1918-05-06

NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED.

[Stage Direction]
John Alexander Stewart, Esq., member for the electoral division of Lanark, introduced by Sir Robert Borden and the Hon.
J. D. Reid.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved leave to introduce Bill No. 72, to amend chapter No. 39 of the Statutes oE 1917. He said: One of the provisions of the War-time Elections Act was thait polling day 'should be |the twenty-eighth day after nomination day. That provision was inserted by reason of the enactment in regard to military voters. As the Military Voters Act does not apply to byelections, it is not desirable that there should be an interval of four -weeks instead of one week between nomination day and polling day, in the case of by-elections. The purpose of this amendment is to provide that paragraph D of section 2 of the Wartime Elections Act shall apply only to a general election.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
MILITARY SERVICE ACT VOTE-PAIRS. On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. I. E. PEDLOW (South Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise to a question of privilege. I find in the Renfrew Mercury, of Friday, May 3, the following:
The editor of the Mercury, happening to pick up in Toronto a copy of Hansard recording the votes in the Commons on the amended Military Service Act, was somewhat astonished to find that the M.P. for South Renfrew had failed to record himself on that issue.
I beg leave to state to the House that on that occasion I was paired with the hon. member for. Port Arthur and Kenora (Mr. Keefer), who was desirous of leaving for home on one of the night trains. At his special request and in order to accommodate that hon. member and with the permission and approval of the Liberal whip, I agreed to pair my vote and that was distinctly understood between myself and the Liberal whip. I wish to go on record as having been paired on that occasion, and if the hon. member for Port Arthur and Kenora were in the House I am sure he would corroborate my statement. Had I not been paired I would have voted against
the main motion-, as I had voted for the amendment exempting farmers.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle):: I ask the Minister of Militia and Defence (Major-General Mewiburn) if the sons of farmers are to be left on the farm for seeding purposes. I understood that the minister, when questioned from both sides of the House on Friday, gave us to understand that the sons of farmers were to be allowed to stay on the farm until a later date. In our district-Military District No. 3-they are already called; they were called immediately after the boys in the -cities had been called. The boys have been ordered to report on the eighth, ninth and tenth of this month.
I would like to know -if further orders will be given to the registrar to allow these boys to remain at their occupations on the farm for some time yet.
Major-General MEWBURN: Mr. Speaker,
I thought that the statement I made in the House last week was very clear. I said *that the registrars had been requested to send out notices to those in urban centres before they sent notices to the farmers. I stated that I believed that in some instances this direction had not been carried out in its entirety. There was no date specified at which the farmers' sons were to be called.
I announced on Friday that arrangements had subsequently been made by which these men must report as notified, and then on giving proper notification to the commanding officer of the battalion-, that they desired to go back to complete their sefeding, they would be given at lea.st two weeks' leave of absence for that purpose.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: treat them, as deserters. Arrangments have been made by -which, when they get their notices, they will get transportation to the points at which they have to report to the commanding officer. The commanding officers werq instructed by telegram on Friday to see, that those who get leave of albsence shall be supplied' with transportation bade. It will cause some delay but we are trying to expedite matters in every way possible.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Would it not be possible to notify these young men without having the country put to the cost of their transportation to and from divisional headquarters?
Major-General MEWBURN: We are endeavouring to do that now.



TORONTO, NIAGARA AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. MORPHY (N. Perth) moved the third reading of Bill No. 37, respecting the Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway Company.
Hon. I. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 
Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe):: The explanation of the minister is satisfactory, but I would like to have some additional information. Did I understand from the minister that the right Off way from Toronto to Hamilton is owned by the Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway Company?


John Dowsley Reid: The right of way is owned entirely by the Canadian Northern Railway system, through the subsidiary companies, as -stated in the information which I have just read. Let me repeat, in answer to the hon. gentleman, that the titles to the right of way acquired through Hamilton are in the name of the Toronto, Niagara and Western railway, Toronto Dwellings, Limited, and Canadian Northern System Terminals, Limited.' The titles to- the right of way acquired through St. Catharines are in the name of the Toronto, Niagara and IVe-stern railway, and Toronto Dwellings, Limited, All the capital stock of all the above companies is owned by the Canadian Northern Railway system.
-Mr. CURRIE: That does not clear the situation at all. The facts are simply these: The Electrical Development Company, or the holding company, the Toronto Power -Company, owns the right of way from Toronto to Hamilton. They also own the right of way from Hamilton to the Falls with the exception of a piece of land in Hamilton, a piece of land in St. Catharines and a piece of land in Toronto. The rest of that right of way is [DOT] entirely owned by the Electrical Development Company, or Toronto Power Company, and these companies -are not owned by the Canadian Northern, but by the Toronto Street Railway Company. My information, which I think is absolutely correct, is that the Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway Company has leased a right of way from Toronto to Hamilton from the Electrical Development Company
or Toronto Power Company. They have expended over a million dollars and they have only sold $100,000 worth of stock. I think that before we put this Bill through the Minister of Railways should tell us, for instance, how much of this liability is going to be taken over by the Government and how much is the rental to be paid annually for the right of way from Toronto to Niagara Palls, and whether the Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway Company, whose charter we are now renewing, has an agreement with the Electrical Development Company, to pay so much a year for the right of way? I have never yet heard how much that amounts to. I would therefore ask the minister how much he expects he will have to pay annually for the lease of this right of way, and whether, instead of acquiring an asset, we are assuming a huge liability. The Canadian Northern interests control the Toronto Street railway, but that is a different corporation altogether from the Canadian Northern. All this right of way from Toronto to Niagara is owned really by the Toronto Power Company . through the Electrical Development Company or the Toronto Street Railway Company, and they own the land from Toronto to Hamilton, and lease it to this company. What is the rental per annum, and what liability are we taking over by renewing this charter? I am safe in saying that in renewing this charter and continuing these obligations the country will be mulcted for at least half a million dollars of rental a year. I would like to know if the minister knows how much this railway company is obligated to pay annually to the Electrical Development Company, a subsidiary of the Mackenzie and Mann interests, and how much liability is assumed if we carry out this agreement? This company which we are virtually rechartering has no railway right of way, no tracks or anything else, and for a number of years it has rented a right of way over this ground owned by the Electrical Development Company. I think the minister himself will acknowledge that his information is not correct when he says t.hait the whole right- of way from Toronto to Hamilton is owned by this new company. I think he has been misinformed in that regard. The letter is very iskilfully written. It says that this company owns a piece of land in the city of Hamilton, also in Toronto and in St. Catharines, and that the title to all this land is in the Canadian Northern Railway Company. As a matter of fact, the title of that strip of land, the land through Hamilton, is not owned by

this railway company, but is owned by a company of Sir Henry Pellatt's, known as the Toronto Dwelling Company. It is believed that the stock of that company is all held by the Canadian Northern, and probably that is correct. The fact remains, however, that this company is obligated to the Toronto Power Company for the annual lease of the land between Toronto and Hamilton.


John Dowsley Reid: The statement I made disproves that statement altogether. It is absolutely wrong. The letter I have received, as I stated, came from the accountant for the Government of the Canadian Northern in Toronto. The Canadian Northern system owns this right of way absolutely. The Electrical Development Company have a right of way alongside this road. There is nothing in the statement made by the hon, member for Simcoe.
iMr. CURRIE: I can assure the minister of what I know are facts, and the titles examined in the registry office show exactly the condition of affairs as stated by me. If there is any right of way between Toronto and Hamilton owned by this company, it has been recently purchased. The Toronto Power Company own a strip of land one hundred feet wide running from Hamilton to Toronto. I am not a betting man, but I would be safe in betting any amount of money that not one inch of that land outside of the corporation limits of either Toronto or Hamilton is owned by anybody except the Toronto Power Company's subsidiary, the Electrical Development Company, but this railway company has a lease of it. I want the minister to state to the House whether this company owns title to those lands, or has a lease for this land, and if there is any liability for the annual rental for it. Before we pass the third reading, I want to be assured that this company, which we are taking over has n.ot to pay a large sum annually for the lease of the land between Toronto and Hamilton.


John Dowsley Reid: I may say that they have not to pay one dollar. There is no lease.


Mr. OAHILL:: I am not quite clear on the question as to whether or not we have a right of way from Toronto to St. Catherines or only a right of way in a part of Toronto. Have we a right of way between Hamilton and Toronto? That letter does not say so.
[iMr. Currie.]
'Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind hon. members that we are not in committee, and the minister has already spoken.


John Allister Currie: There are some questions to be put on this Bill which should he answered.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has exhausted his right to speak.
iMr. CURRIE: I move that the Bill be not read the third time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
John Allister Currie: Before that motion is
passed, I move that it Ibe not now passed, and that its title be not as on the Order Paper, but that it be referred 'back to committee.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon.- member is
not in order.
Mr. CURRI'E: I have the right to speak on any motion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member may move to change the title of the Bill but he cannot move at this stage to recommit it,


John Allister Currie: I move, if some hon.
gentleman will second it, that the title of this Bill be struck out.


Wilfrid Laurier: Before the Bill passes, II would like to know if this railway is one of the assets which is to he transferred to the Dominion under the Aet of last session?	.


John Dowsley Reid: This company is a
subsidiary of the 'Canadian Northern, and the stock is owned and controlled by the Canadian 'Northern Railway system,


Wilfrid Laurier: It comes to
the people of Canada now?


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, yes.
Motion that the Bill pass and that the title be as on the Order Paper agreed to.

A



QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. DEMERS:: 1.	Has the Government any knowledge of proposals made to the British Government looking to the development of the oil industry in the British Islands or other parts of the Empire in view of the present dependence of the Empire on foreign sources of supply for this essential to commerce and defence?
2.	Does the report of the Economic and Development Commission, appointed' in the first year of the war, to prepare for the problems facing the country after the war, contain any proposals for the discovery and development of oil deposits in Canada, outside the areas at present drawn upon?
3.	Will the Government lay on the Table of the House all correspondence and information as to the participation of members of the Government, and particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in any discussions in England during the period of the war, (bearing upon the advisability of pooling the resources of the Empire as a defence against an attempted postwar economic domination by Germany ?
4.	Is the Government aware that Canada is now almost entirely depending for its oil supply upon a subsidiary company of the 'Standard Oil Company, a foreign corporation, which has recently increased its capital, under a Dominion charter to fifty million dollars, with the likelihood that it may obtain control of any deposits of oil that may be discovered in 'Canada?
5.	Does the Government propose to take any steps to assure to the people of Canada the control of deposits of oil which may be discovered in any of the provinces?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	The Government has general knowledge of the efforts made by the British Government to conserve the oil producing resources within the Empire primarily for the supply of the necessities of the Empire itself, and in particular has arranged for such supervision of the development of the oil industry in Canada as will effect that end.
2.	No.
3.	Such information as is possible will be laid on the table of the House with regard to the official participation of the members of the Government in any conferences concerning best use of the resources of the Empire in connection with the present war, or conditions that may be encountered in post-war adjustments.
4 and 5. Answered by No. 1.
BATE, McMAHON & co.


Mr. DECHENE:: 1.	What was the amount of cheque No. 14341, paid to Bate, McMahon & Company of Ottawa, in 19M-17?
2.	Was said cheque duly authorized and paid?
3.	Wihat was the consideration for said cheque?
4.	Is the firm of Bate, McMahon & Company authorized to do Insurance business?
5.	Was the amount of said cheque refunded to the Government?
6.	If not, why?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	$816.38.
2.	Yes.
3.	Reimbursement to Messrs. Bate, McMahon for outlay on account of payment of Employers' Liability Premium, for insurance against accidents to employees engaged in construction work at Sewell and Calgary camps, in terms of contract with Department of Militia and Defence.
4.	No information.
5.	No.
6.	The matter of the refund of this payment is under consideration.


ST. CHARLES RIVER PROPERTY.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Did the Government take proceedings to expropriate the property owned by Belanger, on the St. Charles River?
2.	iHow much is asked for said property?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to stop the present works? If so, will it give up the expropriation of this property?
4.	Has the Government been informed that this property is not necessary for the works
' undertaken?
5.	What amount does the owner ask for the property which it is proposed' to expropriate?
6.	Is the Government aware of the fact that such property is covered with water at high tide?
7.	Has the Government paid any sum on account of the price of said property ?
Hon. J .D. REID:
1.	Yes, expropriated on December 22, 1915.
2 and 5. On November 12, 1914, Mr. Belanger offered to accept 23 cents per foot for the property but afterwards asked for a petition of right which was granted, and in which 35 cents per foot was claimed for part of the property and 50 cents for another part.
3.	(a) For the time being; (b) No.
4.	No.
6.	Part of the property is covered by' water at high tide.
7.	No.


