirely useless. I would be well repaid even for all the weariness I have inflicted upon the House if I can do something in the way of convincing our hon. friends to join with us in passing a unanimous resolution in sup-CMr. Pugsiey.]
port of their own Order. I should be glad indeed if we could to-morrow send out word to the people of this country that in the opinion of this Parliament this policy is in the national interest, that it would result in enormous benefit to Canada, and that the intention of Parliament is to make the policy one of a permanent character.
Mr. FRANK S. SCOTT (South Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsiey) will pardon me if I do not attempt to follow him in the arguments which he has presented in his speech to-night.
I am an ordinary layman, one not learned in the law, and he will understand how impossible it would be for me to attempt to follow him in a discussion that took such a legal turn as the speech which we have listened to to-night.
There appears to be some difference of opinion on the part of gentlemen of the *legal profession on both sides of the House as to the procedure which has been followed in giving free wheat that we have heard so much about to the western farmers. I confess that I am not very greatly concerned about the manner in which free wheat has been brought about. Lawyers may differ about that, tout the grain growers of the West, the people who are chiefly interested, will not toe deeply concerned about the method by which free wheat was granted. Since April 16 they have realized that free wheat is an accomplshed fact, and they will toe given an opportunity of observing whether their anticipations respecting the adoption of a policy of this kind will be realized.
In the Budget introduced a few days ago by the Minister of Finance there were no new principles, no new methods of taxation. In the Budget of 1915 a very radical change by way of tariff increase was made. I have noted, however, a very great difference between the way in which the Budget of 1917 has been received by 'hon. gentlemen opposite and their reception of the Budget of 1915. Hon. gentlemen opposite took very strong exception to the Budget of 1915 and the proposals that were therein made. So strong was their opposition to the Budget of that year that an amendment was introduced. One of their chief dbjec-tions was that it would not produce revenue. I have not heard any 'hon. gentleman opposite who has taken part in this debate argue that the present Budget, although there is no change in that respect, will not produce revenue. Another argument that was advanced two

years ago was that the Budget of 1915 would stifle trade. In the discussion that has taken place upon the Budget it has not been argued by hon. gentlemen opposite that the present proposals of the Finance Minister will stifle trade. We know that since 1915 the trade of Canada has been more buoyant than it ever was before. We were told in 1915 that the tariff proposals of that day would be a burden on the people; yet it has not been contended during the last few days by hon. gentlemen opposite that the tariff of to-day, which is identical with the tariff of 1915, would place any undue burden upon the people. The Budget of 1915 produced revenue without parallel in Canada's history. As to the so-called burdens that were imposed upon the people, thfi taxes were paid willingly and cheerfully, and there has been no undue hardship. In the light of our experience during the past few years, the Minister of Finance can take a great deal of encouragement from his recommendations of 1915, and can look forward with confidence to the future.
Since the bringing down of the Budget a few days ago, another line of argument has been followed by hon. gentlemen opposite. They claim that a sufficient share of the burden of the war is not being borne by the people of to-day; that we are leaving too much to posterity. The words of the chief financial critic of the Opposition were:-
Are we now doing- our full duty, or are we leaving too much to the future to pay? I believe that we are borrowing too much and paying too little.
What are the facts? We were told by the Finance Minister the other day that after paying all expenses for one year and providing for capital expenditure, out of the revenue of this Dominion there still remained a surplus of $60,000,000 to be applied to the carrying on of the war. Included in the ordinary expenditure was $25,000,000 interest upon war expenditure and for pensions. We were told by the member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) the other day that the Canadian public have contributed to the Patriotic Fund, Red Cross and other patriotic organizations the annual sum of $15,000,000 or $20,000,000. Taking the surplus of $60,000,000, the amount of $25,000,000 that has been paid for interest on war debt and for pensions, and the amount at least of $15,000,000 that has been subscribed voluntarily by the Canadian people for patriotic purposes, you have a total of $100,000,000. In 1912 the
total revenue of Canada was $135,000,000, and in 1914, $175,000,000. The people of Canada during the last year have contributed directly toward the carrying on of the war a total of $100,000,000, 73 per cent of the total revenue in 1912 or 57 per cent of the total revenue in 1914.
In every country it has always been a difficult question and one which has given rise to much difference of opinion, to decide what proportion of the cost of war should be paid out of current revenue and what proportion should be obtained by borrowing. I think that financial people, the world over, will agree that for a country like Canada so to re-arrange her financial affairs as to be able to make a contribution of this kind directly towards the "war, is certainly a splendid record. As this debate has proceeded, there has been perhaps too much of a tendency, one perhaps not confined alone to this House, but a tendency that has been somewhat general throughout the country, to deprecate, to belittle what the Dominion of Canada has-done in connection with this war. It is right, of course, that we should keep spurred on, as it were, that we should do all possible in connection with the war; but, from a national standpoint, it seems to me we would make a mistake if we tried to minimize what we have accomplished. It is a good thing for a man sometimes to get an outside view of his own business, and as it is with individuals, may it not be so with a nation? If, as Canadians, we could come in contact with the people of the neighbouring republic to the south, visit the cities of New York and Boston, meet there the average American citizen and hear what he has to say, hear the estimate which he has placed upon what Canada has done in this war, we would have a different idea, and a greater satisfaction than we ever had before, of the appreciation in which we are held by outside observers.
I do hot intend to say anything upon the question of free wheat, because that has been so fully dealt with by other speakers. There was, however, one criticism that was made by the hon.- member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) in connection with the action of the Government on this matter of free wheat, and it seemed to me that his point was not well taken. His argument was that the Government of to-day had adopted a policy of free wheat. He went further than some of the other critics of the Opposition in that he very

