1918-03-27

PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 22, respecting the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers and to change its name to " The Engineering Institute of Canada."-Sir Herbert Ames.
Bill No 23, to incorporate Merchants Casualty Company.-Mr. Andrews.
Bill No. 24, respecting The Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company.- Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Railways and Canals for the year ended March 31, 1917.-Hon. Mr. Reid.
Report of the Postmaster General, for the year ended March 31, 1917.-Hon. Mr. Doherty.
Report of the Department of Indian Affairs for the year ended March 31, 1917.- Hon. Mr. Calder.
Report of the Department of the Interior for the year ended March 31, 1917.-Hon. Mr. Calder.
Report of Hon. W. J. Hanna, Food Controller, covering the period in which he discharged the duties of that office.-Sir Robert Borden.

[Stage Direction]
Sir Robert Borden moved:
That a message he sent to tlhe Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House will unite with them in the formation of a Joint Committee of .both Houses on the subject of the Printing of Parliament, and that the Members of the Select Standing Committee on Printing, viz.:-Messieurs: Bowman, Brouillard, Buchanan, Burnham, Cardin, Charters, Clark (Bruce), Clarke (Wellington), Crowe, Currie, Fontaine, Hocken, Hughes (Sir Sam), Keefer, Maclean (Halifax), Michaud, Murphy, Prevost, Reid (Mackenzie), Richardson, Shaw, Verville, White (Victoria), and Wilson (Wentworth), will act as members, on the part of this House, on the said Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George-Etienne Cartier), moved for leave to introduce Bill No 25 respecting Bankruptcy.
Mr. SPEAKER:: When I first saw this notice on the Order Paper, I had some doubt, in view of Rule 50, as to whether it was competent for the. hon. member to introduce such a Bill without its'having previously been passed upon in Committee of the Whole. But, apparently, the uniform practice of this House has been that Bills in respect of bankruptcy have not been deemed to be trade Bills as such, and therefore it may be introduced in the -manner in which the hon. member proposes to introduce it.


Mr. JACOBS:: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is a somewhat elaborate and comprehensive document, and if I were to give to it the time which it deserves, my explanation would probably keep the House here over the Easter recess. As hon. members are aware, there is no Bankruptcy Act in Canada. In that respect, Canada differs from practically every other civilized country; and it is proposed by this Bill to put Canada in line with other countries. As the House is aware, bankruptcy is within the purview of the Federal authority. No province can legislate with regard to bankruptcy, because of the fact that that subject is particularly declared in the British North America Act to be-like banking, railways, and so on-within the purview of the Federal authority. Of course, in the absence of any Bankruptcy Act, provided by

the Federal authority, the provincial. authority has done what it could to correct the anomaly which now exists.
The main purpose of a Bankruptcy Act, as I understand it, is to see to. it that a debtor in certain cases obtains a discharge *from his creditors. Now, we have not since 1880 had anything of the kind in this country, and i-t is high time that a .measure of this kind should he passed. It is usual in these days for ho.n, gentlemen, in .introducing Bills to state that they are merely introduced as war measures. That seems to cover a multitude of sins-anything iwhioh you can declare to he a war measure receives the attention of this House. I think I can claim for this Bill that it is essentially a war measure at this particular time. We must be prepared, when the war comes to a close, to be able to' handle the .situation which is bound to arise in this country as a result of the long-continued struggle and of the readjustments that will have to. be made. Our legislation will have [DOT]to be sufficiently elastic to take care of the [DOT]situation. Many people will find at the end of the war that it will be necessary for them to reconsider their position; .'and it is only right, I -submit, that the necessary legislation should be provided for that purpose.
At present no distinction whatever is made as between the honest and the dishonest debtor in the matter of obtaining a discharge; they are all thrown into the discard. By this measure it is proposed that the courts shall carefully scrutinize the business dealings and the business relations of traders, and shall make a distinction- shall separate the sheep from the goats. (When- the court is. of the opinion that a debtor has been obliged to' assign through misfortune, he .should be given, the necessary relief. If, on the other hand, it should .be found, in scrutinizing his .affaire, that he wrecked his own business wilfully, then, of course, he should receive no- relief whatever. That is the crux of every 'bankruptcy law, and it" is for that reason that I have introduced this Bill for the consideration of hon. members.


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

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

Mr. CANNON:: 1.	Is Honourable Albert SCvigny occupying a post or fulfilling a function under the control

of the Crown, or is he a member of any Commission appointed by the Government?
2.	If so, what is that post, function or commission, and what is the remuneration thereof?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) :: This question, was sufficiently answered by the announcement I made yesterday.


EMPLOYEES ON GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	How many employees of every description were on the pay-rolls of the Government Railways on the 31st day of December last, including -any and all railways in Canada owned or controlled by His Majesty?
2.	How many men were employed in Canada on ships owned by His Majesty on same date?


Hon. J. D. RETD:: 
MILL FEED, BRAN AND SHORTS.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	Has any order been passed by Mr. McGregor prohibiting or restricting the shipment of mill feed, bran or shorts from any place in Western Canada to the Eastern Provinces?
2.	If so, (a) what is the order, (b) and how long will it remain in force?
Hon. Mr. C3RERAR:
1.	An arrangement has been made with the mills west of and including Kenora that they will not ship bran or shorts east of Kenora without a written consent from ' Mr. McGregor.
2.	(a) Answered 'by No. 1.	(b) The arrangement is expected to continue as long as it will facilitate the distribution of feed at a minimum cost and tend to reduce transportation difficulties.


Mr. KAY:: 1.	Has any effort been made .to enforce the regulations of the Food Controller, regulating the price of bran and shorts?
2.	Have any actions been taken for contravention of this regulation against dealers in the Provinces of Quebec or Ontario?
3.	If so, give names and penalties enforced?


Mr. ORERAR:: 1.	It is the duty of the local officials charged with the administration of justice through the departments of the respective Provincial Attorneys General to deal with the breach of the laws, Orders in Council
. and regulations thereunder, (including *any relating to bran and shorts) in the . same manner that any other breach of the law is punished by the local judicial authorities. In addition it is the public duty of all citizens and local provincial and municipal police officials to lay complaint and have the laws obeyed. The Canada Food .Board, whenever any breach of the regulations relating to food is specifically .brought to its attention, will take and have taken the necessary and proper steps to prevent such infraction, even, if necessary, by the cancellation of license to do business.
2.	Yes.
3.	As the Canada Food Board does not, of itself, prosecute, it is not able to state what prosecutions have taken place in the different provinces, and. information *should be sought from the departments of the respective Provincial Attorneys General. But the Canada Food Board has been advised by the Crown Attorney for the county of Lambton in the province of Ontario, that be had prosecuted, upon the *information of Mr. H. A. Gilroy, President of the Lambton County Co-operative Association, a miller, iby the name of John Wheeler, of Alvinston, before the local' magistrate, for overcharge on bran and shorts, who pleaded guilty and was fined $10 and costs. As appears from the following letter from Mr. Gilroy, of Alvinston, the complainant therein, it is expected that this prosecution will cause the millers to obey the law, viz:
The Lambton County Co-Operative Asociation.
Alvinston, March 19th, 1918.
E. R. McDonald, Esq.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:
Replying to yours of 16th inst. I have no later receipts. None since March 11th, and thanks to your efforts I have every reason to believe that the mills are obeying the law, not only Wheeler but some of the larger concerns who were formerly quoting shorts $40 per ton car lots P. O. B. Toronto. I would respectfully
suggest that you take action to have papers stop carrying ads. for Dow Grade Flour and in fact all illegal products of milled wheat. They are quoted every day in daily papers. Now sir, as head of this (above) Association permit me to convey to you our thanks for your prompt efforts in this matter, also to have you convey same attitude to Mr. W. P. McDonald, Diet. Representative for Lambton County at Petrolla, Ont, who was of material benefit in bringing the issue to a successful conclusion.
Respectfully youirs,
H. A. Gilroy.


Mr. KAY:: 1.	-Is the exportation of bran, shorts, and mill feed from Canada prohibited?
2.	Is the exportation of said feeds allowed by license?
3.	If so, how many licenses have been issued between August 1, 191T, and February 28, 1918?
4.	To whom, and for what amounts were said licenses issued1?


Hon. Mr. CKERAR:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, in .special cases.
3 and 4. At their special request licenses were granted to the Governors of various West India Islands and Newfoundland, as fallows: Bermuda, 12,500 pounds; Trinidad, 17,000 pounds; British West Indies, 50 bags; Trinidad, 100 bags; Bermuda, 600 bags; Newfoundland, 700 bags; Turks Island, 100 bags; British West Indies, 5,000 pounds; Newfoundland, 500 bags; Bermuda, 600 bags.


INTERNMENT OF SI.BFRIED H. MINDHEIM.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Is Sic-fried H. Mindheim at the present time interned at Fort Henry, Kingston, or elsewhere, as a war prisoner?
2.	If so, since what date, and for what reason?
3.	If not, when was he discharged?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes, at Kapuskasing.
2.	Since May 29, 1915, being a Prussian reservist, and from his actions, intelligence and education deemed to be a danger to the State.
3[DOT] Answered by No. 1.