EMPLOYMENT AT VICTORIA, B.C.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Has the Government been informed that in the spring of 1912, men were 'hired to go to Victoria, British Columbia, and work there as lumbermen, carpenters, painters, etc., at the rate of $3, $4, and1 $5 per diem, travelling expenses prepaid and' lodgings gratuitously provided for?

2.	Has the Government been made aware of the fact that, when the said workmen and mechanics had reached *Victoria, all travelling expenses were deducted from their wages; that they were paid only $2 and $2.50 per day, and that they had to pay for their lodgings?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to pay for these men's travelling expenses so as to enable them to return home?


Hon. Mr. CROTHERS:: We have no information touching the subject matter of this question except as set forth in the question itself. If the hon. member will put his question in a more definite form, giving us reasonable particulars, we will try to get the information he desires.
Question stands.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY-MOUNT ROYAL CITY.
Mr. KAY:: What steps, if any, have been taken to secure for the public, the Canadian Northern assets involved in the real estate enterprise known as Mount Royal City, at the western portal. of the Canadian Northern Railway tunnel through the mountain at Montreal?


John Dowsley Reid: All interests of the Canadian Northern Railway Company are the property of the company and the stock of the company has been taken over by the Government under Cap. 24 Statutes of Canada, 1917.


SOUTHAM PRESS, LIMITED.
*Mr. MURPHY:: Referring to the item "Southam Press, Limited, $44,207.98" in the Return brought down on April 30, 1918, as showing the publicity costs of the Victory Loan-
1.	What services were rendered by Southam Press, Limited, in return for the payments to them of the said sum of $44,207.98?
2.	Where were the said services rendered?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1 and 2. All work performed by the Southam Press, Limited, 19 Duncan Street, Toronto. Particular as follows:
To 20,000 labels for mailing	
To 1,550 gummed address labels
"Please Rush"	
To printing 2,172,450 copies "Questions and answers," 6 pages, 118,850 being in French and shipping same to various points throughout
Canada	
To printing and sending out postcards To 7,000 envelopes and time engaged in inserting 525,000 Victory Loan
buttons in envelopes	
To checking and arranging lists supplied by Mr. Stephenson and time engaged in placing same in envelopes supplied by the Government, also twine, wrapping paper and pulp board and time mailing
circulars	

To printing 2,193,750 circulars, "All
about it," 6 pages	 $10,567.46
To supplying 1,980',100 envelopes together with printing on same "A letter to you from the Minister of Finance"414,055 being in French. 12,234.08 To printing 1,980,100 copies letter
of "Minister of Finance," 414,055
being in French	  6,322.92
To printing 26,600 application forms
for loan	 47.00
To printing 1,085,400 postcards "Baby Poster," 3 colours one side, black
reverse	 2,170.80
To printing 1,647,000 telegraph blanks for the different telegraph companies "Victory is the only road to Peace and Safety" "Buy Victory
Bonds"	 1,261.17
To express charges paid by company on shipments of printed
matter to various points	 531.07
To 4,000 letter heads for Publicity
Committee	 22.60
To 4,000 No. 10 envelopes with
printing in corner	 43.40
To 250 printed folders for	vouchers	8.20
To printing 6 cards 26J x 22	 6.50
To printing 2,000 cards 85 x	11	 12.75
To printing 400 bulletins of instructions, 85 x 17	  18.65
To printing various circulars
1,700	copies circular No.	11,900	"	"	"	21,800	"	"	"	32.000	"	"	"	42.000	"	"	"	5	227.402,080	"	"	"	62.000	"	"	"	72,070	"	"	"	81,550	"	"	"	9Total	
$44,207.98


REGISTRATION, EAST PETERBOROUGH.
Mr. SEXSMITH:: 1.	Who is appointed Registrar under the Act for man-power registration in East Peterborough?
2.	Who recommended the appointee?


Mr. F. B. McCURDY:: 1.	Mr. R. B. Rogers, Peterborough, Ont.
2.	The Superintendent of Registration for the district.


DONALD HUNT.
*Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Is a person named Donald Hunt in the office of the President of the Privy Council?
2.	If not, is the name Donald Hunt used as a pen name by a person actually employed in the said office when signing communications to the public press eulogizing the President of the Privy Council?
3.	If the said name is so used, what are the duties and the salary of the person using it?
4.	Was the article published in the Toronto Globe, of April 26, 1918, under the heading of "Record of Important Deeds by Canada's War Committee," and stated to be contributed by Donald Hunt, actually written and sent to the Toronto Globe by Mr. Main Johnson, the Private Secretary of the President of the Privy Council?
$	40.50
9.50
6,952.48
52.00
219.50
3,450.00


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	No.	_
2,	3 and 4. The Government has no knowledge of the matter.


MRS. HAMILTON.
*Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Is there a Mrs. Hamilton employed in the Post Office Department?
2.	If so, what are her duties and salary?
3.	Would the performance of her duties call her to Halifax at any time within the past twelve months?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


POST OPRICK SITE AT GRAND' MERE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D'ANJOU:
1.	Did the Government purchase, in or about 1912, a property for the purpose of erecting a post office building at Grand' DVTSre?
2.	If so, what was the purchase price, and why was the building not constructed?
3.	For what purpose has said property been utilized by the Government since 1912?
4.	Has any rent or other revenue been derived from the property by the Government?
0.	Did the Government pay the municipal and school taxes in 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1915?
6.	If so, how much has been paid by the Government each year for (a) municipal taxes, (b) school taxes?
Hon. T. D. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) $15,000, (b) part of the property was under lease when purchased and the lease did not expire until April 1, 1915. After that date, in view of conditions since the outbreak of the war, the erection of such buildings was indefinitely postponed.
3.	Was under lease to different parties.
4.	Yes.
5.	Taxes were paid for the years 1913 and 1914. '
6.	(a) 1913, $60; 1914, $110, interest $5.84 and water $48.42, total, $224.26; (b) nil.


THE AUDITOR GENERAL.
Sir SAM HUGHES:: 1.	Did the Auditor General furnish itemized accounts of his own expenditure while overseas in 1916?
2.	If so, what was the total amount of such
accounts ?	.


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$1,537.03.


MILITARY SERVICE ACT.
*Mr. PARENT:: Has the Government the intention of ignoring the Military Service Act which authorizes the conscription of one hundred thousand men and
cause more men to enlist without Parliament being consulted?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: The answer to this question is in the negative.


CANADIAN AVIATION FUND.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has the Government received from the Canadian Aviation Fund, a new request for one squadron of training machines to be offered to the British Government?
2.	If so, what decision has been arrived at in the matter?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The subject will be taken up in the immediate future with the proper authority.


FRENCH TREATY.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. LEMIEUX:
1.	Has the Government been officially notified that France intended to abrogate her treaty of commerce with Canada in April, 1919?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to negotiate a new treaty with France?
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: No.


MR. W. F. O'CONNOR.
[Stage Direction]
#	Mr. GAUVREAU:
Referring to the question answered by the Government on April 29>th regarding the remuneration or salary paid to W. F. O'Connor for the twelve months prior to April 15, 1918, to which the Government replied that 'Mr. O'Connor had received, as Law Secretary $5,000, as Cost of Living Commissioner $2,000, and as General Returning Officer nil.
1.	Did the Government not pay to Mr. O'Connor on the very next day, namely, April 16. 1918, $2,000 for services rendered as General Returning Officer?
2.	For the twelve months prior to April 17, 1918, has not the Government paid IMr. W. F. O'Connor for services rendered, $9,000?
Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Yes, for services rendered and to be rendered.
2.	No. Mr. O'Connor's services in the Labour Department ceased on April 4.


GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS.
Mr. BURNHAM:: 1.	Which constitutes the ultimate authority for the appointment and payment of those employed in the public service, the people, as represented by the House of Commons, or the Government only?
2.	Has the public, through its representatives duly elected, the right to he consulted regarding such appointments^
3.	Does the Government make any appointment to the public service without recognizing the right of constituencies directly affected to be consulted through the members of Parliament representing those constituencies?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1. T,he people oif Canada as represented in their Parliament.



2 and 3. The Government exercises executive authority with respect to appointments, subject to the provisions oif the Civil Service Act, and the Order in Council of 13th February, 1918, as extended by subsequent Orders in Council. For such exercise of executive authority the Government is responsible to Parliament. Under the provisions of the Civil Service Acts and of the Orders in Council above mentioned, and of the Civil Service Bill now before Parliament when it becomes law, the members of the Government and members of Parliament are relieved of the exercise of patronage as set forth in the several provisions alluded to. In respect of appointments such as deputy ministers, etc., which do not come within the provisions above alluded to, and in respect of all matters of public interest, the Government is glad to have the views of members oif Parliament and is desirous of consulting them whenever opportunity offers.


L'ASSUMPTION-MONTCALM RETURNING OFFICER.
Mr. SEGUIN:: Aside from the amount of four hundred dollars already received by Dr. Louis Azarie Foisy, of L'Epiphanie, for his services as returning officer in tlhe County of L'Assom/ption-Montcalm, according to the information supplied by the minister on the 1st of May instant, how much is still due to this officer in connection with his services during that election?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The amount due has not been determined, as the returning officer has not yet furnished proper vouchers in support of his claims.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What was the amount paid for sending cablegrams by each department of the Government for the year ending March 31, 1918?
2.	What has been paid by each of the several departments for sending telegrams and telephone messages ?
31. Does the Government or any department thereof receive a special rate, or is the full commercial rate paid in connection with sending cablegrams, telegrams and telephone messages ?
4.	If not, is it the intention of the Government to endeavour to arrange for a special rate?
* Mr. MURPHY:
Referring to the item "Composition, Stereotype Mats shipping charges, etc., $2'0,3 60.34," contained1 in the return of amounts paid for Victory Loan advertising,-
1.	To whom was the said sum of $20,360.34 paid?
2.	Was the said sum or any portion thereof paid under contract?

3.	If so, with whom was the contract made, and what are the particulars thereof?
Mr. READ (Prince)-:
1.	What amount has been paid by the Government to each of the following newspapers: Charlottetown Guardian, Charlottetown Examiner, Island Patriot, Summerside Journal Agriculturist, Pioneer and Farmer, Charlottetown Herald, Charlottetown Watchman, from the 1st of August, 1914, to the 1st of January, 1018| '
2.	What portion of the amount so paid was for advertising in connection with the war?


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: What were the gross earnings of the National Transcontinental Railway for the year ending 31st March, 1918 ; how much was earned between Moncton and Quebec, between Quebec and Cochrane Junction, between Cochrane Junction and Winnipeg, and between Lake Superior Junction and Fort William, and what amount has been paid by that railway to the Canadian Pacific for terminal charges at Quebec?
* Mr. LEMIEUX:
1.	Has the Government notified the civil servants who have enlisted with the first contingent with the understanding that they would receive their salary besides their soldier's pay, that they would now only receive their soldier's pay?
2.	How many civil servants enlisted under that agreement?
3.	What is the total amount involved by the proposed reduction?



THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the debate on the motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean (Acting Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the -Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means (resumed from May 3.)
Lieut.-General Sir SAM HUGHES (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the House owing to the fact that I am -suffering from a rather severe cold, but it may turn out for the best, after all, in *that my remarks will necessarily be curtailed.
At the outset I wish to compliment the Acting Minister of Finance (Hon. A. K. Maclean) on the plain, unadulterated, and modest financial statement which he has -submitted. On t'he occasion of its delivery I remarked that it was the first intelligible Budget speech that I had heard for a good many years. Those of us who were members of the last Parliament will remember that about a year ago I felt called upon to express in the House my views of the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. K. Maclean) as financial critic of the Opposition. I have pleasure now in saying that his co-nstruct-iveness in formulating an intelligible Budget has been very successful. The plain, simple manner in which the financial state-

ment was presented has satisfied the House and, I think, the country as a whole. I therefore have pleasure in expressing my appreciation of the work of the Acting Minister of Finance.
If I may be permitted, 'Sir, I should like to place on Hansard a few ideas concerning democracy and the right of Parliament and the public to free speech, as far as that is consistent with the carrying on of this war to a successful issue. Undoubtedly the liberties of England, which have spread to other lands, are largely due to the fact that from time immemorial Englishmen have claimed the right of free speech in Parliament and in the press. True democracy is open, frank, free trust in the people, bogus democracy, or autocracy, fears the people, suppresses the facts and suppresses the people as far as it may. Autocracy is mistrustful; autocracy imposes restrictions and repression. Chloroform is a .splendid anesthetic, but it is a mighty poor food, and even as an anesthetic it must- be carefully administered. I therefore deprecate anything-like the imposition of chloroform methods in connection with public affairs, whether those of the country generally or those pertaining more particularly to the war.
We hear over and over again in the press the cry of the autocrat, or the imbecile- for the two are very often the same-that in war democracy fails; that democracy cannot meet the situation caused by war. I have been a careful reader of history and a student of matters connected with the war, and I have yet to see the situation presented during this conflict, whether in Britain, Canada or France, that could not be successfully met by the application of the old methods of responsible government to which we have so long been accustomed. No situation can arise that calls for autocratic methods which are not in harmony with the principle of responsible government. We have had a recent illustration in Canada. On a. certain occasion a certain gentleman in a certain place wanted to give utterance to certain ideas. Every restriction that gentle autocracy could devise was placed upon him, without success. Free speech and free action have settled and calmed the great Dominion of Canada to a greater degree than any one could believe possible, and they have most successfully alleviated the situation. Repression is always the policy and the practice of weak and incompetent men. The freedom of the press must be maintained; the press must be given the opportunity of
94*
selling itself, or not, as it chooses. The press must be left free. As the poet says:
If the ways to hell are free,
We leave them free to Heaven.
I think, therefore, that the press should be left absolutely free and untrammelled, each newspaper being allowed to conduct itself in its own way, as far as possible consistent with the rights of the people in this great war. Recently it has been my privilege again and again to see some censored articles that have been prevented from going before the people. Really, one would scarcely believe it possible that men of such narrow vision could be found as to repress and cut out section after section of articles that have been published again and again in England. If you talk with any one coming from England you will find that things are known there concerning our forces and concerning everything that is going on which are religiously suppressed: in this great Dominion. I do not know who the censors are; I assume that they are men of great breadth of judgment, soundness' of conception, and so on. I do not know whether they are inspired by some of the.se new councils and committees that are being formed; I know nothing about that, and care less; but I do say that the repression and censoring of articles that should find their way into the public press should he stopped. We knew that we got a trimming at Cambrai; what was the us© of trying to hide it? We knew that we got a trimming at St. Quentin; what was the use of trying to hide it? Let us, like men, roll up our sleeves and say to the enemy: It was your turn then; we will meet the situation and in a very short time the tables will be turned; our boys will 'be on the attack and the German hordes will be rolling back over the very ground on which' they advanced a short time ago. That is the spirit that should prevail among the people.
We had a secret session of Parliament here; I ask every bon. gentleman who was present at that secret session whether one word was uttered which might not fairly and squaiely have been published broadcast in the newspapers the day before or the day after the meeting? Not a word. To miy mind, this eternal fear of trusting the people is laughable. Who are the people? Who are we? Who are the Government, that they seek for one instant to muffle public sentiment or prevent the people from knowing what is going on? The Government is composed of magnificent honour-
[Stage Direction]
able gentlemen; I have not a word to say against them, but I do think that two or three good Cabinets could Ibe formed ont of the material found in the members of Parliament gathered around this Government. There is scarcely a township or county council in Canada could not furnish material just as good-I say this with all due respect-as that which is found in those who are carrying on the affairs of this country. There is method in my madness ; what I want to impress on the House is that we should trust the people. If some of the people I have mentioned could not make a better showing than some members of the Government, Hod pity them. Let us, therefore, be careful that, in seeking to establish democracy in Germany, we do not establish autocracy in Canada.
Some few months ago a general election was held in Canada. In the election campaign the one great issue that was set before the people was: " Strain every effort to win the war and to preserve the priceless gem of liberty, and do it quickly." We supported the Government and der-manded prompt action with efficiency rather than slow deliberate action without full efficiency. That was seven months, ago. In 1915, within seven months from the organization of the first Canadian expeditionary force, 33,000 men from Canada had crossed over to Great Britain, and between
15,000	and 20,000 of them had crossed to France and Belgium, and had immortalized themselves by winning one of the greatest victories in the world. These men, who were termed by gentlemen of repressive tendencies as untrained, .undiiscfplinedi soldiers, when they Were confronted in that battle with from ten to twenty times their number of Germans, .showed the world what democracy could do. It is my prayer and, I believe, it is the prayer of the Allied forces, that the remnant of that gallant band shall yet tread the soil ol Germany as conquerors and victors in this great struggle. Seven months ago the Military Service Act was brought in. Comment is needless.
This is a new House, composed of new men, independent thinkers, men not yet circumscribed by so-called party - discipline. True discipline in educational as well as in .military matters, means, as I have always maintained, freedom of thought and action, instruction, development, polish, capability, strength of character, and resolution. These are the characteristics of discipline, according to the proper interpretation, of the term. The so-called discipline is merely repression. The

members of this House are not yet influenced as the party whips mildly crack the lash, but they are strong, capable men, resolute of purpose to help this Government and if necessary, to compel this Government to live up to its preelection promises in regard to winning the war, and to go as far and as fast in that regard as the Government chooses to go. We are behind the Government's back until the finish. The people at large impel hon. members, while they in turn, in firm, kindly ways, will inspire the Government to action. The aim which actuates this House is to help to win the war; to help to smash the enemy; to help to maintain pure and unsullied the freedom our ancestors won and which they have handed down to us; to help to overthrow and root out every vestige of tyranny to be found in Germany, aye, or in Canada,-and, let it be done quickly. Action is- the word. I know I voice the sentiments of my colleagues when I urge the Government to full, energetic, effective and whole-hearted action, and I have said, we are behind them as far and as fast as they choo<se to go. along those lines. The true people of Canada, worthy of the fullest trust and confidence, stand behind us and them. Let chloroform methods, therefore, disappear from the public life of this country, and let true democratic principles prevail.
There are immediately before the people of Canada four great problems. There is another problem which I look on as an after-the-war problem, of which my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Calder) has charge, and which I regard as only second in importance to the furnishing of men. These four problems are food, money, inspiration, and men, and in these the problems of producing and saving in producing and of spending and saving in spending, are simple. With the production of food I shall not detain the House, as that matter is in good hands. Production has been hampered by the cost of agricultural implements, not so much on account of the duty as on account of the long term notes and high cost of financing these articles. As regards the saving of food, it may be noted that at the beginning of the war, it cost a great deal of money to dispose of camp refuse. We set to work, however, and turned what had formerly been a great source of expense into a source of revenue, and I have every reason to believe that the Minister of Militia has been carrying out the plan laid down in the early days of the war. All the garbage of the camps was

turned into a source of revenue. Hundreds of hogs, and in some camps, thousands of hogs were fed and sold, and in that way the country reaped large sums of money. I would respectfully suggest that if1 the Food Controller wants some simple lines upon which to act, he might consult General Langton, who is now Paymaster General at headquarters, and Colonel Mullin, of Winnipeg, who has had a good deal of experience in this matter. At the start, the quantity of rations issued to the men was here and there a little too great. This excess was claimed by those people as their own property and was disposed of in ways which we did not consider to be to advantage of the people of Canada who were footing the bills. Accordingly, we formed plans which we put into operation, and I have it on the authority of the Paymaster General who has recently retired, that up to that period we had saved upwards of $2,000,000 on little odds and ends in connection with rationing alone. The same policy was carried out on the other side, and by saving in little things in our food production, we saved very large sums of money to the Dominion of Canada. I believe all these plans, perhaps with improvements, are being carried on by my successor.
Let us next take up the question of raising money, and saving it while we are raising it. I regret exceedingly that the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) is absent. We miss his genial smile and presence. I regret his illness very much, but there are conflicting reports regarding it. The House was one day officially informed that the Minister of Finance was ill. The next day the press agencies of California offered to the press of Canada a message of a thousand words comprising an interview which had supposedly taken place with the Minister of Finance and (proving that he was not ill, but that he was in the best of health. That report was confirmed by travellers and others who had the pleasure of meeting the Minister of Finance in California. The House was subsequently informed that it was the purpose of the Minister of Finance to return to Canada, but he was importuned not to return to this country until his health was fully restored, but to go to Washington. There has been considerable comment , throughout the country on these statements. I do not wish to enter into them, but there is nothing that the public like more than to be fully trusted, and nothing that they dislike more than to find themselves sidetracked. I shall not use any stronger terms.
One is impelled to ask this question: Is the real aim in this regard to help the boys at the front to win the war, or to help certain directors to retain peaceful possession and control of munitions and money raised by this Government?
At the outbreak of the war in 1914, times were hard; depression was found on every side; dinner pails were empty, and'poverty stalked through the homes of the land. The Minister of Finance declared that he could not finance for more than 20,000 men, and objected to sending 33,000 men overseas. He was reasoned with and urged to raise sufficient revenue, and finally we got the
33,000	men across. I shall not enter into the details of this, because they are all [DOT]well known to hon. members and to the people of this country. Lord Kitchener, early in the war, cabled me for 200,000 [DOT]shells, asking me to get them made in the United States of America. I shall not enter into this matter further than to point out that at once the idea of raising revenue and making the country prosperous presented itself to us, and the shells were accordingly made in Canada. The only member of the Government whom I consulted on this matter was the Prime Minister, and in all fairness to him I must say that on that and every other ' occasion I got every assistance and backing from him. It was impossible to get these two hundred thousand shells made in Canada at first, because our manufacturers and financiers lacked confidence, and it took a week or more to get the thing under way. But I knew that if once the thing were started, money would come into this country; we should have plenty of money in the banks for carrying on the war and for any other purposes for which we might require it, and the dinner pails would be filled. The plan was that I was to act as Lord Kitchener's direct agent. The Shell Committee was set up, who were to make contracts for shells with me, as the representative of the British Government. Several questions came up; for instance, whether we should use basic or acid steel; then there were the questions of copper and zinc and explosives and of procuring fish and other supplies in this country. But these are all old stories. Suffice it to say that in a very short period thereafter we had money in Canada in every bank, and in the pocket of every man and woman throughout the length and breadth of this land. We had a period of prosperity such as we had never experienced before. Upwards of one billion and a half of money was deposited in the
[Stage Direction]
banks in this country at three per cent or less.	.
A good deal has been said about profiteering in connection with the manufacture of munitions. I have made a careful analysis, but other hon. gentlemen in this House are better posted, having gone into the matter more in detail. Briefly, the record is as follows: Twenty-five per cent of those who entered into the manufacture of munitions completely failed and lost their money, and I have yet to find any person express the slightest bit of sympathy for any of these poor beggars who put up their own money-not the Government's money as was done in Great Britain and *the United States, but their own money- and then failed in the manufacture of munitions. Fifty per cent came out -a little more than even, and about twenty-five per cent, owing in some instances to good work and in others to slight encouragement from the Munitions Board and elsewhere, succeeded in making money.
Upwards of a year ago the United States entered the war. Then they wanted shells, and our own industries not being very buoyant at the time, I personally took steps with a view to having the United States get a proportion of their shells and other munitions of war made in Canada, but the Chairman of the Imperial Munitions Board declined at that time to permit American [DOT]munitions to be made in this country. I had this in view: We were making munitions for Great Britain; large sums of money were being raised in Canada for making munitions, not for the Canadian Government alone, but for the British Government as well. The British Government could have had these supplies made in England, but so long as we could raise the money in this country they turned the work over to us. At that time we had an adverse trade balance against the United States, we owing them, roughly, four hundred million dollars, and I felt that we could pay that off and restore the equilibrium of exchange, and make money for Canada, if we could make shells and munitions of war for the American Government; and I still hold that view. But as I have said, Canadian manufacturers were not permitted at that time to manufacture munitions for the United States. Later on, it is true that after considerable agitation arrangements were made whereby these munitions were made in Canada, but in the meantime a number of our fellows, wearying of doing nothing in Canada and despairing of this arrangement ever being brought about, established their plants in 
the United States, and to-day our manufacturers have plants in the United States at Buffalo, Batavia, and twenty other places I could name, where Canadian capital is being employed in making munitions for the United States Government. In my opinion, these munitions should have been made by the factories of our own country. Then the balance of trade would have been in our favour, and we should not have had to pay from two to two and a quarter peT cent exchange when sending money to the United States. I am not saddling responsibility for this directly on the Government, but I say it would have been money saved for this country. So much for that.
Money has been lost or wasted in Canada in the following, among other, ways: The National Service Commission was time and money frittered away and wasted. I have discussed that matter before in other sessions, and shall not take it up again to-day. The Canadian Home Defence Force was also time and money frittered away. The Military Service Act has cost the individuals of this country affected by it many many hundreds of thousands of dollars. I know one young man who has had to spend upwards of fifty dollars, through no fault of his own, in running back and forth to tribunals and for medical examinations. The Act has not only been an annoyance to the people of Canada, but a tremendous bill of expense as well. I might interject here that when the Act was introduced I appealed to the Government, both privately and on the floor of the House, to enforce the Militia Act, as it would much better fill the bill. We could have called out three or four hundred thousand men for training in Canada, and out of that number who would have been training in Canada last fall we could have secured at least .two hundred thousand volunteers for the front; and if they would not volunteer, we could have, sent them to the front under the Militia Act just as we are sending them to-day. Under that Act we could also have conscripted other men for any useful employment in the Dominion. I am satisfied that if that Act had been applied, there would have been no trouble and everything would have gone on harmoniously. Many of these boys object to being called conscripts, but after a week or two they are just as keen as the lads who volunteered early in the war, and I am satisfied that with a few amendments to the Militia Act, and a few regulations here and there, we could easily have got two hundred thousand men more than we