warmly commended the Government for it ; but his criticism was this, that while the Government had adopted this policy, it should have adopted it two years ago, and that great disadvantage had accrued to Canada. His argument was that countries like Sweden, Germany, Austria and other countries, immediately after the outbreak of war, had taken the same action; that they had removed the duties from foodstuffs, and that they had given their people this advantage. As I have understood all this agitation for free wheat, the arguments that have been advanced by hon. gentlemen opposite, and the position taken by t'he grain growers of the West, their standpoint was. not that it would reduce the price of wheat in the Dominion of Canada, hut rather that it would enable them to get a higher price for it in the American market. In my view, an argument or criticism of that kind is quite unjustifiable and illogical. The hon. member for Red Deer also said that the world had learned many lessons as a result of this war. There can he no doubt of that, and that things in general, in Canada and in every other country in the world, will be changed vastly as a result of this war; but the deduction which he drew was that, as a result of this war, the Dominion of Canada, having regard for what free trade Britain had been able to do, her splendid record of achievement, would be well advised to adopt a policy of freedom of trade as they have had it in Great Britain for so many years. He compared Britain's present record with that of Germany. As I said a moment ago. there are many lessons to be learned from this war, tout the lesson that Canada should learn from it is directly opposite to the lesson which the hon. member from Red Deer would attempt to apply to Canada. Compare Germany and Russia. This war has demonstrated 'beyond any possible doubt that no agricultural nation can withstand a war with an industrial nation. Forty years ago Britain was unrivalled as an industrial nation; there was no comparison at all in an industrial sense between Great Britain and Germany. Forty years ago Germany adopted a policy of protection, and under it her industries developed until she became Great Britain's most powerful competitor in all the markets of the world. The comparison I want to draw' is this:	Russia is a land
of great natural resources; her soil is more fertile, and she has a greater population than Germany. Russia continued as she had been doing; she had m 
effect the conditions as described by the hon. member for Red Deer, namely, absolute freedom of trade. She depended upon agriculture; she bought her manufactured goods in the most convenient and cheapest markets. Yet, if the statesmen of Russia could live over the past forty years, is there any reasonable-minded man to-day, who, in view of the events which have occurred during the last two years, will believe that the statesmen of Russia would abide by a policy of that kind?
It was, I think, the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) who said that we could thank the Kaiser for the prosperous condition that had existed in Canada during the past two years. A statement of that kind is scarcely fair. We can thank the Kaiser for the war, but we can thank the Government, and the late Minister of Militia in particular, in very large measure, for the prosperity which has come to this Dominion, through the manufacture of munitions of war. I would say further than that, that the people of Canada to-day can thank not only the present Government that has founded this great munition work, and the Minister of Finance for the credit of hundreds of millions of dollars which he has established in Canada for the benefit of the British Government, but we must go farther back than. that. Almost forty years ago this Dominion of Canada embarked upon the National Policy of Protection, and I ask you, Sir, if the statesmen of Canada had not adopted that policy forty years ago, would Canada to-day he in a position to take the part she has taken in the war during the last two years. A great industrial fabric such as we have in Canada is of slow growth; it cannot be built up in a day, and it is fortunate indeed that when this war came on the Dominion of Canada had a well established system ,of industries that enabled us not only to provide munitions for the carrying on of the war, but to discharge our heavy financial obligations in a "way that we otherwise could not have done.
'The hpur is late and I do not intend to trespass further on the time of the House, but I wish to take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister of Finance on the splendid statement he has been able to present. From the experience which Canada has already had of the operation of the tariff as laid down in the budget .of 1915, and of the special methods of taxation which have been adopted, I am convinced that Canada will be able to carry on success-