APPOINTMENT OF FRENCH CANADIAN MINISTERS.
[Stage Direction]
'Mr. HOCKEN:.
1.	Has the attention of the Government been called to a statement which appeared in the Globe, Toronto, of March 21, to the effect, that in regard to- the Quebec representation in the Cabinet, while no definite developments are expected in the near future, it is understood1 that tentative proposals have been made to several prominent French Canadians on both sides of politics, that these pourparlers are still in a tentative stage and that it is ex-
[Stage Direction]
pected that if araragements cannot be carried out during the present session for the entry of two French Canadians into the Government and for securing seats for them, the matter will be arranged, at any rate, before the beginning of next session?
2.	Have any negotiations been entered into by the Government to secure seats now held by members of the Opposition in the province of Quebec for supporters of the Government to enable that province to secure French representation in the Cabinet?
3.	If not, is it the intention of the Government to enter into negotiations for that purpose?
Robert Laird Borden: The reply to the first and second questions is, No. In reply to the third question, I may say that the subject has not been under consideration.


POSITION OF CHARGES HARMAN.
*Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Has the attention of the Government heen directed to the following letter published in the Toronto Globe on January 12, 1918 :-
"Porter, Butler & Payne, "Barristers, Solicitors, Notaries Public, Etc.'
"Belleville, Ont., December 22, 1917. "Chas. Harman: Esq.,
"Frankford, Ont.
"Dear Sir,-Notwithstanding I had you appointed to your present position upon the recommendation of your friends at Frankford, I am now informed by them that you have entirely forfeited their confidence and right to maintain the position which you now hold. You will therefore let me have your resignation at once, otherwise I shall have to take it up with the Department and have you dismissed.
"If I do not hear from you within the next week I shall take it up with the Department.
"Yours truly,


&quot;E. GU-SS PORTER&quot;
[Stage Direction]
2.	Was Charles Harman employed by the Government as an axeman on the Trent Valley Canal?
3.	If so, was he dismissed from such position?
4.	What was the reason for his dismissal, and the date thereof?
5.	Is the Government aware that Ross Harman, the son of the said Charles Harman, volunteered for service with the Canadian Expeditionary Force and was killed at the front prior to the general election of December last?
Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	The Government have no information.


ADVANCES TO PROVINCES.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: 1. To which of the Provinces of Canada has the Government loaned or advanced sums of money as stated by the Acting Minister of

Finance in the House of Commons on the 2'5th of March, 1918?
2. What sums have -been so loaned or advanced to each province, respectively?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1 & 2. Ontario, $2,000,000; Saskatchewan, $2,500,000.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Verville:
1.	What sums, if any, have been paid since the first day of August, 1917, to the Canadian Northern railway or to any persons, firm, corporation, bank or company in trust for and on behalf of the Canadian Northern?
2.	Under what authority have these sums been paid?
3.	If by virtue of Orders in Council, what is the date of each of said Orders in Council, and what is the amount authorized by each of said Orders, and so paid?

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved:: 

the consumption of food in hotels, restaurants, caffes, private houses, clubs and other places.
(3)	Respecting the manufacture, preparation, storage and transport of foods.
(4)	Authorizing the Food Controller to purchase, requisition, store, sell and deliver food.
3.	For all the purposes of these orders, the Food Controller shall have the powers of a Commissioner appointed under the provisions of Part One of the Inquiries Act.
So far as this Order in Council goes1, no fault is to be found with it. It is comprehensive, but while it provides for the conservation and distribution of food, it makes no attempt whatever to take hold of the question of the production of food.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: up to something like $200,000 a year. Now, I submit in all conscience these figures are simply extravagant in view ol the work that has been done by the Food Board. On fihe 4th of February last Mr. Thomson, of Victoria, B.C., was appointed Food Controller in the place of Mr. Hanna. Of Mr. Thomson, I, for my part, know nothing Although I have been a pretty long time in public life, I must say that until I saw his name mentioned I had never heard of him. That is not to his discredit, I admit; die may be a very good man; hut I do submit that it was not sound policy to appoint to this position a man who was absolutely unknown. Mr. Hanna, on the contrary, was a man well known and well tried in public life, and of great ability. I think his appointment was a judicious one, but I cannot say the same with reference to Mr. Thomson's appointment. Two days afterwards the Food Controller's office was completely reorganized. Up to that time we had had a Food Controller. Now we (have a Food Board. It was on the 11th of February the Order in Council was passed creating the Canada Food Board, " the said Board to consist of a Director of Food Conservation, a Director of Food Production, and a Director of Agricultural Labour; that the Board shall be under the jurisdiction of and shall report to the Governor in Council through the Minister of Agriculture." A few days afterwards Mr. Thomson was appointed Director of Food Conservation and Chairman of the Board; Mr. Charles A. Dunning, well known as a member of the Govemiment of Saskatchewan, was made Director of Food Production, and Mr. James D. McGregor, well known also in the business world, was made Director of Agricultural Labour. I would call the attention of -the House to this: three different positions were thus created, the Director of Food Conservation, the Director of Food Production, and the Director of Agricultural Labour-but here again there is no inkling of the powers or of the duties imposed under any of these heads. Perhaps I may be told that tihe powers and duties are sufficiently indicated by the titles, " Director of Food Conservation," " Director of Food Production," and so on. Well, I imagine that the duties imposed on the Director of Food Conservation are similar to those imposed on Mr. Hanna-that all the duties delegated to Mr. Hanna on June 16 last by the Order in Council which I have read are now delegated to Mr. Thomson. Then there is the Director of Food Production; what are his duties and powers? I alluded some time ago -to a newspaper article which I read in 
the House to the effect that Mr. Dunning had been directed by my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) to buy one thousand tractors with a view to helping in food production. So far so good; that is something done at all events, but not very much, for, after all, what it amounts to is simply the removal of the customs duty on tractors. That is better than nothing at all, I admit, and 'I express my satisfaction at that. Then what are the duties and powers of the Director of Agricultural Labour? How is he to he employed-? I know that several schemes of a more or less extended nature have been put before the -Government with a view to increasing food production in this country, by bringing under cultivation a larger acreage than has been tilled in the last fe-w years. That may-be a step in the night direction, but what I complain of -is that in this respect the action taken -by the Government seems to have been very slipshod, to say the least; there is no complete or definite information, unless it he contained in some Orders in Council or regulations which have not 'been brought before the House. One would suppose that when this Government brought down the Orders in Council on the opening day of Parliament they would bring down everything which would instruct the public as to the character of the actions which -they have taken to improve the food situation, which admittedly is -painful. But this information is not given in the Orders in Council brought down. Therefore, I beg to move the motion which is no-w in your hands, Mr. Speaker.


George Green Foster: I have a general idea, gained by virtue of being a member oc the Council, of the duties of the Food Controller and of his operations, but that department was really in the hands and under the direction of the President of the Privy Council, who unfortunately, by reason of illness, is not able to he present in the House. I shall therefore simply advert in a general way to some of the remarks made by my right hon. friend. There are two phases which he has passed under review; one was his resume of the work of the Food Controller as Food Controller, and the other, about which he seems to have the least information, had reference to the second stage, when the Food Controller's work was merged into the larger organization known as the Canada Food Board. With reference to the latter my hon. colleague the Minister of Agriculture has more knowledge than I, and will probably say something when I shall have finished.

I am not going to follow my right hon. friend in his prefatory remarks as to the urgency of the food situation consequent upon the general war situation as it has developed. I have no objection to take to his remarks in that respect as a fair review of the situation.
I have stronger hopes that the duration of the war will be less than my hon. friend seems to think. However, that is a mere matter of opinion, and no one 3 p.m. can tell with certainty. I do not agree with the right hon. gentleman when he says that it is not the operation of the law of supplly and demand that causes the high and advancing prices in this country. Prices have advanced throughout the world, and prices in Canada have probably been, less than in most, if not all, of the other countries. I think the main reason for the increasing prices is in the relation of supply todemand, taken in conjunction with the necessary means for getting the supply to the place of demand, that is, the general transportation question-and how that question comes in will be evident if we take the cases of Australia and New Zealand into consideration. In Australia there are millions of bushels of wheat lying stacked, the result of two years' crop, the larger part of which surplus remains to this day, simply because it is impossible economically to ship it to the centre otf demand, on account of the great distance to be traversed and the scant supply of ships. The same condition prevails with regard to New Zealand. Their warehouses and wharves are stacked up to the brim with food supplies. If the transport problem had not been so difficult, that grain and food supply in Australia and New Zealand would have been brought to the centres of demand, and would have largely prevented the increase in prices. It being found impossible, on account of transport difficulties, to move those great supplies, the nearer sources of supply have been drawn upon; that is the North American continent, and partly the South American continent. True, the question of distance is a factor, in connection with Argentina, though only in a secondary degree as compared with New Zealand and Australia. Thus the weight of the burden of furnishing supplies has to be borne by the United States and Canada, the distance *being short, in comparison with other countries. These problems, combined with the awful waste of food which takes place in war time, bring about the high cost. The abstraction of productive power from the harvest fields of the world, turned as it has
been to active warfare and the subsidiary supports of active warfare, has caused an insufficiency of supply, and, therefore, a tightening otf prices. I do not think any person can dispassionately review the conditions and come to any other conclusion than that these conditions have been the main and the basic reason why the prices of food products have gone up continuously and uniformly, and why, therefore, we are under this burden of the high cost of living. There are subsidiary local reasons that may accentuate this condition. But I make the statement, and I challenge contradiction in this House, that hoarding or 'Speculative holding has been a comparatively trivial factor in Increasing the cost of food to the consumers of this country. That is borne out by investigations which have been made irt both the United States and Canada. Bear in mind that, under modern systems of food supply, the refrigerating storehouse and the warehouse are necessities in times of peace, and in times of war they become still more necessary, because transport is uncertain and the food supply must be gathered in central places and kept there so that when vessels are available the supply may be ready for them and they may not have to wait in port. Meat and dairy products have to be stored, to be kept in edible condition, and that can only !be done by means otf cold storage. I remember being West and going through the immense storage houses in Calgary and other places. There was at that time a very large amount of meat products in storage, and why was it there? Every pound of the million dollars' worth of produce stored there was under con- , tract to be supplied to Great Britain or the other Allies. It was there, Sir, at their order, ready for immediate transport, whenever they should send for it. We must take into account that storage and warehousing, and their consequent cost, are absolutely necessary in the modern ways of doing business, and that the necessity for these is accentuated when transport conditions as they exist are present. But when you speak of hoarding for gain or speculation in this country, it is a negligible factor in increasing prices. As a local influence it does not enter largely into the general increase in commodity prices.
I submit these observations in reply to what I think is not only a false but a mischievous doctrine to be preached at the present time. Everybody knows that there is trouble enough in the country with the burdens that we are bearing, and with the