have to-day, and I know they would have been much better trained. However, that is past, and I do not want to raise ghosts.
I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not present, because another place where I .think a great deal of money has been wasted is on the so-called Dominion Police officers running up and down the country, riding on the trains, and arresting everybody except the men they should arrest.
I have again and again submitted a list of the people in the county I have the honour to represent who should he taken, but hot one of them has been approached yet. On the other hand, I could name fifty decent fellows whom the Act does not affect at all who have been bagged and put to all sorts of inconvenience and trouble, kept waiting hours and sometimes days by the so-called Dominion Police officers rambling up and down the country. These officers should be put to some useful occupation; sawing wood would be very congenial.
Another place where money has been deliberately wasted, in my opinion, is on the War Lecture Bureau. I do not know yet what its purpose is, or how it is composed, or who was responsible for selecting its head. But I realize this, that ninety-nine per eent of the people in the county I represent can deliver just as good lectures as the men who are sent there to lecture to them.
Wilfrid Laurier: Better.


Samuel Hughes: I believe that the
Bureau has been established, not to educate the people on great national subjects, or to maintain the spirit of our people, but along lines congenial to the hon. gentleman who has been instrumental in setting this thing up, and he has certainly added insult to injury so far as I am concerned by placing at the head of the Bureau a man who year in and year out has persistently blackguarded, maligned and lied about me in every imaginable way.
If the hon,. gentleman thinks I am going to permit any fiddling concern like that to go up and down the country robbing the people, all I can say is that he is reckoning without his host. I shall expose them on every occasion. I look upon it merely as a four-flushing performance and as un-der-estim,ading the intelligence of the people. There is not a line they send out in these circulars that cannot be sent out by the newspapers, and the information can be better placed before the people through the medium of the Press than by these lecture bureaus which are performing
up and down the country. I am sorry to think that the Government could bo so hoodwinked and I cannot understand what was the strange, unseen, hidden hand pressure that these gentlemen were able to put upon the Government of the day to induce them to permit this sort of thing and to impose upon the people and on the treasury of the country. There is nothing like talking out in meeting and having the facts put clearly. I know what the sentiment of the country is and I feel satisfied that in what I have said I have only expressed the sentiments of the people, ^ Furthermore, we are to have a Registration Board, or something of that kind, the only difference between the registration now proposed and under the National Service Board being that whereas this is compulsory the other was not. In a widely scattered country like the Dominion of Canada any such registration as that which is proposed is doomed to a miserable failure. The records will show in a very short titne that the whole thing is a farce, that it cannot accomplish any useful purpose that might not be accomplished by taking up the voter's lists or consulting the assessment rolls in any township or municipality in Canada. It can all be done in that way, but, if we are only to get lists of men and little girls who are willing to go out on a farm-why it's piffle. In a great country like this, thousands of miles in extent, you are going to ask a man who saws wood here if he will go and work some place else and you are. going Lo get some little girl in the Civil Service to give up her job, go some place else, put on a pair of breeches and pick berries. The thing is ridiculous and I wonder that any man with an ounce of common sense in his head ever thought of such a thing or allowed it to be undertaken. What is the malign influence, what is the hidden hand which this gentleman seems to exercise in connection with this war lecture bureau and this registration business?
Another waste of money is in having two Militia Departments. We have one Militia Department here presided over by a mighty good fellow. We have in England another Militia Department. I asked a question in this House last year and I received a deliberate mis-statement- in reply, regarding the number of people employed at Argyle House. I knew it was a falsehood at the time, hut I let it pass.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman is not in order in saying that the Government furnished him with a deliberate

mis-statement and that remark should be withdrawn.


Samuel Hughes: Did I say that the Government ifurnis'hed me with a deliberate mis-statement?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I so understood the hon. gentleman.


Samuel Hughes: I said I was furnished.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: By whom?


Samuel Hughes: I did not say. At all events, the facts were not made public, and I a.m in a position to say now that two weeks before the answer, such as it was, was given in the House there was a great cleaning out. There was a hurried clearing out of the fellows in order to reduce the number of men who had been hanging around Argyle House and kindred places at that time. The quibble-I can say that- and I do not charge any one here with being guilty of quibbling-was this : they limited the answer to a number of people employed in Argyle House, but it should have included the number employed in four or five other buildings, I understand, in the immediate locality. If half of that army of employees had been behind Gough when the line broke ah St. Quentin the German attack might have been checked. We have a great many men in England, some hundred odd thousands, and, according to the returns which we get, there are only fifteen thousand	or	sixteen thousand
fit to keep up the strength of the men in the trenches. The money is going to pay for the service of 'the hundred thousand men we have in England and ifor those who are (doing very little work, whereas the same work is being done and duplicated here. This work should be and could be done here. Under the old system General Carson and thirty men did the work in England which is now being done by hundreds of imen and minister surrounded by his retinue. I shall not say anything with regard to the way in which the work was done in those times, .but if a comparison be made between then and now it will be entirely in favour of the old system.
I desire to say a word about that magnificent young officer, General Turner, who was put in command in England. When that happened I wrote him and warned him that he was committing military suicide.
I pointed out to him that it would he utterly impossible for any man to carry on the

work of his command circumscribed as he was and with such a minister a< he had. There was loaded upon him without his c ,nsent an officer who had no more conception of a democratic army than a hen has of logic. That is the way that p^oi Turner has been driven from pillar to post. General Turner was one of the best officers that ever entered the field and one who always kept in view the necessity of saving the lives of his men. He would carry out his plans in such a way as to minimize the loss of life. He first looked after the lives of his boys. He would not send his men up against machine guns as some officers do with reckless disregard for life. No body of men can stand up against machine gun fire; it will mow them down by thousands.. Two machine guns brought down eighteen hundred British soldiers at the Battle of Neuve Chapelle before the position was finally captured. The idea of rushing men up against machine guns may look nice in the papers hut General Turner had too much regard for his men to have them butchered in that way. I notified the British Government when I was Minister of Militia and Defence protesting against sending our Canadian boys up against machine gun positions without any protection in the way of shields and I said that if they continued to do so it would be my duty to provide them with a bunch of Texas steers because they would afford the German machine gunners the same amusement and practice as our gallant lads would, and would make just as good targets for the machine guns as would our men. General Turner would have made a magnificent corps commander in the field if he had been put in command of one or two Corps when the Dominion had the honour and credit of sending her brave boys to the front. But, he is held in London and as a result the career of a gallant soldier is blighted. The minister, under whom this has been going on has no reputation of his own to blight.
There is another reason why a great deal of money was lost last winter and that was because of the absence of motive power on our railways. The whole trouble last winter was not the want of coal but the want of motive power to haul the coal. The daily consumption of coal per locomotive on our railways is usually about four or five tons, but last winter they burned double that quantity and they could not haul more than half a train. If they had spent money to get motive power on the railways traffic would have moved more quickly over the

different lines. The Government should get the advanced idea rather than the repressive idea.
The question of loans is a very interesting subject of discjission. In this matter not only millions but tens of millions of the money of the people of Canada might have been saved. With your permission, Sir, I shall read an extract published, I think it was in 1915, in The Courier, a standard publication in the city of Toronto, and I shall assume responsibility for the statements in it because I have the whole thing in detail. However, I shall not weary the House with those statements to a greater extent than is set forth in the article in the Courier, although I have an analysis of all the loans. This refers, to the best loan of the lot, one for $46,000,000, made in the United States in 1915, I think:
Did1 the Hon. Mr. Wihite Succeed in Wall Street ?
The Story of the Getting of Forty-five Million Dollars from Shrewd United States Investors.
Did Mr. White score a triumph, or was the triumph scored by Morgans and their associates? Will Canada lose ten million dollars by this transaction?
When the 'Canadian Government borrows money and agrees to pay a certain rate of interest, that transaction affects every borrower, public or private, in the Dominion. For example, if the Canadian Government will .pay only 3.J per cent., the Provinces will probably toe able to borrow at 3| or 4 per cent., the municipalities at 4 or 4$ per cent., and private borrowers at 4 k or 5 per cent. The Dominion Government, according to history, can always borrow a lit/tle more cheaply than the Provinces, while the Provinces borrow a little cheaper than the cities, and the cities a little less than the private borrower.
Incidentally I may say that I took up a paper the other day and saw where the city of Victoria, B.C., is to-day paying seven per cent interest, and some other city more than seven per cent interest, on loans.
Hence, every transaction toy the Dominion Government affects 'the Provinces, the municipalities and the private borrowers. Tire Canadian Minister of Finance sets the rate at which all borrowers shall pay. If the minister is careless or extravagant, and pays an excessive rate of interest, he forces all other. borrowers to pay a higher rate. If he is frugal and a good borrower, he helps all other borrowers to get money cheaply.
To take an extreme case. Supposing we had a lazy, small-headed bungling Minister of Finance at Ottawa who borrowed money on a large scale at seven per cent interest. The Provinces would be compelled to compete with him, and might have to pay 7i per cent. Then the municipalities would, have to compete with the Dominion and the Provinces in the money markets, and would have to pay 8 per cent. Private borrowers, say railways, traction companies, manufacturers, and so on, would be
forced toy competition to pay 9 per cent. Thus we see that every loan of a big nature must be made on terms which are set by the Dominion Minister of Finance.
Why We Went to New York.
With these circumstances in mind, let us examine the latest exploit of the Hon. Thomas White, .Canadian Minister of Finance. He is getting all the money for war expenditures from London. The British Government has agreed to help him in this respect. He has no difficulties so far as war expenditures are concerned. But if he has not enough money to pay for other expenditures, such as canals, post-offices, armouries, docks, dredging and other public services. He must borrow elsewhere.
Now, Hon. Thomas White needed forty-five million dollars to meet the deficit of the year 1915. Whether there ought to toe a deficit or whether there ought not to be a deficit is not a matter to be discussed here. There is a deficit and that deficit must be met. Therefore the Hon. Thomas White arranged with the Bank of Montreal, J. P. Morgan & Co., Brown Brothers & Co., First National Bank and National City Bank of New York to raise the necessary forty-five million.
There can be no objection to our going to New York to borrow. It is practically the only market open to us, though the Dominion had never gone there before. The Provinces and the municipalities have been going there since the war broke out. They have borrowed over a hundred millions in that city during the past twelve months, and they also got their money at reasonable rates. Moreover, Canada is buying so much more from the United States than we are selling to that country that it was difficult to pay for all we wanted. The rate of exchange was therefore against us. A big borowing like Mr. White contemplated would help to restore the balance. That is, the Dominion Government would get Its money not in cash, but in credits due American firms by Canadian creditors. Thus it would be beneficial all around -and prevent the necessity of sending $45,000,000 in 'gold to New York to pay our debts there.
How the Rate was Decided.
So far so good. The next point for Hon. Thomas White to consider was "What rate of interest shall I offer the New York bankers?" In deciding this he had several points to keep in mind. In the first place, the New Y'ork bankers were anxious to see Mr. White borrow there. They iwere willing to make the loan. They are interested in seeing United States firms continue to sell largely in Canada, which they could not do if .Canada has no money to pay for goods. It was just as vital to the United States to lend us that money as it was for Canada to get that money. Each party to the bargain was interested. Hence Mr. White must have known that the situation favoured a low rate of interest.
In the second place, Mr. White knew that the Ontario Government was borowing there at five per cent, interest, and that the city of Toronto had got money there at five per cent. He would know, therefore, that he should be able to borrow in New York at 4| or 43 per cent.
In the third place he had to consider what other countries were doing. Great .Britain has just raised over three billions of dollars at 4J per cent. But this interest is subject to in-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Those, of course, do not count in the $400,000,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is right.
*Sir SAM HUGHEiS:	These, of course,
are not included in that $400,000,000?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