fully 'the part she has ch-osen for herself in this war, and will win a high and creditable place for herself among the nations of the world in this great struggle.


Mr. W. E. KNOWLES (Moosejaw):: The observations made by ordinary members of the House such as myself on an occasion such as this, when the Budget is being discussed, are in the way of a review of the record of the Government, or so much of it as is already written, and in the way pf an analysis of the policy of the Government so far as its future programme is disclosed. This duty which is cast upon a member, and, indeed, upon all sections of our people when they peruse a budget debate, is emphasized and intensified when the occasion is one such as this, when there is the probability of a general election before very long. I am not saying either yes or no to the question whether there should be a general election in the Dominion of Canada this year, but the fact remains that there is a great possibility, and even a probability, of one being held. In analysing the record of this Government one naturally examines it under two distinct heads: their administration during the times of peace, and their administration during the war. You cannot examine these two periods together for they are essentially and organically different, and a separate stewardship has to be rendered for each period. If before we have another Budget speech the people are asked whether this Government shall be continued in office, it will be their duty first and foremost to examine the two periods in a composite way. The first three years the Government were in office was a period during which ordinary normal conditions prevailed, that is to say, it was a time of peace as contrasted with war times. I am not going to dwell on the record of the Government during these three years other than to emphasize that in our perusal of their record during the war period we must not forget that just as much importance, if not more so, should be attached to an examination of their record during the days of peace, because the peace days, after all, are the days when normal conditions prevail.
Let us throw our minds back for a moment to those three years of peace when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, and I think on that score the Government stand almost self-convicted. We are so engrossed in the war that we are sometimes apt to forget what a mighty deliverance it was to hqn. gentlemen opposite.
Before the war came they were in sore straits; desperation was written on their brow. They did not know whether to go to the country and dare the worst, or wait a few months longer, when conditions might be still more desperate. You will recall, Sir, that tragic and eventful summer and fall of 1914, when hon. gentlemen opposite bad almost got their courage screwed up to the point of taking the plunge, before things got more desperate. The record of the Government during those three years, I say, was one of failure, and we have every Teason to believe that the same policy will prevail and the same sort of administration be given in times of peace if hon. gentlemen opposite are returned to power.
Let me recall the condition of affairs in 1914. I do not know whether you live in a city or town, Mr. Speaker, but throughout Canada at that time there prevailed the greatest stagnation; there was a condition of poverty almost in many of our cities and towns. In my own city of Moosejaw, which before that day had always been prosperous, and where the bread-winner of the family never need worry, men walked the streets by the hundreds, if not by the thousands, unable to get work, earnestly as they desired it. Those are the facts, and those were the conditions that prevailed throughout the whole Dominion of Canada. They had said, Let well enough alone; do not encourage the farmer by giving him reciprocity; we will have no truck and-trade with the Yankees; and the result was the unfortunate conditions of affairs that we saw throughout the whole Dominion of Canada. At the time these men were walking the streets of our cities looking for work, what did we see in our great agricultural districts? Great zones of land were calling for men to till them, simply crying out for labour, and although there were thousands of men walking the streets of our cities and towns, the two were never brought together. The secret of the development and prosperity of Canada during the fifteen years the Laurier Government was in power was that conditions on the land were made inviting to labour, and the men responded to the call of the soil, and made possible the great development of this Dominion. And if on that occasion reciprocity had been adopted, if encouragement had been given to the husbandmen by the opening of markets, ithe lowering of tariffs and the making of conditions more inviting, we have every reason to believe, the Dominion of Canada would have continued after 1911