man of the Food Board, they haive done meet excellently. They have done a*s good *work as any other two men could have done. My right hon. friend aiptproved of the aip-ipointment of Mr. Hanna because he knew Mr. Hanna, and because Mr. Hanna had been a (political figure, and therefore he -was well known and had .responsibility. If a politician had ben put into this position, I can conceive of the criticism, that it was *for a political purpose .and to serve sotme political or party end, Mr. 'Thomson did not coime before the Government or the m country in that way. My right hon. friend said that he had not heard of M.r. Thomson before. That is nothing against Mr. Thomson. I think imy right hon. friend would agree with me in that. Mr. Thomson was in Mr. Hanna's office almost from, its inception. He was chosen by Mr. Hanna; he gave his services; his services approved themselves absolutely to Mr. Hanna, and Mr. Thomson naturally, in the (way of promotion, worked through that gradation; and that, added to his own well-known business abilities, signalized Mr. Thomson as the successor of Mr. Hanna, and in that way he came to be appointed.
That is all that I have to say on this subject. I am sorry that I have not such an intimate knowledge of the details of the question as to enable me to go into the matter more in detail, but my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will have the report of the Food Controller and that probably will give him a good deal of information. When he receives the additional information called for by the resolution which he has submitted to the House he will have much more data with reference to the broader field of the Food Board.


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright):: The Minister of Trade and Commerce ('Sir George Foster) began his remarks by saying that the question offered to the House by the leader of the Opposition contained two phases: the one respecting the merging of the . Food Control ^Office into the Food Board, and the other respecting transportation. As to the first phase he very frankly said that although a minister of the Crown, and supposed to be familiar with everything that goes on in the Cabinet Council, especially relative to questions which closely affect this country and the Allies during the present war, he knew nothing or little, and we are to hear from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) later upon that aspect of the question. In respect to transportation, the other phase, the minister did not enlighten the House.

Nevertheless there were still three salient points about his remarks. The first dealt with the increase of prices which he put down to the usual doctrine of the operation of the law of supply and demand. The second that it was a mischievous doctrine to preach to this country that there was hoarding going on in Canada, when there was really little or no hoarding; and thirdly, the credit that ought to be given to the Government for the very long list of Orders in Council, as the minister put it, giving powers to the Food Controller to act. I would like to draw the attention of the (Minister of Trade and Commerce immediately to the statement which was made in this House last evening by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) dealing with exactly the same subject, when the latter was not altogether in accord with my right hon. friend (Mr. Foster) in stating that the increases in prices were due to the operation of the law of supply and demand. In fact the Minister of Labour did not know why the prices should be increased, but he said that the Government had taken action by taxing excessive p:olits. I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he does not think that a more solid reason than ;hat of the operation of the law of supply and demand is the one given by those who have studied political economy, especially during the present phases of onr .history, and who find that the great producing class, the farmers of Canada, are receiving absolutely no protection from the Government, whilst every other class o'f the community is being looked after. Let me draw the Government's attention at once to the fact that since the inception of the war they have been urging the farmers of Canada to produce more and more, ana still more. But whilst they have been so preaching they do not seem to have been concerned with any action to aid the farmers in greater production. Their sole concern has been to aid other classes of the community in making excessive profits in what they have to offer to the public. To be just in my criticism, however, I should give the Government credit for the action which they took in removing the duty on tractors. The farmers -and I speak now on behalf of a great many of them-are truly grateful to the Government for having removed that duty. They feel that the Government have realized .that this is truly a war measure, and the only effective war measure dealing with food production which they have undertaken since they assumed office. The removal of the duty on tractors must immediately

show to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that there were other influences regulating the price of commodities as that removal tends to help the farmers towards cheaper production. The only surprise our farmers seem, to have, Sir, is that whilst the Government removed the duty on tractors, thereby reducing the price upon certain tractors to the extent of from $250 to $400, they did not go a step further, and abolish the duty upon harrows, seeders, mowers, rakes, binders and threshing machines. There is in this country a certain class of farmers who are not great users of tractors; but I think every kind of agriculturist in Canada operates a harrow, a seeder, and a plough.


George Green Foster: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but it seems to me that he is getting a long way from the resolution before the House. I cannot see that there is any connection between this resolution and the tariff.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Before you give a ruling upon the point, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say this to my right hon. friend: He spoke of the hoarding toy the farmers; of matters affecting transportation; of the law of supply and demand. Following my right hon. friend upon those lines, I thought it would toe in order to point out, as relating to the influence of supply and demand the enhanced cost of farm production as one of the possible reasons for the increased price of commodities. Does my right hon. friend persist in my not going on?


George Green Foster: No, I simply
called my hon. friend's attention to it, that is all. I thought that he would come back to the subject himself, tout that he might come back a little more quickly if I brought the matter to his attention.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Perhaps my right hon. friend thought that by interrupting at this *point he might cause me to forget the farmers.


George Green Foster: Oh, no; a Devlin never forgets.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: If there was a reason for removing the duty upon tractors as h (means of reducing the cost of commodities, there were three reasons for removing the duties on ploughs and harrows also. Of course, that is a matter which my right hon. friend and the Government will deal with. But I desire to emphasize the fact that the increased cost of production increases the cost of commodities coming 'from the farmers. A slight concession has been made to the farmers-a
concession to which my right hon. friend has taken exception. It was natural, Mr. Speaker, that my right hon. friend^-the great protectionist, who would build the tariff wall higher and higher-should be startled to find that one stone or one brick had fallen out of the tariff wall. I submit that he should go a step farther as a war measure-for I believe that this removal of duties is only for a certain time; it is a tentative war measure. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Crerar) must, of-course, have certain tendencies along the line of lower tariff, and I suggest that he keep prodding the Minister of Trade and Comujerce (Sir George Foster) with a view to getting him to remove the duties on farm implements and other things which the farmer requires. He knows, does he not, that if you keep down the cost to the farmer of the tools of production the farmer will be aible to charge lower prices for the commodities which he has to offer?
The Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that we would very shortly have, if we have not now, the report of Mr. Hanna. I happen to have it in my hands, and as the minister was speaking my eye glanced at certain lines in that report which bear upon the very question under discussion. They are as follows:
What that supreme consideration was is the winning of the war, and the requirements for that purpose are summed up in a statement made by me:
"Far greater than the necessity of production for home supplies is that for the supply of Great Britain and our Allies. Great Britain is producing more of foodstuffs than for many yeans, but the supply is, of course, wholly inadequate for her population and her armies. Belgium is practically all in the hands of Germany; so also is a considerable portion of France, Serbia, Rumania, and Russian Poland and now a portion of Italy is in the hands of the enemy. The productive power of our Allies is lessened by the number of inhabitants in arms. The situation in France and Italy from a food point of view is serious and that is what makes the demand in Canada and the United States for conservation of resources and increased production so imperative. To feed the Allies is the paramount duty of North America. It is far greater than the necessity of production for home supply or the cost of living. Unless the war is won, nothing matters."
Yesterday we listened to gentlemen in this House sipeak about production in the back gardens in the cities. I think that every man who lives in the city has a bit of a fad about gardening. We all go out in the spring time, if it is only to get the air, taking with us a hoe, a rake and possibly a spade. We go out around our grounds; we rake, and we use the hoe and. the spade.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I accept, of course, according to the rule of debate, my hon. Mend's statement, but 'before I get through with miy remarks I hope to be able to point out to him the exact words as we find them in the Canadian Pood Bulletin. The Canadian Food Bulletin must be wrong, or my hon. friend* is wrong, or we are all wrong. This is the Canadian Food Bulletin issued 'by t'he Dominion Government. I understand it is now the official organ of the Minister of Agriculture. Am I right?