Samuel Hughes: Nevertheless these
,$150,000,000 were former issues of bonds that were transferred and came in under the higher rate of interest and better term? of the Victory Loan. Am I right there?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: I chanced to be in
New York city one day, and in conversation with a gentleman he asked me: " Why not buy some Canadian bonds of the previous issue, you can get them as low as 91 to 93, and you can take them up and plant them in this new loan at 97J and make money?" I told him I would be delighted to do it if he would loan me the money, that as I had only enough to pay. my hotel bill I could not indulge in the experiment. What did happen was this:	Bonds to the
extent of $150,000,000 were so bought up, and many of them, selling at that time from 91i to 93, were taken up and turned over; and I would venture to say that the average gain on each was at least 4 per cent. Six millions of dollars went into the pockets of brokers and speculators because of that little transfer clause in, the Victory Loan. I would suggest to the Acting Minister of Finance that he should make it impossible in future loans for a graft of $6,000,000 to be made out of the people of Canada. The brokers and stock gamblers of this country netted $6,000,000 by a little turn or trick in the placing of the last Victory Loan. Moreover, Sir, the man who invests his money in business takes his risks before the public. He has to pay an income tax on every dollar of profit above a certain per cent, whereas the man who acquired theee bonds by speculation on the market is free from that tax, and can profit to the full, extent. That is not fair to the honest purchaser in the Dominion of Canada, and I would like some one, sometime, to give me an explanation of why this sort of thing was permitted. I trust the Acting
Finance Minister will see to it that no such game is ever perpetrated again.
Speaking of- the Victory Loan, you can ask any banker, bank clerk, or any one handling these bonds, if any purchaser could understand the terms and conditions set out on the application forms. Unless they were paid up in full, the people have to come for them. Some have been lost in transmission. An army of clerks is required, and I understand that a new building is to be put up somewhere in Ottawa to handle this loan, when the whole thing could have^ been done for nothing. I was in Paris ini' 1915-16, when a loan was being offered there. There was a row of officers at desks.where the loan was being offered. A man would come in, ask for a fifty or one hundred franc bond, would whack up his money, the clerk would make out the bond, keeping a duplicate, and the original would be handed to the man when countersigned by the inspecting officer, and that was the end of it. There was no such paraphernalia such as we had in the Victory Loan. I know, as a matter of fact, how the bank clerks all over the Dominion worked, and worked for nothing. There was an allowance given by the Finance Department to the banks, but not for the work of these clerks, who worked at their regular business in the day time, and put in hours every night to help out this Victory Loan, and they got scarcely a "thank you" for their services.
Then there were bonuses paid to the brokers of upwards of $5,000,000. Does it not seem strange, Sir, that the returns from these brokers are not all in yet? I asked the Acting Minister of Finance the other day what brokers had handled this loan. He was trying to remember the pretexts that the President of the Privy Council puts up: he could not remember who these brokers were. The contract was farmed out to them, and they got many honest, enthusiastic people throughout the country to get out and canvass for the loan. I am satisfied that if a tithe of the energy had been used in other ways, the results would have been more satisfactory, although we raised, by offering the bonds at 5i to 6 per cent, $400,000,000 out of a surplus of a billion and a half, not counting the money put away in old teapots and stockings. These people should have jumped at taking these bonds as an investment, but we find only $400,000,000 coming forward out of a billion and a half to take advantage of this high rate of interest on the Victory Loan.


Mr.  D. C. BOSS@Middlesex West: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to follow the hon. gentleman seriatim through the various arguments that he made, or to refer in detail to his philosophical dispositions concerning the relative merits of autocracy and democracy. Every member of this House is fully seized of those merits or demerits, as the case may be. But when he was describing the demerits of auto-

cracy and the merits of democracy, I was reminded of the description given by an eminent English statesman of the tenets of the Liberal and Conservative parties. As I remember it, his .statement was that Conservatism was distrust of the people tempered by fear, and Liberalism trust of the people tempered by prudence.


Samuel Hughes: Who gave this definition?


Mr. ROSS:: Mr. Gladstone, I think. That definition fits- in so well with what the hon. gentleman was ascribing to autocracy and democracy that I wondered if he would accept it as a proper description of the standing of the two parties in this House.
I agree with what my hon. friend said when he took exception to the autocratic methods of this Government in legislating by Order in Council. Every true democrat in this country will concur in that. Indeed, many hon. gentlemen now sitting to the right of the Speaker, if they would speak their minds frankly, would condemn the Government for many of the steps they have taken by Order in Council during the last six months.
The speech of the hon. gentleman (Sir Sam. Hughes) was really a treat, as his speeches generally are. One was struck very forcibly with the love that must have prevailed between the hon. gentleman and the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) who is not now in his place; it must have exceeded the love of Damon for Pythias. One was struck also with the delightful unanimity that must have prevailed in the old Cabinet when the member for Victoria was a member of it. He charges this Government with more crimes and misdeeds than any member of this House has so far ventured to attribute to it-and 1 have no doubt 'that he is telling the truth. He says that their loans were bad and extravagantly made; that the interest was too high; that the lecture bureau was not right; indeed, that everything wras bad.


Samuel Hughes: The lecture bureau was a Liberal organization, I understand.


Mr. RGSIS:: I understand that it was part of the Unionist campaign, and that its object was to cause the people to believe that the Union Government was the only Government that this country ever had or should have. I agree with my hon. friend that members of this Parliament could be chosen who would make up a Government probably more able than the present Administration. I cannot see that the Government have adopted any policies
of exceptional value since they came into office; I cannot see that they have even lived up to all their promises. What puzzles me is this: if the Government are as bad as the member for Victoria would have us believe they are, why in the world is he sitting on the right side of the Speaker? Why did he support them in the last election?


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman is puttting words into my mouth; I did not find fault with the Government. /In order to show that there w'ere many able men on this side, fit for any Government,
I pointed out that many gentlemen here were eminently qualified to govern, even as members of this Government are.


James Hamilton Ross: I accept what my hon. friend says, but as I remember his remarks he said that from any township or county council in Canada men could be chosen who would form as good a government as the men on the Treasury benches. I do not know that that is very flattering to members of county councils. I know many members of the county council in Middlesex, men of eminence and pre-eminence, who could give members of this Government a few pointers as to how the affairs of the country should be run. However, I am willing to accept my hon. friend's view of the matter.
I was very much pleased the other night as I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson).
I know that he is a radical among radicals, and I admire him for it; I belong to that category myself. T agree absolutely with most of the conclusions he arrived at concerning the railway situation. I take exception to the action of Hire Government in increasing freight rates; it was improvident, extravagant, uncalled for, it placed an undue burden upon the producing people, and no good can come from it.
Let us take the figures which the hon. gentleman (Mr: Richardson) gave to the House. He pointed out that the increase of 15 per cent in the railway rates would mean an imposition of $45,000,900 m additional freight rates on the people of this country. He pointed out, moreover, that the increase in freight rates would cost the consumer from $45,000,000 to $50,000,000 in the amounts added to the prices of commodities affected by that increase. In other words, he pointed out, and, I think, he properly and accurately pointed out, that the people of this country, by this increase of 15 per cent in freight rates, were to be subjected to a tax of $100,000,000.

That was not a good business arrangement. The justification urged by the Government, namely, that they have taxed the Canadian Pacific the small sum of $7,000,000, does not meet the case. What are the facts? The railways of Canada, as the hon. gentleman pointed out, have been paid for time and again by the people of this country). 'We suppose that the Canadian Northern and some of the other raliways are at the present time owned by the people of Canada. We know we have been putting into their coffers millions upon millions of dollars in land and in money. We know we are still putting money into their coffers, and we are to be asked this session to put more money into' their coffers. I cannot understand the inaction of the Government at the present time, df looks to me as if they were trying to steer clear of the whole question. I cannot understand why this Canadian Northern matter has not been brought-before the House at an earlier date in the session. I do not understand why the Government had not urged the arbitrators, who are inquiring into the value of the Canadian Northern railway stock, to make their finding earlier, so that on the floor of the House the members who are sent here to represent the people can thresh this thing out and thus avoid further action by Order in Council.
If the members of the House saw, as I did the other day, the report of Lord Shaughnessy in regard to the Canadian Pacific, I am sure they were very much struck with that report. Lord Shaughnessy sayis that the Canadian Pacific has assets aggregating $818,000,000, that is for railway property. He says, moreover that, apart from that, the Canadian Pacific has extraneous assets

^ suppose land, and companies such as steamship companies-aggregating $253,000,000. What is this country doing?
What is this House doing? What is this Government doing? They are allowing this little institution, with assets over $1,000,000,000, to- impose a tax on the people of this country, in the way of additional freight rates, of 15 per cent. - This company will receive from $25,000,000 to $30,000,000 in the way of profits out of that tax. This company has immense assets 'and it is paying immense dividends. Those assets were made by the people of Canada, -and yet the people of Canada are asked to put into the treasury of the company $25,000,000 or $30,000,000, and the Government says, forsooth: We will take back from the Canadian Pacific 
$*,000,000 to relieve the taxpayers. That is an absurd, improvident bargain, one that this Government should never have made.
How is this increase in the freight rates going to affect the farmer? The farmer at this time is a very important factor in the winning of the w.ar. Probably he is the most important factor after the man at the front, if not as important. This increase is going to make the farmer pay both going and coming. This Government has seen fit by Order in Council to fix the price of wheat to the farmers at $2.21 per bushel at Fort William or Montreal, as the case may be. Then the Government says: We shall raise the freight rates 15 per cent. That means that the freight rates are taken out of the price of the farmer's grain, and he is, therefore, deprived of that amount of money for his grain. How does the increase affect the manufacturer? The Government has not put its unholy hand on the manufacturer. That would! never do. !The Government never seems to touch its friends-. It does not give the farmer free agricultural implements. It does not put a limitation on the price of binders, stating that they shall be sold for $200; but it allows then to be sold for $250. The farmer has to pay the price of the binder plus- the freight on it, because the manufacturer -adds the freight to the price. You have the farmer, therefore, losing both ways. He pays the extra freight rate on his binder, and he pays the extra freight Tate on his gtain. A much more sensible way to have arranged this matter would have been for the Government, if they must wait until the report of the Canadian Northern arbitrators has been received, to pay any deficits that may be incurred in the Tunning of those railways which they say they own. In that way they would save to the people the $30,000,000 which the Canadian Pacific would get, and if there is a small deficit it -can be taken out oif the public treasury and the Government can in this way economize in this time of stress and strain.
That brings me to another question which also touches the farmer. That is the question of production and free agricultural implements. Since I have been in this House,
I have had occasion more than once to vote for free agricultural implements. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) say that there was an agreement, implied or expressed, that the members for the West were going to lay aside all tariff issues during this session, and probably during this Par-

