1917-05-10

AUSTRO-GERMANS IN WESTERN PROVINCES.

Mr. CURRIE:: What are the figures of the population, according to the latest census, of Austro-German origin in each of the new Federal constituencies in the Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I think it has
already been stated that these figures are not made up, and it may be some considerable time before they are available. The enumeration is going on. I think this question might drop, and I will see to it that the information is brought down as soon as we get it.
Question dropped.	,



GRAIN GRADING-SEARS ON CARS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TURRIFF-
1.	Is the Government aware that up to 1914, grain commission firms had the right to be present at the grading of all grains consigned to their order, but since that date the railway companies refuse to allow any but official graders in their yards?
2.	Since the above date elevator companies have ceased to use the car seals provided by the railway companies and instead: use seals with their names embossed on them, thus identifying their cars from those shipped by farmers.
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to remedy this unsatisfactory state of affairs? .
Sir GEORGE FOSTER :: 1.	No grain commission firms are present
at the grading of grain, that being done in the inspectors' offices, in Winnipeg and Fort William, and the inspectors do not know who the owners are. If the sampling of cars is inferred, the Board of Grain Commissioners state they are not aware that grain commission firms had the right to sample oars consigned to their order in the yards.	.
2.	The Chief Grain Inspector reports that grain firms are using their own seals at places only where there are no railway agents.
3.	The matter is one which does not come under the administration of the Canada Grain Act, but is a question for consideration of the railway companies.



MAJOR J. C. M-ILSOM.

Mr. DEVLIN:: 1.	Were there any defalcations by Major G. C. Milsom, assistant director of supplies and transport at Camp Borden?
2.	If so, what was the amount?
3.	Has any portion or all of it been recovered by the Government?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1,	2 and 3. This matte-? has been investigated by a Military Court of Inquiry, and, as the proceedings of the court have not yet been completed, it is not considered advisable to answer these questions at the present moment.



MAJOR REV. A. H. MOORE.

Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Is Major Rev. A. H. Moore, of St. Johns, Quebec, in the employ of the Department of Militia at the present time?
2.	If not, was he at any time since the beginning of the war in the employ of the said department
3.	If so, (a) in what capacity, and (b) what salary did he receive?
4.	Did he, while in the employ of the department, receive any amount from the Government in addition to his salary, for travelling expenses, separation allowance, etc.?
5.	If so, how much?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a)'Chaplain at Valcartier Camp, 1916. (b) $6.50 per diem, 18th July to 12th October, 1915.
4 and 5. Yes. Expenses, $250.37; no separation allowance.



MR. HUGH LOCKHART.

Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	Is Mr. Hugh Lockhart of Emmavillc, Saskatchewan, still employed as a fire ranger?
2.	If not, when did his services cease?
3.	Is Daniel Anderson of North Battleford, still employed as homestead inspector?
4.	If not, when did his services cease?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	No.	,
2.	11th January, 1917.
3.	Yes.
4.	Answered by No. 3.



ROSS RILFE FACTORY-VALUATORS.

*Mr. MURPHY:: Referring to the Order in Council of March 23, 1917, providing for the taking over by the Government of the Ross rifle factory and business, what are the names and addresses of the competent valuators referred to In the following paragraph thereof:-
"The minister further recommends in view of the inventories, expert valuations and reports which have been obtained from competent valuators, and which are separately submitted for consideration, that the total compensation to be fixed, ascertained and allowed for or in respect of the premises taken, having due regard to the principles or method of computation and ascertainment hereinbefore recommended, shall be fixed in the execution of the powers vested in Your Excellency in Council at the maximum limit of three millions of dollars, which under no circumstances shall be exceeded."


Albert Edward Kemp: The Canadian
Appraisal Company, Hospital street, Montreal.



TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY. REMOVAL OP RAILS FOR USE IN FRANCE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Can the Government give me an answer to-day to the question I asked yesterday as to authority for the removal of rails from the Transcontinental railway and their shipment to France?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I have laid on the table of the House the Order in Council relating to this matter. I intimated to the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) yesterday that I thought the whole of the 300 miles that were to be shipped overseas in the form of rails would be taken from the Grand Trunk Pacific west of Edmonton. I am informed that the amount provided to be taken so far from there is only in the neighbourhood of 218 miles. As to the balance of the 300 miles, I do not think it has been decided where the rails should come from.



WESTERN COAL MINING.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat):: I desire to ask the Minister of Labour if there is any recent information from the coal-mining districts of Alberta and British Columbia, regarding the operation of the mines. I notice in the Montreal Gazette of this morning a statement to the effect that the operators had wired the minister asking him to take some action to keep the mines in operation. I take that to mean that the proposed agreement between the men and the operators has not been accepted by the men, and that the mines in that district are closed. I would like a statement on the matter.


Hon. W. T. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour):: My hon. friend (Mr. Buchanan) is quite right in his understanding that the agreement entered into between the operators and the representatives of the men, was not accepted by the men on the vote begun a few days ago. I do not think the voting is quite finished yet, but a sufficient number had voted to make it almost certain that the agreement would be rejected. So satisfied of that were the leaders of the men that they called a meeting of the representatives of the local unions in the district, to be held in Calgary to-night, with a view to determining what

course they will now take. I am in hopes that they will determine to-night to return to work. I do not think it is quite correct to say that they are all out, but most of the miners had quit work. I think there were some working in three or four mines.



CANTEENS IN CANADIAN CAMPS IN ENGLAND.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago, I asked the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Edward Kemp) to give me some information as to the arrangement that is in existence with respect to the canteens in the Canadian camps in England. The statement was made by the ex-minister that they are not there under the direction of the Canadian authorities but by reason of an arrangement made by the British authorities. The minister promised to give us that information and I think it is about time that we had it.


Albert Edward Kemp: I have no doubt that the report which I asked for by cable, and which is to come by mail, will have the prompt attention of the overseas authorities but it has not reached me yet.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Has the minister any information in the department here in regard to this matter, or is the whole thing entirely run by the Minister of Militia overseas.


Albert Edward Kemp: All the information that is in the department has been given to the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When?


Albert Edward Kemp: At the time the
question was asked a few days ago,


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not in reference to the matter to which I was directing special attention, namely, the arrangement by which these canteens are permitted to exist in Canadian camps under the direction of contractors who have nothing to do with the Canadian Government. On that phase of the question the minister might have something in his office here.


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If he has, will he
look into it and bring it down without waiting for the report?


Albert Edward Kemp: I did not understand that that was the question that my

hon. friend asked me a few days ago. I thought it was in regard to the question of wet or dry canteens. If the hon. gentleman will look it up I think that he will find that his question was as to whether these were wet or dry canteens.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not at all.


Albert Edward Kemp: As I understand now, he desires information as to the commercial, or financial arrangements with respect to the carrying on of the system of canteens in England. I will find out what information is to be had in the department on that subject.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend remembers that I put a question on the Order Paper with regard to the reason why these canteens are permitted to remain in Canadian camps without any authority from the Canadian Government. The minister answered two of the questions and in reference to the other two he said that he would get the information from England.


Albert Edward Kemp: I will look the
matter up.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister must surely have some information in the department here as well, and if so I would ask him if he would bring it down.


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes.



TAX ON FOREIGNERS ENTERING UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Victoria, N.B.):: I wish to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is just back from the United States, if he has any information to give in reference to the head tax of $8 imposed by the United States on all Canadians who go across the boundary line.


George Eulas Foster: I can say to my hon. friend (Mr. Michaud) that I was not called upon to pay a head tax when I went in. I will refer my hon. friend for his answer to my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, in whose department the matter is.


Pius Michaud: I understood the minister was to bring us some information from Washington on his return.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose my hon. friend has a copy of the Act. It gives all the information as far as the law is concerned. Then, I -would be very glad to give him a copy of the regulations. I have
an extra copy, and I think he will be able to satisfy himself as to the regulations. If he wishes any more information I will be glad to implement it if I can.



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, May 8.
Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to take any part in prolonging this debate, which, as I view it, has already become unwarrantably protracted. We are now in the third week of this discussion of the Budget, which, it seems to me, should have been disposed of in as many days. I believe that the people of this country have the conviction that we are spending a great deal of time in talking which could be better employed in doing. The times call for deeds rather than words. While of our best and bravest thousands are falling weekly in a great and noble cause, while the destinies of mankind are trembling in the balance, two hundred of us here are talking about matters that have no relation to the war, and are of the most trifling importance compared with the herculean task which calls upon us for our best and undivided attention. Questions by the hundred and motions by the score are placed upon the Order Paper, questions and motions that have no relation whatever to the war. I think it would be well to give the public a sample of a few of these questions and motions. I take one which was placed on the Order Paper on the 20th of April:
1.	How many permanent civil servants or officials were in the employ of the Department of Militia and Defence on the 10th day of October, 1911, and how many on the 31st of March, 1917?
2.	How many temporary civil servants and employees of all kinds were in the employ of the said Department on the 10th day of October, 1911, and how many on the 31st of March, 1917?
3.	How many permanent civil servants or officials were appointed by said Department since the 1st of August, 1914?
4.	How many temporary civil servants and employees were employed by said Department since August 1, 1914?
5.	What was the gross amount paid by said Department for salaries and expenses to both permanent and temporary civil servants and employees for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1914?

6.	What was the gross amount paid by said Department for salaries and expenses of all permanent and temporary civil servants and employees for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1917?
7.	How many civil servants were appointed by said Department since October 10, 1911, under the provisions of Section 21 of the Civil Service Act?
Seven questions in one. That is just one question qf thirty questions, in about the same words, that have been placed upon the Order Paper for each of the twenty departments of Government here at Ottawa. Here is another, a little shorter
May 1-1. What number of names has the National Service Commission received in answer to cards sent out?
2.	How many of these names are classified as military, agricultural, shipbuilding, and munitions prospects, respectively?
3.	How many are engaged in work that is regarded as non-essential in war time?
Here is another one:-
April 27-1. How many persons have been appointed to permanent positions on the Canadian Government railways from January 1, 1916, to March 31, 1917, who were not previously employed on the said railway?
2. What are their names, their salaries and the'positions to which they were appointed?
That question might have been amplified a .little and a little further information -elicited if the hon. gentleman who put it had asked whether each of these men bad hair on his head or not, and if so whether it was Ted or black. Here is another sample:-
May 1-For a copy of all letters, petitions, telegrams and other papers or documents in possession of the Government relating to the
dismissal of 

 and the appointment
of his successor,	_
That relates to ,a position of which the salary is insignificant, and the place concerned is an obscure hamlet. Here is another :-
May S-For a copy of all letters, reports, communications and documents passing between the Minister of Labour and the Department of Labour and the officials of District No. 18, United Mine Workers of Alberta, and the officials of the Alberta and Eastern British Columbia Coal Operators' Association, concerning the requests made by the miners for an increase in wages due to the increase in the cost of living, between September 1, 1916, and the present time.
I notice a new one to-day:-
1.	Who is the Indian agent of the Indian Reserve at Bear River, N.S.?
2.	When was he appointed, at what salary per year, and what are his duties?
3.	Has he any authority for disposing of wood, piling and logs on said reserve?
4.	Has he authority to allow outside persons to cut and take wood off the reserve?

5.	Has any wood been taken off this reserve in the last five years by any persons other than Indians? If so, by whose authority?
6.	Has any work, including repairs, been done to any and all buildings on the reserve during the last five years?
7.	If so, what are the names of all persons who have performed said work, the amounts paid to them, and the dates on which respective amounts were paid?
8.	Is the Indian agent allowed to do carpenter work or any other kind of work on reserve and charge for same over and above his salary?
9.	If so, has the Indian agent performed any such work?
10.	If so, what is the character of said work, dates on which same was performed, and the respective amounts charged?
11.	Were any orders given by agent to
Indians during period from October, 1911, to May, 1917?	.
12.	If so, what were the names of Indians, and dates and amounts of said orders?
13.	What were the names of Indian doctors on this reserve from October, 1911, to May, 1917, when were they appointed, and at what salary?
14.	If not on salary, what rate of pay dad they receive?
Just one more:-
1.	Has the Minister of Militia or any of the authorities of the Militia Department, official statistics as to the recruiting of soldiers in Canada for overseas service?
2,	If so, what are the correct figures of enlistments in the different overseas regiments raised since August, 1914, to date:	(a) Canadians speaking the French language,	(b)
Canadians speaking the English language and born in Canada; (c) British subjects by birth born outside of Canada; (d) British subjects by naturalization; (e) French Canadian soldiers in regiments commanded by officers speaking the English language raised in the Province of Quebec; and (f) French Canadian soldiers in battalions raised in the other provinces of Canada?
These questions, as I said, come in to us by the hundred, motions by the score, paralyzing the ordinary work of the clerks in the various departments, because it takes weeks, and in some cases months, to copy out all these vast returns, and perhaps it is not an exaggeration to say that in nine cases out of ten, after all this work has been performed, the returns are thrown into the waste basket

and this at a time when the destinies of mankind are trembling in the .balance. What has proportional representation or the reform o.f the Senate to do with the great war in which we are engaged? _ Yet we spent two days on those topics. Do 'hon. members realize that there are two hundred of us in this House, and that a day misspent-and we have had lots of them, talking about academic questions that have no relation whatever to the war-I ask do we realize that one day misspent means two hundred days' work of the 200 members of

this House lost to this country? Why, Mr. Speaker, a friendly stranger unfamiliar with party traditions, looking down upon us from the gallery, might he pardoned if he reached the erroneous conclusion that there are men more anxious to win the treasury benches than to win the war.
I would not at this stage say one word were it not that sneering references to and groundless accusations against the administration of the department over which I have the honour to preside have been made in this House. At this time, when the good offices of the department are sought daily from all directions, such vulgar sneers and false accusations only tend to frustrate the efforts so successfully exerted before, as since, the commencement of the war. Had such references and accusations and insinuations been limited to the hon. members for Eichmond (Mr. Kyte), Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles), and West Kent (Mr. MoCoig), I would not have paid the slightest attention to them. I would not have considered them worth noticing, because I believe that they would have no more influence without this House than they have within it. But when a member of the standing of the junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), without cause or knowledge of the facts, so far forgets the dignity of his position as tp impute dishonesty and lack of integrity, I cannot permit him to escape without a protest, even at the expense of a little of the valuable time of this House. On many subjects the junior member for Halifax is well informed, and he is generally regarded as being as fair as the ethics and discipline f>f the Opposition permit. Certain it is that the hon. junior member for Halifax has not the faintest knowledge of the activities of tire Department of Labour and his guilt lies in indulging in wanton and ignoble criticism in profound ignorance of the facts. His legal training, anything like common fairness, and a reasonable regard for justice and for the rights of others, should have prompted him to seek the truth 'before making such sweeping and insulting imputations. Let me, Mr. Speaker, give the junior member for Halifax and his three or four partners in guilt a little light concerning the workings of the Labour Department.
During the last five years there has been no advertising branch in the Labpur Department. We choose rather to do our work as promptly, efficiently and unostentatiously as possible, leaving the results to
speak for themselves. I have no intent or desire to criticise adversely my predecessor in the .office which I have the honour to hold. He had and I have a most difficult task to perform, perhaps the most difficult and most trying of any department of the Government. I wish to show, therefore, by referring to some of the things that have been done in the Department of Labour, that we rather do things than advertise things. I repeat that but for these insulting imputations I would not have taken up a moment of the time of the House, because I do not think that such a course would have 'been justified.
What has been the record of the Labour Department during the last five years? Before I was placed in charge of the department some complaints had been made of alleged delays in establishing boards of conciliation after application had been received for such boards. I at once gave instructions that there should be no unnecessary delays, with the result that in the first year the average number of days elapsing between the receipt of application and the establishment of a board was reduced from 15 to 7. During the first year that I had the honour of presiding over the Labour Department we appointed several additional men known as fair wage officers-although their work has relation, to a very large extent, to matters other than that of fair wages. I was satisfied that it would be to the advantage of the Government and to the country if had a larger number of these men stationed at different points throughout Canada. In 1911 we had but two, whose headquarters were in Ottawa. Labour disturbances often come up suddenly, the first thing you hear of the trouble being a telegram saying: we are going to strike to-morrow. If, therefore, we had to send a man all the way from Ottawa to Vancouver or to Sydney to deal with trouble which had suddenly ai-isen, very serious difficulties might develop before he could reach the ground. I therefore sent a man- a very good man indeed-to Vancouver, which he has made his headquarters ever since. His work has been most satisfactory. He has been on the ground; he has been in a position to be aware of the first intimation of any labour trouble and to go at once to see the employers and the employees. It is no exaggeration to say that during the last five years his presence- there has prevented dozens of labour disturbances which would otherwise have developed in very serious manner. I appointed

quoted some figures as to prices in Australia. There are some conditions surrounding that which I think should be brought to the attention of the House: In the first place, when it is winter with us it is summer in Australia. We had a good crop in 1915; they had a very poor crop in 1915. We had a very poor crop and they had a good crop last year. There are seasonable prices; quite a large number of articles are cheaper in summer than they are in winter. I need not refer to anything beyond eggs. You can get eggs in the summer time for half the price that you pay in the winter and in January here, when we have midwinter, eggs are very dear. In January they have summer in Australia and then eggs are very cheap. But, when next winter comes around eggs are dearer there, Then again, in Australia they are unable at the present time to get their crop across the ocean to market. They are three times as far away from the market as we are, and they cannot ge_t tonnage to get their products there. I think that hon. gentlemen sitting behind me said the other night that there were 400,000 boxes of cheese at one place which they could not get away. They have millions of bushels of wheat which they cannot get across to the market. What is the result of all that?-a lowering of the price. They have a large quantity of products awaiting shipment, and the supply is greater than the demand-I mean demand that you can utilize, they being so far away from the market. Prices; rose more rapidly in Australia when they had a poor crop than they did in Canada when we had a good crop. That is very natural. Now, we have some figures. We have in our list 26 foodstuffs, 7 of which are meats. They have in their list in Australia 46 items of foodstuffs, 27 of which are meats. Meats were plentiful and cheap there when that list was made up. They were very dear here. It is almost impossible to make a just comparison between prices in Australia and in Canada.
I am going to take this opportunity of repeating what I have said before, because, perhaps, it will stand repeating. We have to-day, in all probability, 40,000,000 men under arms who have been withdrawn from productive work and who are now engaged in destructive work. It is said that as soldiers they consume about 50 per cent more than they would as civilians.. That means, if these figures are anyway near right, and they are only approximate, that
60.000.	000 are eating and producing nothing,
40.000.	000 of them fighting and destroying

everything in sight, human life as well as property. There are 60,000,000 consuming and 40,000,000 producing nothing and destroying wherever they go. Before this war broke out we did not have any foodstuffs to spare. Nobody thought of dumping shiploads of them into the ocean because we had more than humanity required. We had about enough to go around. Well, then, you remove 40,000,000 men, not all of them agriculturists, but a great many of them agri-. culturists, and employ them at destructive rather than productive work and the result is inevitable. In addition to that we had last year a shorter crop the world over than we had had for a great many years, a thousand million bushels of'wheat less last year than the year before. Millions of tons of food have been sent to the bottom of the ocean. What do we reasonably expect to result from all that-a falling off of 40,000,000 workmen consuming 50 per cent more than if they were civilians, and a short crop the world over? We felt it, perhaps, as much in the province of Ontario as anywhere else in the world, .because in many respects we had no crop at all last year outside of hay and fall wheat that grew on the higher land where it was not drowned out. Here you have, I submit, the great factors causing the rapid advance in the cost of foodstuffs. I admit there may be-and there is-some ground for holding that to a slight extent cold storage and combines, or something of that kind, may affect the prices, but to a very slight extent. That is something that we attempted to deal with by passing the Order in Council.
We did not pass it without consultation. We had amongst other delegations, quite a large number of the leading representatives of labour in this country, and they approved of an Order in Council such as we have here, or rather I think I should say they suggested it, and this Order in Council was passed. A good deal has been said about its inefficacy and the city of Montreal has been referred to. The hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) read a large portion of a letter written by one of the officials of the city of Montreal, pointing out the impossibility of employing it to any advantage. If any hon. gentleman has read his letter he will notice that he devoted most of it to a discussion of the second part of the regulation. The regulation is as follows:
1. No person shall accumulate or shall withhold from sale any necessary of life beyond an amount thereof reasonably required for the use

or consumption of his household or for the ordinary purposes of his business;
2. Every person who shall at any time hold any necessary of life beyond an amount thereof reasonably required as aforesaid, and every person who shall hold, for the purpose of sale, whether as manufacturer, wholesaler, jobber, retailer or otherwise, any stock in trade of any necessary of life, shall offer for sale the said excess amount, or the said stock in trade, as the case may be, at prices not higher tl\an are reasonable and just.
Now, that official of the city of Montreal in dealing with that special provision- and that does not refer to any investigation by a municipality or by the Department of Labour, just with the question of the excess amount-left out these five words: "Or the said stock in trade," and he went on for half a column of newspaper space to show the impossibility of proving the excess amount over what he required for the ordinary operations of his business, leaving out altogether "or the said stock in trade." That is the main point of the regulation, the necessity of selling not only the excess but "the said stock in trade," and he is bound to sell it at a reasonable and just price. Thus when coal dealers, as mentioned by hon. gentlemen opposite, were selling coal at $6 a ton profit, that is selling it at $15 in the centre and $20 in the suburbs of the city of Montreal, any citizen of Montreal had a right to take action under that section, and under section 9 which provides:	.
Any person who contravenes or fails to observe any of the provisions of these regulations shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable upon indictment or upon summary conviction under part 15 of the Criminal Code, to a penalty not exceeding $5,000, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years, or to both fine and imprisonment as specified.
Any citizen of Montreal, knowing that -anyone refused to sell his stock in trade at a reasonable and just price, might have applied to the Attorney General of the province of Quebec for leave to prosecute, and if he could establish his charge in the police court of Montreal, the man guilty of violating that section would he liable to be fined $5,000 or to be sent to prison for two or three years. I think there is no getting away from that.