Mr. ORERAR:: That is not correct.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Is this department not under my hon. friend now?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The publication to which my hon. friend refers is issued iby the Canada Food Board. It was issued by the Food Controller prior to the formation of the Canada Food Board, and it is for the purpose of keeping the public informed as to the work toeing done by the Board. I't is not the official organ or publication of the Minister of Agriculture, nor of the Government.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I must again accept the statement of the Minister of Agriculture. I am altogether at sea if I am to believe the Government publications and disbelieve the
Minister of Agriculture, or believe the Minister of Agriculture and disbelieve the Government publications. I have in my hand an extract from the Canada Gazette, dated February 15, 1918, which informs us that:
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture, and under and by virtue of the powers in that behalf conferred on the Governor in Council by the War Measures Act, 1914, is pleased to order and it Is hereby ordered:-[DOT]
That a Board be created to be called the Canada Food Board; that the said Board consist of a Director of Food Conservation, a Director of Food Production, and a Director of Agricultural Labour;
That the Board shall be under the jurisdiction of and shall report to the Governor General in Council through the Minister of Agriculture.
The Food Board, therefore, is a branch under the direct jurisdiction of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture. Am I wrong? If I am right, the Minister of Agriculture must of necessity he wrong. I do not wish to make any misstatements in the House, and I know my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture does not either. I wish to put him right again, if I may, through the publication of which I spoke a moment ago, this very Canadian Food Bulletin, which is published by 'the Food Board, which is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture. On page 16 of the issue of January 26th, 1918, I find the following:
The problem was discussed at a meeting of the Provincial Ministers of Agriculture, Deputy Ministers and other representatives in Ottawa on January 16th and 17th, under the Chairmanship of Hon. T. A. Crerar, Minister of Agriculture in the Dominion Cabinet. A number of suggestions were made by the various representatives of the Provincial Governments attending, to be considered and discussed.
Mr. Crerar referred to the fact that the Allies looked to Canada in 1918, for an increase of 250,000,000 bushels of wheat over the amount supplied in 1917. United States winter wheat, he pointed out, had amounted in 1917 to only 420,000,000 bushels as compared to an average for six previous years of 600,000,000 bushels. The prospect of the Spring wheat. crop of 1918 was not bright. Labour was the essential factor and the chief problem.
Therefore, I am right, if this report is correct; but if the report is incorrect, I am wrong. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture has another publication, the eternal verity of which he will not deny; it is known as the Agricultural Gazette of Canada, a Government publication sanctioned by the Minister of Agriculture. In the issue of J anuary, 1918, a reason is given for the lack of supplies, especially of wheat going to the United States; and I find that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was again astray in his explanation of why we


Thomas Alexander Crerar: memory serves me right, I think within two months after its formation, steps were taken to control the milk supply of the City of New York. In their zeal and anxiety to meet the public demand and the public need, a price was arbitrarily fixed for milk. What was the result? In less than three months .that set price had to be removed. And tens of thousands of dairy cows had to be slaughtered, simply because the producers of milk could not operate under the price that had been fixed. In that case the fixing of a price tended directly to defeat the very object that was desired. Consequently, the fixing of prices of any commodity miust be very carefully-investigated, and closely analysed, in order to see that the delicate balance is not upset, and that we do not land in a worse position than that we seek to escape from.
Having overlooked the fact, Mr. Speaker, that this discussion might come up ithis afternoon, I have not at my hand some information that I should have had if I had known it was coming up. But I can say this, that the fundamental principle underlying the food administration is to exercise control by way of license over the various lines of business. We have brought the bakers of Canada, the millers, the fish dealers, and several other lines my memory does not recall, under license. To-day the wholesale grocers of Canada are being brought under license, and the retail grocers will be brought under license as well. Now, coming from western Canada, I speak with some knowledge of the benefits that come from the licensing system. That has been one o! the great protections in our grain industry. In western Canada especially, years ago, I believe, when the Government of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition was in power, the system was introduced. To-day no dealer in grain in western Canada can do business under the law of the land unless he first secures a license. That license sets out certain conditions on which he must do business, and not only that, the forfeiture of that license, or its withdrawal, deprives him of the right to do business. In that way a salutary influence can be exercised over the dealer. It is practically the same principle that we are endeavouring to work out in respect to the fopd administration in Canada; and I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that when it gets in full operation it will have .the same beneficial results. To-day we are bringing under license, speaking from memory, over 40,000 retail grocers. License fees are being charged, and I want to tell my hon. friend 
from Wright, who is disturbed as to where, this expenditure is leading u^, that we expect in the food administration to receive in license fees alone this year over $250,000, and in that way the expense that is incidental to the control will be met from the business itself. That is perfectly proper. Every grain dealer in western Canada today, depending upon the volume of the business he does, has to pay a license fee in order to secure his privilege to do business.
But I am going to toe very .frank with .the House and say that you cannot organize an immense organization of this kind without a great deal of difficulty. You have got to get the men. And I want here to bear testimony to the zeal and earnestness of the men who are to-day working in the food administration. It is true they are getting salaries that may look large. These men, Mr. Speaker, are getting no higher salaries -in some cases not nearly as high-than they could get if they went out into the commercial world and sold their services in the usual way. I think they are Tather to be commended for their willingness to serve in this way. There are men working in the food administration who have worked there for months without any remuneration at all excepting their living expenses. I think men are to toe commended for that.
The question, however, of production is one of the vital questions that face us in Canada at the present time. There is no doubt that the food situation in the world to-day is serious, very serious, and we in Canada, the people in North America, must bend our energies and use every ounce of strength we possess to raise to the very highest maximum possible our production of foodstuffs in the present year. The inability of Europe to feed herself arises from two causes. First, from the withdrawal of millions of men in Italy, France and Great Britain from the ordinary avocations of agriculture to the pursuits of war, and second in certain cases, from the absence of the fertilizer that is essential to maintaining the productivity of the soil. It is true that the withdrawal of men from agricultural labour in the countries in question has been met to a certain extent by the work of the women available there. Today I am told that in Great "Britain over six hundred thousand women are engaged in manual labour of some kind or another in agriculture. In France hundreds of thousands of women are working in the fields who knew nothing of this work before the war broke out. I sometimes feel, Mr. Speaker, that we in Canada have not quite realized yet in many respects that we

are at war; that is, the reality of it has not come home as closely to us as it has to the people who have lived under the very shadow of it for years. But we must bend our efforts and our energies, we must increase our efforts in Canada to meet this situation. The need for men we know is great. The need for food is great also, and we must set about meeting these needs with as great energy, as great care, and as much ability as we possess, in order to organize our country in these respects so as to stand up under .the mighty burden that we have to carry. I am hopeful, nay, I am certain, that good results will come from the effort that is being made at the present time to stimulate production in this country.
Criticism has been directed against the creation of the Food Board, inasmuch as it provides for a Director of Production and a Director of Agricultural Labour Now one of the difficulties we are meeting is that of securing labour. The purpose in creating a Director of Agricultural Labour, was to have a man in charge of that work who would make it a special study, and already good results are coming from it. In consequence of that effort, and the work of the Food Administration, there are being enrolled in Canada over 25,000 boys from the age of fifteen to nineteen, to work on the farms, boys from the towns and cities who otherwise, unless this organization had taken place, would not have been available for farm work. I have spoken to several farmers in Ontario who had this Class of help last year, and they stated that it.was the most effective help they have had. Again, an effort will be made to secure by voluntary enlistment, men from the towns and cities.


Mr. J. READ (Prince, P.E.I.):: Why do you not conscript them?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend asks,
"Why do we not conecript them?" You can conscript men and apply discipline to them when you have them in the mass; but to conscript an individual and send him out to farm work is rather a doubtful experiment.
Commencing with the provinces by the - sea, Nova Scotia has set itself a fine objective this year. It ,is going to produce enough wheat and coarse grain to supply its demands, whereas every other year it has imported. The province of New Brunswick is in the same position. In the province of Quebec, where ordinarily they produce about a million bushels of wheat and consume about twelve million bushels, they are aiming this year-and the provincial
authorities tell me they expect to realize that aim-to produce enough wheat to feed themselves, which will release ten or eleven million bushels of wheat to go overseas. Ontario will also increase its wheat production. In the western provinces we will have, I venture to say, the largest acreage that we have ever had in respect to grain production, and if we are only favoured with a good season we will probably have *the largest crop of wheat that the West has ever had. But I want to impress this fact upon our people:	In order to get these
results in the different provinces, in order to supply the help that is necessary to make up the deficiency in labour, we must have recoufse to organization, and you cannot do that unless you get men and if you get the men you have got to pay them.
I want to. make one other observation before I close, and it is this The people of Canada have not been as economical as they should have been in the past; I think we have been rather an extravagant people. Today we are driving home to the people of the Dominion, through the educational work carried on under the auspices of the Food Board, the great need of thrift and of saving. I hope, in fact I am sure, the effort will bear fruit in the future. There is no disguising the fact that we have to face very heavy burdens after this war is over. We can only successfully meet those burdens by encouraging in every way possible the principles of thrift among our people. We have got to produce, but above everything w-e must save; and to-day the educational work that is being carried on by the bulletins that my hon. friend (Mr. Devlin) alluded to, and carried on through the medium of addresses, through moving picture shows and pictures thrown on the screen, and meetings held throughout the country, and utilizing every agency that can be utilized, is driving home to our whole people this principle of thrift, this need of saving, and they are realizing to-day as they have never realized in the past what can be done by a little effort in the way of saving, the conserving of food supplies, and the conserving of everything. I venture the statement that the money that is expended upon the Food Administration will be justified in the years to come by the results that will flow from the efforts being made to-day; I am as confident of that as I am that I am standing here now.
The Department of Agriculture is not per-rect, neither is the food administration. I, for one, will welcome criticism at any time, that is helpful, constructive criticism. I desire as much of it as I can get; but,