[DOT] liament. I was pleased on the other hand to learn from the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) that, as far as he was eoncerned, no such agreement existed. I do not think, in this free, democratic country, members of this House should come to Parliament bound by agreements pf any kind. They should come here free to vote in the public interest, and whether a party has to stand or fall, it should stand or fall toy that gauge of -battle alone. If at the present time production is very important; if it is as important as we believe it to be; if it is as important as this Government said it was six months ago and as, I think, they will still say to-day; if production is so important that they allowed tractors to come into this country free in order to increase production; if production is so important that advertisements for farm labourers have appeared in almost every journal in this country, I contend that the sole rule toy -which hon. members of this House should be guided in their action on a question of this kind is this: Are free agricultural implements going to help increase production; and is producing more going to help to win the war?
At the last election we on this side of the House submitted to insults, charges and attacks which we did not deserve. We were told that we were disloyal; we weTe told that we were not true to the Empire; we were told that we did not want to fight for the Empire, simply because we urged upon our people what had toeen urged upon us by the Government, namely, the necessity of production. All through my riding and in other ridings, that was the charge that was levied against us. Some of the [DOT]men who levied those charges against us are in this House. Those men who are manufacturers of agricultural implements have at the present time a fine opportunity of standing by the reasons they contended at that time led them to join the Union Government, and the same *may be said of the men from the West.
The Union Government, they said was to win the war. Now, if we can prove, and I think we can, that free agricultural implements are going to help production, and so help win the war, these gentlemen should not let their pockets or their politics stand in the way of their patriotism, but be manly enough to say, "We will give the farmer that relief, forgetting our own interests in the interests of the nation at large, so that we may help win the war." I do not think this- Government is giving the farmer a fair chance. I represent an
agricultural riding. I have tried to be absolutely honest in my actions in connection with this war, I voted for the Military Service Act. I told my people on the hustings I was prepared to stand by the sending of one hundred thousand men to the front.
I thought that probably the exigencies ot the case demanded that they should be sent.
I also told them I had spoken in the House in favour of exemption for farmers, and I still stand for that. But this Government, all along the line, are not giving the farmer and the agriculturist a fair show.
I have already cited the freight rates case, and will now give an instance in connection with the horse trade in this country. Every man who knows anything about farming in this country knows that horse raising is one of our greatest industries, and that the easier a farmer can sell his horses the more prosperous he will be, and the better able to help in a greater production. But since the war began, this Government seems to have only trifled with the horse industry in Canada. I put a question on the Order Paper the other day asking how many horses the Government had bought in Canada last year, and I was told that $212,000 had been spent on horses bought in Canada, for use in camps in Canada, as the Prime Minister afterwards explained. But on looking through the estimates of the Militia Department I see that for the year ending March 31, 1917, $3,400,000 was set aside for purchasing remounts for use on the continent, and I find in the estimates this year an item of $3,000,000 more for the same purpose. Now what are are facts? As far as I can get them, they are these: very few of the horses that have been bought with that amount of money have been bought in Canada. Why is this? Our horses are well known to be the best in the world on account of being the best hoofed, owing to the limestone in the soil, and they have as good legs as any horses in the world, which is a most desirable thing for horses used in war. The Government cannot say we did not have the horses in this country, for in the western part of Ontario horses are a drug on the market; many people are simply clamouring for an opportunity to sell their horses. But this Government, which pretends to look after the interests of the farmers and of production, arranges with the British War Office for a Remount Commission to come out here, and they take our $3,400,000 and use it for buying American horses. Train loads of American horses are passing through Sarnia and Windsor every day, as


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: Christianity.


Mr.  D. C. BOSS@Middlesex West: -that you are commercializing religious virtues or pretended virtues, but it would seem to me that both Christianity and humanized statesmanship demand' that you should keep your pledges. A pledge is a pledge and this Government should adhere to it to the letter. What is going to be the result? We are needing large sums of money to carry on this wrar. The hon. the Acting Minister of Finance says: "We would have to borrow $280,000,.000 to carry on the war. We will have to get it from the people of the country because there is no other place we can get it; we cannot sell our securities in the United States; we cannot get the money from Great Britain but we have to go to the plain people of Canada and1 get $280,000,000 to run this country and carry on this war. The minister will get some from the banks but in the end he will have to go to the people in the small towns and villages and on the farms and aisk them to loan the Government $280,000,000. The Acting Minister of Finance is going to have some trouble to convince the farming people of this country, and the people in the towns and villages, that this Government can be trusted with $280,000,000 to carry on this war after these various breaches of faith. I would not preach that doctrine among them because I want to see them give their rnone'y and I know they cannot get any better security, but what I have mentioned is going to have a very bad effect on the next loan that the acting minister has to float. There is going to be an absence of confidence and of faith. There is only



one way this Government can get back into such a position that their war-like operations, in so far as loans are concerned. can be successful- They have got to restore their pledge, wherever the breaking of that pledge is going to hurt production; they have got to say that the only son of a widow shall not have to go to war; they have got to say that a man who is on a farm, and the sole proprietor in his own name of one hundred acres, and who is doing the work on that farm, shall not be taken away so that the work on that farm will cease to be carried on, when he is between the age of twenty and twenty-two; they have got to say that the man between twenty and twenty-two, who, "while not the sole proprietor of the farm which he occupies, is the only help of his crippled and aged father, shall be left to carry on production. It is only in this way that the present Government can posibly hope to regain the confidence of the Canadian people which they have lost in such a marked degree [DOT]during the last four or five days.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us return to the question of equality of sacrifice, and to what I was speaking about in connection with the /Sacrifice of wealth. My contention is this: You are asking that the only son on the farm shall be taken away, and you are asking that the son of a widow shall be taken away, although the old Militia Act, [DOT]severe and all as it was, did not contain any such requirement. You are asking that every boy between the ages of twenty and twenty-two shall be taken from the farms [DOT]and placed in military service, except during seeding, which is in actual operation at the present time. Now, what sacrifice is this? A mother gives up her son, a father gives up a son, a sister gives up her brother. These young men risk their lives, they risk their limbs and they risk their liberty. You compel them by force to undergo that risk, you compel them to fight for Canada. My contention is that you should try, as far as you can, to equalize that sacrifice /by, in the case of the wealthy man, extracting from him suflficient of his income to make him feel it. From my point of *view the Income Tax which has been introduced by the Acting Finance Minister does not do that at all, or does not approach doing it. It will have to be increased very much indeed in order to do that. What do we find? We find that a man who has an income of $3,000, under the new Income Tax pays $20; the man who has an income of $6,000 pays $140; the man who
[Mr. D. C. Koes.j
has an income of $10,000 pays $392; the man who has an income oif $20,000 pays $1,382; the man who has an income of $75,000 pays $11,000. My contention is that the sacrifice does not consist in the amount that a man pays when he has more than an abundance left him. What sacrifice is there in a man who has an income of $10,000 paying $392 compared with the sacrifice of a widow who is giving up her only son, her sole means of support? What comparison is there between that sacrifice and the sacrifice of a father who is giving up a son? I maintain that the Income Tax introduced by the Acting Minister of Finance should be very much more drastic, and I agree with the hon, member for Calgary (Mr. Redman) in that regard. I would say that the taxation should start at $3,000 income and that the taxes provided for in the schedule should be doubled.
I would like to go further-although this may not seem practicable, but I think it is because you have already adopted the principle with regard to man service by providing that if a family has already a son at the front who has been disabled or killed the remaining son shall be exempt. I think, Air. Speaker, that in the case of a family having no sons at the front the income tax which that family pays, where it is over $3,000, should be double the amount which is paid by a family who has a son at the front. You may say: Maybe there is no son in that .family. Very well, my reply is, there are daughters who are being protected by the sons of other men and women that are being sent to the front, and that protection should be paid for. If the head of that family cannot fight he should be willing to pay for the protection of his wife and his daughters. The principle which the Government have embodied in their resolution with respect to service at the front, I wish to see carried out with respect to the Income Tax. It is not a hard principle to put into force, it is not impracticable when you consider it, because when the Government are finding out, in connection with the require- ' ments of the Military Service Act, whether a man has a son at the front or not, the same information can be utilized in connection with Income Tax if the departments are co-ordinated. In that way there is no difficulty about, the matter whatever.
There is another point I wish to allude to: I believe this Government are borrowing too much and not imposing sufficient taxes on the people at the present time to provide for the expenditure. What are

my reasons for saying that? We have in this country wealthy men who are making money out of munitions, out of food, out of bacon, out of shoes, and out of gasoline; people are making millions and millions of dollars out of all these things, and instead of increasing the taxes which these men pay we are borrowing millions and millions of dollars. What does that mean? It simply means that posterity is going to pay this debt that is being incurred. It simply means that when the 400,000 men or thereabouts, that are fighting our battles at the present time and doing their duty, return to Canada, after having fought and bled for us, they will be required to pay taxes which they should not pay at all. It seems to me that those of us at home, who have not gone to the front, should bear our share of the burden to a greater degree, and that more money should be raised by taxation, as is done in England, and that there should be less money borrowed.
These are some * suggestions in regard to the (Budget, but there is one further suggestion and I make it with some hesitation. I doubt whether it will be acceptable to the people, but at the same time I think it is right. The first principle of good taxation is to make those pay who can pay. Another principle is to tax luxuries. A tax of ten per cent has been placed on automobiles. That is all right as far a9 it goes, but the Government seems to lean towards loans rather than taxation. It would seem as though it were easier for them to raise money by loans than to raise money by taxation at the present time. But that is not the point, What we should consider is, what is the best method of financing. I contend that raising money by taxation, to largely finance the war, as they are doing in (England, is the best method to pursue. There is another thing the Government should consider: They are talking about taxing luxuries but so far they have not dene so. They have gone after the poor man. They want him to pay eight cents more on his pack of cards; they have already taxed his entrance to the moving picture shows, and now they are going to tax the films; they have put a tax on tobacco, and they have taxed tea and coffee. They have taxed all these things affecting the table, or the comfort, of the poor man. But what are the Government going to do with the gentleman who rides down the street in a sixty horse power Packard or Wolseley, or some other type of car, clothes himself in purple and fine linen, and dines sumptuously
every day? You are not touching his income to any extent. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that at this time no man in this democratic country should be allowed to have an income of over $50,000 a year.


An hon. MEMBER:: Less than that.
(Mr. ROSS: That is enough for any man in these days of stress and strain. You say to the man who is going to buy a motor car: "You have to pay 10 per cent on the price of that car.' If a car costs $1,500, there is a tax of $150 and the buyer consequently puts his price at $1,650. That is a pretty large tax. If that car is bought after the 30th April, that is the tax that must he paid. What happens in the case of a man who buys a car before the 30th April? Is he not just as much entitled to pay for his luxury as the man who chances to buy a car after the 30th April? Should not the first man's luxury be taxed just as much as the others? It seems to me that is the logical and only fair way. A man buys a car on the 15th April, and the tax has raised the price after the 30th April from $1,500 to $1,650. Instead of being fined, that man is made more wealthy, he can sell his car and make perhaps $75 on the sale. He is not hurt by the tax one bit. A very just method in this country would be to impose a small tax, a very -small tax, on the poor man's car, say a twenty horse-power car, and as the horse-power increases an increasing tax should be imposed. That is what is done in England. A man pays so much for the license of a small car, and as. the horsepower increases the license fee is increased. /I would say that on a oar of twenty ho-rse-power in our country there should be almost a nominal fee. This would not hurt any person very much, because the license fee, at least in the province of Ontario, is paid to the province, and the money is used by the Provincial Government to provide roads in the counties from which these taxes come. If there is to be a war tax on luxuries, it seems to me that would be a proper tax for the 'Minister of Finance to consider.
I may say, in closing, Air. Speaker, there is another thing which the Minister of Finance and the Government might do, which would almost reconcile the people who use cars to the imposition of a tax such as I have suggested. The Government will have to come to it before long as they did in England and the United States. My suggestion is to regulate the prices of foodstuffs and other necessities used in the daily life of the people. The Government

must come to it sooner or later. They should bestir themselves to look into the gasolene question, for instance, and to investigate under the 'Combines Act or the Enquiries Act, exorbitant prices charged by those who sell gasolene. Such action would meet with the commendation of the whole people. Gasolene is a necessity to-day. It is used on every farm in Ontario, either for a gasolene engine to cut silage or straw or feed, to pump water or drive a tractor. It is a necessity, we all know that. The Minister of Labour knows that.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: The farmer uses it to milk his cows.