Mr. CARROLL:: Does the minister think it is quite fair to put the onus of prosecuting under this Act on the people who are affected, that is the poor people? They are the people wno are affected, and in eleven cases out of twelve they are certainly not in a position to lose a day or even half
a day or an hour, or to employ a lawyer and go to court to prove their case. Does the minister not think that the Department of Labour, and I am speaking quite seriously, should appoint some person in these large wholesale centres, a lawyer or some one like that, to take up these cases if necessary? ,


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am glad my hon. friend from Glace Bay has mentioned this matter. I will come to that in a moment.
I was going to point out the course we took with reference, to Montreal. I noticed in the press one day that they were making these excessive charges for coal in Montreal. That was on the 27th of February, when the weather was pretty cold. I did not wait for an application from Montreal, from the mayor, or controllers, or the city council. I sent this telegram to the mayor of Montreal, off my own bat as it were:
I am informed that anthracite coal is selling in Montreal at from $12 to $15 per ton. There is no reason why price should be higher in Montreal than here where coal is selling at from $8.50 to $9.00 delivered. Is the information correct, and if so, has your municipality investigated conditions or applied for leave to prosecute any dealers charging unreasonable prices? I tender full support of this Department to any municipal action rendered necessary by the condition.
I received a reply from the mayor of Montreal the next day in these words:
You have been well informed. Anthracite coal is selling in Montreal as high as $20 a ton for delivery in the suburbs. In the centre of the city coal is selling as high as $15 a ton, and people have to beg to get it. The city of Montreal pays presently for coal $9 a ton taken in the yard. The city has done nothing up to now to put an end to this situation, and would welcome any suggestion you may make or any power the Government may give to prosecute those responsible for this state of affairs. If required I will send a municipal officer to meet you in Ottawa and discuss whole matter.
(Signed) MEDERIC MARTIN.
That was on the 28th of February. On the same day I sent a telegram to the mayor of Montreal:
Re anthracite coal situation. City has full investigating power and also power to cause prosecutions under existing regulations. I suggest that you send one of your city solicitors here to discuss means of improving Montreal situation.
He never sent any one. Now these regulations from which I read a moment ago contain a provision empowering the municipalities to make an investigation into matters within the boundary of their own municipality. We do not think that the Minister of Labour could undertake to>
make

investigations, for instance, as to the price of milk in Nanaimo, on Vancouver Island. We thought it would toe convenient to give the municipality power to investigate anything within its own 'boundaries. My hon. friend from Glace Bay, who is a lawyer, knows as -well as I do that, speaking generally, it is the duty of the provincial governments to enforce the criminal*laws' made by this Parliament. There are substantially no exceptions; there are two or three under the Customs Act and so on, but, speaking generally, there are no1 exceptions under our constitution. You would not think of writing to the Minister of Justice in Ottawa if somebody stole your horse; you would go to an officer of the provincial government, because it is the duty of the provincial government and of its Attorney General to see that these criminal laws are enforced. This is a quasi-criminal law. We give the municipality this power:
Whenever the council or any municipality shall declare by way of resolution that in its opinion excessive prices are being demanded within the limits of such municipality for any necessary of life, such council may, by notice in writing under the hand of its clerk or other authorized officer, require any person dealing within the municipality in such necessary of life, and locally situate therein, to make and render unto such council within a time set in such notice, and such person shall make and render unto such council, precisely as required by it, a written return under oath or affirmation, showing in detail-
(a)	The amount of such necessary of life held by such person for sale or disposition within such municipality at any indicated time or times including any time preceding the making of these regulations;
(b)	The time when any or all of such necessary of life was acquired, produced or bought within or into such municipality;
(c)	The cost of such necessary of life, including all charges of an overhead or other nature affecting such cost;	'
(d)	The price at which such necessary of life is held for sale or at which any sales of part of the same or of a similar necessary of life have been made by such person within such municipality at any indicated time or times, including any time preceding the making of these regulations.


William F. Carroll: Does the minister not
see a difficulty in enforcing that regulation in the case of rural municipalities?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not think you
would have much difficulty in rural municipalities. It is a very Tare thing to find a number of farmers combining.


William F. Carroll: 'Suppose the farmers
themselves haxi a grievance against a merchant who was asking $20 a barrel for flour?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Would it be an unreasonable thing for one having such a griev-
ance to go to his township council and tell them of these high charges?


William F. Carroll: In the case of all municipalities in our province outside of the town governments, the council meets but once a year, anid any one having a grievance might have to wait almost a year before he would be able to bring the matter to the attention of the council. I would suggest that the Order in Council be amended so as to give the reeve or the warden of the municipality power to order an investigation.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: These councils must
have power to hold special meetings. In fact, my recollection is that in one case they did call a special meeting. I do not think it would he a hardship for any one who felt himself aggrieved by what he considered to he excessive charges for coal, flour or anything else, to bring the matter to the attention of his representative. Unless the representatives in my hon.. friend's province are different from those in Ontario, they would be only too glad to help out one who had a grievance, because they would want his vote and influence the next year, when election came on. Under this provision the municipal council has the right to pass a resolution to the effect that a man against whom overcharges are alleged, be required to make a statement under oath setting forth all these particulars.


William F. Carroll: Will the minister consider my suggestion of transferring that power to the clerk or warden of the municipality?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I shall he very glad
to consider any suggestion that my hon. friend may make, and I will consider this one. If it is possible to improve these regulations in any way, in the interests of the people at large, we shall be glad to do so; that is what we are here for. Under the powers given the Minister of Labour by this Order in Council, we deal generally with the kind of goods being used all over a given province, not in a particular municipality alone-although we have dealt with particular municipalities, right here in Ottawa as well as in a few other places. We have gone very thoroughly into the matter of coal. We sent 400 copies of written questions to the leading coal dealers of Canada and we got returns from them, submitted under oath. We have established a system of getting reports from every one of them each month, setting forth all necessary particulars. On my way

to the House this afternoon. I went int-o the office and selected four cards from the hundreds that we have there. Here is the card sent in by an Ottawa coal dealer. The first question is as to the quantity on hand on the first of the month and the cost per ton. This man said that he had on hand 31 tons of egg coal, which cost him $6.78 a ton. He had on hand 325 tons of stove coal, and that cost him $7.01 a ton; chestnut, 91 tons, costing $7.10. Answers are given also as to the quantity received during the month and the cost per ton. Here is a card returned by a leading company of coal merchants in Montreal, Farquhar, Robertson Company, Limited. We have a very full statement from this firm. The cost of the coal, not including overhead charge or cost of delivering, is stated to be $7.10, and the selling price $9.50. A reasonable overhead charge and cost of delivery would bring the amount up to $9, leaving a profit of 50 cents. I have a case in my own town in which the cost was $6.69 and the selling price $8.75. In two cases in St. John, N.B., and one at another point, the returns showed that the companies were selling coal at about $13. We took the matter up with them at once, stating that the price was too high-and we are going to bring them to time if possible. The reports which we get monthly from the Canadian coal dealers enable us to tell exactly how much coal there is in the country, and this applies to the leading foodstuffs as well, because we have investigated the coal storage conditions. Our inquiries in that direction have not yet been completed; it is a herculean task to go into all the details throughout the whole country, but we are working at 'it. We have got on further with coal than with anything else, and we are pretty well through with the investigation of the question of sugar.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What did you find about coal?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We found that, speaking generally-I have mentioned two or three exceptions-those who are engaged in the retail coal business are not getting more than a reasonable profit.


Mr. COPP:: Do I understand that the returns submitted to the hon. minister showed that coal was selling in St. John at $13 a ton?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That is my recollection.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What time was that?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have not the card with me, but I think that it was in March or April.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That would be hard coal?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Did the minister refer this matter to the council of the city of St. John in order that it might be dealt with by the local authorities?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not really know whether we did or not.


Mr. PARDEE:: While the minister is discussing the question of coal and foodstuffs, may I draw his attention to a report that comes from the Hamilton council-


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not think that that is a question upon which I should give way to my hon. friend.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Then may I ask the minister if he has returns from Hamilton coal dealers, and whether it is true that coal costing them $8 a ton is being sold at $12? Has he looked into that matter?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We have looked into that.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Is it true?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: As I was coming to
the House this afternoon my attention was called to the matter by an hon. gentleman from the city of Hamilton, who told me, there was an article in the Hamilton Herald referring to coal conditions: I said to him: "I will read it, but I canhot read it now." I have not had an opportunity of reading the article yet, but I shall be very glad to read it. We have had a man in Hamilton.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: For how long?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not know-for
several days.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Has he made any report on the matter?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I presume he has, I am not familiar with all the reports that come into the department, as we receive them by the hundreds. I will have a special interview with him when he returns. I have a Teport here on the ooal situation and it may include Hamilton. My deputy handed it to me as I was setting out for the Council Chamber, and I have not had an opportunity of looking at it yet. We keep tatb on things.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is all you are doing-keeping tab.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: You do not know what we are doing. That is the trouble with the hon. member for Pictou; it is the trouble, not only with him/but with some other hon. gentlemen opposite. They come here and make statements without having definite knowledge of the facts.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What are you doing?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: If you will devote half an hour of your time coming to my office and looking over the reports, you will know something about what we are doing. You do not want to know what the Labour Department is doing. You want to be in a position to make charges against the Labour Department.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You want to keep
up prices.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: You want live grievances. Just as soon as one grievance is settled, you start to dig up another. We all know the hon. member for Pictou, and he is well known, not only in this House, but throughout the country, and we do not care very much what he says, either in this House or outside of it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is childish talk.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That is perfectly true. We have taken up the matter of sugar refineries and we have succeeded in breaking up what we regarded as an illegal agreement existing between the manufacturer of sugar and the middleman. We unearthed one particular case where a large manufacturer of sugar had a monopoly of the whole business in two provinces and we secured original documents showing that when a certain individual wrote asking -him to send him so many carloads of sugar, the manufacturer replied, saying:	" I cannot send
you any sugar; you must become a member of a certain organization, and when you /satisfy me that you are a member of that organization in good standing, then I will send you sugar." This gentleman went to the secretary of the organization and what did he find there? He fpund that he had to put up so much money and give a guarantee that he would invest $50,000, not all in sugar, but in groceries, to be put into a business that he was speaking about going into. There were only 52 men in the whole two provinces who could buy a pound of sugar from that refinery. We sent the report to the Attorney General of the pro-

vince and he said that he would consent to a prosecution. The refinery came down off its perch and said: " Tell me what you want me to do and I will do it, whatever it is." And there is no such agreement existing in those provinces to-day. That is one of several instances of what we have done. We do not contend that we have succeeded in reducing the price of anything very, considerably, but we have 'attempted to do so. We. are securing facts and we have given>
publicity to what is going on. I have great confidence in publicity. I can satisfy any man in this country that, speaking generally, with very few exceptions, no retailer of coal in Canada to-day is selling it at an exorbitant profit. ..


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That refers only to coal.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, that refers only to coal. We have made considerable investigations in regard to sugar, cold storage and canneries, but my hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) knows that this is a very large country and we have not a large staff in our department. I might, of course, have taken on fifty or sixty more civil servants at an expense of $100,000 or $150,000.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Even if this is such a
large country, when special facts are brought to the notice of the department, do they act upon them?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Why did you not act in the Hamilton case?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We did.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: You did not act.


Mr CROTHERS:: That will do now, if you please.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: It will not do-the hon. minister cannot do that.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Speaker, I submit that my hon. friend from West Lambton has no right to speak without my consent.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Then you will not answer the question? .


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have not refused to answer the question; I have answered the question.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: No, you have not.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, I have. The question, Mr. Speaker, was-and I submit the matter to you-whether, when complaints were made to us, we took action or not, and I said that we did take action.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: But you did not take
action in the Hamilton case.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Wait a moment.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: You cannot bluff me.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Blain):: Order


Thomas Wilson Crothers: And you cannot bluff me. This is an old business of my hon. friend from West Lambton. What I know, I know, and 4 know that I sent a capable main to Hamilton.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Oh, no.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I ask you, Mr. Speaker,-


Richard Blain: Order. I would ask hon. gentlemen to keep order.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: My hon. friend from West Lambton asked me if, when special facts were brought to our attention, we always looked into the matter. I told him that we did. He also asked about Hamilton and I said that we sent a man to 'Hamilton to look into the matter.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: You did nothing in the Hamilton case.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That will do from my hon. friend.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Mr. Speaker, I object. This hon. gentleman cannot .tell me: "This will do." It will not do.


Richard Blain: Order. The rule of the House, as I understand it, is that when an hon. member has the floor, he cannot be interrupted without his permission.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I quite appreciate that, Sir, but I will not be told by any hon. member that "that will do," without having your ruling.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: You have been told
that, it has been done. I sent a man to Hamilton and he inquired into this matter. I have not had an opportunity of going over it with him, but I am satisfied that if at all possible, he will make right anything that is wrong. It was not necessary that we should send a man to Hamilton, because the Hamilton city council is composed of intelligent men and I suppose they have an intelligent solicitor, although I do not know who he is. It was quite within their province and it was their duty, under that Order in Council, to work out their own salvation in fear and trembling.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: And without the help of the department which kept away from the matter.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We have endeavoured to do something. We have prepared a set of regulations which are of great value. I do not mean to say that they are perfect. After an Act is passed by this Parliament and after we have attempted to administer it for any length of time, we find defects in it and we amend it, just as in the case of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act defects were revealed to my predecessor and defects have been revealed to me under our administration of it. That is our experience of administering the law. We pass an Act here for a certain purpose; we expect it to operate in a certain way; but we find, when we come to apply that Act, that it is defective. We come back to Parliament and ask that those defects be remedied. I do not contend that these regulations are perfect, but I do contend that two or three other gentlemen with myself have spent a long time in preparing them, and we did the very best we could. We shall be very glad to make any amendments that may be suggested'towards their perfection by my hon. friend from Glace Bay (Mr. Carroll) or by any other member in this House, or any one outside of this House. We are attempting to do something in the direction of helping the poor people.
The prices of the necessaries of life are very high, but owing to the fact that our working people aie employed throughout this country at high rates of wages, there is no suffering in this country. Our working pople, I am told, have more money than they ever had before. I do not say that is a reason why we should not do anything further for them in the way of a reduction in the prices of foodstuffs, but I say that the working people of this country are better off to-day than they have ever been before.. They are getting higher wages and many of them are putting money in the bank. I remember the time-I am only a boy yet-when the right hon. leader of the Opposition was a member of a government in this country, and when soup kitchens had to be opened and carried on in every great city and town in Canada to feed the people, and when the people went to the Government of which' my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition was a highly respected member, what were they told? The Government told them through its great Minister of Finance " The Government can do nothing. The Government

is merely a fly on the wheel. The only remedy is for the people to work harder and eat less." That is what the people were told at that time. Bnt we have made an effort to do something, and we have done something. I am satisfied that the publicity that has been given to these regulations has achieved something. We are administering them as well as we can; we have not had much experience in this particular line; we do not claim that they are perfect; we are ready to amend them if they can be improved. But we have done something by publicity. The wholesale men, the retail men and the consumers know that there are men in the Labour Department watching prices in the interests of the people of this country. The cards that come in set forth the exact truth, I believe, and where there is anything suspicious as to prices we get after them right away, and we propose to do so on every occasion.
With regard to Hamilton, let me repeat that we sent a capable man down there. I do not know what he did, as I have not had an opportunity of talking it over with him since; I have been so very busy looking afteT the hundreds of questions and scores of motions that hon. gentlemen opposite are putting every day. On account of our time being thus taken up, important 5 p.m. questions concerning this country are not receiving the attention they otherwise would. If hon. gentlemen opposite would drop these petty motions and questions and rise to the occasion it would be very much better. Let them follow the example of Elihu Root, or Teddy Roosevelt, and other leading men in the United States, who said to the President, " You are on the other side of politics, but that does not make any difference; we will stand behind you to a man; we will do everything that it is possible to do." Elihu Root said, " There is no coalition in the United States; we do not want any coalition; there is a coalition in every individual who is standing behind the President." If hon. gentlemen opposite would act in that way towards this Government we should have more time to look after prices in Hamilton and in the little town of Sarnia, in the constituency of my hon. friend from Lambton.


Mr. W. S. LOGGIE (Northumberland, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of pleasure, and sometimes regret, to the remarks of the hon. Minister of Labour. He set out with a grievance. He said that the time of the House was being [Mr. Crothers.l
taken up by trivial questions from members of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, I thought this was a free assembly, and that it was the duty of every hon. member of this House to get such information as he desired in the interests of the public. The hon. Minister of Labour used what I think was a very unfair innuendo when he said, " Men are more anxious to win the treasury benches than to win the war." I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is fair for a minister of the Crown to speak in that way of His Majesty's loyal Opposition?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I did not make any accusation of that kind against you.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Oh, yes.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: -No. Look up what I said in Hansard.


William Stewart Loggie: I took the minister's words down at the time. He said, "men more anxious to win the treasury benches than to win the war."


Mr. McKENZIE:: We will win both.
Mr! CROTHERS: The hon. gentleman has only taken down part of what I said. I said that friendly strangers sitting in the gallery and looking down upon us might be pardoned if they reached the erroneous conclusion that there were men more anxious to win the treasury benches than to win the war.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Hansard will have to be changed to show that.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Hansard will show
what I said.