the prosperity that it had experienced for fifteen years before that time. But these hon. gentlemen decided that they had a chance to demonstrate the success or failure of their policy, and they most successfully demonstrated the failure of it. So, I say, the question we shall have to ask ourselves is, whether or not it will be wise for the people to continue the Government in power. We have the experience of three years at least to test them by, and they are very important years to enable us to estimate the profitableness or the reverse of the administration they have given and the policy they have carried into effect. We have had three years of war. All that is fresh in our minds, three sad, ibloody years of war. And we have seen sights that have made us ashamed day and night. We have seen men lining their pockets, we have seen men doing things such as those for which, even in Austria, men are lined up against a stone wall and shot-that is, taking advantage of their country's dire distress for their own gain. For things not so bad as we have seen here, men in Manchester, as I read in one account, were *sent to penitentiary for five years-men who had some patronage to give and who accepted gifts, though not a word was said about bribing them. We have made such men honorary colonels or have given them other honours. But, as I say, when we come to ascertain whether this Administration is worthy of our confidence because of its record in the war years, we shall have to consider two things if nothing more -the Boss rifle, and the case of John Wesley Allison. These are enough, in my opinion, to drive ten governments out of power. I do not lay these things at the door of the late Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) but I lay them at the door of the Prime Minister (Sir Bobert Borden). He was warned-I heard him warned in this Chamber and in the old House, again and again over a period of eighteen months -'that he was putting into the soldier's hands a weapon that was useless. But for some reason, I will not say what the reason was, the lives of our soldiers were counted as nothing against the desire to *continue the Boss rifle.


Albert Sévigny: Does the hon. gentleman know that the Liberal press of Quebec, French and English, have published strong protests against this Government because they had ceased to manufacture Boss rifles in the factory?


William Erskine Knowles: because he could not wait seventy-two hours to make this change constitutionally, but rushed it through by an Order in Council under the War Measures Act. If, a year ago, this was an outrageous thing to do, it is hard to take the minister seriously when he says that it was urgent, immediate^ pressing, that the Government could not wait until Parliament met seventy-two hours afterwards. No sooner is it done than the same afternoon it is hustled off to Mr. Foster, the representative of the Yankees, and wired into Washington, in order that they might have it in force if possible next morning at ten o'clock when the customs offices opened. Talk about truck and trade with the Yankees; if the hon. gentleman experienced a conversion, it came to him with terrible suddenness, it came to him like a bolt, because he could not wait until the House met when the matter might have been attended to by Parliament.


An hon. MEMBER:: He might have lost the inspiration.