James Hamilton Ross: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: In the Government
press.


James Hamilton Ross: The Government press at that. We have great problems before us. We have 220,000 labouring men at the front fighting for us, who are coming back to this country to help reconstruct it and build it up. I .submit that if there is one department of the Government which should be strong, and able to meet the needs of the workers, it is the Department of Labour. It not only has to deal with the labouring man himself, 'but with his food and necessities. I therefore submit, in all kindliness, to the Government that one of the most useful things they could do, just as soon .as this House prorogues, or sooner, is to look carefully into the Department of Labour and see that men are not dismissed at the whim of a mere young girl in the department, and that affairs are run in the best interests of the country.


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright):: Mr. Speaker, since this war began I have not been in the habit of criticising the actions of the Government. When the question of conscription was before the House last session, I gave my views upon that subject, and I have left the operation of the Military Service Act to the Government, and have tried to do my little share towards the winning of the war as I best saw fit. This afternoon I do no-t intend to criticise the Government. I will not even be as harsh as the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross), who invited the Minister of Labour, Mr. Crothers, to resign his portfolio. As to that, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the minister's own judgment, if he has judgment, should prompt the action. If he has not judgment, then his personal pride, after the manner in which the newspapers of the government of which he is a member have been speaking of him, should tempt him, at least, to preserve his selfrespect. If neither of these can affect him, then I leave his case to my hon. friend the

Prime Minister to deal with as he best sees fit.
The hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) said in the course of his remarks that there were four things absolutely necessary to be done if we wanted to win the war. The first * is food, the second, wealth; the third, inspiration; the fourth, men. Of wealth and inspiration I will not make mention to-day; I shall deal only with the questions respecting food and men.
I have listened to the member for Victoria (iSir Sam Hughes) for several years in this House, and I have read the speeches he has delivered out of the House. His addresses are inspiring, and the remarks which he made this afternoon are no exception. Just what caused him to accept the Prime Minister's invitation to resign has always been somewhat of a mystery to me, but I have no doubt that if he continues to give such lectures on inspiration as he gave us this afternoon, when he made certain references to the Minister of Finance, perhaps we will, through inspiration, some day ascertain the cause of the course which he took on that occasion.
I wish first to bring to the attention of the House-as seriously, I hope, as it has been brought to the attention of the country by those in authority to speak-the absorbing question of food production. We have had messages from our own Government, from France, from Italy, from England, that food, an^ still more food, is necessary. It seems to me that at this moment the question of men is secondary to the question of food. It is time for the Government to consider how many men they can send overseas next year, the year after, and perhaps the year after that-(because he is a great prophet who can foretell when this war will end. The Government should consider the matter seriously, rather than act upon sentiment, because they will be held strictly to account by public opinion in this country, in Great Britain and in all the allied countries, if they fail in what they have set out to attain- and they most certainly will fail if they proceed as extravagantly as they have proceeded thus far. Does the Government know how many men are at present available for service overseas? I challenge them to tell me how many men are available, having due regard to the number necessary for food production.
I wish to give a few figures which I have taken from the Canada Year Book of 191617, and from other sources. I approach this question from the point of view not of what England is or may be able to do, but of
what Canada is able to do and must do. The population of England, according to the last census, 1911, was 36,000,000 in round figures. One month before the -war the population of the United Kingdom was estimated at 46,098,249. These people are on a small island, and are doing what they can to meet the need for men at- the front and for food production. Steps have been taken there to push food production to the limit, while our Government has been inactive in that respect.
The population of Canada, according to the last census, was something over 7,000,000. I will not tire the House by giving the odd figures. The school population was
1,226,000.	In 1913 over 400,000 immigrants came to this country; in 1916, 48,000, and in 1917-18, 68,000, the latter coming almost entirely from the United States and Great Britain. It is safe to say, therefore, that we have .lost an average immigration of 350,000, which would leave the population of the country at 5,628,000. Then, 511,000 men are over 60 years of age, 500,000 are cripples and invalids, and 2,358,000 are females. If we deduct these figures, we have a remaining male population otf 2,258,000. The Tural population is about one-half of the total, and the alien population, according to the last census, was 212,000. The total male population of Canada between the ages of 18 and 45, including aliens, cripples and invalids, is 1,720,000 ; 717,000 people are employed in agricultural work. What was our population able to do for Great Britain immediately before the war? I commend this to the very serious attention of the members of the House. We were able to send to Great Britain $63,000,000 worth of grain, $5,839,000 worth of meat, and $30,000,000 worth of dairy products, a total of $99,365,0000. The Government say they are obliged to take young men from the farms for military service. Remember that that means taking men from a population of 1,720,000-and I am not taking into account men who have already enlisted and have gone overseas. I am not taking into account the men who may be in other parts of the Empire rendering service; I am simply taking into account what the male population of this country was in 1911, and I am giving the figures of the agriculturalists of this country, and of what they could produce. That production is infinitesimally email to-day for Great Britain; that production is practically nothing for the Allies, and the Government has realized that by calling upon the people of this country to produce and


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock, I was endeavouring to point out to the Government that they had failed in taking sufficient means to find out how many men we had in this country who might be available to fill up the ranks at the front. The second point I had attempted to make was that there was an urgent need for increased production and that the Government had not taken any steps to meet in an efficient manner the demand for food. I had said -that there was a cry from the farmers from one end of Canada to the other for a reduction in the Customs duties upon agricultural implements. To that cry the Government has so far turned a deaf ear.

With regard to the taking of measures to find out just how many more men were available, if this war is to continue beyond the present moment, the Government have done absolutely nothing. It is true that the Government have informed us that in the month of June next they will begin to make a registration of the man and woman power of this country. Here I would like to interject the remark that the women of Canada, since the 'beginning of the war, have taken a noble part. To the women of Canada is due all the conservation of food that has taken place. The women of Canada have been active in helping the Allies in every way possible. They have not sought any one point upon the battle field, but they have extended a helping hand, by way of the Red Cross, by way of contributions to the soldiers' comforts, by way of contributions to the Patriotic fund, by way of every possible contribution to the soldiers at all points on the battle front, and they have only asked that the soldiers for whom they have been working shall be soldiers who are fighting the battle for liberty, freedom and higher civilization.
With regard to the need for food production, we have -statements from different authorities. For instance, we have Lord Rhondda, who, up to a few days ago, was food controller for Great Britain, writing:
The Allied larder is dangerously empty, but we are carrying on in a resolute belief that we can rely on the people of North America to prevent our food supplies from becoming so diminished as to imperil the issue for which we are all fighting.
We have a statement from Sir W'illiam Goode, Secretary of the British Ministry of Food, to the following effect:
Few people have yet grasped the fundamental fact that Great Britain still relies on the United States and Canada for 65% of her essential food stuffs. Unless we can get this food, or nearly all of it, we shall peter out.
Dt. J. W. Robertson, chairman of the Advisory Council of the Canada Food Board, says:
Unless we can get more food now, we shall go under, and 1,000,000 people will starve. This is my conviction, and I know as much about the situation, perhaps, as any one.
The Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) said:
I cannot emphasize too strongly the absolutely urgent necessity for increased fo id production. The issue of the war may depend on the quantity of the food produced in Canada and the United States.
Mr. Herbert Hoover, the United States Food Administrator, says:

The cereal exports to the Allies from this continent are 45,000,000 bush, short of the amounts promised, while most exports are also very, far behind the quantities which it had been planned to send, and upon which the Allies were counting.
We have other statements from prominent men but I do not want to take up the time of the House in quoting them. I would like to point out' to the Government that in Western Canada the farmers, whose co-operation in such matters naturally the Government would ask, drew up a platform wherein is to be found a resolution reading as follows:
And whereas agriculture-the basic industry upon which the success of all other industries primarily depends-is almost stagnant throughout Canada as shown by the declining rural population in both eastern and western Canada, due largely to the greatly increased cost of agricultural implements and machinery, clothing, boots and shoes, building material and practically everything the farmer has to buy, caused by the Protective Tariff, so that it is becoming impossible for farmers generally to carry on farming operations profitably;
Therefore be it resolved, that the Reciprocity Agreement of 1911, which still remains on the United States statutes books, be accepted by the parliament of Canada.
I may say, in justice to the Government, that that reciprocity agreement, in many points, has been adopted by them, and instead now of crying out: No truck or trade with the Yankees, the Government go so far as to try to be financed by the United States, and are at the present moment, if the report be correct, on a begging mission to the United States for some of Great Britain's credit. The farmers' platform continues:
That all foodstuff not included in the Reciprocity Agreement be placed on the free list.
That agricultural implements, farm machinery, vehicles, fertilizer, coal, lumber, cement, illuminating, fuel and lubricating oils be placed upon the free list.
That the customs tariff on all the necessaries of life be materially reduced.
That all tariff concessions granted to other countries be immediately extended to Great Britain.
On that platform the Government say that they will take no action. However, tc complete the case, that I undertook to make out this afternoon, I want to quote from a report of the former Food Controller, the Hon. W. J. Hanna, published on January 14, 1918.
What I endeavoured to make plain, was that there was something even more important than reducing the cost of living in Canada, though that was one objective. 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 supply is that for the supply of Great Britain and her Allies.
Great Britain is producing more of food stuffs than for many years, hut 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, Roumania and Russian Poland, and now a portion of Italy are 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 and1 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.
Now, Sir, among our own papers at home we have Government organs giving their views upon the subject, and I shall not quote from any Grit press. I take it, for instance, that The Citizen of Ottawa is a Government organ, and in an editorial in that paper I find these words:
The Canada Food Board is getting down to essentials. Mr. Charles A. Dunning, Director of Food Production, is reported to have recommended to the Federal Government that the customs tax against agricultural implements should be taken off. It has long been one of the absurdities of the Canadian fiscal system that while the fanners are urged to increase their productive efforts, they are taxed heavily when they invest in the farm implements that are absolutely necessary for production.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that I have sufficiently made plain that the Allied countries are calling upon us for increased food production. I .hope, also, that I have made plain to this House the absolute necessity that lies upon every man in this country to increase, and to go on increasing, production. Have I made plain that we cannot go on producing more and still more food, helping to feed the Allied countries, helping to feed the soldiers who are upon the battlefields of Europe, fighting the fight of liberty -if we continue conscripting labour from the farms without providing adequate help to take the place of those young men? I do not say this in any carping spirit, or with the slightest idea of attacking the Government. I am quite ready to give the Government credit for everything they have done, but I want to point out that when the Government received a mandate from the people to perform their part in the winning of this war they assumed the gravest responsibility that has ever devolved upon any Government in the world. It becomes the imperative duty of the Prime Minister, of his colleagues, and of every man in this House, to contribute towards the carrying on of a programme that is essential towards the winning of the war. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I have tried to bring before the House the fact that we must produce more, that we must bend and bow to this cry that comes from abroad for more food and still more food. There is something 'worse than being killed upon the battlefield, there is something far more painful. There is the fact that the soldiers at the front may be starving, and I say it with all the feeling that can animate me, that the Government will not fulfil its duty towards the boys in the trenches, and will not fulfil its duty towards the Empire, if they do not exercise every effort, and do not assume all the power that may be necessary to see that we produce more and still more food.
What have the Government done towards increasing production in this country? Have they done anything? Yes, I shall be answered, they have issued a few pamphlets, in this form or some other form, telling the people of Canada that they should not put sugar icing between their cakes, and should see that their garbage is not wasted. Is that what is going to save the Allies? What direct or efficient action have the Government taken up to the present -moment in aiding the farmers of this country to achieve the desired results? Canada has not done anything, and if my hon. friend the member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) were here, I would point to him and say, "Now is the time to take a leaf out of the history of England and follow what England is doing; now is the time to take a leaf out of the history of France and follow the example of France." Here is what England is doing for increased production; The English Government did not content itself with issuing pamphlets, but it formed a general agricultural committee' and sub-executive committees.
These sub-committees,- and I am quoting from the Labour Gazette of this Government-
-consist ot from four to seven members experienced in agriculture, who are expected to meet weekly or at least fortnightly. They report to the county committee any land which is not producing its full quota of food and suggest the necessary action. They also report on the labour shortage, and assist farmers *o obtain seed and manures, and the use of horses and *mplements. In short the business of the sub-committee is to help the farmers in every possible way.