William Stewart Loggie: That is a very flimsy explanation. But the minister went further. He used unbecoming language towards the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles), and the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), .when he said that he would have taken no notice of what they had said had it not been for the remarks of the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean). I think it is not becoming for a minister of the Crown to speak in that way of His Majesty's loyal Opposition, We expect a back bencher to say things like that sometimes, hut a minister of the Crown ought to be above it. The Minister of Labour tried to make out that His Majesty's loyal Opposition was responsible .for unduly delaying the work of the House. Why, the minister himself has spoken for nearly two hours this afternoon and almost

ninety per cent of what he said was already on Hansard. It is practically all contained in the eleven columns of Hansard from page 1217 to page 1233, which is the report of the minister's speech the other night. Then my hon. friend went on to talk about the days when there were soup kitchens in Canada. If he had stopped there I would not object so much, but he said that these soup-kitchen days were when my right hon. leader was leading the Liberal party. Now,
I have followed the affairs of Canada pretty" closely from the time the present leader of the Opposition was leading the Government in 1896 down to 1911, and I do not know of a single occasion during all that time when there were soup kitchens in Canada. But I do know of an occasion since then, when Sir Robert Borden was Prime Minister.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: My hon. friend misunderstood me. I did not say that it was when my right hon. friend was leading the Government, but that he was a member of that Government. Everybody knows the time I refer to, 1877.


William Stewart Loggie: I am very glad to accept the hon. minister's explanation that he did not mean to say that.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I did not say it either.


William Stewart Loggie: He is so busy, that is the minister's plea. Busy? Why, he has spent two hours to-day simply repeating what he told the House the other night. There is one thing he said this afternoon which I think I can quote accurately: "I have great confidence in publicity." Well, I think the minister -will be fairly well published. I am glad to learn that the department is busy-and as thy servant was busy here and there, he was gone. I wondered	what	the	minister	was
blowing about, if I may use that expression, regarding the work of his department. He is administering an Act that was put on the statute book by the Liberal party. I am glad to know that he is amending it, and doing what he believes to be his part, although, as has been well said, it is more talk than real good work. He has added that Order in Council-that is what I have in mind.


Mr. CARVELL:: Putting the burden on the municipalities.


William Stewart Loggie: Yes.' We had that brought up in the council in my own town, and did not get very far ahead with it. We found
it was not working out very effectively. I do not know that I can say more regarding the minister's address, for he did not say much that really touched the matter of the Budget. Of course, the hon. gentleman was quite within his rights in speaking on these matters in an address on the Budget.
I regret that I was not here to listen to the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) make his statement, and to hear the reply of the critic (Mr. A. K. Maclean) on this side of the House. I have read the two speeches with some interest, and I may say that the reading of the Finance Minister's speech was a mingled joy and sorrow. I rejoice that we have been able to secure the necessary money to do our part in this great war. I rejoice that so many of our men had voluntarily taken their lives in their hands for the defence of home and liberty. I rejoice because of their heroic achievements. I rejoice that it is my privilege to make this statement on the floor of this House. But I sorrow, at the same time, because the Government has not been able to implement its undertaking to have 500,000 men in training or at the front. I regret that we seem to be unable to do our full part. I sorrow for the bereaved relatives of our fallen and maimed heroes. I sorrow because we lose their help in the development of this great country of ours. I make this further remark, and I make it entirely as a personal remark- the Government has tried in vain to fulfil its promises; but they are responsible for this failure and ought now, even now, to call others to their aid and, together with the Opposition party, form a government that would get the men, voluntarily or otherwise. If there were more unanimity of action, the complement of men would probably be forthcoming.
We learn from the Budget speech also that $60,000,000 of this fiscal year's receipts are available for war expenditures over and above the expenditures on consolidated revenue and capital accounts, including interest and pensions. It is interesting to me, and I suppose it will be interesting to other hon. members and the public at large, to know the sources from which the money expended during 1917 came. I may not have all the items, but I think the statement I shall make is practically correct. We find that fox the fiscal year ended March 31, 1917, war taxes were collected through the Customs amounting to $38,000,000. About $1,000,000 vas collected through the Inland Revenue Department in bill stamps

and other stamps on medicines, etc., and about $6,000,000 on spirits and tobacco- that is, in excess of what would have been collected under the rates of duty in existence before war was declared. Then, we collected about $6,000,000 in extra stamps through the Post Office Department. Besides there is $15,000,000 business tax. According to the Minister of Finance we had $60,000,000 to apply to war expenditure. But the figures I have given show that we have received from the people no less than $64,000,000 for war taxes paid in support of this glorious cause. I am glad to be able to congratulate the people upon the fact that, though so many other calls were made upon us, it was possible to raise this great sum by the contributions of rich and poor alike. This $64,000,000, divided among the families of Canada, and assuming five members -to each family, means that the average family in Canada paid as a war tax last year no less than $40. That, to my mind, is greatly to the credit of our people. But it is not to be forgotten that, while we collected through the Customs $38,000,000 of war tax, we collected also the fabulous sum of $110,000,000 which was used to defray the ordinary expenses of departmental administration, public works, and interest. That $110,000,000, divided amongst all the families in Canada, as I have already indicated, would mean a further tax on eviery family of not less than $75. [DOT] I repeat I am glad the Canadian people have the means of paying such taxation and thus helping to win the cause for which we are fighting and which is so dear to us. It has been well said that silver 'bullets will win the war. When the war started that statement was made by the present Prime Minister of England, then Chancellor of the Exchequer. Thus, it is important that we do our part not only in regard to men and munitions, tout in regard to money, because silver bullets are perhaps as much required for the winning of the war as are men and munitions.
The Government have increased the customs taxation, as they say, for a worthy cause, and I am not finding any fault with it in that respect. They have increased the tariff by five per cent on British goods and seven and a half per cent on importations from foreign countries. That means that while $84 on a given value was levied in 1915, $100 is being levied in the fiscal year 1916-17. The Government, in doing this, *were within their rights and they had the good will of the Opposition, but there was 
this difference between the Government and the Opposition: the Opposition thought it was unwise that the products of the Mother Country should thus be hindered from coming into this part of the Empire. They accept responsibility before the country for the stand which they have taken in regard to this matter, and they say that some other means should have been found for raising this extra money, rather than the imposition of an increased duty on commodities coming from the Mother Country to Canada.
There is another tiling regarding customs taxation that should, be home in mind. I have told you what the taxes are, that we have paid the equivalent of about $115 per family into the treasury by way of customs duties. But we ought not to forget that only about 25 per cent of the goods consumed in Canada are imported from abroad. The other 75 per cent is represented by our own Canadian manufactured goods. What I allege is that, while we consume Canadian goods, we pay -I will not say the whole-but a very large portion of the duty that would be collected if these goods were imported. We pay in duties which go into the treasury, together with whiat we pay the manufacturers because of the tariff, perhaps $300 or $400 per family annually. Thus we have in this country a tax so much of which is paid to the manufacturers and so much directly to the treasury. I think our slogan at the present time should be: reduction in the cost of food products, with lower tariff on imported food products, especially those not indigenous to' Canadian climate and soil.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Cheaper fish.


William Stewart Loggie: Yes, cheaper fish, if it is possible to get it by reducing the duties on fish. I will stand by my hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) on that doctrine. Take the duties off fish, take the duties off all natural products and reduce the duties on food products, even if they are manufactured in Canada, to the lowest minimum consistent with the necessary expenditure of the country. I think that is sound doctrine. I think the country will prosper under a tariff along those lines very much more than it will under a tariff the basis of which is what I call class legislation. I think the party "who put that class legislation tariff on the statute book are responsible for a good deal of the trouble that we have in this country. We stand for a tariff that does not imply or include class legislation.

With regard to the Budget speech of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), I have really not a word to say against the proposals he made. Very many of them, I realize, are necessary under the circumstances. The minister put it to the people of Canada how the'extra revenue wias to he raised. He indicated several sources of further taxation. He gave Tea-sons why it was not, perhaps, wise to impose higher taxation on luxuries, and I agree with a good deal that the Finance Minister said. With regard to the increased taxation on business profits, I do not see how he could very well do any better under the circumstances. Therefore, I have very little criticism to make in that regard.
Now I come to another matter, and I regret that I cannot speak in the same terms with regard to this. I think I might as well take up the criticism of the Finance Minister first. I had the pleasure of listening to the Minister of Finance while he addressed the House on the amendment which was proposed, and I regret to say that it was a heated, partisan speech that he made, so much so that I wondered if -an election was in sight next week or in ten days. The first passage in the minister's address to which I wish to refer is to be found on page 982. The Finance Minister was speaking of the right -hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and he used these words:-
My right hon. freind notwithstanding his free trade professions in 1S93, when he got into office followed in the footsteps of Sir John Macdonald and Sir Leonard Tilley-
- and so on. The reference to 1893 is to the Liberal platform which was laid down that year. I want to read another clause from the minister's speech. This is also in reply to ,a remark by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The remark was:


Wilfrid Laurier: He did nothing of the kind. The policy of Sir Leonard Tilley in 1S79 was that reciprocity of tariff would conduce to reciprocity of trader
And then came the minister's reply, and certainly it was a very heated partisan reply:


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I am sorry that my right hon. friend has not got over 1911. He tried upon that occasion to prove the impossible. He tried to prove that under reciprocity the farmer would get more for his product but that the consumer would pay less?.
Note the words. And then he goes on:
We all know that when my right hon. friend attempted to prove that to the people of Canada he was fore-doomed to failure. Not even my right hon. friend could do that. He could not prove the impossible.
And then later on, when the hon. member for St. John came into the House:


Mr. PUGSLEY:: And the Minister of Finance argued the other way then.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend was
out of the House when I pointed out that among other reasons why my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) signally failed in 1911, was that he attempted to prove to the intelligent people of this country that the farmer would get more for his product and the consumer would pay less.
Do you notice that this is a pet phrase. There is not one word different, except that and " is substituted for " hut." He told my hon. friend:
My hon. friend would hardly expect me to embark upon that undertaking after the example of 1911.
The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lai or) spoke somewhat along the same lines. At page 1152 of Hansard he said:
It is the same old thing to-day as it was in the time of the reciprocity campaign, an attempt to deceive the people of this country. In my county on the day of the official nomination we always have a big public meeting in order that the candidates may express their views to the electorate. I remember that at the last official nomination during the reciprocity campaign a friend of mine handed me a leading Liberal paper of Toronto. One edition of that paper was issued for the farmers to read and the other for the people in the towns and cities. One told the farmers that if they had reciprocity they would get higher prices, that everything wuuld be worth more, butter, eggs, wheat, stocks of all kinds1-everything would go up. The other edition told the people living in the cities and towns that they would buy everything cheaper. Well, it was amusing.
I shall not attempt tp answer in detail the allegations of the hon. member for Haldimand. I should like, in the first place, to see the Liberal newspaper that made the statement in the words as there presented to the public through Hansard. I venture to say this, that the words are not accurate. I might enlarge on my reasons for thinking they are not accurate but I shall not do sc now. But if they are accurate, they are only the opinion of an individual writer, and not the opinion of the Liberal party as a party, nor are they the findings of the present leader of the' Opposition the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. But I think I .ought to reply to the allegation of the Minister of Finance. The words to which I want particularly to address myself are:
That the farmer would get more for his product and the consumer would pay less.
I want to tell the House, if I can, what is involved in that statement. In the first place, the statement on its merits, using

the exact words as there presented to the country and to the House, are. not accurate so far as the policy of the Liberal party is concerned; and they are not accurate as a statement of what was' involved in the reciprocal trade relations that were under the consideration of the country at that time. I wonder if the first allegation of the minister is correct. It is divided into two parts, that the farmer would get more for his product is the first statement.
I ask myself that question and I ask you that question, is it true that, under the reciprocal trade relations the farmer would get more for his product? Do I need a witness after the speech of the Minister of Finance? I have his testimony for it, be-oause he was so pronounced that it would be most unfair eight, five, or four weeks before, to have free wheat passed as part of the Budget. Why, he said, there were possibly 50,000,000 bushels in the West, and, at 10 cents a bushel, it would be $5,000,000, or if there were only 25,000,000 bushels, it would be, at 10 cents a bushel, $2,500,000. What about the $2,500,000? Why, he said, it would be just that much out of the pockets of the farmer in the West. Do I need another argument to buttress my case that the farmer does get the benefit of natural products going free into the American market, and that if his product is subject to duty, the farmer pays the duty?
If this is true regarding wheat, it is equally true regarding such products as fish, hay, potatoes, shingles, laths and so on, commodifies which were mentioned in the proposed reciprocal trade arrangement with the United States. Do I need any other argument than this to prove that the allegation of the leader of the Opposition and of the Liberal party is correct: that under the proposed trade arrangement, the producer of natual products in Canada, having the American market free, would get the benefit?
I see the Minister of Trade and Commerce before me. Would he say that the Canadian consumer would, under reciprocal trade arrangements with the United States, pay less for the products that he purchased? My hon. friend, for whom I have the greatest respect, would, no doubt, say in reply to that question: You had better be a little more definite; you had better not tease me by asking me something to whi'dh either "yes" or "no" would be a correct answer.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He says that it is taken out of the realm of trade now.


William Stewart Loggie: That is a pet phrase, if I may so express myself, of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, because you will notice that, with the use of the word "and" instead of "but," he repeats it later in his speech. Half a truth is the very worst kind of misrepresentation; the very worst kind of lie. I say that that statement made by the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Tory party is a deliberate, wilful misrepresentation of the facts as presented to the people of Canada during the election of 1911. At that time I stumped my county from one end to the other, and I made no *such statement as that, leaving it where the minister left it. I made the matter clear, as I shall make it clear to this House in a few moments; yet the Tory press came out with head limes something like this: Heads I win, and tails you lose. Let me paraphrase that statement of the Minister of Finance and give it as my right hon. leader made it and as the intelligent people of Canada understand it:
The farmer would get more for his product and the consumer would pay less for United States products imported under the reciprocal trade arrangement from the United States.
It is true that under the reciprocal trade arrangement with the United States the farmer would get more for his products, and it is equally true that the consumer, buying American products coming into Canada free or under a reduced tariff, would get those commodities for less money.
The question was asked, in a local paper in my district, how I could argue that the United States consumers would not get the benefit of duties taken off goods entering the United States, whereas Canadian consumers would get the benefit of duties taken off goods entering Canada. This is true, and I will tell you why. On general principles, the country that imposes taxes on imported goods simply asks the consuming public to pay that tax. But there are exceptions to all rules; let me tell you that this is an exception to the general rule. First, it must be remembered that we have to the south of us a population of 100,000,000, in round numbers, and we have in Canada 8,000,000 people. When we buy a commodity in the American market, we must buy it at its market value in the United States, because we are not a sufficient factor materially to change the price. The United States market is a world market, and we must buy at their market price, or not buy at all. Let us examine the conditions of out selling in the United States such commodities as I have named. When

I was running my election, I contended that I was not sure that hard wheat would receive any benefit if the United States took the duty off, because I considered that the price on the Liverpool market largely determined the market value of wheat in the United States. Of course, I had reference to hard wheat. Now we have the minister saying that on low grade wheat the farmer will receive an additional 10 cents a bushel by Teason of the removal of the duty. As I say, if we market goods in the United States, we must accept the conditions that exist there. If I have no other market for, say, 10 carloads of fish, I must send them to the New York market and accept the New York market price. If the weather is cold and if fish are scarce, I get a better price, and whatever the duty is, I get that much less for the commodity that I market. That is true of potatoes, shingles, laths, hay, and of practically every commodity that was mentioned in the reciprocity trade arrangement.
If we were having an election at this time and if this statement of my hon. friend were made on a public platform, I would not mind it so very much, but I say it is unfair criticism for a minister of the Crown to repeat it in this House, using this slogan: " The farmer gets more and the consumer less," which on the fact of it is ridiculous. With a proper and true interpretation it is absolutely the case that on our home products that we would market under the reciprocal trade relation, the increased price would inure to the benefit of the farmers of Canada, and on the imported goods that would be .marketed under the same trade relation, the reduced duties would inure to the benefit of the Canadian consumers. How much benefit would the Canadian 'consumer receive? On the basis of the imports for 1910, the reduction in the duties would amount to $2,200,000; that is, under the reciprocal trade relation, the Canadian consumers would have paid $2,200,000 less than he actually had to pay for those imports in 1910. That is not all. I do not need to remind the Minister of Trade and Commerce of this fact, because I know that his mind is acute on these matters, even if he is not a practical business man, but let me remind other hon. members of it. The Canadian consumers pay $2,200,000 into the customs house of Canada, but do they pay more than that? In the first place the goods, after having been taken out of customs, are received by the wholesale merchant who adds on a 82
profit of not less than fifteen or twenty per cent. The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor), speaking about the Dominion Canners Limited, the other night, said that .they sold their goods at a profit of ten per cent, and the hon. member was quite correct in that statement, but he did not tell the whole story. Up to a certain point, they do sell their goods at an advance of ten per cent, but that is when they are delivered practically from the factory to the retailer without being taken into the wholesale warehouse, but for later delivery the price is raised 24 cents. That, however, is a digression. The point I wish to make is this, that the saving to the Canadian consumers would be practically $3,000,000, because the wholesale distributor adds fifteen or twenty per cent profit on to the $2,200,000 and then the retail merchant adds his percentage of profit on to what he has paid to the wholesale merchant. Therefore, I say that if we had had this trade arrangement for the last four years, the consumers of Canada would havie saved no less a sum than $12,000,000. There is, of course, a reasonable answer to my statement, namely, that in these war times we must have money and the treasury would be minus that amount if the reciprocal trade relations were in force. That would be perfectly true, but what I think is right is that the .country ought to know that these allegations of the Tory party are absolutely unfounded.
I wish to refer io just one more matter in regard to the reciprocal trade relation, because the Minister of Finance was again very partisan in regard to it. On page 983 of Hansard of this year, the minister said:
The chief objection was the fact of the agreement. It is true that on its face it was stated that it was not a treaty but in substance and in fact it was a treaty and when it was entered into the late Government lost to a considerable degree the control of its own tariff.
I do not consider that to be a fair criticism. I will read the words of the agreement and I will leave it to any hon,. member that listens to my voice to judge if that i6 a fair criticism of the words of the agreement. That is .the kind of criticism that helped to win the election of 1911, and it looks to me as if it will be used again as a slogan. No contract can be broken without the consent of both parties unless there is a clause in it empowering either party to break or change it, and that is exactly what is in this agreement, the words of which are as follows:



Nevertheless, it is distinctly understood that we do not attempt to bind for the future the action of the United States Congress or the Parliament of Canada, but that each of these authorities shall be absolutely free to make any change of tariff policy or of any other matter covered by the present arrangement that may be deemed expedient.
That means that after the agreement has been passed by Parliament, Parliament, on any occasion, the next day if they choose, can amend it. Ajoeording to the words of the contract they can do anything they please regarding what they have done. What more can you do to-day regarding wheat that you have put on the free list? You put it on to-day and you can take it off tomorrow. The power that made wheat free can unmake it. The power that made that agreement can unmake it, according to its terms. I may he dense; I may not understand the situation; I may not have the acute mind that the Minister of Finance has, but I fail to come to any other conclusion from the reading of the words of that agreement. I do not kn<w that I can say anything further regarding the Finance Minister's .address to the House or the amendment before the House.
I was surprised at the heated argument he made. He talked just as if an election were coming on next week, and "free wheat" was to be the slogan of his party; and incidentally they would ridicule reciprocal trade relations just as they ridiculed them in 1911. Suppose I were to ask the Minister of Finance: "Do you realize that you have taken out of the pockets of the farmers of Western Canada from $6,000,000 to $10,000,000 during the last three years?" I am sure that if he were in his seat he would say: ("Why how have I taken $6,000,000 or $10,0000,000 out of their pockets)" Let me answer him in his own words.	[DOT]
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Stewart Loggie: The words of the Minister of Finance to which I referred ate to be found in part on page 988, as follows :-
Well, ten cents on fifty million bushels means $5,000,000, and on twenty-five million bushels, $2,500,000. Does my hon. friend mean to say that if this is a proper course for us to take in the national interest at this time of war conditions, the farmer in the West is not entitled to that ten cents.