William Erskine Knowles: We would like him to make it permanent lest he get another inspiration and take it away from us just as suddenly. The views of the hon. Minister of Public Works were along the same lines. The minister used these words, Hansard, 1916, page 884. He says that Canadian wheat has such a high name that it would be wrong to detract from that high standard, and he goes on:
The fact is that Canadian wheat commands a price at the American seaboard of from twenty to twenty-five cents a bushel more than the American wheat. That is one of the reasons why I say this House would fail in its duty to the farming- community of Western Canada if it did not reject the resolution of my hon. friend.
And the same hon gentleman a few days later spoke along similar lines, Hansard, 1916, page 1049:
"We have to-day a position of great advantage with our wheat, a position which we have won gradually by our own efforts. Beyond question of doubt all these conditions justify us, having in view the interests of the farmers themselves, in rejecting this resolution, and thereby permitting these favourable conditions to continue.
His view was that if that resolution was adopted those favourable conditions would be taken away and a serious wrong would be done to the people of the West. At page 1050 he said:
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is our plain duty, having in regard the best interests of the Canadian farming community, to adhere to

our good old traditional policy of keeping Canada for the Canadians.
And he goes on at page 1051 and says:-
I say that we should appreciate the advantage of our position and that we would fail in our duty, especially to the farming community of Canada, and more especially of Western Canada, if we did not rejeot the resolution of my hon. friend for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), in which he proposes to divert our wheat into American channels as much as possible and thereby allow, it to be mixed with American wheat, in which case we would have to go over again all the work that we have done in the past to establish our own transcendent identity in the markets of the world.
Similarly, the hon. Solicitor 'General expressed himself on different pages, for instance pages 1071 and 1073; I shall not take the time to read what he said. But one thing he said was that of the desire for free wheat. 90 per cent was politics and 10 per cent falsehood, and now he is going to give us the whole 100 per cent for no other reason than that he may get a little peace. So, I wish to emphasize the point that we are driven to the conclusion that the Government are not sincere in dealing with the question on its merits. It is remarkable that a Government, elected to power as that Government was, should come out plainly and flatly and announce a change of view on this question of the tariff and of trading with the Yankees. We should know where we are. We are not content with a mere bone thrown to us while they still deny the underlying principle which is the subject of division between the two parties. Hon. gentlemen opposite would like to make it appear that there is nothing between the Liberals and the Conservatives. That is their stock argument especially in the West. I would say frankly that I regret there is not more difference between them, hut there is enough difference between them to make it clear that the Liberal party is the one we should support. The Liberal party favours a lowfer tariff and open markets, and these are grand British doctrines. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell), with his knowledge of agriculture, will agree that an open market is	not a bad thing
for a farmer who has things to sell. And so I say there is that cleavage between the two parties. But we in the West are not satisfied with what has been given to us. Do not let any one suppose that we are. We are not content with this moiety that is given to us, much less than a moiety. We want the rights that are ours. We want the open market in all things we