if my hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin) will permit me to say so, not very much good will come from the sort of criticism in which he indulged this afternoon. The task ahead of Canada is a great one. We have the task of providing foodstuffs, of concentrating Canada's effort and energies in the prosecution of the war. No one can read the news that comes from the front these days without some feeling of concern as to what the outcome will be. I am inclined to agree with the leader of the Opposition that the war may be greatly prolonged before the principles for which we are fighting, and the liberty of the countries whose freedom is threatened, are made safe and secure. We can meet the task before us, but we must organize and throw every effort whole-heartedly into it. If we do that I have no doubt whatever as to the result nor as to the great part that Canada will have played in this struggle.
Mr. JAMES A. ROBB (Chateauguay-Huntingdon): Mr. Speaker, with very great pleasure and interest we have all listened this afternoon to the maiden speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar). It did occur to me, and it may have occurred to other members of the House, that in his somewhat rambling address the minister felt that he was obliged to offer an apology for a foundling which he and isome of his friends had adopted. We in Canada are so closely associated with the United States that gentlemen on both sides of the House are now united in the belief that any legislation enacted in the United States necessarily affects Canada. We had evidence of that yesterday afternoon in the discussion which took place on the Daylight Saving Bill, the whole argument in support of which, as presented by the right hon. gentleman (Sir George Foster) who introduced it, being that it had become necessary in Canada because a similar measure had been adopted in the United States. The whole argument offered this afternoon in favour of the organization of a food controllership in Canada was that the United States had appointed a food controller. We are reminded that when the United States in May last decided that they should have a food controller, and appropriated for the purposes of that official's office $5,000,000 for one year, immediately there was started throughout Canada a newspaper campaign in favour of the appointment of a food controller in Canada. Friends of the inner circle could see in the appointment of a food controller in the United States 
another opportunity to secure place and profit for their friends if a similar office was established in this country. The case ais presented this afternoon by the leader of the Opposition proves that in that respect the gentlemen who urged upon the Government the organization of a food controller's office were not mistaken-and the figures given have not been denied by the Minister of Trade and Commerce or by the Minister of Agriculture. In the six months during which we have had the luxury of a food controller, the c'ost of the administration of that official's office has run up to $200,000, exclusive of travelling and office expenses, rents, stationery, telephones, etc. If the cost was $200,000 in -six months, in one year the cost would he $400,000; so we find that already the expenditure in Canada is- -per capita the same as it is in the United -States, and that in these figures travelling expenses and the cost of heat, stationery, etc., are not included.
!Mr. CRERAR : I do not wish to interrupt, but 'I desire to correct my hon. friend on one point. The total expenditure to the end of February for salaries in the Food -Controller's office from the time of its inception was $49,758.


Mr. ROBB:: I accept the statement of the minister, but he must not forget -that the figures I .gave are in the statement presented by Mr. Hanna in the -report which I hold in imy hand.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Estimated.


James Alexander Robb: The Order in Council goes to show -that -since M-r. H-anna left the office the expense has been very largely increased. I am credibly informed that the Food Control office in Canada, organized in the month of June, has already moved three times in order to provide increased accommodation foT its ever-growing staff. First they were established on Bank street, in a building three or four stories-I remember visiting it. Then they moved to this building, and no-w they are on -Rideau street-ever moving to secure a larger building. The newspapers tell us that the Government purpose during this session to introduce legislationi to provide for a much larger building in Ottawa in order to accommodate their ever-increasing staff of ci-vil servants.
I now come to a point on which il agree -with the Minister of Agriculture: that price-fixing leaves much to be desired in the way of increased -production. Food control is a new feature of warfare; this is the first -time in history, according to Mr. MARCH 27, 1918
Hanna's statement, that food control has played any part in war. In Germany, where the food control movement started, price-fixing was a mistake. Price-fixing in France was a mistake, for France has removed the maximum prices upon potatoes, milk, butter and cheese. Price-fixing in England was a mistake. We have the statement, published in the London Times in the month of January, that because of the limitation fixed upon the price of bacon in England the supply of bacon gradually dropped .away; the people of Great Britain found .themselves short of that commodity because it was being sold to another country where more money was being paid for it. The fixing of the price of butter in England was a mistake. The people there, according to this letter in the London Times, fixed a price for butter which was lower than the cost of production, and the result was that the people of Denmark and Holland found a better market for their butter, and the commodity itself went to enemy countries. That has been the experience in the matter of price fixing in the old land, and same applies to Canada. Price-fixing in this country has not encouraged our people to greater production, and after all it is greater production that we require.
In the statement which Mr. Hanna filed upon leaving office, he practical'y admits, after an experience of six months, that pricefixing in this country has been a mistake; that it has not brought the results expected of it, and that wherever profit ceases, production ceases. As the leader of the Opposition pointed out this afternoon, in the organization of this Food Control Bureau, involving an additional expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars, no attempt was made to provide greater production. Every step taken by the Food Control Bureau resulted in a restriction of production.
I think the Minister of Agriculture agreed with that in his address this afternoon. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was very frank; he told us that the food controller had not been appointed to encourage production. Well, if that is true; If the Food Control Bureau was not appointed to encourage production, surely they should stand out of the way and not hinder increased production. I should like to prove to the Minister of Agriculture-who, I believe, is sincerely desirous of increasing production -that the action of the Food Control Bureau has very materially hindered additional production, at least in eastern *Canada. Last fall, at a time when corn
could be moved freely, the food control offices of Canada and the United States placed certain restrictions on the importation of corn into this country. It is no secret that a deputation from the Montreal board of trade, representing very large interests, came to the Government and asked for a blanket license to import certain quantities of corn before the close of navigation, and that this request was flatly refused by the Food Control Bureau. The deputation discovered, while visiting here, however, that a certain distillery in eastern Canada had a blanket license to import 100,000 bushels of corn, and the Government had a very bad half hour with those gentlemen, who were supporters of the Administration. Those were the conditions that prevented the starch men and the dairy men of eastern Canada from getting in their supply of corn at a time when conditions were favourable to their getting it in. Time passed. We were told that the United States had the largest corn crop in its history. We are now told that corn is rotting in the fields of the United States because people have not been able to move it, and why? Because the Food Control Bureau and the Railroad Control Bureau in the United States, working with the Food Control Bureau in Canada, have so manipulated and interfered with the doing of business 'by men who are accustomed to doing .bus' ness that they have been unable to move this corn. What is the result? The result is that in eastern Canada dairymen have been keeping less stook and are not providing for the enlargement of their herds, as the minister would wish them to do.
But the Food Control Bureau has been interfering not only with international trade, but with interprovineial trade. A member of the minister's Food Control Bureau has absolutely prohibited flour mills of western Canada from shipping bran and shorts to eastern Canada. Does the Minister of Agriculture deny that statement? I wish to repeat it. A representative of the Food Control Bureau in western Canada has ordered the flour mills there not to ship straight carloads of 'bran or shorts or mixed carloads of bran and shorts to eastern Canada. What is the result of that? In any farm, paper published in Quebec or the Maritime Provinces the minister will find announcements of dispersion sales, farmers being disposed to .sell their herds because they cannot get bran and shorts to feed them. The result iwill foe a decreased production of butter and cheese in eastern Canada. I believe the Minister of



Agriculture is desirous of remedying these conditions. He has asked this afternoon for some constructive criticism. I would suggest to him that he recall the order of this gentleman who* interfered with intenprovin-cial trade and allow trade* to be done as it was* done in the past, toy men who know how business should* toe handled*.
I have no desire to prolong my remarks because I know there are others who wish to -speak on this subject; tout the minister in his defence of, or rather apology, for the Food Control Bureau told us that the Food Control Bureau were now arranging to license all the bakeshops, all the retail grocery stores and all the wholesale grocery stores throughout Canada, and* that we were to get a revenue of not less than a Quarter of a million dollars. I think the -minister was very modest in his* estimate of the revenue we shall receive if that scheme is carried out, tout who is going to pay the license? It will 'be passed (back to the consumer, and so the action of this* Food Control Bureau will be helping, not to reduce the cost of living in this country, tout to increase it. Here is another opportunity for the minister to step in and correct a policy that, I am sure*, is not meeting with the favour of the consuming public of Canada.	.
With these few observations I leave this subject, in the hope that we shall have a statement from some member of the Government that the Food Control Bureau is at least to 'be taken in hand, so that not only the expense of that bureau will be reduced, but its attempts to interfere with business throughout the country shall not tend to increase the cost of living to our people.