That is a question put by the minister to a member on this side of the House. Later -page 989-he said:-
They say we should have included this free wheat measure in the Budget, and debated it for a month or six weeks, and two months from now the proposals would be enacted into law. Supposing we had done that? It would mean that the farmer of the West would have been deprived all that time of ten cents a bushel in respect of the low grade wheat he exported to the United States.
Thus we have the testimony of the Minister of Finance, that, if there be 25,000,000 bushels of wheat in the West to-day for export to the United States, the removal of the duty will mean that the farmers will put $2,500,000 in their pockets. If the farmers of the West will be $2,500,000 better off because we put wheat on the free list at a certain time instead of two months later, how much better off would they be if wheat had been put on the free list in 1914? It is fair to say that the party in power to-day has deliberately and without good reason taken from the pockets of the farmers of the West a sum of not less than $6,000,000 to $10,000,000, and this with practically no benefit to any industry in Canada and no advantage to the treasury of Canada, the whole sum accruing to the benefit of the treasury of the United States, according to the testimony of the Minister of Finance himself.


Richard Blain: How does the hon. gentleman reconcile the statement made by his friends from the West, that taking the duty off wheat would mean a higher price to farmers of the West, and the statement of his friends from the East that the same change would result in enabling the mechanics of the East to buy flour at cheaper rates?


William Stewart Loggie: I do not believe the hon. member (Mr. Blain) was in the House this afternoon when-


Richard Blain: I was.


William Stewart Loggie: Then I am afraid the hon. gentleman is very dense-I hope I may be pardoned for saying so.


Richard Blain: Does the hon. gentleman deny that his friends have made the statements to which I have referred?


William Stewart Loggie: No, but if the hon. gentleman would state the whole case he would get at the truth of it. It is demonstrated by the Minister of Finance that the farmer gets the benefit of the removal of the United States duty. Now, if the effect be to put up the market value of that class of wheat

in Canada, and if that class of wheat, made into flour, is consumed in Canada, then, of course, the consumer must pay accordingly; the consumer, every time, pays the value of the article on the market where it is consumed.


Richard Blain: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but how does he explain the statements of his friends to which I have referred?


William Stewart Loggie: I thought I had made myself clear enough for the hon. gentleman to grasp the situation. If the farmer gets more for his wheat, and if that wheat is converted into flour and sold in Canada that flour is worth just that much more to the consumer. But, on the other1 hand, if the hon. gentleman will consult the figures of imports into Canada under this free wheat system, he will probably find that in certain parts of the Dominion American flour is used. That flour will come in free of duty, and the consumers will benefit to the ex-tent of fifty cents a barrel as compared with what they would have had to pay had the duty been maintained. No argument can be used against this, except that it will be alleged that this affects adversely the Canadian miller. But do you mean to tell me that the millers of Canada, are not able to compete with the millers of any other country? We can export our wheat to all the markets of the world. Will anybody tell us, then, that we cannot compete in supplying our own market-that we cannot feed our own people? Do you mean to say that we need a bounty, or that our people must be compelled to pay more for flour than that flour is worth when we send it abroad? Now, if I have not made myself clear, I shall be glad if the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) will ask me any other question.


Richard Blain: If that is the best the hon. gentleman can do, I accept it.


William Stewart Loggie: That is very kind of the hon. gentleman. If I had explained it to him that two and two make four, I suppose he would have "accepted" it as the best I could do, but would really be dissatisfied because I had not said that two and two make five.
Now, I wish to deal a little more at length with a statement of the Minister of Finance to which I have already referred.
The minister made the allegation that in 1893 the right hon. gentleman who leads His Majesty's loyal Opposition, laid down
a platform of free trade. And, the hon. member for Prontenac (Mr. Edwards), speaking the other evening, said:
Nor have I any particular regard or admiration for a leader who denounced protection as a thing accursed of God and man, and promised free trade, and yet for all the time he remained in power maintained that so called curse in practically the same position as it was when he assumed the reins of office.
That is a rather serious charge that the hon. member for Erontenac has made and perhaps there is not another hon. gentleman in this House who would make such an allegation as that. Let us see if that was the platform of the Leader of the Opposition in 1893. I was a delegate to the Liberal Convention of 1893. It was held in Ottawa three years before the general election of 1896. I had the pleasure of attending every one of those meetings. I heard the right hon. gentleman address the convention, I heard the speakers from different portions of the Dominion, and I say here and now to every hon. gentleman in this House that it is absolutely beyond the truth to tell the House that the policy of the Liberal party in 1893 was free trade. Such a statement can only he made with malice aforethought. If hon. gentlemen consult the minutes of the convention, they will find no such words in the platform of the Liberal party as laid down in 1893. It is unfair criticism for a Minister of the Crown to insinuate that the policy of the Liberal party in 1893 was free trade. It was on that platform that the Liberals went to the country. What was the platform of the Liberal party at that date? I need not tell hon. gentlemen because I am doubtful if there is any one in this House who does not know what that platform was. That platform was a tariff for revenue purposes and reciprocal trade relations with the United States in natural products. The .latter part of the platform was favoured by the Conservative party, 'and it had been their platform from the time of the abrogation of the old treaty. When hon. gentlemen send such innuendos as that across the floor of the House there must he something doing. I leave them to conjecture what it is. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would expect you to ask: have the Liberals carried out that platform? We have the innuendo from the other side of the House that we have not done so. I am not going to say that it was carried out in full. Perhaps it was not, but this was done and it oan be demonstrated by the blue book: In 1881, as a result of Sir John Maedonald's ministry

which, went into effect in 1879, as you will see by the Trade and Navigation Report issued by the Department of Customs in 1916, the average rate of duty was 20 09 per cent on dutiable and free goods. This means that two years after the Conservative tariff came into force 20-19 per cent was collected on imports dutiable and free. The Liberals came into power in 1896 and the Fielding tariff was adopted in 1897. In 1899, or two years after the Fielding tariff came into force, 16-17 per cent was collected on all goods dutiable and free, or 3-49 per cent less on the value of invoices for home consumption, or equal to about 17 per cent reduction in the amount of duty collected. On a given value, under the tariff of 1879, $100 was 'collected, while on the same amount in 1899, under the Fielding tariff, only $83 was collected.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Is it not a fact that a reduction in the 1879 tariff was made by the Conservative administration before they went out of office?


William Stewart Loggie: I must emphatically tell the hon. gentleman that there was nothing of the kind.


William Wright: And I just as emphatically state that it is a fact.


William Stewart Loggie: If the hon. gentleman will permit me, I have it in the blue book and in the blue book it reads as follows:

In 1881 percentage of duty to total value of goods entered for consumption, dutiable and free-20.19.
That is two years>
after the Conservative party came into power on their protection platform. In this same blue book, in 1899, the rate of duty collected on the average, dutiable and free, is given as 16-70 per cent. I cannot give the hon. gentleman any better evidence than the blue book issued by the Department of Customs.


William Wright: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member in his speech, but what I was asking him was as to whether it was not a fact that there was a reduction between 1879 and the advent of the Liberal party into power, which he does not take into consideration.


William Stewart Loggie: 
Wilfrid Laurier: This one'included.


William Stewart Loggie: This one included. While we did very materially reduce the rate of duty and made the tariff practically a revenue tariff, it is to be regretted that here and there in that tariff we find that class legislation of which I spoke this afternoon, protection for a certain interest at the expense of the public. I would say first of all that in this country a moderately high tariff seems to be a necessity. We have a large expenditure, and a moderately high tariff, based on proper principles, on principles of fair play to everybody affected, is perhaps something we cannot do without. We cannot dp without it at the present time, at any rate, nor can we avoid it unless something happens in the future which we can not now foresee. But I dO' say this, that it is unfair to tax the consuming public, say 40 per cent, on a food commodity, because that 40 per cent means 60 per cent when it reaches the consumer. I say it is most unfair to do that, and if blunders have been made in the past, hon. gentlemen opposite ought to rise to the occasion and correct the blunders. In these days when we are talking about high prices, the high cost of living, it is an opportune time for bringing food commodities down to a proper rate of duty. Of course we have the war expenditures to meet, and it may be that at the moment it is not opportune to effect this reform. But the principle that ought to be laid down in Canada today is the principle of the Liberal party, tariff for revenue purposes; and I say this, that in normal times, under ordinary conditions, no item of food product ought to be taxed under the tariff at over 20 per cent. I said, and I repeat, that a tariff for revenue purposes involves more or less protection.
It is incidentally a protection to every maker of the same kind of commodity. Moreover, if the maker of a 'commodity cannot, with a protection of from 20 to 25 per cent, compete with the maker of a similar commodity in another country he ought to divert his energies to some other field of activity. I do not believe in the doctrine of unduly taxing any commodity at the expense of the whole people; I believe that is not treating the people fairly. I pointed out this afternoon that perhaps every family in Canada is paying 3300 or 3400 a year into the treasury, or to the manufacturers of Canada, and I say that we should reduce that taxation as far as it is practicable to do so.
The hon. member for Halddmand (Mr. Lalor) made some reference to the Dominion Canners Company the other night. I have not a word to say as to how the business of the Dominion Canners Company is conducted or as to what prices they charge to wholesale grocers or to the consuming public. That is their own business, and it does not fall to me to criticise them. But it is up to the Government to see that the Dominion Canners Company charge the consuming public a proper price for their products. Let me illustrate what I mean. There were imported into Canada during the fiscal year 1916 about $222,000 worth of canned fruits. What duty do you suppose went into the treasury because of that import? No less a sum than $87,000. In other words, the Dominion CanneTS Company are protected to the extent of 40 per cent on the canned fruits that they put on the market. I refer to the report of the Department of Customs, page 106, in which I find these figures:
Fruits in air-tight cans or other air-tight packages, imports, general tariff, $222,940; duty collected, $87,672.06.
Thus, under the present tariff, the Dominion Canners Company are protected to the extent of practically 40 per cent, which, I say, is costing the consumers of Canada not only the 40 per cent, but the amount of the distributor's profit thereon-another 20 per cent.

The hon. member for Haldimand further said that every dollar of the capital of the Dominion Canners Company had been paid in hard cash. Wihat I would like to know is whether the hon. gentleman meant the preferred stock only, or the common stock as well. I venture to say that the hon. gentleman told only half the story. I presume that he had reference to the preferred stock only and that the common stock when it was distributed, was gratuitous. That means that if the Dominion Canners Company earned more than a reasonable dividend on the preferred stock, the common stock would get a dividend at the expense of the consuming public, whereas no actual cash may have been paid for that common stock. Let me say that if the Government would take the matter in hand, I would not be a bit afraid of improper or undue prices for canned goods. I would not care whether the Dominion Canners owned every factory in Canada, provided the Government would see that they are not protected beyond a reasonable duty. In 1915 there was a very large crop in Canada. There were in that year several independent factories and there was a large pack. Among the factories there was undue competition and fairly low prices prevailed. This is what happened, and this is what the Government should guard against:	What I
would call a holding company was formed, and the small canners came in under the Dominion Canners Company. Can you not understand, then, why they had a good year in 1916? The Government was at their back with a 40 per cent duty on fruits-it is not so much on vegetables. I am sorry that the hon. member for Haldimand is not here. I would not even hint at anything which I knew to be inaccurate, and if I have said anything that is incorrect it will give me a good deal of pleasure to withdraw it, and I shall endeavour to withdraw it as publicly as I have stated it.
I have incidentally referred to the speech of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). I never in my life heard a more bitter or more partisan speech than I heard from the lips of that hon. gentleman the other night. I have read one of his statements; I wish to read a few more lines of what he said. I do not think that another gentleman in this House would make the assertions that were made by the hon. member for Frontenac. Listen to these words, Mr. Speaker. Take them under consideration as I read them.

I do not believe they represent the sentiments of the electors of Frontenac; I do not believe there is another gentleman in this House that would utter them. Listen to these .words:
A minister of the Crown seeks to impress upon the audience the importance of their duty in regard to the war, and he is hooted and jeered at and howled down by young men in that audience who evidently do not wish to listen to any appeals along the lines of recruiting or enlistment. The reason for this, Mr. Speaker, is clear. The man who is responsible for the condition of affairs that exists in the province of Quebec is the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition.
And further on the hon. member says:
His teachings, more than any other cause, are responsible for conditions prevailing to-day in the province of Quebec

and sad conditions they are.
What can I say to remarks of that character? They are without truth in fact; they contain an innuendo that ill becomes the strongest party man in the Tory party in Canada, for, if Sir Wilfrid Laurier has done any one thing more than another in Canada, it has been to cement the races rather than to cause division. When we came to Parliament in 1914 and the leader of the Government made known the sad conditions of war, the leader of the opposition voluntarily and promptly made the statement that he would uphold the hands of the leader of the Government in everything regarding the war, and since that time he has practised what he has preached. Yet the hon. gentleman from Frontenac has the audacity to throw that innuendo across the floor against my right hon. leader and his followers in this critical time of war. Such an innuendo ill becomes the hon. member for Frontenac, and I am proud to believe that such are not the sentiments of the people of Frontenac, but simply his personal feelings-and he is a very caustic critic. If the criticism had been a fair one, I would hardly have taken up the time of the House in replying to it.
I wish to make another reference to what the hon. gentleman said. On page 1270 of Hansard, he made use of this language:
I venture to say that men of the stamp of Howe, Tupper and Tilley would not approve the attitude of the Carvells and the Kytes. I venture to say that men of the stamp of Blake and Macdonald and Mackenzie would not endorse the attitude of men like the Tur-riffs. And, Mr. Speaker, men like Cartier would not endorse the attitude which the right hon. leader of the Opposition has taken since the war began.
1 ask you, Sir, if it is a fair criticism towards my hon. friend from Assiniboia

(Mr. Turriff) who has sent his son to the trenches in France where his blood now mingles with the soil, for such an innuendo to come across the floor of this House when we are in this dreadful struggle and the Liberals as well as the Tories are doing their full part in the interest of home and liberty? In these dreadful days, criticism is ill becoming on either side of the House, and I am glad to repeat that I do not believe that such are the sentiments of the people of Frontenac, but I believe it is matter of undue partisan criticism with the idea that some party capital may be made out of it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Hear, hear. Nothing
else.


William Stewart Loggie: In the early part of my address, I stated that I thought the Government had not fully done their part. They have not been able to implement their promise to place 500,000 men in training or at the front. Even now, although it be perhaps too late for them to make overtures, they are the party in power; they are the party that have the power to move the world- we may look upon Canada as the world for a moment-they have the power to move the world if we are to do away with this miserable partisanship that exists in Canada to such an extent at the present time. The innuendo, of course, comes over to this side of the House that the Liberal party are responsible for that partisanship; but if the Liberal party, when the innuendo is thrown at them, put up a defence, is not that within their right? Do hon. gentlemen opposite expect the Liberal party, when they are struck on the right cheek to turn the left cheek as well? That is hardly the doctrine of my hon. friends opposite.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is not politics.
Mr. LOGGIE; The criticism regarding my right hon. leader is altogether uncalled for and should be regretted by every member to your right, Sir, as I know it is by every member to your left. The hon. member further on states as follows^
But to-day we have men who for party and partisan reasons are risking the future of the community by encouraging a condition which has brought a part of our population almost to the verge of revolution.
Those words, if they were true, would be fraught with terrible consequences. If we have a revolution or if we have a condition of affairs verging on to that, it is not my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition that is responsible for it. If I were asked who it was that started the ball rolling, I would say it was my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Stewart Loggie: I wish you would call
order, Sir.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.	.


William Stewart Loggie: It is not my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition in this House who is responsible, as the hon. member for Frontenac charges, but my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He it was who set the ball rolling.	>


George Eulas Foster: Hear, hear.


William Stewart Loggie: What did the Minister of Trade and Commerce do? There was an election in Arthabaska once, just about the time a certain movement in the province of Quebec was noticeable. The Liberal party had a candidate in the field, and the Nationalist party put u:p an opposition candidate. It was then up to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and what did he say?


Six GEORGE FOSTER:: Be careful now.


William Stewart Loggie: You know what he said, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, knows too. "Anything to beat Laurier," that is what he said, and he did defeat Laurier. He started the ball rolling, and it has rolled and rolled ever since until the meeting at Montreal the other night, which was certainly not very creditable to the people of Quebec, and now the innuendo comes across the House that my hon. friend the leader of the" Opposition is responsible for this condition of affairs. It is a slander; it is absolutely unfair criticism, and I do not believe that criticism of that kind will carry much weight in the country. It is calculated to set one province against another, and if there is one person more than another who has helped to put down this spirit of race against race it is Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
There is just one other criticism I have to make of the speech of my hon. friend from Frontenac. He says:
It is very material to the future of this Dominion that the next Government which holds the reins of office should be in sympathy with Britain and with the British Empire, and should not be composed of the anti-British and the foreign element in Canada.
What shall I say to criticism of that kind?


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: 
Mr. EDWARDS:: Does my hon. friend
disagree with that?


William Stewart Loggie: No, I guess I do not. But I will tell my hon. friend what I do disagree with, and that is the insinuation that there are men on this side of the House who are not ini sympathy with Britain and the British Empire, but compose an anti-British and foreign element in this country. I take second place to no .one in my loyalty to the British Crown.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There are no holes in our flag.
'Mr. EDWARDS:	Your Saskatchewan
musket could not have gone off then.


William Stewart Loggie: I am really sorry that so much levity should be displayed, because I think this is a solemn pcoasion. I am sorry that hon. gentlemen opposite seem to enjoy the kind of criticism that is made by the hon. member for Frontenac. To me it is a very serious thing that when reference is made to a criticism of the hon. member for Frpntenac imputing disloyalty to the Liberal party, hon. gentlemen opposite should lightly laugh.
There are just one or two other matters I wish to deal with. To my mind there are commodities just as important to the consumers of this country as wheat, which the Finance Minister recently put on the free list, and I want to give notice now that at the proper time-I cannot make the motion now as there is an amendment -already before the House-I shall move that:
Potatoes, and potatoes dried, desiccated, or otherwise prepared, be put on the free list.
In conclusion, the war situation to my mind is -such that we should endeavour to implement the promise of the Government, and if that cannot be done in
9 p.m. the ordinary way, other -means .of doing it should be found. But the Government of the day are responsible. I should like to see all parties, if

not the representatives of all views in this country, united in a common effort to implement the promise of the Government. The affairs of Canada, however are in the hands of the 'Government. They -are all powerful; they -are responsible to the people and to Empire, and it is up to them tp make the overtures.
It is up to them to make the -move; it is up to them to implement their promise. Even in fulfilling that promise we are not doing any more than our duty, and as a people we should not shirk any part of our duty in this crisis. We are fighting in a noble cause; we are fighting for liberty and right against oppression and wrong. It is the prayer of every one of us that the good cause may prevail. That prayer we should put into practice. With our "silver bullets," with our bodily strength, in every way, we should aid the Empire in this noble struggle for liberty and right.