have to sell, above all things in our flax. We raise great quantities of flax. Hon gentlemen opposite said in 1911 that if we sold our flax to the Americans, which we did in any event and paid twenty-five cents a bushel duty on it, into the treasury of the United States we remained loyal Britishers; but if we got our flax into the United States without paying twenty-five cents a bushel to Uncle Sam's treasury our British blood would all go away with our flax and we would become Yankees. By what reasoning we know not, they tried to get away with this kind of argument, and did largely get away with it in Ontario. We are not content, we want free flax into the United States. Our flax goes there anyway, and it is simply a matter of en-r:ching the American treasury. We want free trade in fruit and many things that are denied to us which we would have secured under reciprocity. Let me say that whatever the policy of the Liberal party may be, and I am not high enough up m it to give a lecture on that policy, my policy is everything free that you can get free and a great many more things than were free under Liberals or Conservatives. Our own side were in power for fifteen years. I have said and repeat that my mind is clear as to which party it is my duty in the interest of my constituents to support. But my mind is just as clear in saying that neither party is anywhere near what I should like to see. Both parties, I think, have too many Conservatives in them, whether you call them Liberals or Conservatives. There are too many Conservative-Liberals in our party to suit me. I wish that a committee of western Canadians could be allowed to nominate all candidates for the Liberal party in the next election. That would ensure the selection of true Liberals; there would be no reactionaries in the party, but as the Liberal party ought to do, it would come out frankly and say what its policy was. There are forty-two seats and will be forty-two candidates in the Prairie Provinces, and I have counselled-and I hope it will be done-that the forty-two candidates of the Liberal party should act as one unit and have their arrangements to act as a unit before the election, and then they will come down here with the power they ought to have. I am not for separating from the rest of Canada, as yet certainly. So far as the money goes, we are paying all right for our connection with
Canada. There is no protection to us. We are paying for protection at every turn we make, and it is a terrible burden on our poor homesteaders, and there are many of them in my own riding. There have been more homesteaders come into my riding than into any other two ridings in the West during the ten years I have been a member. Therefore I say that the western members in the future should lay down a policy to act as one unit, and if they cannot make the two parties sit up and take notice it will be a strange thing. We have the numbers now and we are going to have them. I think it time the people in this House understood) that the people of western Canada are not tied up to either party eternally, but they are tied up with the principle of low tariff and open markets, and for my part, whether I should be a member of the next House or not-and I do not expect I shall because I do not expect to be a candidate-I believe the time has come when the Dominion of Canada should realize that the best prosperity of the whole Dominion is synonymous and parallel with the prosperity of western Canada. Which has made the whole of Canada prosperous to-day is that the late Laurier Government adopted a policy which made conditions so attractive in our great undeveloped prairies that people went in by hundreds of thousands, and having gone in they devel- -oped the country and made national wealth; and it is by a resumption and restoration of that policy and further development of it that the same good, prosperous conditions will be restored to the Dominion of Canada.
We want freedom of foodstuffs, freedom of fruit, freedom of lumber, of agricultural implements, and we want all the open markets of the world which we can get. If one party will not get those advantages for us it is time we made a party in the West and gave the people to understand that we are really in earnest in our desire to get what we believe to be justice in these matters.
We believe that justice was denied us in 1911. We believe that a political trick was played on the people of Canada, in Ontario by making one cry, in Quebec by making another. A false, spurious un-British cry was made there, one that was a disgrace to the whole Dominion of Canada. But it turned the trick for the time being. But the people of the West are not the kind to give up on one election, and they will continue to fight. Even if they have free wheat temporarily, they are not satisfied with it but are determined to keep up the

struggle to the end that they may receive justice at the hands of the whole Parliament of Canada, from which legislation must come. They are not secessionists, but their belief is that the prosperity of the Dominion of Canada will be found to be synonymous with the prosperity of western Canada.
Nothing can be more sane and reasonable than the resolution before the House; and if our friends opposite will not even agree to remove the doubt, and there certainly is a doubt, it seems to me that they are not desirous of meeting us half way. It seems to me beyond question that it is the purpose of the Government, according to their plausible statement, to give free wheat, and, if so, why not set the matter beyond peradventure and agree to this resolution in the House when it comes to a vote. I regret that I shall not be able to be here for the vote. I hope, however, that hon. gentlemen opposite will then have reconsidered this matter, and that they will show a united front with us in agreeing to this resolution and making it unanimous.
On motion of Mr. Barnard the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of Sir Thomas White for the adjournment of the House:


George Perry Graham: Monday is Private Members day, but if we finish with private business what will be taken up?


William Thomas White: In that event we will either resume this debate or take up Supply.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there anything to
report with regard to the proposed invitation to the Anglo-French Commission to visit Canada?


William Thomas White: I have no further information with respect to the matter, which is in the hands of Sir George Foster.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Monday, April 30, 1917.