Mr. F. S. CAHILL (Pontiac):: The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) made reference to the fact that the profits on packing products* would be kept down to the amount of two per cent on the turnover. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) suggested that he would like constructive criticism, but he could not see any in the remarks made toy the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin). He said that it ie not the intention nor the wish of the Government to interfere with or to set prices. As the representative of a farming constituency, I would like to point out to the minister that the farmer finds that the packer is allowed to make a profit not to exceed two per cent, which, as any lion, member knows*, is a greater percentage than he made during the last three years. If the minister will refer to the profits made by the packers he will find that they do not amount 
to two per cent of the turnover. A packer will turn over his product, perhaps, once a month, or oftener, and if you multiply his profit toy twelve it amounts to much more than two per cent. The greatest packer of Chicago, Mr. Ogden Armour, states that their profits never exceed one per cent of the turnover. If this is not correct the minister will be alble to give the information to the House and to the country, but it is one of the things in which the country people are interested when the Government is asking them to produce more.
I.would like, at this point, to make a distinction, between the agriculturist and the farmer. My constituency is composed entirely of farmers. I once asked one of my constituents what was the difference between an agriculturist and a farmer. He said: The farmer works with his hands, and the agriculturist works with his mouth. We heard a good deal of that yesterday in, this House in connection with production. A great deal of advice is being handed out in .regard* to greater production. If you are going to regulate the price of wheat, and you say you do not believe prices should be regulated-wheat is the only article I know of, the price of which has been regulated toy the Food Board or by the Government-that naturally brings to the farmer's mind the idea that the price of his product in the raw state is being regulated, but that there is no regulation of the profits of the man who handles the manufactured article. The farmer has been told of great packing companies in this country who have made wonderful profits, and he is led to believe that that is allowed to go on after the commodity gets out of his handle. If this Food Board could do something to convince the farmer and the producer that he is being taken care of equally with the packer, that would be some help towards production.
We were glad to notice one of the few things of a constructive nature done by the Board. Their first action was to remove the duty from some farm implements. The Minister of Agriculture stated that the hon. member for Wright did not offer any constructive criticism. Will the minister advise this House that he thinks a reduction in the tariff on implements would be against the interest of production in this country? Does he not think that a cheaper implement to the farmer would be an aid to production? Would it not be an encouragement? It is my firm conviction that if we had free trade in implements with the United States it would be the means of get-

ting us a large number of immigrants from that country who would become producers on our western prairies. The fact that they have to pay so much more for implements in Canada than in the western States is more or less of a barrier to their coming to western Canada. At this time when we are looking for producers and increased production I was glad to hear the Minister of Agriculture say that he does not agree that the war is over. I think we have all insisted too much on the war being over to-morrow, and not making preparations for its continuing a year or two longer. I think we should bend every effort towards production and the winning of the war, let it end as soon as it will; it cannot end too soon for us. If we make our plans on the basis of its ending to-morrow, and it should continue a year or two longer, we ,are undoubtedly handicapped, whereas if we make our preparations on the basis of the war continuing some time, it will be .a gain to us even if it should end to-morrow. As far as constructive criticism is concerned, if we would seriously consider the question of cheaper implements for the farmer and cheapet production, it would be very much more beneficial to him than his added hour of daylight. We have a Bill before us to enable us to ibid our neighbours to the south the time of day on equal terms; I think we might go a little further and allow our farmers to procure their implements on equal terms with the farmers to the south of us.


Mr. L. T. PACAUD (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, the debate, through the speeches which have already been made, has rohbed me of arguments which I intended to offer the House, and I shall therefore willingly curtail my remarks somewhat.
The question of the food supply which is raised by this motion involves considerations which are of the utmost importance both to our country and to our Allies. No other question, Sir, has stirred and aroused the people of Canada more fervently, moire deeply or more unanimously. This intense feeling which has been growing and spreading steadily since the outbreak of war may easily be explained by an impartial survey of conditions as they have existed and still exist in Canada at this time. On the one hand we have the prohibitive prices, which deny to the masses the very necessaries of life, with the accompanying hardships and misery. On the other hand we have the revolting disclosures that have been made from time to time concerning the hoarding of food, the cold storage opera-1SJ
tions, the nefarious greed of the profiteers. These, Sir, are the outstanding facts which cannot he denied. Mr. O'Connor has exposed them to the public. We had the story of the bacon manipulations; we had the egg disclosures; and more recently, and through another source, we heard of hundreds and hundreds of pounds of chicken left to rot in cold storage at Winnipeg. I hese may serve as illustrations of what i3 going on in Canada on a very large scale. Sir, in the face of such disclosures, nothing effective was done or attempted to be done by the Government to remedy snch an evil. Are we not tempted, Sir, to laud the patience of the Canadian people in the face of euch provocation from the men who daily exploit them', from the Government who refuses to protect them?
What has the Government done? A Food Board was created and a Food Controller was put in control. The Order in Council creating this board gave the Controller clearly defined powers. He had the right " to govern the prices of any article of food and to supervise the storage, .the distribution, the sale and the delivery of these articles." Why were not these powers exercised, exercised especially in the cases which have been brought to the attention of the public by the High Cost of Living Commissioner?
Instead of taking immediate steps to curtail this open exploitation of the public, the Government, through its commissioner, preferred to follow the easier course of preaching economy to the people. Under the circumstances which I have related, I say that these mere words, followed by no effective action, may have satisfied the cold storage magnates, but they certainly have not satisfied the people of this country.
We have in Canada an abundance of food, sufficient not only for our own needs, but the greater bulk of which is exported to allied countries. This brings me to another phase of this same question-the campaign of production which the Government has so fervently prosecuted of late. To this campaign all loyal Canadians will give their hearty support. We all recognize that upon the success of our devotion to food raising depends in a large measure the victory of our hoys at the front. We -know that the world faces to-day a food situation which is nothing short of appalling. We know that the supply is not sufficient to feed the world's armies, let alone the civilian population. But, Sir, this is not all. We have had occasion ^ to hear the representatives of. Britain making to us an	appeal,-

an appeal which will surely be heard and responded to, and which has thrilled each one of us in a patriotic determination to strive every nerve to do what is requested of us. Lord Rhondda, the British food controller, for one, has made his plea quite clear. "We look," he says, "to the resources of Canada and the indomitable energy of Canadians for an answer that will shatter Germany's threat of starvation." He tells us, that it is vital for the United Kingdom and the Allies to obtain from Canada foodstuffs in far larger quantities than under peace conditions. His frankness even goes so far as to recall to us that an increased export of food supplies must be forthcoming, even though the achievement of this task entails diversion of,effort from other enterprises. It is Canada's duty to prove her efficiency and her determination. This plea must not be left unanswered. May I be permitted to confess that these words of the British food controller are comforting to those of us who through motives which cannot be challenged, opposed a measure which wre sincerely believed if put into operation would decidedly diminish if not defeat our effectiveness in this war, by laying aside the most formidable weapon which could have been used against the enemy. We faced a storm of abuse and slander, but these attacks did not deter us from what we believed was our plain duty. We have at least the consolation of knowing that our conception of duty was shared, in some measure at least, by the brightest minds of Britain. What we need to-day, is a larger acreage and higher yields for the years to come. We need to increase our productive capacity, the problem is with us, and it must be solved. Upon its solution, to my mind, depends the success of our allies and ourselves in this war. To achieve our purpose, it is obvious that we need farm labour. It is not less obvious that it is a national necessity that we should remove the duties on farming implements. The Government have started in their task by means of the registration of the man power of the Dominion. I believe that, though that is a good step in the right direction, it has come a little late; it should have been done at the very beginning of the war. Nevertheless, I sincerely hope, that in its results it may procure more information and attain better results for Canada and for the Empire than has been achieved by the now famous National Service cards of a year ago.
Mr. J. IE. FONTAINE (Hull) (translation) : Mr. Speaker, I am perhaps a little 
audacious in rising to take part in this debate, since I have just entered this Parliament, and am in nowise familiar with Parliamentary	procedure;	nevertheless,
when the voters of Hull county, which I have the honour to represent, elected me by acclamation on the 19th of last November,
I gave them my solemn promise that I would seize upon every opportunity offered to protest against the exorbitant cost of living and try to bring it down if it were possible to do so. It was reserved, Mr. Speaker, for the right hon. leader of the Opposition, to afford me this opportunity in bringing about this debate this afternoon; for him who, in contrast to the hon. gentlemen seated on the other side of the House, has always been the protector and the defender of the people against the trusts and the monopolists.
It is useless, I believe, for me to say that the present cost of living has reached a price so high that the consumer is forced ti deprive himself even of necessaries of life. I could mention things, foods like flour, bacon, eggs, which have surely increased 50 and even 100 per cent. If, at least, Mr. Speaker, salaries had increased in proportion; but I see, by the reports of the Labour Gazette which I have here before me, that salaries have not been increased by more than 15 to 17i per cent. There has been a general protest. I remember, in the city of Hull, where I reside, on the other side of Ottawa, hearing Mr. Watters, the president of the Labour Unions of Canada, denounce the Minister of Labour (Mr.'Crothers) and even denounce the Prime Minister of this country because the workingmen could not procure the necessaries of life with the low salaries they were paid.
In the face of these protests the Government thought they would calm public opinion by appointing what they called a Food Controller, and it was then that the Government told us of the appointment of Mr. Hanna. Everybody was satisfied, the people believed that the .Government was sincere and that by their appointing a Food Controller we could at least earn enough to enable us to buy the necessaries of life. The irony of it, Mr. Speaker ! The Controller was well and duly appointed; he was given spacious offices, and it is said that his suite was furnished with luxury and that he was given a staff, both very numerous and very expensive-if I believe the gentlemen who have preceded me-and still he was not controlling; the cost of living was soaring all the time.
A moment ago I heard my hon. friend, the Minister of Customs, say that the appoint-

ment of the Controller did not aim at control. My iLord! we were well aware of it, he never did control! His duty consisted simply in seeing that no food was wasted. Could he have forgotten what my hon. friend from Meg-antic (Mr. Pacaud) said a while ago? Haven't we learned, in the last few days, through the newspapers, that a large ..quantity of foodstuffs, hoarded in storage warehouses in order to boost prices, had been sent to the incinerator in the city of Winnipeg? Well! if the duty of the Food Controller was to prevent the waste of foodstuffs, why did he allow such .an enormous quantity of food to find its way to the garbage heap? Is it because those implicated are the friends of the Government? I ask you that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. BUREAU (Three Rivers):: Sir Joseph Flavelle.