Mr. JOSEPH EDMOND MARCILE (Ba-got) (translation):: Mr. -Speaker (the Deputy Speaker, Mr. Rainville, in the -chair), I followed very closely the several addresses on the Budget delivered by the Minister of Finance, his colleague of the Cabinet and the hon. members on both sides of the House.
The hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Loggie) discussed the tariff at sufficient length to allow me to leave that question aside and devote my -attention to other fiscal matters.
The Minister of Finance -claimed a large share of credit because on the 31st of-March 1917, the trade of the country had reached the two billion mark. If you take into account the very great increase in the price of every article since 1911, and especially during 1917, it can be stated that our trade, both our imports and exports, has made no progress -since 1911-12. During the year 191112 our business totalled near to one billion dollars. Consult the statistics of every market and you will find that not only have prices doubled, but have increased in some instances three and four-fold. Take the wollen goods from England as an example: they used to sell at $1.75 to $1.90 a yard; to-day they -cost $4.25, $4.50 and up to $5.50. If the claim of increased trade of the hon. member were substantiated, our imports and exports should -amount, not to two billions, but to over three billions of dollars.
In 19.11-12, Mr. Speaker, we were exporting nothing for war purposes; this last year, although the Minister of Finance did not give us separately the figures relating to

the munitions exported, it is well known that there have been exported from Canada during 1916-17 munitions to the amount of at least two hundred millions of dollars.
I view with alarm, Mr. Speaker, the tremendous increase in the public debt. We are told by the Minister of Finance that at the end of the last fiscal year our debt exceeded $900,000,000, and that we could expect to see it reach by March 31, 1918, $1,500,000,000, on which nearly $75,000,000 will have to be paid for interest alone; add to that the soldiers' pensions estimated at $20,000,000 to $25,000,000, and you have a total of over $100,000,000 quite apart from the amount required for the ordinary expenditure, which cannot be less than $75,000,000. All that we shall have to pay not less than $150,000,000 to $175,000,000, which somewhat exceeds the ordinary and extraordinary revenue before and after the war.
When we are confronted by such alarming conditions, is it not time to take notice? All members of this House, whatever their politics, have at heart the welfare of the citizens of this Dominion. Again I say, Mr. Speaker, that in order to secure this welfare we must stop to reflect and see whither the present Administration is leading the affairs of the country.
Since the advent of the present Government in 1911, secured by methods most reprehensible, hon. gentlemen on the other side have constantly contrived to stir racial antagonism, not only in the province of Quebec, but especially in the province of Ontario and in one other province in the West, by representing the people of the province of Quebec as disloyal to the Crown and opposed to Great Britain as a whole. In this regard it may be contended that the poor welcome given at Montreal last Monday to the Postmaster General is proof of our disloyalty. I wish to say, however, that the Postmaster General only got what is coming to him in Montreal, and deserves to be dealt with similarly in every locality where, after preaching nationalism in 1910-11, he returns to advocate Imperialism.
I claim without fear of any contradiction that His Majesty -George V has no more loyal and devoted subjects than the French Canadians of the province of Quebec. It is recorded in our annals that but for the French Canadians, Canada would have been lost to England long ago. It is well Imown that at the time of the declaration of America's independence, in 1774, had the French Canadians consented to side with
the thirteen revolted colonies, the Stars and Stripes and not the Union Jack would float to-day over our Parliament buildings. The position taken at the time by the French Canadians, not known to all and purposely ignored by others, was prompted in the main by the Ro-man Catholic clergy of the province of Quebec, who called upon the French Canadian people to give -their lives, aye, the very last drop of their blood for the maintenance of that British dominion which was the bulwark of our rights and liberties in the province of Quebec, then the whole of Canada.
Later, in 1812, our friends from the other side of the line again invaded our territory. Who prevented the Americans conquest if not, to a large extent, the French Canadians of the province of Quebec?
It seems to me a marvel why our countrymen of Ontario, and in some western provinces, chiefly Manitoba, are so -much opposed to my race. No other race in Canada is subjected to such obloquy and abuse; even the Germans, the fiercest foe of Great Britain in the present war, would receive better treatment. This country is peopled by many different races, there are Russians, Italians, Jews, Austrians, Syrians, and Germans; they all seem to be accorded due respect by the English-speaking element of Ontario; it is even proposed to replace French by Russian in the schools of that province. The population of Quebec is represented as made u-p of ignorant slaves, without energy, incapable and unworthy of constituting a desirable nation. We are despised, Mr. Speaker; -we are even pilloried and yet, notwithstanding those insults, we remain loyal subjects of His Majesty when the bugle calls, summoning to the colours the descendants of those disloyal subjects, our youth leave home and friends, close their ranks around their country's flag, ready to defend it with their last -breath and the last drop of their blood. How many of those noble sons have I not seen myself, leaving fine positions, promising careers, their parents and their friends to run to the defence of the Allies and especially England? Even I myself had two sons who were my pride and my hope; they crossed overseas to fight for the liberty of the world and to secure to the small nations a place under the sun and some measure of freedom. One of my sons is already at the front and the other is in England training until the day when he shall join his brother. Thousands upon thousands of our sons have

responded to the call, and yet must we be told by a portion of the press in Ontario that we have done nothing. If the French Canadians have not enlisted, as the people of Ontario would have you believe, how is it that thousands of them have fallen on Europe's 'battlefields and that there are more of them ready to capture difficult positions that others cannot take. Let us not be deceived. It is an established fact that if the Germans have not taken Calais, all honour is due to the glorious 22nd battalion. At the battles of St. Julien, Festubert, Ypres, Langemarck, Courcelette and Vimy, our sons have given freely of their blood; and those battles are proofs to the whole world that the youth of the province of Quebec have remained worthy of their forebears, the discoverers, settlers, and defenders of this large and magnificent country of ours. More of them are wanted, Mr. Speaker; and still more of these brave scions of the French settlers in Canada.
Before doing more in that direction, should we not rouse .to consider whether really we have not gone far enough and whether our more sacred duty is not to strive to the utmost to secure the results asked of our efforts, that is to put under cultivation as large an area as possible and work to intensify production? How is it possible to reach that end? We first must seed the land and that requires, not only stocks of seed, but hands to put it in. How can we procure the necessary seed when the railways do not supply us with cars? Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the conditions are worse than they are thought to 'be? Last year there was a complete failure of the crops in the province of Quebec and in other provinces to some extent. The Quebec farmer must buy almost all his seed for this spring. At the present time it is impossible to get the potatoes or grain that we need. Notwithstanding the exorbitant prices, the farmers are willing to buy, provided the railway companies and the Department of Railways at Ottawa produce the necessary cars. Should not the Government take the same steps regarding those different products of the farm as they have done on behalf of the newspapers when they fixed the maximum price of newsprint? My idea is that it is the Government's duty to settle a maximum price for potatoes, oats, barley and wheat, whatever at least is needed as seed for this spring.
The plea is put forward that there are no available cars; but it is well known to those

who travel on the different railways in .Canada that the sidings are filled with empty cars; you, Mr. Speaker, who live in the town of St. Lambert, know that such is the case in the Grand Trunk yard in that locality. The same occurs at Point St. Charles and Turcot; also on the Canadian Pacific, at both Viger and Windsor stations, and on the Intercolonial, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that with very little exertion on his part, the Minister of Railways could furnish enough cars to allow the shipment of potatoes from New Brunswick to the farmers of my county, who need them for seeding purposes. It has been found impossible to proceed with seeding operations through lack of transportation facilities^ Judging from what is taking place and from the utterances of men who are fully aware of the requirements of the Allies, men like Lord Sliaughnessy, the Hon. Mr. Balfour, Lloyd George and our own Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) I must come to the conclusion that what is wanted most by the Allies is not more men and yet more men, but more food and still more food. That is what we are asked to furnish, but a large number of hands will be required to put in the crops, this spring, and to harvest them next fall. To secure farm help such salaries are asked that it will be impossible for the farmers to pay them. What is the remedy? I see only one possible suggestion: stop all recruiting for tne army; keep in Canada all those wno have enlisted; form battalions with available men who are willing to work on the land; give them a soldier's pay, and thus the farmers will secure the necessary help to sow the land and take in the crop, while paying a reasonable price; otherwise they cannot get the results expected of them.
The question of recruiting brings to mind the Postmaster General. No worse recruiting agent could be secured, because the people of Quebec put no faith in him whatever. Better try to recruit farm help than to enlist soldiers to help him to patch up the British flag which he claimed our ancestors had been forced to bore full of holes in order to breathe the air of liberty. If the Postmaster General's patriotism goes to the length he would fain have us believe, why not give up his salary to help recruiting farm hands for the province of Quebec?
We were told by the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Government that the fiscal year ending on March 31 last brought a
MA\ 10, 1917
surplus of $60,000,000. That money, Mr. Speaker, has 'been taken from the people in the form of duties and taxes. Speaking personally, I should have preferred to see that money applied to prepare the aftermath of the war, keeping the war expenses by themselves to be reclaimed from Germany in the treaty of peace.
During the whole of forty-one years, Mr. Speaker, I, as a merchant, sold articles of all kinds. I am sorry to say that during the later years most of what I sold was imported from Geftnany. Why not see to it that industries having to do with the manufacture of similar articles be established in this country? We are particularly well situated for the purpose, because Canada has a boundless supply of raw material.
Yesterday I listened to the hon. member for Eouville (Mr. Lemieux) on technical education. If, instead of applying to war purposes our surplus of sixty millions, a portion of it had been used to promote technical education in Canada, such a policy in my estimation would have been the part of wisdom and in the interest of the Canadian people.-
The Government has appointed a commission to inquire into the country's needs after the war and suggest the best methods to adopt. The return has been brought down but I fail to see what measures the Government is taking on the lines suggested. The country's development calls for urgent and immediate action; let the Government be' up and doing, or else at the next election the people will put into their places men capable of fostering the interests of the nation. During the recess, I had occasion to visit a portion of the province of Quebec which had been criticised by hon. gentlemen opposite when the right hon. leader of the Opposition thought fit to build the Transcontinental. I visited, Mr. Speaker, the Abitibi region, which had been represented as being altogether unproductive and inhabitable; it was claimed to 'be a waste of money to build a railway from Cochrane to Quebec. I was anxious to see for myself. Let me state that in insisting on the Transcontinental being built from Cochrane to Quebec the right hon. leader of the Opposition showed great foresight. When the resources of Canada's granary, the great western prairies, shall have been exhausted, we shall find in the North of the province of Quebec, in the Abitibi fields, another granary that will furnish, not only to the province of Quebec, but to the whole
world, the wheat required for the sustenance of the peoples of the earth.
There is a defect, however, in the Trans- >
continental line from Cochrane to Quebec. The service is a poor one. For the last couple of years there has been some improvement, but the service is still unsatisj factory. There are two trains per day three times a week. Why not have only one train a day every day in the week? The men on the road are exceedingly careless. Freight cars are allowed to stay whole weeks at stations next to the points they are billed for,' and if the owners protest, they are laughed at, if not given worse treatment. A little good will in the Department of Railways, and some fairness towards the province of Quebec, would soon secure to that favoured region thrifty settlers living happy and contented on fertile lands and in an ideal climate. Although I made the trip during the winter, I could see that the railway had been fairly well constructed, except for some slopes and curves between the Fitzpatrick and O'Brien sections, which have doubtless been changed with the object of injuring the road. Elsewhere the road is perfect. I hope the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) will take my remarks in good part and do his utmost to right those conditions.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I have stated in all frankness and without prejudice, the situation as I view it and as many citizens view it also. And the situation being such, is it wise to continue recruiting for the war, when there is no necessity of more soldiers, unless it be to permit some people to cross to Europe for the purpose of patching the British flag bored full of holes, that French Canadians may breathe the air of liberty, as was stated in 1911, by my hon. friend, Mr! Blondin, at a meeting at St. Hyacinthe, where I had the pleasure of replying to him. In my opinion, it would be too costly to send over certain persons who are not wanted on the one hand and who would Be of no use if they went.
I wish to add also that, in view of the urgent needs of the country, the Government should take the necessary steps to repatriate as soon as possible all soldiers who have been declared unfit for the service and who are paid $1.10 per day and fed in the military camps in England, where they are of no practical value to Great Britain or Canada. There are nearly one thousand of those in England. There are others whose names should be taken off the pay-list, col-

onels, lieutenant-colonels, captains, majors, lieutenants, who are merely good to show off in military parades and walk the streets of London. Even here in Canada we have quite a number of those officers whom we pay out of the public money drawn from the people's tax money, who are of no service whatever in the trenches and have lived in sloth long enough at the public expense.
We are being preached to practice economy, Mr. Speaker; I agree with the preaching, but I disagree with the preachers, who lack faith in their own teachings. They practice the very opposite of what they advocate. The returns from the various departments of the inside and outside service furnish ample proof of that fact. There has been a scandalous number of extraordinary appointments since 1911. On a visit to the Montreal post-office last winter, partly through curiosity and partly on business, I was astounded to see the large number of clerks in the various offices who had nothing else to do but order one another about doing nothing.
We have had also, Mr. Speaker, a return showing the number of Liberal employees discharged under the present Administration and the number appointed in their places. Can it fie believed that, according to the return, ten thousand Liberals were discharged and twenty-one thousand friends of the Government appointed in their stead. Appointments have been made without any respect for the Civil Service Act, in fact in direct violation of the Act. Positions have been given to persons who can barely read, even on the staff of the Library, where surely of all places educated men are required. That employee was given a fat salary of $1,200, his appointment was made to date back six months before he entered on his work and he was granted an indemnity for lodging for six months prior to his taking up his duties because the Parliament buildings were burned down. We have here, Mr. Speaker, a sample of the manner in which the affairs of the country are administered by ministers who go into the cities and throughout the country clamouring for the strictest economy by the people. I was right in stating that those preachers lack faith in their own teachings.
A word as to National Service. If the desire was to obtain the information which we are told was aimed at, that is to find out how many people were disposed to work in the munition factories or on the land, the

only way was to put the questions frankly, honestly and without any reticence. The cards had two queries which left a great deal to conjecture; they are questions 23 and 24. Many electors asked me if they should sign the National Service card. "Do so," I said, " but beware how you reply to the last two questions. If you are willing to go anywhere and in any capacity, answer 'yes'; if not, say 'no.' If you are ready to work in Canada in the munition factories or on the farms, say 'yes'; otherwise, write 'no.' " It may be that only a few cards have been returned from the county I have the honour to represent; the people are not to blame, because it is a constituency made up chiefly of farmers. A farmer with 125 or 150 acres in cultivation and often with only one son to help cannot be expected to leave his own work and go on some other farm, especially in view of the fact that we are requested to intensify production. *
Before 1911, the Government led by the present right hon. leader of the Opposition ' (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) spent $98,000,000 for the administration of the country. We were taken to task then for our extravagance, our wasteful methods. What shall be said of a Government who spend for the same work the enormous sum of $172,000,000 in round numbers? Is it to be wondered that the people are complaining under the burden of taxes and repent of their sin of 1911? I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that when, at the bugle call, the officers will review the ranks, calling upon the electors to rally around the colours-not those of war but the Liberal standard-there will be among the hon. gentlemen opposite many bitter tears and gnashing of the teeth. We on your left, Mr. Speaker, have cause for congratulation when we see the very principles advocated and defended by the liberals in 1911 and condemned, censured and vilified by those who attained power by means of those tactics, recognized to-day by their erstwhile opponents as sound; for now that they are in power, the Conservatives adopt and apply those very Liberal principles, in connection with such questions, as the navy and reciprocity.
Doubtless you remember, Mr. Speaker, how the electoral campaign was conducted in Quebec in 1911. You recall the terrible scarecrow that was made of the Laurier navy, the terror that was struck into women and children by the description of the horrors of war and how mothers were terrified because their sons would be snatched from

their arms and sent to be butchered on the seas of China and Japan. More than any, I know the terrors which were spread during the campaign of 1911 in the Province of Quebec by Nationalists; my opponent in the election was one of the strongest adherents of Nationalism. Previously I had the opportunity especially in Drummond-Arth-baska, of meeting some of those self-styled Nationalists, as the Hon. Mr. Nantel, exMinister of Inland Bevenue, who accepted a commissionership on the Eailway Commission, knowing full well the chastisement which the electors of Terrebonne had in store for him when he should seek re-election. Those who had such a dread of the tin-pot navy, -as it was called in 1911, are quite satisfied now to have those vessels protecting the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards against possible invasion. To such an extent did they go in their acceptance of the Liberal policies, that at the opening of hostilities they bought two submarines that had -been built for the Chilean Government but refused as being defective. Our Government bought them in spite of all, hoping to use them in the defence of -the Pacific coast, but unfortunately the two boats behaved in Canadian waters as they behaved before the Chilean experts; when they -attempt to submerge they plunged to the bottom and it will be necessary to use torpedoes in order to raise them. If we are in a position to-day to build ships in Canada for the Allies of Great Britain, it is due to the policy inaugurated in 1910 by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). As a matter of fact, if the Canadian Vickers established their shipyards in Montreal, it is because Sir Wilfrid Laurier had decided in 1910 upon a programme of naval construction, the ships to be built in Canada, by Canadian labour, for the benefit of Canada instead of handing over, as was this Government's policy in 1903, $35,000,000 for the -construction of three dreadnoughts for Great Britain, who did not require them.
I could take hours to dilate on the bad administration which the Canadian electorate accidentally voted to power in 1911, but not to-day. The people are only waiting for a chance to correct that mistake. I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that the time is not far off when the opportunity will be given the people to make amends by placing at the helm of the state men who have -the people's interest at heart, men able to govern without stirring racial and religious animosities between the different nationalities that constitute the Canadian people. To that end, Mr. Speaker, there is only one thing to do: it is to recall to power that great Canadian, that greatest of Canadians, the Eight Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who for fifteen years has led the country through an era of prosperity.


Mr. EUGENE PAQUET (L'IsIet) (translation) :: Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the hon. member for Bagot (Mr. J. E. Marcile) call for a reply on my part. I respect and admire the noble -sentiments expressed by the hon. member in favour of the great cause which we are all defending. I congratulate him on the most noble of sacri-flees, giving his -sons for the safety of his country. But I deplore his strictures against Lieutenant-Colonel Blondin. There is then to be no let up in his attacks against a man who has given his best service to the national cause! My sympathies for the sons of the hon. member for Bagot are deep; but why should I not entertain the same feeling towards a minister of the Crown and a father who has made the -same sacrifices. Last Monday, I attended the meeting at Le Monument National; I wish to point out to my hon. friend that he forgot to tell us that Mr. Descarries, a Liberal member of the Gouin Cabinet, was ridiculed by hecklers during his address.
Last night Mr. Blondin got a very sympa-thi-c hearing at St. Hyacinthe. This also the hon. member failed to mention. All Liberals do not view the action of Lt.-Col. Blondin in the same light. My hon. friend states that at the Montreal meeting the hon. Mr. Blondin got his desserts. I am sure that the leader of the Liberal party does not see eye to eye with my hon. friend. The St. Hyacinthe meeting was presided over by the mayor, Mr. Bene Morin. The distinguished first magistrate buried all political differences to shake the hand of a patriot who is making immense sacrifices for the safety of Canada and the cause of liberty. His Honour the mayor, a staunch Liberal, congratulated Mr. Blondin on his noble action, remarking how the minister was not content with words but followed his words by deeds. Mr. Blondin was the recipient of a remarkable ovation. He deserves the respect and admiration of all those who forget political dissensions when the country's welfare is at -stake. The great and noble action of the hon. Mr. Blondin redounds to the honour of our race at a moment when the country is threatened by many foes.
The hon. member for Bagot has given his views on the social conditions of Canada'" I


Mr. F. N. McCREA (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take up a little of the time of the House to discuss that part of the Budget speech which has reference to the taxation of industrial profits. When the hon. the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) delivered his Budget speech last year and singled out the manufacturers as fit subjects for taxation, it appeared to me then as an unjust and unwise procedure. When this measure was before the committee, I think the minister assured the House that it would be in force for three years and would not be disturbed. I have not consulted Hansard, but I think if you will look up the record you will find that when this measure was going through the committee the minister so expressed himself, stating that this taxation of 25 per cent upon profits over and above 7 per cent on corporations and 10 per cent on partnerships, would not be disturbed for three years. But, unfortunately, the minister has changed his mind. If it was an unjust tax in the first instance, I am very sure that it has not been modified any by this new departure of coming back again and imposing a further tax of 50 per cent on all profits between 15 and 20 per cent and 75 per cent on all profits over 20 per cent. Industrial companies of all kinds are subject to fat and lean years, periods of prosperity and periods of great depression when

it is a hard problem for them to keep afloat, meet their obligations and pay dividends. Many of them pass their dividends. We are told in sacred history of a king of Egypt who, at one time, had a dream that troubled him. He consulted all the wise men of the realm, and finally he found one who could interpret the meaning of his dream. The interpretation was to the effect that they were then to have a number of years of great prosperity and abundance, to. be followed by another period of years of great leanness,	no	prosperity, no	crop,nothing. The king, in his wisdom, provided	out	of the	rich	years
a fund to carry his people and his country through the period of lean years. It would have been wise if the Minister of Finance had looked up a little sacred history and if he had done so perhaps he would have thought it wise not to put the whole burden on the manufacturers, 'because we are going through a period of some prosperity. It cannot be denied, and I am not here to deny, that the manufacturers in most lines are prosperous. But, it is also true that the managers of nearly every industrial concern, if they make any money, instead of paying great big dividends and pocketing the money, generally invest it in extensions and additions to the plant, thereby increasing production and building up the country. This measure of taxation placing the whole of the burden of providing revenue to meet the war expenditures on the manufacturers alone is striking a blow at industry. It is striking a blow at the men of energy and ability who are willing to put their best efforts and their money into industrial enterprises. The minister said that he had collected from this source last year some 512,000,000, and he expected to collect, I think, 525,000,000 or more next year. He thought that everybody was perfectly happy because he had not received a single protest. Because people do not protest, because they do not kick up a row, because they are willing to bear a certain amount of the burden, is that a reason for soaking them a little more? I for one am not here to protest, find any fault or make any objection, as a manufacturer, to paying my fair share of the burdens of this war, providing the burden is laid upon all, rich and poor. The poor will pay according to their means and the rich will do the same. Take, for instance, the case of two men, the sons of a rich father. The father divides up and gives each of them a large fortune. One of the sons chooses to go into industrial busi-83
ness, into manufacturing, and he puts every dollar of his money and all the energy he has into the enterprise, and possibly injures his health by overwork. The other son takes hisi money and invests it in good securities. He sits back in his easy chair, blips his coupons when they come due; he	is	found	in	the Southin the winter	and in	the	North inthe summer at a fashionable watering place or	a	place	of	recreation.What I ask is, is	this	man a specialfavourite who should be treated with special consideration? He does not do anything, he does not employ anybody, he is simply living on the energies of his father before him. He has put the money 'he inherited into investments, and has in this way made some money. But the other man has put his money in industry; he employs a large number of people, he pays good wages, perhaps ruins his health in doing so, and builds up a business and made interest on his money, but he is made the goat because he cannot get away. The minister has said:	I't is true we might
resort to income tax and many other sources of taxation, but it would require a lot of machinery and work, .and it is hard to get at them. Again I ask, suppose that two men are walking down the street, one a manufacturer and the other a professional man, or some other man, and they commit a crime that is punishable by penitentiary. Warrants are got out and the authorities seek for the offenders. They find the manufacturer-he cannot get away, he is tied down to his business. The other man skips to Mexico or some other place. They know where he is, but it is going to he a trouble to get him. What would you propose doing with the man whom you have? Would you hang him and make him suffer the penalty of the two because the other man is a little hard to get? There is just as much logic in that as there is in the minister saying that because it is a little hard to reach the man who spends his time clipping his bond coupons and looking after his income, because it takes more machinery to reach him we will*leave him alone; but the man we have got we will hang or crucify, or do anything else to him we like, and make him bear the whole burden. A striking case came under my notice a couple of years ago. A man in the pulpwood business had got out a large stock of pulpwood, he got his drive in, and started up his dressing or rossing mill. The first week he was operating the mill it took fire and was



burned down. He had a big lot of wood on hand, but no mill to dress it. He went to his bank to borrow the necessary capital to rebuild. The bank said: In the first place, would we have furnished you money to make your drive and you have exhausted your line of credit? In the second place, it is not customary for the banks to loan money on long terms. You want money to 'build a plant; we cannot lend it to you. He looked around and came across some of these gentlemen whom I have described, who had some money. He told them his story. He said: I have my limit, a large tract of freehold lands; I am willing to give you a first mortgage on it; I want to raise $50,000 to build my mill; my limit is worth at least five times the money I want to borrow. They said: Very well, we will loan you $50,000 and take a first mortgage on your property, but we will take the first mortgage for $62,500, and we will charge you eight per cent interest on $62,500. There was no other remedy, he had to build his mill, he could not help himself. He borrowed the money, he gave a mortgage for $62,500 and received $50,000 in cash. These gentlemen are not touched by this legislation, they are not affected. I want to know from this House if that appeals to the members as anything like honest or sound logic, or sound taxation. I for one do not think it is. I am not opposed to paying 25 per cent, or 50 per cent, or 75 per cent, or the whole profits if necessary, provided that everybody else is treated in the same way, but I see no reason why I should be singled out. It is said by some: Oh, the manufacturer is making big money and he can afford to pay this taxation. Yes, we are making some money but what about the farmer? What about the price of wheat, $3 a bushel while the normal price [DOT] is about 90 cents? What about 'the price of pork and cattle and other lines of agricultural produce? I was talking to a man in Montreal last week on this very question, and this gentleman told me that there were two firms of lawyers in Montreal, each man representing his own individual firm, and the income of each of these men was considerably over $100,000 this year from the office alone. I admit that they were probably the leading lawyers of the city, but this was their income from their office alone, to say nothing of their investments-and I am sure they would have investments because men of that income generally have some- I want to know from this House if there is any reason why men of this class, why 
men of all classes, should not contribute their fair 'share to the taxes that are necessary. We have got to be taxed, we are at war and it is every man's business to contribute his share and to do it cheerfully; but it is not right, it is not just, it is not honest, on the part of the Government to put the whole burden on the manufacturer alone. The minister does not seem to be quite satisfied, it is his second dose to one particular branch of manufacture. A short time ago the minister thought it wise on his part to fix the rate of newsprint at two and one-half cents, which is at least a cent a pbund less than it can be produced for.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Francis N. McCrea: The minister, I assume,
would deny this, but the way he figures the cost of paper is the cost, taking it from the tree until it is delivered in a sheet of paper. The way I figure the cost of news print is as follows:	The selling value of
sulphite pulp is not less than $100, say an average of $100, and it requires. 500 pounds of sulphite pulp for the manufacture of a ton of news print. In addition to that about 1,600 pounds of ground wood pulp is required for a ton of paper. That is 2,100 pounds, as there is about 5 per cent of waste in the conversion of pulp into paper. That pulp is worth to-day at least, selling retail as fast as we can make it, $40 to $50 a ton, put it at the lowest figure, $40; and 1,600 pounds of ground wood pulp at $40 is $32. You have $25 worth of sulphite pulp and $32 worth of ground wood pulp before you go to your conversion at all. Add to that your coal, labour, size and resin and the other necessities, and it will bring your pulp up to at least $70 a ton before you get a cent of profit out of it. I maintain that the cost of your paper is the value of the pulp that you can quickly sell for cash and not have to wait for your money or ship it, simply load it and get youT money. That is the condition of the paper business at this present moment, and the minister, in his wisdom-no, I think not in his wisdom, I think he listened to the stories and the arguments of the publishers and did not wait to hear what the manufacturers had to say before he made up his mind and passed judgment on the question-fixed the price at 2J cents. If he had been patient and had waited until he heard the arguments on both sides, he would have seen the wisdom of being a little fairer in the matter than he has been.

the right hon. leader of the Opposition, if I remember rightly, asked the minister the other day if an Order in Council had been passed fixing the price of newsprint paper, to which, I understand, he replied that no such order had been passed; that the parties had come to an understanding among themselves. Let me tell you how they came to an understanding. I was not at the meeting, but I was told about it by our manager, who was there. The minister simply told those present: if you do not accept 2J cents, I will make it 2J; so you had better accept what has been proposed. That is how they consented to it-with a club over their heads. They had to accept it. Perhaps the minister understands all about the conditions respecting the pulp and paper business, and perhaps he does not. I want to tell this House something about it. Prior to the month of March, 1916, some of the biggest paper industries on this continent had to re-organize; they were unable to pay even the interest on their preferred stock. In March, 1916, approximately 100,000 tons of ground wood pulp were piled in Canada, and there was, besides, a large amount on the other side. Trade had not been very good, the mills were running only four or five days a week; there was an over-production of ground wood pulp. The increased demand and the increased price commenced about March, 1916, and although the water condition last year was a good one and water was plentiful, that whole surplus of ground wood pulp has disappeared, together with whatever additional wood that could be ground. There is at present very little surplus ground wood pulp. Sulphite pulp and chemical pulp of all kinds is manufactured by a chemical process requiring but little power, and if there is a shortage of it the manufacturer can force his production and thus meet the difficulty. But ground wood pulp, 75 or 80 per cent of which goes into newsprint, is manufactured by a mechanical process and cannot be economically or successfully made by any other power than water-power. For instance, it requires 70 to 75 horse power working 24 hours to grind one ton of pulp, and if you generate power by steam or coal to grind pulp it will cost you so much that you cannot make newsprint of it. It has to be made by cheap power, and if the Almighty doe3 not give you water you cannot grind pulp. This surplus that was piled out last March, together with the additional output, having been exhausted, what will happen 834
if we have a dry season this year? I doubt very much whether the newsprint people will get all the paper they want, no matter what legislation the Finance Minister may adopt to help them out, because legislation cannot produce water, and nobody can make pulp without water. Although the price of nearly every commodity has gone up very materially, the manufacturers, of their own free-will, before any demand was made upon them by the Government, offered to supply the Canadian publishers with paper at 3 cents, which certainly would give them no profit. Under present conditions I do not know what induced the minister to take the course that he did; I know that in other lines of business the profits are very much higher than in the newsprint paper business. These he has not seen fit to touch, and wisely so; I am sorry that he was not as wise in Teepect to the newsprint business'. Anyway, the general effect will 'be that capital will hesitate to put money into anything connected with the paper business, or into any other business in respect of which the Government sees fit to fix prices, especially unreasonably low. I was talking to a man in Montreal last week, a man of big means, who has the ear of many of the financial people of this country. He told me that he bad made all necessary arrangements for the construction of a very large pulp and paper mill, but he said that when he went to New York and told his people that the Government had practically fixed the price of newsprint and was taking a big part of the profits he could not get them to listen to him for a minute. I believe that this Government is sincere and wants to build up the country, but I want to tell hon. gentlemen that interfering with the prices of commodities and putting the burden of taxation on a few people is not the way to build up the country. I candidly believe that the minister's apparent willingness to place all the burdens on the manufacturer alone and to let everybody else go scot-free has not been heard the last of. I notice that this measure of taxation, strange to say, is fairly popular, and one reason for its popularity is that it will touch only about 5 per cent of the population. If the minister has the courage of his convictions -and I believe that he has-he will frame up some tariff or some legislation whereby everybody in Canada will bear his fair share of the burden. If he does that he will not hear a whimper from anybody; every one will cheerfully bear his share of the burden and do his share. Let us con-

sider what has occurred in the case of the American people since the war started. At the beginning of the war they were under just as much obligation as England was to protect Belgium, tout they did not fulfil their Obligations under the Treaty. That was the first thing that made them feel rather ashamed when they began to realize that they had held back and allowed Belgium to toe ruined by Germany. After the sinking of the Lusitania occurred, if you met Americans and spoke to them, you would find that they had rather a feeling of shame and that they would make excuses for the notes that were written toy their President. But since the Americans have come out and said: We will do our share from now on, eveTy American is smiling; he feels happy; he feels that he is no longer living securely at his ease behind other people's energies and efforts. The same thing applies to the taxation that is necessary for the carrying on of this war. If the Government had the courage they should have and fixed the burdens that should toe borne by every one equally, every one w.ould be happy and contented. But under present conditions there is not very much happiness amongst the manufacturers, whether of paper or of anything else. I suppose people will say: " Well, McCrea is speaking because this touches him." McCrea is no slacker. I will stand up and do my share, but I do npt want to do some one else's share. I want every man, woman and child who have the ability to do it, to pay their fair share, and I think they will be perfectly satisfied to do so.	[DOT]	.


Mr. W. A. OHARLETON (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my horn, friend (Mr. McCrea), whom we know is a large manufacturer of paper and pulp, has said some things which made me feel it my duty to mention a concrete case in order to illustrate how the proposed increase in the taxation of profits will affect the employment of new capital in this country. The pulp and paper mills in Canada are working day and night and some of them ,on Sundays and yet they are unable to supply the demands.


Francis N. McCrea: Actions have been instituted against four or five of them ifli working on Sundays.


William Andrew Charlton: 
Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Labour this afternoon, delivered a speech in, which he eulogized himself and the Department of Labour in every way that he possibly could. With that I have no fault to find. He is satisfied with himself, -and perhaps the rest of us ought to be satisfied with him; perhaps the country ought to toe satisfied with

him, but strange to say, even although he will admit himself that he has made a moet excellent Minister of Labour, the country will be loath to agree with him. There were some things that he particularly laboured upon, namely, the price of various commodities, such as coal, foodstuffs, etc., and yet when I questioned him, it appeared to me that the Minister of Labour sidestepped in answering those particular questions which are pertinent-although he did not seem to think so-to the carrying on of the war and to the welfare of the people of Canada. He sidestepped as only the Minister of Labour can; for the pure and simple reason, in my opinion, that he had no other course to pursue, because he had done nothing in regard to the matter. In his address this afternoon, his- defence of the Department of Labour was that he had sent out many questions to many dealers; that the questions had been answered; that the dealers had told him that they had so much produce on hand; that it had cost them so much money and that they could sell it for so much money in order to make a profit. The minister, however, did not tell us that they sold it at a reasonable profit.
The minister sent out ' questionnaires ' as he called them; I am not familiar with the word, but I suppose it answers the purpose. These cards were sent out, and the answers came in. The minister found out what a particular thing cost and what it was being sold for, and then, to use his own words, he * got after them.' The Minister of Labour may have got answers, but by this Order in Council he shifted the responsibility on to the shoulders of the township councils. From the time the Liberal party went out of power in 1911 down to the present day of grace there has been no government in this or in any other country that has appointed the same number of commissions in order to avoid responsibility, as has this Government. The Minister of Labour has followed this thing out in a way that he thinks is commendable to himself and to the Tory party, but the people do not think so. What did the Minister of Labour say this afternoon? He said they had looked up the cost of foodstuffs all down the line, and in every case they had taken care of the matter. But, Mr. Speaker, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Never has the Conservative party lacked leadership so much as at the present moment, when we are'at the greatest crisis in our history.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: My hon. friends may
laugh, but let them tell us what they have done. They may laugh in their complacency, but the question the people of this country are asking is the very question I am asking to-night. The hon. Minister of Labour entered into a long dissertation this afternoon as to what this Government had done in the interests of labour and the common people of this country, and my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) said truly that the minister was only reiterating and reiterating what he had been telling the House ever since the session opened in twenty-one columns of Hansard. But, as I said before, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The minister tells us he has sent out his men, that they have looked into these things, and that he has read such cards as he has picked up here and there in his department, But does the fact that the dealers have filled in the cards showing the amount of stuff they have on hand, prove that they are selling their goods to the people of this country at only a fair profit? The minister mentioned Hamilton. He pointed to that city as if everything there was as it ought to be. Let me read to the House from a report of the last meeting of the Hamilton City Council:-
Some startling information regarding the holding of food and fuel supplies in this city was given to-night to the City Council by Alderman Langes, chairman of the High Cost of Living Committee. Alderman Langes presented a report of the Committee's activity that showed some men were holding potatoes in large quantities here, and trow indifferent the Government appears to be regarding the situation. Following this statement, he submitted a resolution that the facts be submitted to the Government, and that it be asked to prosecute these dealers under the Order in Council passed last fall. This was carried unanimously.
Might I say, in passing, that although the Minister of Labour said that his policy was to get after the dealers as soon as he found they were charging exorbitant rates, up to this very day the Government, although they have the power, have not entered one single prosecution against dealers who have been charging exorbitant rates; not one. The report goes on:-
Alderman Langes said that they had learned that one Arm alone in this city was holding between 4,000 and 5,000 bags of potatoes, which it had bought at from $1.03 to $2.00 per bag. They also had information that some coal dealers were holding large quantities of coal from last winter that could he sold at slightly above $S per ton and for which they asked as high as $12 during the coal shortage. Bakers were also acting contrary to the Combines Act.

The Minister of Labour would not allow me to go on with my questions in the House this afternoon as to whether this report was true or not. He appealed to you, Sir, and I was ruled out of order. Let hon. gentlemen listen to what follows:-
This information was placed before W. T. O'Connor, K.C., representing the Labour Department. Mr. O'Connor complimented the Committee (Hamilton Committee) on its activities, and stated that no other city in Canada had gone so far under authority of the Order in Council. He left for Ottawa, promising that some one from the department would be here in two or three days. The Committee waited two weeks, but no one came. Word was sent to Ottawa and J. C. Imlay came to the city from the Department at Ottawa. He promised that necessary action would be taken but no word has since been heard from the Department. Alderman Langes said that he believed that both , Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Imlay were sincere, and he did not like to blame the Government but felt they should demand an explanation. He then presented the resolution referred to. "We have gone as far as we can," he added, "and the Government must either take action now or refuse."
Has anybody heard a noise like the Government taking action? I have not heard it; the people have not heard it; Hamilton has not heard it. As is usual with the Department of Labour, nothing is being done; the whole matter is in abeyance, but some day, no doubt-not now, because there is no precedent for it-the Minister of Labour will wake up and look into the matter. The report goes on:-
Mayor -Booker said no person in that Council could fall to regret that the Government had been s*o slow in taking action on food and on other conditions. It did not appear to have the backbone that was shown in the United States.
Where is the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) who wanted-


Arthur Meighen: Here.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: He is here? Let him
speak up.


Arthur Meighen: What action has the
United States taken?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The action of saying that they would take food under control and would see that excessive prices were not charged.


Arthur Meighen: Had not the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pardee) better wait until they do that?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Wilson has plainly laid
down t!he policy, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) need not quibble. And Wilson has not been at war three years before laying down that policy.