Mr. FONTAINE (translation):: My hon. friend brings to mind the name of a certain Mr. Flavelle. I remember that it was precisely this name Mr. Watters who gave us, ait Hull, the history of this fellow Flavelle; he even told us that he was at the head of the William Davies Company ,and that he had found a way to make millions of profit while the people were starving to death. It seems to me, then, Mr. Speaker, that when the Government asks the people to subscribe to War Loans; when they ask the people to give generously to the Patriotic Fund and to the Red Cross; while they continue to crush the people with taxes, it seems to me, I .say, that the people have at least the right to be protected by their Government, and still the Government has not given them this protection.
N'ow, Mr. Speaker, if I have properly understood the hon. minister when Mr. Hanna had disappeared from the scene as Food Controller, he was replaced by three Controllers. Will they control more than their predecessor did? I do not know, but I may say without fear of error, that in the city of Hull, which I have the honor to represent, and which is essentially a city of working-people, the price of food has not been reduced one single cent. I wonder why the Government does not fix a maximum price for certain articles of food as it has done for newsprint. Was it led to take this action through fear of the press, or to compensate .the newspaper proprietors nearly every single one of whom supported the Union Government? So I think it is high time, and even imperative that something was done in this matter.
Perhaps my friends on the other side of the House will accuse me of disloyalty because I speak of this question " in War Time " as they say. I would say in reply to these gentlemen that we on this side represent the principles of Liberalism and that we have as much at heart as any one the ultimate victory of the Allies. Each and every one of us, Mr. Speaker, holds that Belgium must be restored, each and every one of us desires that Old France and the British flag will be the victors in this conflict! But more than that, what we want is that the people who bear and who will continue to bear the burden of this war, be protected by the Government.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: I forgot that the House met at two o'clock to-day, and, therefore, I had not the pleasure of listening to the speech of my right hon. friend opposite (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), but I have followed the debate since
5 p. m. I came into the chamber. I may say that I have been a member of this House for nine years, and if a humble member of the rank and file may compliment a minister, I should like to say very sincerely that I have not listened to a more able speech than that delivered by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar). He will in due time develop into a powerful speaker. The hon. minister is an old friend of mine. In fact, so persuasive was he, Sir, that at one time while he was talking I said to myself: Almost thou persuadest me to be a controller. That is rather a difficult task. I objected yesterday to any control being placed upon the time at which I got up or went to bed. There are other things about the life of the country that have been controlled the controlling of which did not meet with my absolute approval. In regard to this particular fact, there wag advanced by the Minister of Agriculture a very strong plea of justification of, at any rate, some of the work of the Board. If they had done nothing more than organize the arrangement hy which these twenty-five thousand boys are going to work on the farms this summer, then I think that their existence as a Board has received some justification. There is a further argument that was presented by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) the other day as to the amount of organization needed whereby large sume of money are to be diverted to the provinces, to be spent in the various provinces along rational methods, under the control of very able men, with a view to promoting pro-

duction in western Canada. But I should like, as far as any words of mine can reach the Food Board through the Government or through the press, to eay to them very sincerely:	" For goodness sake, whatever
you do, control your expense, and also control your controlling." II find myself in absolute agreement with an old friend, who now is honoured by being the chief whip on the other side of the House (Mr. Robb), as to the difficulties of the regulation of prices. It is an extremely difficult process, and I understand, as far as I have been told the facts of the question, that what my hon. friend opposite said about it is correct, that it is an attempt at work that has 'broken down in [many, many cases in the other belligerent countries on the continent of Europe. It is against the fundamental laws of economies, and even in war time it is extremely difficult to go against law. We would create more havoc than we would do good. There is a more excellent way than controlling and the fixing of prices.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: I am very glad to have the endorsation of my right hon. friend. I did not have it in the election, but in his heart he was not very much opposed to me. I still share with him very fully a great distaste of anything in the nature of control and a very great love of anything in the nature of freedom.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: My right hon. friend anticipated what I was going to say. The free way is the more excellent way, and it is freedom that we are all fighting for at the present moment. It is one of the mischievous results of this war that we have become, or at any rate we think we have become, autocrats ourselves to put down autocrats. I think that one could in some measure establish that position. Because, after all is said and done, if a man is coming to knock you on the head with a bludgeon, and you refuse to use the bludgeon in your own hand, you are going to come very badly out of that contest, and your strict adherence to the principles of pacificism would work out very badly for your cranium.


An hon. MEMBER:: In Russia there is
that situation just now.


Michael Clark: Yes, even the principle of freedom can be carried too far. I do want to say in reference to the subject that my right hon. friend is raising, that it has met a very large body of opinion which is distressed, and distressed

in the most practical way, by what is one of the greatest evils we have in Canada at the present moment, and that is the enormous cost of living to a large number of our people who live on very narrow incomes in our large centres of population. Tme cost of living is a very real evil in the large centres of population, and it is a real evil that grows up in spite of the Food Control Board. That, I understand, was the position which was brought out in the speech which I had the misfortune to miss hearing. In any case, that position is distressing and is exercising the minds of our people.
Now, it goes without saying that we shall not only help the war but we Shall lower the cost of living if we increase' production. I want to make two practical suggestions in the most serious spirit, and in a spirit most desirous of being helpful to the Government-I made a great many suggestions to the previous Government to which they did not pay any attention. I want to make a suggestion which I made in my Budget lemarks last year, however, and which I repeated in a parenthesis in the remarks I made on conscription. I am going to make this suggestion with very considerable confidence, because I am perfectly sure that my strongest supporter will be the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). I cannot understand why, having regard to the cost ef living, the Government does not at once take the bold step of putting all articles of food on the free list. I cannot understand why they do not do it. I am perfectly serious in the matter; I said so in the Budget debate of last year, and I gave some reasons, reasons which I know will appeal to my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce. They must appeal to him. I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that in the very first weeks of the war Germany- the first precedent that my hon. friend mentioned yesterday about daylight saving was derived from Germany-Germany, a strong protectionist country, swept the duties off almost all her foodstuffs. She knew all the difficulties that the war would tring about in connection with her food supply. She knew the trouble she was going to have to get food for her people. She knows it better to-day. And she swept the duties off foodstuffs in the very first days of the war. Her example was followed by almost every other country in Europe, whether belligerent or neutral. Britain did not need to do it, because she had the good sense to sweep the duties off foodstuffs, whether in war or peace, seventy years ago.

Now, my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce is up against his own precedent of yesterday. Is the precedent of Germany and these other countries only good for daylight saving? I submit to his judgment that it is equally good for free food. I say, in courteous language, that I hope he will stand up to his own thinking, and to his own precedents, and press this matter before the Budget. There would be no use my mentioning this matter on the Budget; of course, once the Government has brought its Budget down, it must stand by it. Therefore, I want to be in time, and I am very sincere in this matter, in offering these observations, and in calling for the support of my right hon. friend at least in this simple .suggestion. It may be said that it would not have much affect on the price of food. Well, we have a right to the advantage of a trial. _
And I regret another of my hon. friend's arguments yesterday, and the arguments of many others who supported the proposition, when they said: This change in the clock cannot do any harm anyhow; it is an experiment, and one supported by the precedent of these foreign countries. I submit that free food is in identically the same position; we have the precedent of these other countries for it, and if it does not do any good to the people of the towns, at any rate it will not do any harm, and you can take the duties off food just as you dealt with time in the matter of daylight saving. I think the parallel is an absolutely perfect one, and I am sure that my hon. friend (Sir George Foster), for whom I have the very greatest regard, and who 1 am glad to see in hie old fighting form in this House, is getting his thinking cap on in regard to it.
I have another simple suggestion to offer to the House in regard to the question of production. -Cheap food is good, plentiful food is good, anidl plentiful food means inevitably too cheap food. The method by which I suggest that we should help the increased production of food is the simple one cf placing all agricultural implements upon the free list. That would toe an act of justice to the farmer, because if you place all food on the free list you take every vestige of protection, in the technical sense, -from the farmer, and he surely has a logical claim to turn round and say to Parliament and* the Government: If you expect me to produce more foodstuffs of all kinds in open competition with all the producers of the world, without the help of any protection, then in the name of common justice, afford me the encouragement to give* you this increased production by granting me free implements with which to do it. That is a just, an equitable, a logical arrangement, and I think it would he an admirable experiment. It would have the element of courage in it, tooi, though perhaps not very much courage, seeing that it is supported all along the line by those precedents which led my hon. friend (Sir George Foster) so heroically to stay with that subject of daylight saving. I am a farmer myself, with three sons in khaki and only one left at home, and working like a nigger myself in all the time I had left to work after the multitudinous talk of last summer and the equally multitudinous talk of the election. We have done considerable producing; but we are prepared to face the competition of the world, as far as I am concerned. My three sons in khaki are fighting for freedom in Europe, and I believe in it here. I am prepared to support my views here with the same British courage with which my sons are supporting their views and principles upon the firing line, and I think there are a great many farmers like that in western Canada. We do not fear free food in western Canada. We are such good Canadians, and we believe so much in our country, that we know we can produce the stuff that will baffle competition anywhere. Just as our boys on the firing line are at the top of the tree for courage-because that is one part of the British line; they cannot even bend, let alone break it, so the farmers in the West are prepared to carry this principle of free food) into the legislation of the country, but they follow that up 'by saying: Give us free implements wherewith to produce. I once heard a lecturer, Sir, when I was younger than I am now, on the inhabitability of the planets round us, and the lecturer went far to prove that really there were inhabitants on the planet Mars. In later years I have thought often of that lecturer, and if I had any good reason for it I would like to go to Mars, should there be people there, and meet its inhabitants. I would like to meet the people of Mars to see if there is anybody so foolish on that planet as to suppose that a good method of increasing your production is to increase the .cost of the implements, by which you produce. It seems so- ridiculous on the face of it. If a man. came fr'oim Mans who had not dealt with problems of this kind, who had an open mind and was free from prejudice on the matter, I would not he afraid, even if he passed through Toronto on his way, to convince him in a few minutes that one