It did not appear to have the backbone that was shown in the United States.
Strange, that the friends of the Government in Hamilton should compare them with the United States!
They were merely asking it to protect the people instead of catering to manipulators.
If the Solicitor General can get a grain of comfort from this report upon the action of the Government-and no doubt that report was made regardless of friend or foe politically-he is welcome to it. While what I have read shows the state of affairs existing in the city of Hamilton to-day, it is only a sample of what exists throughout the province of Ontario and throughout the whole Dominion. It only goes to show, more strongly than anything I might say, that it is high time this Government waked up and exercised some kind of control over the prices of fuel and of food and prevented the holding of excessive quantities by dealers. The Solicitor General smiles. I knew he would; he always smiles when he has nothing to say. But the fact remains, and the Solicitor General and the rest of the Government would do well to bear it in mind, that the common people are looking to the Government for relief from the present excessive prices. The Minister of Labour this afternoon, in his own easy way, and without knowing what was doing here or what was doing there-just trying to get over the hill with the least inconvenience-said: " The working people have more money than ever before; they are better	off than ever before."
They have more money, but they are not better off. They have more dollars, but a dollar does not purchase the same quantity of food and fuel that it purchased five years ago. Large wages are paid? Who said anything to the contrary? But the average worker is not as well off to-day as he was five years ago with a much smaller wage. The Government cannot get away from this fundamental truth, that what is needed to-day, as it never was needed before, is some direction as to foodstuffs and fuel; what is needed to-day is that the Government should afford that direction even if they have to name a food dictator as has been done in England, or even though they should take these products and regulate their distribution. And they should do that irrespective of whether the effect is to hurt or help their political friends. This is what is needed for the good of Canada, and nobody will admit it more quickly than the Minister of Trade and

Commerce (Sir George Foster) himself, for he realizes as no other member of the Government, or the Government as a whole, realizes, that what the country wants to-day is guidance on economic lines. You may say what you like, you [DOT] may use what sophistry you like, but the fact remains that, irrespective of the Minister of Labour's-I cannot call it a speech, but I will call it an attempted explanation-what the people are looking for is for the Government to give them some lead, in order that they may be relieved from their present necessities which are dire. The people of Canada are facing a crisis, and the sooner the Government realize that fact, the better it will he for the country. You cannot have a cataclysm such as that which has come upon the world to-day without having it affect every nation and every dependency of every nation that is engaged in war- and Canada is in it to the hilt. The sooner the people and the Government recognize that fact, and the sooner they realize that every step that is possible must be taken to conserve every resource we have, the greater will be the help that we can give "to the Empire, the more effective will be the sacrifice which we are making of our best blood and best fibre for the upholding of all that we believe to be just. I doubt that the people of Canada, wealthy, prospering as they are, realize that their present condition is a superficial prosperity and that the day of reckoning must come. But such is the fact, and the sooner we prepare for that day of reckoning the better for the Dominion and for the Empire. These are plain truths.
I have one word to say in conclusion. The hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) spoke of the Bonne Entente. It would be far better for all elements in this Dominion if they would recognize and live up to a real bonne entente. This country is great, perhaps one of the greatest under God's sun. But if we are still to keep up in the years to come the schisms that certain elements have fostered in the years past, we cannot get the best results from the whole people.
There are elements, and every sane man knows it, that cannot be absolutely controlled in this country. But there are certain other elements which ought to be big and broad enough, and Canadian enough, to see that the fires of these certain other elements are not fanned into flame but that instead they ought to be met in a way that will promote the best Canadianism
because, by promoting the best Canadianism, you promote the best Imperialism. These flames ought not to be fanned or nurtured but every man who has the interests of the country at heart, ought to sink these miserable differences for the good of the whole, stand by Canadianism, and Canadianism only, and make this country what it ought to be and what my leader has attempted to make it-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I was sure I would get a response from the other side; they could not help it. Let us try, I say, to make of Canada what my right hon. leader has attempted to make her: one united Canada, irrespective of any class or creed, in order that our country may become absolutely a nation within an Empire, and a prop and stay of the British Empire.
Mr. ARTHUR B. COPP (Westmorland): Mr. Speaker, during the progress of the debate it apparently has been in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House should not take up time in offering any criticism, making suggestions or discussing public matters generally. That is not new on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite, but more emphasis has been placed upon it during this debate than I have ever noticed before. If I had no other reason for saying a few words on this occasion I would have a good text in the pamphlet which I received through the mail this afternoon. I find this pamphlet endorsed:
Address delivered by Lt.-General Sir Sam Hughes, K.C.B., M.P., to his constituents of Victoria and Haliburton counties at Lindsay, Ont., April 28th. 1917.
I have not had an opportunity, Sir, ,of reading this speech through very carefully but I have scanned it hurriedly and some of the paragraphs in the address have appealed to me as a veTy good reason why not only hon. gentlemen on this side of the House but hon. gentlemen who were the confreres of the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence might consider carefully and sincerely what is their duty in regard to the public matters that are now occupying the attention of this House and the country. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that the members of the Opposition offering criticisms are, to a certain extent, wanting in loyalty and patriotism and they go so far as to suggest that while we are offering these criticisms we are adding fuel to the fire and

giving confidence and assistance to our enemies in" this great war.
This afternoon we were treated tp an exhibition rarely, if ever, witnessed in this or any other deliberative assembly, not by one of the ordinary members of this House but by a <minisiter of the Grown (Mr. Crothers) who took us to task for talking up so much of the time of the House unnecessarily and wasting not only the time of the House but of hon. members who -are 'Sent here as -the representatives of the -people. He was so careful that he figured out how much time was actually wasted in the discussion of public affairs by hon. gentlemen .on this side of the House. He figured out that we were wasting so many hours per day for so -many days. That hon. gentleman during the address he delivered in this House a few evenings ago, took up aJbout two hours of the time discussing the administration of the Labour Department, of which (he is in control. To-day -he saw fit to take two hours more discussing the very same question, as pointed out by my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) this -afternoon. Therefore, we have four hours of the time of the House taken up and to follow the mode of calculation of my hon. friend this afternoon, 200 members of this House were each kept here for four hours, which would mean 800 hours altogether, and as the House sits about six hours a day, the minister consumed 133 days of the time of the members discussing one question in this Parliament. In spite of the self-adoration of the minister, I doubt very much whether the information he gave to the members of this House and the people of the country is worth 133 days' time. But the hon. gentleman took that time, and while he took that time he complained that we should take any time whatever discussing these public questions. I would like to ask my hon. friend what the Opposition are here for if they are not to make any statements, offer any criticisms or make any suggestions, or to represent the minority of the pepple. I contend, Sir, that it is not only the right but the duty of hon. members of this side of the House to discuss public questions, because iit is only through criticism and discussion -by hon. gentlemen on -this side of the House that public matters get to the people through the public press giving reports which are taken from what takes place in this great theatre of public discussion. My hon. friend was very muoh alarmed because of the time that have taken up, -but I would point out that the 
hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) took up the time of the House the other evening criticising the Government of the day more severely than any member on this side of the House has done, -and that he made the statement that the Department of Labour had absolutely done nothing to help the people by reason of the policy which they had pursued in past years and particularly during the present Parliament. Buit to go further back than that, what do we learn from the hon. the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes)? In the speech he made to his constituents, earlier in his remarks, I find this statement:
Since then, however,-
That is since making his speech in the House in the early part of the session.
-several members and others have learned a few of the facts, and they regret that I did not inform them at the time, so that prompt and decisive action in the premises could have been taken by the party.
Now what does that mean? The exMinister of Militia -and Defence says that his own confreres told him that they were -sorry and regretted -that he had not made known to them circumstances that had been taking place and conditions that were -affecting the public welfare of this country while he was one of the members of the Cabinet ' doing the business of this country. Well, Sir, they have those facts now. I would ask my -hon. friends if the statement made by the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence can mean anything -but that there have been bickerings, dissatisfaction, pulling in opposite directions, among the members of the Government in regard to the business of carrying on the war, instead of their working harmoniously together in the interests of the people and the conduct of the war to a final triumphant conclusion. The ex-minister says that these bickerings occurred not only recently, but two or three years ago.
But let us go a little further. We find that the ex-Minister of Militia makes certain charges against his colleagues in the Government. Those charges have been read to the House on different occasions, and I do not propose to put many of the quotations on Hansard that I see before me in this pamphlet that has been received by me to-night. But there are'one ot two to which I wish to refer. He refers in one place to trouble in the Cabinet when he returned from Valcartier. A sub-committee of the Cabinet had been -appointed to look after some purchasing contracts, and he says:-

"When I had informed the proposed committee of their appointment and of my plans I suggested that they should immediately secure options on all commodities known to he wanted. Prices were then normal. At once options were secured on large numbers of horses on woollen goods, and on certain powder commodities. It was therefore rather a rude shock to my proposed committee to find that authority had been given to a sub-committee as stated ; but there was nothing to be done but frankly inform the parties from whom the options had been received of the change in plan and to cancel tne options.
What does that mean? It means as plainly as the English language can convey any meaning that the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence had made arrangements and secured options on the requirements of different supplies of horses and all of these things quietly, while prices were normal and before they commenced to soar on account of the war. He tells us in a statement to his constituents that this was all swept away, that the options that bad been taken for the purchase of these goods at normal prices were se't aside, and we all know how the prices soared and what enhanced prices we were obliged to pay ias compared with those that we would have paid had the suggestions and undertakings of the minister been carried out. In another place he says, along the same lines:-
All this action never cost Canada or Great Britain one dollar. Further, had the options on goods in the ealier part of the war been accepted at the time I had recommended the Committee, the saving to the British Government in the first six months of the war alone, would have been upwards of one hundred million of dollars.
That is a pretty concise statement made by a responsible minister -of the Crown at that time, and he charges this Government, those having the responsibility of conducting the purchases on behalf of the British Government in this country, he charges against them, without any equivocation, that had these recommendations been carried, out, and had the 'goods and supplies been furnished on the options he had obtained in the interest of the people generally, the British Government would have been saved in the first six months of the war upwards of one hundred million dollars. Then our hon. friends opposite hold up their hands in holy horror and shed tears because we o.n this side-of the House take the opportunity of bringing these matters to the attention of the Government and to the people, through the avenue of this forum where these matters are properly discussed. I say that no member of the Opposition has ever made so
strong a statement in regard to the weakness and the recklessness of the Administration who had charge of the purchase of supplies, as is made by the ex-minister himself. He says:
Let us now turn to another aspect. At the outbreak of the war, as I have stated, Canada had practically been brcmifht to the verge of bankruptcy.
Now hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House during this debate have charged that at the time of the defeat of the Liberal Government in 1911 Canada was on the verge of bankruptcy, and one hon. gentleman opposite said something like this: But the good Lord stepped in and intervened just in time to save Canada from bankruptcy. If the defeat of the Liberal Government in 1911 was the result of the intervention of the great Creator, then that old-fashioned Methodist hymn appeals to me more strongly than ever: "God moves in a mysterious way, his wonders to perform." If the Lord intervened in this case and put my hon, friends opposite in possession of the treasury benches to save the country from bankruptcy, then I want to ask my hon. friends opposite what answer they make to the charge of their colleague, their ' supporter, the gentleman with whom they have lived for so many years and have worked with hand in hand. He says:
At the outbreak of this war Canada bad practically been brought to the verge of bankruptcy, and my fear then was that we would not be able to maintain more than one division in the firing line.
Because why? Because we had not the money to supply other divisions. On the verge of bankruptcy ! We had not the money to supply the men, to supply the divisions* according to the hon. gentleman. He says further:
I had on two previous occasions pointedly drawn the Finance Minister's attention to the fact that his function was to produce a revenue, keep the business of the country buoyant, and thus, everything being prosperous, money would be easily obtainable. In this, however, success did not attend his efforts; or, rather, my suggestions were not accepted by that gentleman.
The hon. gentleman goes on and gives his warning. He speaks of the Nationalist party and the sorrow it gives him to have to offer these criticisms of the record of his own friends. Hon. gentlemen opposite as well as hon. members on this side of the House have, during this debate, as in all other debates in this House, referred, and properly so, to the responsibility rest-

ing upon Canada as part of the British Empire in the conduct of this war.
I do not know any better slogan that can be adopted in Canada than one which is now being used more or less throughout the country, and that is: "Win the war.'" I understand that during this month delegates from all o^Si. Canada will hold a win-the-war meeting in the city of Montreal. I do not for one moment insinuate, as our friends opposite do, that there are disloyal men in this House, on either side of the Speaker's chair. I do not want to say to hon. gentlemen opposite that they are not doing the best they can. While some people in the country may not have done as much as they might have done, I believe that the feeling uppermost in the mind of every loyal Canadian is that of willingness to do his best to assist in winning the war. But while the people can do their part; while individual members of Parliament can do their share, yet the lead must be taken and the trail blazed by the gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches, because only by them and through them can the country's efforts be best directed to assisting the Allies in this great conflict. I have said that there are three great elements entering into our participation in the war: we must have men, we must have money, and we must have munitions and supplies. Hon. gentlemen upon whom rests the responsibility for the conduct of our part in the war must come to Parliament and get money for that purpose. I want to ask hon. gentlemen opposite if they can offer one word of criticism against hon. gentlemen on this side in that they have refused ^to vote any of the money asked for by the Government in connection with Canada's part in the war. I have yet to learn, Sir, that any such criticism could successfully be made against the attitude of the Opposition in this respect since the outbreak of the war. Money has been voted in three sessions of Parliament; in the session which is now proceeding, part of the supply has already been voted. The burden rests upon the shoulders of the Government to spend every dollar of that money economically and in the best interests of the people of Canada and especially of those who are engaged in the war. We are not here to offer carping criticism in regard to small matters, but the financing of the war is a serious responsibility, and those who have charge of the expenditure of the money voted by Parliament should see to it -that every 
single dollar goes into the proper channel and is devoted to serving the best interests of the people. If the statements made by the ex-'M.inister of Militia and Defence, extracts from which I have Tead, are correct, a serious condition is revealed. He charges that in tlhe first six months of the war alone, hon. gentlemen opposite wasted $100,000,000 of the money of the British Government. When we see that hon. gentlemen opposite are unable to woik together in the interest of the whole country; when we see that they have thrown away in six months $100,000,000 of British money, is there not fair ground for the suspicion that money that has been taken from the people by way of taxation has been wasted? We know from investigations held, evidence adduced and findings made in different parts of Canada-I speak more particularly of my own province and the Maritime Provinces-that money has been wasted; that money has been taken from the proper channels and been diverted to the pockets of middlemen who had no business to act in that capacity. Not a few paltry dollars, Sir, but hundreds of thousands of dollars have gone into improper channels, and, this being the case, it is the duty of every hon. gentleman to bring the matter to the attention of the public. We do this not because we desire to 'embarrass the Government, but because we believe it is our duty to serve the best interests of the people who sent us here and who have not the opportunity of coming here and discussing it themselves. We in this House are only saying in a mild way what the people of the country generally have been saying in regard to the wasteful and extravagant expenditure that is going on. Should we be any more subject to the criticism of hon. gentlemen opposite for discussing these matters than the public press? You can scarcely pick up a newspaper which does not contain criticism of the Government and articles pointing out the blunders and mistakes made by hon. gentlemen opposite. Not only newspapers friendly to the Opposition, but newspapers friendly to the Administration are offering criticisms and making suggestions with the idea not of embarrassing the Government, .but of bringing about efficient administration and serving the best interests of the people generally. Newspapers are finding fault with the Government; individuals are writing thousands of letters in regard to these matters; yet we are charged with being disloyal because we

bring the attention of Parliament to them.
Why, Sir, we have charges of extravagance made in our municipal and town councils, and not only that, we have them from the pulpits. During the past year it was rather a miracle if when one of us went to a divine service on a Sunday morning, the minister did not preach a sermon against graft, wastefulness and extravagance, and single out the very men who had been feeding at the Government trough during the past five years and becoming rich at the expense of this country on war contracts; yet, we as members of Parliament, are told that we should come here and having eyes that see not and ears that hear not, and, to go a little further, voices that speak not, because forsooth, something might drop that might cause some embarrassment to the Government in doing their part in the conduct of this war.
We have given the Government money and they must accept the responsibility for the proper expenditure of it. The next question is with regard to the men. When the war first broke out, and the first call was made, a large number of our heroic young men immediately volunteered for service abroad and were at once hurried to Valcartier where they were placed in training camps in order to prepare for their duties in the field. I do not want to detract any of the credit that is due to the Government or due to the Minister of Militia at that time for the part they took in getting those men in training ready to go to the front. The first contingent sailed in the latter part of September, 1914. After these men had gone, others were enlisting; recruits were being asked fox and thousands were being hurried forward to do their parts. Finally recruiting officers were appointed in different parts of Canada; recruiting meetings were held, .and recruits were asked for to step into the ranks and enter training camps in order to fit themselves for service at the front. Shortly after that, a hundred thousand men were asked fox, then up to two hundred thousand men, then up to two hundred and fifty thousand men, and finally, I believe, on the 1st of February, 1916, the Premier of the Dominion promised that Canada would isupply 500,000 men. Unfortunately for Canada, unfortunately for the Empire, and more unfortunately still for the Canadians who are already at the front doing their part, the enlistments have not yet reached that total. I sincerely trust that some action will be taken by which the young
men of our country may be induced to realize what is their duty in defence of their country and in recognition of what our boys have already done, and go to the front to fill the gaps that are unfortunately too often occurring. All who have gone across the water to fight the battles of the Empire are of the best blood of Canada^, and wherever we have had any report of any engagements in which our Canadian boys have taken part nothing but the very best word has been received of their
12 p.m. valour. We know of the grand stand they have made in different places, and last, but not least, of the magnificent stand they are. making now at Vimy Ridge, where the fight has been raging for so many days, and where so many of our boys are falling. The casualty lists are large and let us hope that many young men in this country will come forward and fill the gaps. We sincerely trust that the Government will take some action in the matter, and I am sure I am voicing the sentiment of every hon. gentleman on this side of the House that anything we can do to assist the Government in recruiting and assist the Empire in winning this war we have always been prepared to do if the Government are prepared to take the responsibility of doing their part.
Even after we have the men, men are absolutely useless at the front unless they have munitions and supplies of, food and clothing. Here is where an opportunity occurs for the Government to do the noble thing, the grand thing, the big thing, and to hand this matter over to a commission, which will be prepared to make the necessary purchases in the interest of the country and not in the interest of a few profiteers. During the time this war has been going on, and where purchases have been made in the different parts of Canada, there has not been exercised that care that is becoming to the ordinary capable business man who would see to it that he purchased the necessary supplies in the economical way that we believe was the duty that this Government owed to the people of Canada. We have been accused of disloyalty; we have been accused of wasting time; we have been accused of not doing our duty in regard to recruiting and other matters in connection with the war; but fortunately for this side of the House we have one loyal man left, and that is my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark). Hon. gentlemen opposite always pay him the very high compliment of putting him almost on the same high pedestal

and plane in which they place themselves in regard to the conduct of the war. They went so far the other day, I 'believe, as to offer an invitation tto my hon. friend to come over, saying that he would be more happy with them than he would 'be with us. In fact, they prepared a chair trimmed with fine purple and gold lace and urged the hon. gentleman to come over and occupy it. I can imagine my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and my hon. friend the member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames), the archangels of protection, leading my hon. friend, the archangel of free trade, over to the other side of the House to hobnob with them in regard to the conduct of the war. We are glad to know that we have on this side of the House one man who appeals to the loyalty and the good feeling of my hon. friends opposite. While we respect the hon. gentleman's opinions in regard to this war, I do not think there is a gentleman on this side of the House but is just as loyal, has just as much sympathy and just as much desire to see the Allies win this war as our very eminent colleague on this side whom we all respect.
There has been a good deal of criticism in the newspapers, because recruiting has been slow, and many reasons have been given for that condition of affairs. One reason is that it is due to the extravagance of the Government, but I think one of the strongest reasons that can be urged as a cause of the slow recruiting in the Dominion of Canada is because throughout every province where recruiting meetings have been held, where officers have been appointed, where Supplies have been purchased, everything that has been done in connection with the enlisting, training and equipping of our soldiers has been conducted along a purely political patronage arrangement, and the people in the various provinces have come to realize that they are not being properly treated, because they feel that the war and the expenditure in connection with it should be carried on without this political patronage.
But even at this late date I believe that if the Government were big enough to do their part our young men would come forward by the thousands and fill up the gaps in the ranks. Why does not the Government follow the preachments of the Minister of Trade and Commerce? That hon. gentleman was very eloquent last session and again this session on the subject of political patronage, and I really believe he

meant what he said at the time. "Political patronage," he said, "I hate it." Yet in spite of the influence one would think he	would	have	with	his	colleagues,the	same	thing	goes	on	day after
day and week after week and year after year. Only a few days ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a statement in the House in regard to the high cost of living. He said that we must produce more, and save more. As this is the hon. gentleman's opinion, I would ask him first of all to have a heart to heart talk with the Minister of Finance, pointing out to him his duty under present conditions. Then let him have a talk with the Minister of Militia and every other member of the Government. We always listen to the hon. gentleman with a very great deal of pleasure, but when this Government does not act up to his preaching, when we realize that his words are simply words and nothing more, we may well doubt whether this Government intends to do any better in the future. The Minister of Trade and Commerce took the right attitude in regard to production and still more production, the necessity for thrift, and the avoidance of waste. It is, of course, the farmers of this country that we must look to for greater production. What encouragement, I should like to know, is this Government giving to agriculture at the present time? We have heard a great deal about the farmers of the West, but very little is said of the farmers of the East. At last, after many years, and in spite of the arguments practically throughout the whole history of the Conservative party that it would be suicidal to this country to open up trade avenues with the great republic to the south, in spite of their determination to have no truck or trade with the Yankees, they have at last granted facilities- for the free interchange of wheat and wheat products between this country and the United States. Wheat, of course, is grown largely in the West, but a large number of farm products are also produced in the Maritime Provinces and in Quebec, and our people would have been glad to see the Government go a little further -in. this matter of free trade with the United States, and give our farmers in the East free bran and shorts to feed their cattle. They would have liked to see the Government give them cheaper feed for their dairy cows, and then we would not have to pay 50 cents a pound for 'butter. A great deal has been said about the high prices

the farmers are getting, 'but it is a fallacy to suppose that they are reaping much extra benefit from the present high prices of farm products. Practically the only farmers who are reaping any benefit at the present time are those who were fortunate enough to have a fairly good supply on hand when prices began to soar. For instance, a man with a 'barn full of cattle a year ago would certainly profit by the present high prices, but when he wants to replenish his bam he has to pay a high price himself for his young cattle, and for their feed, and consequently on this second lot he will be making no more profit than in ordinary times, and the same thing is true in regard to .other products of the farm. A man who is getting 40 cents for his eggs is really no better off than he was a year ago when he was getting 25 cents. The high prices for farm products are discounted by reason of the fact that it takes more money to buy feed and flour and all the other commodities that the farmer needs.
A great deal has been said in this H.ouse on the high cost of living; we had a debate on that subject only the other day. The hon. member for West Lamibton (Mr. Pardee) has referred to the remarks of the Minister of Labour on that subject this afternoon. The Minister of Lab,our would have us believe that the Government have seized every opportunity to bring down the high cost of living. Judging from the minister's remarks, he has been very busy looking into these matters. With the exception of a short recess we have been sitting here continuously from January, and there has been haTdly a day in all that time when the necessaries of life have not been rising at an enormous rate. Only the other day flour went up by $1.20 a barrel, and that was rather a staggering blow for hon. gentlemen in this House, and for the people of this country.
Some hon. members on this side asked the Minister of Labour what action had been taken. It then appeared that a jump cf $1.20 a barrel in the price of flour in one day had awakened the minister from his slumbers, and that he had taken action. He stated that he had grappled with the situation and had done all that could be done. And what action had he taken? He had sent Mr. O'Connor to Montreal to inquire into the cause. And Mr. O'Connor must have done good service, foT the next day the price of flour went up sixty cents more. The Minister of Labour took a great deal of time to explain what he had done- It
appears that he has received reports and has had these tabulated, and that a great deal of other work has been done in the department. But while this has been going on the prices of the necessaries of life have been advancing and are advancing to-day, and we are getting beyond what is reasonable and beyond what the ordinary people can afford. When it was suggested by my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) and others on this side that we should commandeer wheat, or commandeer the flour mills, or take some either action, what was the reply of the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White)? That hon. gentleman figured out that there was in Canada 100,000,(XX) bushels of wheat and that if we commandeered this at $3 a bushel, three hundred millions of money would be required in order to take charge of it. Does the Minister of Finance really think that the people can be hoodwinked and! fooled in this way? It does not require the raising of $300,000,000 to commandeer wheat for the people. All the minister iwould need to do is to repeat what he did in regard to newsprint paper, or what the Minister of Labour said he had done when certain railway corporations refused to accept the finding of the board of conciliation. In this latter case the Minister of Labour simply said to these people:	You will be coming to this Government and asking for privileges some of these days, and unless you pay the men the wages reported by the board, you will not get any privileges. If the Minister of Finance should go to his friends the millers and to. his friends who control commodities in this country, and tell them that unless certain things were done he would take action, that action would never need to be taken. These people would simply do what they believe to be in the interests of the country, as led and directed by the minister.
I have said that the prices of the foods that arc required on the table of both rich and poor alike are going beyond what is reasonable. It is very well for us who, possibly, are in such circumstances as to be able to supply our tables with all we want irrespective of the high prices, to gather here and offer our tribute of sympathy to those who are less fortunate. But let me tell the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour, who give such loud assurances that the people of Canada were never so well off as they are to-day, that, while they may represent the condition of affairs existing in their own constituencies

or in those sections of the country which they know best, they are not setting forth the condition of affairs' existing in many of the counties, towns, and villages known to me and in which I have been within the past year. The unskilled labourers, the men who have to go out with pick and shovel to earn a livelihood, are not getting a full supply of even the necessaries of life to-day. I do not charge the Government with bringing about this condition, but I say that this condition exists-that many wage-earners are not receiving enough to furnish their tables with the food neces-saray for their families. And, this being so, something should be done if it is at all possible. The Minister of Labour tells us that he is keeping tab on the coal dealers of St. John and of Montreal. But I do not need to ask the Minister of Labour when I need certain information with regard to food prices and the causes of inflated value. Go to the grocery store or to the market, right here in the city of Ottawa, and ask why eggs are at their present price. You will at once receive the information that eggs are being bought up by gentlemen who are putting them away in cold storage with a view of enhancing the prices and making the people pay more than eggs are worth. And what is happening in regard to eggs is happening in regard to other food products. The people of this country must have that which will keep body and soul together. And when the Minister of Labour says wages are high in this country, he is probably referring to the wages of skilled labour. It is true that in the manufacture of munitions and in other skilled employments high wages are paid. But the wages paid to the common labourer are not sufficient to enable him to meet the rise in the prices of foodstuffs. The $1.50 or $1.75 a day that the ordinary labourer used to receive three years ago, had greater purchasing power than the $2 or $2.50 he receives to-day. And, while I sympathize with anybody who has to pay extortionate or extravagant prices for the food or clothes required for his family, yet I realize that the man with the high salary can afford it, and does not need much sympathy. When flour could be bought at $5 and $6 a barrel, the labourers could get along very well without much meat, for flour was a cheap food for the family table of the poor man. That is past and gone, and it is the duty of the Government, of the Labour Department and of all concerned, to make any 
suggestions that will assist the ordinary man to get along better on what he has and to live happily and in a more contented Way.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance brought down his Budget the other day in a few well chosen words, and wound up by telling us that the country was very prosperous. He proved beyond peradventure that the country was prosperous because of the war. Trade and revenue had improved, and we were better off to-day than we were in 1913. If Canada is better off to-day than in 1913, she can only be better off because of the war. Therefore, if we want prosperity, I suppose it is better to have the war continue as long as possible; that would be the logical conclusion one must come to from the reasoning of hon. gentlemen opposite. We take the hon. gentleman's statement, and we find that in 1913 the revenue was only $130,000,000. That increased a little in 1914, and it increased again last year, when the revenue amounted to $232,000,000. That is a wonderful increase in revenue, and therefore the country is prosperous. I am glad to know that Canada is getting on so well from the financial standpoint, and that she has been able to finance this war. But I would draw the attention of the minister to the fact that this increase in revenue and trade represent an illegitimate prosperity, and one that cannot be permanent. Very soon after the close of war we must get back, not only to where we were, but very much below where we were when the war broke out, because trade will be dislocated, and we will be undergoing a very rapid and necessary change. Under these conditions I do not think we have very much to be thankful for. He says that while we have spent $172,000,000 on ordinary and capital account we have the large and magnificent sum pf $60,000,000 to devote to war expenditure. Hon. members on this side of the House have, during the last two or three years, and especially when the estimates have been under consideration, tried to point out to hon. gentlmen 'opposite that it was their duty to curtail and stop unnecessary expenditure, to get down to hard pan, where the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) would have us if we would judge by his remarks and his estimates. We should keep the expenditure down to as low a point as possible. I find that in 1911 we only spent $118,000,000 on ordinary and capital account. Just previous to the war, when our revenues were

buoyant and everything was prosperous, the Government spent $118,000,000. Last year, when the war was at its very worst, when everything was looking black and everybody interested in the outcome was advising economy, this economical Government, this Government that preaches economy and practices extravagance, spent $172,000,000 on ordinary and capital account. Now it takes great credit that it was able to apply $60,000,000 to the war expenditure. As was so well pointed out by my hon. friend from Northumberland, the extra taxation that they placed upon the people last year more than made up the $60,000,000, and that amount that they have taken credit for having applied to the war expenditure was simply taken out of the poor people of this country. I do not say that the war expenditure should not come out of the people because there is no other source from which ' it can come. But a very serious question arises and it is as to how much of this money should be provided by increasing customs duties and how much should be taken from the people by direct taxation. The	Minister of	Finance	takes a
very	great deal of credit because
the loans that he has asked for have been over-subscribed. When he asked for $100,000,000 he got $150,000,000, and when he asked for $200,000,000 he got $100,000,000 more than he asked for. That is all very well, and it speaks well for the patriotism of the people but men who have money lying in the savings bank drawing three per cent, when they have an opportunity of handing it over and taking securities from the Government at 5i and 6 per cent, naturally come forward and take up these bonds. I am not casting the slightest reflection upon the people that do that, but it is a very easy thing to be patriotic when you are being paid well for it. In my opinion there is an opportunity to find out where the money is and where the millionaires are. The banks took up a large part of the first loan but the banks were not allowed to take any of the last loan, although they were willing to take $60,000,000 of it. We have had to raise $600,000,000 for the carrying on of this war. We are told by the Minister of Finance that we will have to raise at least $600,000,000 more. The question that arises in the mind of every business man in this; Is it a proper thing to borrow all this money and extend the repayment of it over a long term of years, or will it be a proper thing to finance some of this war out of a present levy of taxation
upon the people. I contend that under the present arrangement when we are gathering in a large part of the revenue from the customs tariff, we are faking more than a proper share out of the poor men of the country. The Minister of Finance said that the question of taxing incomes and taxing wealth has been considered by the Government and that because of the fact that there is very little concentration of wealth in the Dominion they thought that it would not be a wise thing to tax wealth. I for one believe that the greater part of the financial burden of this war should be carried by the wealth of this country. While my hon. friend says that by the business war tax he is placing an impost upon the wealth of the country, to my mind he is not placing it altogether where it should be placed and gathering the revenue from the people who are best able to pay. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) tonight showed by two or three very apt illustrations how unfairly this taxation falls on different individuals. I would not go so far as to say that we should pay the whole costs of the war by direct taxation, but I do think that we should be paying more than $60,000,000 per annum. If the Government had expended last year only what the old Government had expended in its last year of office, then out of the revenue which this Government raised of $232,000,000, they would have had something over $100,000,000 to apply to the expenses of the war. But they did not do that, and now they have borrowed the greater part of the money required for carrying on the war. I do contend that in a crisis such as this the wealth of our country should contribute more than it has contributed up to the present time. The Minister of Finance says that it will be well enough to tax incomes when we get to the length of our tether and have not any other revenue; then he says we will tax the income of the rich man. Let me remind my hon. friend that when this war is over and business is dull, when things are not going as they are to-day, when we are beginning to dismantle the munition plants,, when munition (workers who have been, working at high salaries for the last two years are thrown back on our hands, when the soldiers are returning maimed and wounded and in need of a great deal of money to assist them, then will not be an opportune time to impose the extra taxation. Now is the time, when money is plentiful, when, our friends are getting on well and making money, not only out of their

regular business but out of the manufacture of munitions of war. I would offer a slight criticism in regard to my hon. friend's mode of extra taxation. I think he should distinguish between taxation on regular business profits and profits made from the manufacture of munitions. The reason for that, to my mind, is that the ordinary business man, who has been in business, possibly as a corporation, for years, has had his lean years, has had his hard times, has had his struggle; he has had to work day and night to build up a trade, and possibly now he has got a very good business established and is making a good return on his investment. That is all very well, let him pay a certain tax on his profit. But the man who is making big profits out of the manufacture of munitions is in a different position. He has been practically financed from the beginning by the Government. He has had no financial struggle or difficulty, as his machinery was provided by the excessive prices paid him by the Government for their first order of munitions, as was abundantly proved in this House, and as is known to every man familiar with the subject. I say that a very much higher tax should be placed on the profits made from munition work than on ordinary business profits. While I grant that the ordinary business has profited to a certain extent and been encouraged because of the war, it has not been encouraged nearly so much, nor has it received so much assistance from the Government, as the munition workers, who have been making great profits.
I wish to speak briefly upon the operations of the Intercolonial railway. That is a subject that is very dear to all men from the Maritime Provinces, and, according to hon. gentlemen opposite, the people from Ontario and the West, who have now a part of the Intercolonial, claim that it is no longer a child of ours, and is therefore interesting to the whole people of Canada. I am glad hon. gentlemen are taking such an active interest in the Intercolonial in our part of the country. As to the credit which is to be taken for the operation of the Intercolonial in the past year, ,there may be some difference of opinion. Hon. gentlemen opposite claim that credit because the road has earned almost double the revenue of past years. That is very easily explained. It is not because the operation of the Intercolonial has been of a particularly business-like 
character. The increased revenue results from the raising of the tariff rates and freight rates. Then, during the last year the Intercolonial earned large amounts of money by the transport of munitions and troops. These services have been charged for at the highest prices, and the money to pay for them has been borrowed by the Government. That is why the Intercolonial has earned such a large income during the past year.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) is very interesting to members on this side of the House. We have always followed that line, we have always aimed to get as near as possible to free trade, and we congratulate the Government very heartily, indeed, for at last having had their eyes opened and having come to the realization that the farmers of the West must have this free interchange of wheat and wheat products between Canada and the United States. I hope it is permanent. Some question has been raised and very fine legal points have been argued by hon. gentlemen who have addressed the House. I sincerely trust that the opinion given on this matter by the Deputy Minister of Justice is correct, and that the arrangement is permanent and will be lasting.
It is evident that there is a doubt in the minds of eminent lawyers as to whether the Deputy Minister of Justice is correct in his view, but, whether he is correct or not, we want to make sure that this provision of free wheat shall be a permanent arrangement. Under the circumstances, therefore, the Government should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Assiniboia and thereby make it plain to the people that this arrangement* is a permanent one, that there shall be no more tinkering with this part of the tariff and that there shall be free exchange of wheat and wheat products between Canada and the United States. We sincerely hope that this will be the thin edge of the wedge; that more products will be placed on the free list and that there shall be a freer exchange of commodities between the two countries. As a matter of fact, we hope that we shall get what -we should have had in 1911, reciprocity with the United States, which would be beneficial to them and beneficial to the people of Canada generally because of the resulting increase of trade.
The House divided on the amendment of Mr. Turriff.

Ames (Sir Herbert), Barrette,
Bennett (Simcoe), Blain,
Boulay,
Bowman,
Boys,
Burrell,
Clark (Bruce), Cockshutt,
Cromwell,
Currie,
Descarries,
Edwards,
Elliot,
Fisher,
Foster (Sir George), Fripp,
Girard,
Glass,
Green,
Hanna,
Jameson,
McLean
(Queens, P.E.I.), Meighen,
Merner,
Middlebro,
Morris,
Nicholson,
Nickle,
Paquet,
Patenaude,
Paul,
Robidoux,
Roche,
Schaffner,
Scott,
S6vigny,
Sexsmith,
Shepherd,
Smith,
Stanfield,
Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Lunenburg), Taylor,
Thorburn,
Wallace,
Webster,
Weichel,
Wright.-51.
Lewis,
Morrison,
Morphy,
Munson,
Maedonell,
Marshall,
McLean (Queens), McLeod,
Rainville,
Smythe,
Sutherland,
Thornton,
Wilson (Wentworth), White (Renfrew), White (Leeds),
Carroll,
Molloy,
Lanctot,
Boyer,
Clarke (Essex), Neely,
Hughes (Kings), Carvell,
Kay,
McLean (Sunbury), Bickerdike,
White (Victoria), Wilson (Laval), Gordon,
Graham.
Boivin,	YEAS. Messrs: Loggie,
Bourassa,	Macdonald,
Buchanan,	MacNutt,
Bureau,	McCrea,
Cardin,	McKenzie,
Charlton, *	Marcile ( Bagot),
Copp,	Martin,
Deslisle,	Michaud,
Demers,	Murphy,
Douglas,	Oliver,
Ethier,	Pacaud,
Fortier,	Papineau,
Gauthier	Pardee,
(St. Hyacinthe),	Ross,
Gauvreau,	S6guin,
German,	Sinclair,
Lafortune,	Tobin,
Lapointe	Truax,
(Kamouraska),	Turgeon,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Turriff, Lemieux,	Verville.-40.

Messrs:
Amendment negatived.


Mr. PROULX:: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment,


Mr. C. A. WILSON (Laval):: I was paired with the hon, member for Wentworth (Mr. Gordon Wilson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was paired with the hon. member for York, N.B., (Mr. McLeod). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr.   M@: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Labour. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. J. A. ROBB (Huntingdon):: Mr. Speaker, in pursuance of the notice which I gave on the 1st of May, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Tobin:
That all the words after the word "that" in the main motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
To ensure a plentiful supply of bran, shorts and middlings for the farmers who produce milk, cream, butter, and cheese, and for the raising and fattening of live stock, this House is of the opinion that wheat, bran, shorts and middlings should, without delay, be placed upon the free list.

Ministerial.	Opposition.
Arthurs,	Truax,
Achim,	Brouillard,
Barnard,	McCraney,
Burnham,	Proulx,
Boyce,	Nesbitt,
Bradbury,	Cruise,
Bellemare,	Lachance,
Carrick,	Lapointe (Mont.)
Clements,	Knowles,
Chabot,	Beland,
Crothers,	McCoig,
Cochrane, .	Devlin,
Donaldson,	Power,
Davidson	Chisholm,
Hazen,	Pugsley,
Hepburn,	Guthrie,
Henderson,	Cash,
Kemp,	Robb,


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Lost.


James Alexander Robb: As there are some hon. gentlemen who may wish to speak on this amendment, and as it is after one o'clock, with the consent of the leader of the Government, I move the adjournment of the debate.	-


George Eulas Foster: I think the understanding was that we should finish this debate to-night. It has been running for a long while and bran, shorts and middlings have been discussed pretty freely already, I do not think much would be gained by further discussing the subject.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not
aware that there has been any arrangement, hnt if there has been one between th^ Whips, I have nothing more to say. There are a couple of more amendments to be moved. My hon. friend from Northumberland, N.B., (Mr. Loggie) gave notice of one and whether we move this to-day or whether we have discussion at some future date, I think at this stage we had better adjourn. I appeal to my right hon. friend.


George Eulas Foster: All right.
Motion agreed to and the debate adjourned.



M. VIVIANI TO ADDRESS CANADIAN PARLIAMENT.

George Eulas Foster: Before the House adjourns,
I wish to make a short announcement, after consultation with my right hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition. Two very important missions from Europe have been in the United States for the last fortnight, one representing the British Government and the other the French Republic. Both of those Commissions have been invited to make at least a short visit to Canada as the guests of the Government and of the people. We have to remember the very honourable and responsible position held by the members of both missions, representing their respective countries as _ the guests of the Government and people of the United States who had the first call on their time. The members of those missions, however, have been very anxious if they could find it at all possible to visit Canada. The time set for the French mission was much shorter than that set for the British mission and they are obliged to leave at a certain fixed date. I am, however, very happy tc be able to announce that the French mission will make Canada a short visit, necessarily very short, but none the less hearty and sincere that it is short, and that on Saturday we shall have in Ottawa for a few hours M. Viviani, the former premier, and at present the Minister of Justice of the French Government. He will, whilst here, make the acquaintance of members of both Houses. M. Viviani, who is a most noted speaker and orator, has addressed both Houses of the Congress of the United States and he has consented to address both Houses of this Parliament. With
the consent of the House, I shall ask to-
%

morrow night that instead of adjourning we shall suspend the sitting, with the understanding that Mr. Speaker will take the Chair at twelve o'clock noon on Saturday, about which hour M. Viviani will be present and will deliver an address to both Houses of Parliament.
With reference to Marshall Joffre, it is impossible for him to come to Ottawa, but he will be able to visit Montreal on Sunday of next week, also as the guest of the Government. We all feel the very great honour of a visit from these gentlemen and I am sure that our reception of them will be most cordial. That they have not been able to make a longer stay with us is due to the imminence of their departure and their pressing duties. I may say that later on we shall have a visit to Canada of the British mission headed by the Right Hon. A. J. Balfour.


Wilfrid Laurier: The announcement which has just been made by my right hon. friend will certainly he most welcome to all Canada. There would, indeed, have been great disappointment if the French and the British delegation had not visited our country, and I am sure that my right hon. friend has voiced the sentiments of this House in particular in stating that on Saturday at 12 o'clock we shall have the privilege of hearing M. Viviani, the chief of the French delegation. I am glad that my right hon. friend has made this announcement, because it will be made public to-morrow, and I am sure that in consequence we shall have a very large attendance.
On motion of Sir George Foster the House adj.ourned at 1.20 a.m. Friday.
Friday, May 11, 1917.