of the easiest ways to increase production of food would be to make food free and to free from diuty the implements with which to do your producing.
I submit to the House and to the Government that, so far as the farmers of this country are concerned, especially the farmers of western Canada-and I have good hopes that there is going to be union of thought between the farmers of western Canada and the farmers of Ontario on -more things than the war-we should be given this opportunity of increasing production. And I was going to say, to finish the sentence as I began it, that the appeals to these farmers will fall upon deaf ears from a Government which persists in refusing to supplement its demand that the farmers should increase their production by giving them greater facilities, by making cheaper those implements1 with which they produce. What is the sense of stopping at tractors? There is no logic or sense in stopping there. Go the limit on this question; let ns have free implements all round. Then we will produce and produce hard enough and fast enough. I must not leave this point, without clinching it and completing it as far as I know how, by referring once more to the fondness which exists in the Cabinet, which rules this country at the present moment, for precedent, and even for precedent as they find it in the United States. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) has justified the Control Board and the expenditure of that Board, 'by the existence of a similar hoard and the expenditures made by that hoard in the United States. Daylight saving in Canada was justified by the Minister of Trade and Commerce yesterday -and he did not justify it in any other way that I can see-hy referring to the precedent of the United States and of the other countries of Europe. The logic is unbreakable. They have got free implements in the United States. For years and years the protectionists of this country used to say: it would he all very well to give you these free implements, hut look at the tariff that is against us in that country. That argument has now gone, by the wise legislation of the United States. You have the precedent of the States on that, as on other two things to which I have referred', and I want to bring this argument to bear upon my hon. .frieni the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I do not think the Prime Minister will he hard to persuade if the number of his colleagues in favour of this salutary measure is sufficient.
[Mr. M. Clark.!


Mr. W. F. OOCKSHUTT (Brantford):: There are some of his colleagues that you cannot persuade.
iMr. OFARK: I thought my hon. friend had left the chamber.


William Foster Cockshutt: Oh, no; he is right here.	,


Michael Clark: I will be very glad, indeed, to have my hon. friend smash my logic to atoms. I am glad he is here, and I hope he will speak immediately I take my seat, but he might make a better speech after he has read what I have said. I ask him, when he does speak, to say how the precedent of the United States can ibe good in daylight saving and in the matter of the Food Control Board, and bad in the matter of agricultural implements, and I should like him especially to tell me how he would convince that travelling inhabitant of the planet Mars that the way to increase food production is by making the implements by which to produce it dear.
I have spoken very sincerely, from convictions of a lifetime's duration on this subject. As 'a strong supporter and a well-wisher of the Union Government in the one specific and great purpose for which it was formed, I appeal to that Government to give earnest consideration to the remarks that I have ventured to address to them. I have come to the stage, Mr. Speaker, when I think it is well that we should all think this war may last longer than some of ns hoped. The longer the war is going to last, the stronger my arguments are. The longer the war is going to last, the more the problem must be grasped of raising all the magnificent amounts that can be raised from those boundless tracts of arable land that We have in western Canada. Let the war be long or short, we are in it to the finish, and we are in it to win it. I submit respectfully to this House that even a patriot like the member for Brantford (Mr. Coek-shutt) will not shrink from the sacrifice of giving awiay the petty duty on his implements if it is going to help to produce more and to win the war.


Joseph Read: to increase production in preference to anything else, and in connection with that it is our duty also to .increase transportation facilities, because, without adequate transportation facilities, increased production will be of very little avail.
Mr. W. F. COCK SHUT* (Brantford):
From this same spot a few moments ago, came some arguments to which I cannot quite assent, and I think perhaps I might be misunderstood if I did not place on Hansard my views in opposition to the speech made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark). He has taken upon himself to give the Union Government a little advice, and although 'I believe he is a thorough supporter of the Union Government, I do not know that he is aniy more [DOT] a supporter of it than I am, and I would advise the Union Government not to follow the advice given by the hon. member for Red Deer to-day.


Mr. MTURPHY:: Perfect union.


William Foster Cockshutt: I claim as much
sincerity as the hon. member for Red Deer possesses, and he possesses a lot. He says that three sons of his are serving overseas. I am on a par with him in that respect, because I also have had three.sons serving overseas. In that respect, therefore, we stand together. I think I was the first member in this House to ask for the appointment of a Food Controller, which is the question under discussion to-day. I did not at that time ask for free food, that is, food to come in free of duty, and I do not ask it now. I believe the farmers of Ontario do not ask it, even if the farmers of the West do. The hon. member for Red Deer says that the farmers of the West want free food, and that free implements should follow in the wake of free food. As I understand the formation of this Government, it was the purpose to allow all such questions as the hon. member for Red Deer has raised to stand in abeyance during the war. The hon. member for Red Deer and myself are a unit so far as winning the war is concerned. We both believe in placing all the members of our family in khaki, and every member of the Cockshutt family that could go, that was fit, has gone, so that in that respect I do not take a second place to my hon. friend. The hon. member says that I could not defend my patriotism if I opposed the removal of the duties on implements. My hon. friend even went so far as Mars, and said that I should try to convert its inhabitants if I went there. I have not the acquaintance

of the inhabitants of Mars, and if they 'are as hard to convert as is the hon. member for Red Deer, I should, be wasting imy time. If the Government purpose meddling seriously with the tarifl, they are breaking what we understood in our section of the country was an agreement, that is, that those matters were to stand in abeyance during the war.
That is what we understood, and that is what we stated from the platform and that is what we now believe. The duties on implements cannot be removed' unices you are prepared to remove all the duties on all the raw materials that go into all those implements, and that would mean a tearing to pieces of the tariff from top to bottom. Let no one run away with the idea that it can be done with the stroke of a pen. A thousand and one things go into the manufacture of implements and, speaking as I do with some knowledge of that business, I want to say that if the hon. member for Red Deer is as efficient in his farming operations as the implement manufacturers are in their operations, he is making more money on the farm and doing it more efficiently than I give him credit for. It may be true that everything is being done on the farm that can be done, but if the farmers are just as efficient as the implement manufacturers, they have gone a long distance in the way of producing up-to-date articles at the proper prices. The implement manufacturers of Canada have been able to compete in the markets of the world where they have a fair opportunity, and they are prepared to do that now, but they cannot do it if you charge duties on .all raw materials that go into the construction of those implements, and_re-move the duty on the finished article. Many of those raw materials pay as much duty as the finished article, and up to 35 or 40 per cent. Every one of those articles which enters into the construction of those implements has diuty on it, and. thousands of workinigimen just as patriotic and honourable as any other body of citizens in Canada are making their livelihood out of the implement business. It is not a question of a few manufacturers; it is a question of tens of thousands of workingmen who rely upon this industry for their daily bread; and their wages, which are high, are bound up with the success of this great enterprise. I ask, therefore, that the Union Government take no such foolish step as the hon. member for Red Deer has mentioned.
Some hen. MEMBER: Oh, oh.


William Foster Cockshutt: cards in the windows. Nearly every housewife is carrying out the recommendations of the Food Board, endeavouring to reduce the consumption of those articles that we can best ship and which are required for our soldiers, and increasing the consumption of those articles that we cannot ship. All this is a matter of education, and the Food Board has done, and is doing, a splendid work in this direction. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Agriculture say in answer to the point raised by the hon. member for Wright about the tremendous salaries that are being paid in connection with the Food Board, that these are more than offset by the licenses given out to grocers and others dealing in foodstuffs. I believe the license system is an admirable one, and I have great faith in it as a regulator of food prices. If we have not food to spare a license cannot be obtained to ship it out, but if we have, then a license can say how much shall go out and where it shall go. I advocated that in this House over three years ago. I believe it is a splendid system, and if carried out in the spirit in which my hon. friend has explained it this afternoon, I believe it will have a very beneficial effect on the food resources of this country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 2, 1918.