That is what England is doing. What is Canada doing for the farmers? I said it was well to take a leaf out of the history of Prance at the present moment. Turning to The Economist of March 30, 1918, I find this:
Elaborate measures have been proposed by M. Boret, Minister of Agriculture and Supplies, with the view of intensifying agricultural development. The first of three Bills introduced refers to special cultivation of land that has been abandoned. The ordinary tillers of the land may lack necessary means for cultivation, and in this case a communal committee will assist them, or arrange for some one better placed to render assistance for cultivating the land. In the event of disagreement, the committee is to be given rights to deal with the land as they think best. In the event of the. ordinary cultivator having disappeared, and the land being unoccupied, and the communal committee not being able to settle the situation, the Bill arranges for the direct collaboration of the State. There are penalties both in the way of fines and imprisonment in the event of deliberate persistent obstruction. The second Bill aims at facilitating the acquisition of mechanical tractors by agriculturists themselves and by the motor culture agents. It proposes the alteration of the existing law so as to enable small units or individuals to be given grants not to exceed half the total value of their purchases for the object of buying mechanical tractors. Further, it is arranged that the Minister of Agriculture shall have special facilities for the iJurpo.se of such machinery, and will he authorized to lend it out to those able to make good use of it. Lastly, the third Bill provides for the civil mobilization of men between the ages of 15 and 50 resident in France, whether of French, Allied, or neutral nationality. Lists of persons between these ages are to be drawn up, but students and men following useful professions and men unsuitable for agricultural work are to toe excluded from the lists.
I bring this matter to the attention of the Government to show them the right way to take action to increase agricultural production. I am not blaming them for not having done it up to the present; I am not saying that they should have done it. I believe, Sir, that- they should have done it.
I believe it is- impossible for any hon. gentleman, even the most humble of the Cabinet, to plead ignorance, because this action on the part of England has been in the Government publications for months past. Unless the Government do not read their own publications they cannot plead ignorance. Let us for a moment forget to copy the United States of America in everything. In the United States there are some good things, but there are many superficial things. I have always believed the judgment of Canadians to be sounder than that of the average American, and our form of Government to be better. If the Government will only awake to the fact that we are at war, if they will only try to do some-
thing effective, I believe that their combined judgment is at least as good as the individual judgment of any state legislature, in the United States. With this matter before them now they should take some action, or else stop preaching increased production. They ought at least, in charity to the Canadian farmers and to the people of Canada, send this message to England: We have failed; we are unable to carrx out your wishes; we are unable to keep up with the situation that faces us. That would be a charitable message to send; because we are at a critical moment of the war, and if the Government is unable to cope with the situation it should resign. If my right, hon. friend the leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden) cannot face the situation with any element of success, let him resign, and let His Excellehcy the Governor General call upon some other Canadian, seated upon the treasury benches perhaps, or some man who had not yet been tried and who sits behind the Government, to form a new Government, and see what action he can take to cope with the present situation. In an army, if a general does not succeed he is immediately set aside; if his successor does not succeed, he also is set aside. We have seen it right here in this country. We have seen General Hughes take up a question at a moment when it was difficult to handle and do certain things, and if any one on this side of the House undertook to criticise General Hughes the Prime Minister at once got up and said: " Hands off -the General." Then other members sitting behind the Government benches got up in turn, saying Hands off the General; he is doing wonders." And there the poor General sits leading his lonely life to-day, but still charitable enough to tell the Government wherein, in his judgment, they have failed, and wherein are their weaknesses-. He does not try to -make any great storm about what he did, or even to tell the people what he would do if he were minister again. He contents himself with saying that the Minister of Finance has- wasted the money of the country this way and that way through war bonds-Victory Loans-in different other ways, and he does not say it in a critical spirit, he does not want to attack the Minister of Finance, he is too loyal a man to do that; he simply wants to do it in a kindly spirit in order that the successor of the Minister of Finance may not fall into the faults into which the present minister fell.

I have concluded what I have to say. I believe that the Government ought to be in a position to tell the great delegation of two thousand people 'from Ontario who will interview it next week just what they propose to do. The country is tired of the old argument used by the Government that they are going to take a registration of man and woman power next June. When June comes along they will all be off to the seaside. The people will not be content with that. A registration of man power has already "been taken in this country. And registration of woman power-the idea! I ask any hon. gentleman on the opposite side: Do you mean to tell me seriously that any young girl in this country who has never been trained to work upon a farm can get out and do the work that the young men on the farms are doing to-day? Do yon mean to tell me that the Government will undertake to ask your daughter, Sir, or the daughters of hon. genltlemen in this House, to leave their homes and place them out on the farms throughout the country? Do you think they will do that? Will any mlinister of the Government get up and say thait he will send his daughter out to work upon a farm away from home? I do not think that that is going to be very practical. I believe that the women are willing to do the best they can; I know they are doing the most they can; but they will never aid in increasing production to the extent that Great Britain and the Allies are asking to-day. The Prime Minister asks us to have pity upon the Government. We are ready to have pity upon the Government. We will aid the Government in everything they do tending to'vards the winning of the war. But let me put it to hon. gentlemen seated opposite, and especially to those who came into the House as Liberals supporting the Union Government: Is it to be expected that gentlemen seated upon this side of the House must do absolutely nothing but vote tremendous sums of money for any pur. pose towards the winning of the war, when they have in their possession returns such as were brought down respecting the Order in Council recently passed providing for a staff and salaries in the Food Controller's office? In turning over the pages we find that hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent in salaries; we find that people are taken from the Toronto Evening Telegram and from the Famous Players Film Service and given salaries of $3,500, and that men from the Toronto Daily News receive appointments at $4,000. We find men taken from the T. Eaton Co. appointed at salaries
of $2,000 and $2,600. And such entries appear on page after page of the return.
Is it to be expected that the Opposition must simply vote sums of money and not criticise the Government? Sir, I could go on turning these pages over to the end of the evening's sitting, and show where thousands of dollars are being wasted.
We shall not occupy the time of the House in criticism of every detail; but can you ask us to support every one of these measures? We are willing to assist in all measures necessary to the winning of the war.
I think I speak for every hon. gentleman on this side of the House when I say that we will give our general aid; that we will do everything we can with a view to seeing that Canada does her full share and that she comes out of the war with honour -for when peace comes we *wish it to be said of us that we acted according to our best judgment.
We have been condemned on account of the Naval Policy of the Laurier Government-a policy adopted to-day by the Union Government; condemned because we wanted to trade with United States-a policy adopted to-day by the Union Government; condemned because we advocated food production-a policy to-day forced upon the Union Government; condemned because we asked that the people be heard on the question of conscription-and thousands from Ontario are asking to-day for that very thing. When you bring in new measures affecting the farmers' sons, the men of Ontario say: Hold; wait until we have had a say. [DOT]
But I leave the consideration of this subject to others who will follow me. I wish it to be distinctly understood that what I have said has been actuated by no harsh or mean intent; I have presented my views in the kindliest spirit, with the firm desire of offering to the Government some suggestions the adoption of which would, io my mind, aid in the winning of the war.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Speaker, this discussion has engaged our attention for five days. Having regard to conditions in this country as well as in Europe, I 'believe that we are not warranted in encouraging protracted debates. We have a large task on hand which demands our whole time and attention, and there can be no justification for spending time here on trifles. I should not have risen to say one word but for some of the personal expressions to which my hon. friend ((Mr. Devlin) gave utterance. I assure the hon.

gentleman, who in his closing remarks affirmed that all his utterances were of the kindliest character, that the men best qualified to appreciate the quantity and the quality of the work that has been done in the Labour Department during the last six and a half years are the wage earners and working men, whose approval and confidence I have enjoyed during that period in greater degree than have been bestowed upon any of my predecessors. So long as I enjoy that approval and confidence, I shall give little concern to the featherweight opinions expressed by my Iron, friend and by the member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross), or by any of the press supporting them.
Last week the member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) occupied half a day largely in a rehearsal of the alleged principles of the Liberal party, which have been repeated in this House hundreds of times during the last forty years. I shall not attempt to follow him in all his wanderings, but I wish to call attention to one criticism that he made of the Labour Department, that it did not administer impartially the Order in Council passed early in November, 1916. He said, as reported on page 1442 of Hansard:
These are the things which I complain about, and I think the Minister of Labour should explain to the country why he is so vigilant and active in going after the small things when the big things are left to go as they please.
The hon. gentleman referred to a letter which I wrote to a shoemaker in the county of Kent-on which, letterthe memberfor Kent (Mr. McCoig) seems to have secured his election last December. The member for Cape Breton North and Victoria enjoyed an exalted position on the Bench for a number of years and I have no doubt that he discharged the onerous duties of that office with marked ability and fairness.
I do not know why he descended from that position to that of an advocate. While he was on the Bench I am sure that in addressing a jury he -would never think of presenting only one side of a case; if he desired to be fair-as I have no doubt he did at that time-he would present both sides of the ease and all the material facts concerning it. However, he has descended to the_ position of an advocate and to it he has rigidly adhered ever since he became a member of this House. On. no occasion was his rigidity in that respect more marked than in his reference to the work of the Labour Department the other night.
Members who had seats in the last Parliament are familiar with the Order in 
Council passed on November 10, 1916, authorizing inquiries and investigations under oath, concerning food, fuel and clothing, and placing the Administration of that Order under the Department of Labour. But those who were not in the previous Parliament will perhaps be glad to have me read a few of the provisions of that Order in Council. Section 2 is in these words:
No person shall conspire, combine, agree or arrange with any other person.
(a)	to limit the facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing in any necessary of life;
" Necessary of life " is defined in this Order in Council as including food, fuel and clothing:
(b)	to restrain or injure trade or commerce in relation to any necessary of life; or
(c)	to prevent, limit or lessen the manufacture or production of any necessary of life, or to enhance the price thereof.
Section 3 says:
3. (1) No person shall accumulate or shall withhold from sale any necessary of life beyond an amount thereof reasonably required for the use or consumption of his household or for the ordinary purposes of his business ;
(2) Every person who shall at any time hold any necessary of life beyond an amount thereof reasonably required as aforesaid, and every person who shall hold for the purpose of sale, whether as manufacturer, wholesaler, jobber, retailer or otherwise, any stock-in-trade of any necessary of life, shall offer for the sale the said excess amount, or the said stock-in-trade, as the case may be, at prices not higher than are reasonable and just.
Section 9 provides:
9. (1) Any person who contravenes or fails to observe any of the provisions of these regulations shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable upon indictment or upon summary conviction under Part XV of the Criminal Code to a penalty not exceeding five thousand dollars, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two yeans, or to both fine and imprisonment as specified.
This is section. 4, which places the administration of the Order in Council in the hands of the Minister of Labour:
4. The Minister of Labour may, by notice in writing under his hand or that of his Deputy, require any person who operates, controls or manages any cold storage plant, packing house, cannery, factory, mine, warehouse, or other premises in which or in any part of which any necessary of life is prepared, manufactured, produced or held by such person for himself or for another, or who in any manner deals in any necessary of life, to make and' render unto such minister, within a time set in such notice, and such person shall make and render unto such minister precisely as required by him, a written return under oath an affirmation showing in details-

Amongst the particulars the person is required to show are these:
Such other information concerning any necessary of life as the minister may require, including a full disclosure of all existing contracts or agreements which such person, or his -principal or agent, may have at any time entered into, with any other person, touching or concerning the sale or resale prices of any necessary of life, for the period of time during which any necessary of life should be held, as bailee or otherwise, before sale or resale, or limiting the quantity of any necessary of life which should be soldi to any one buyer or combination of buyers or within any limited district.
On the passage of that Order in Council and the placing of its administration in the Department of Labour, we proceeded under section 4 to prepare suitable questionnaires concerning co-al and different foodstuffs. We did not commence toy dealing with clothing. We sent those questionnaires out to some 400 of the principal dealers in coal throughout the country, and we received from them monthly returns under oath showing the quantity of coal that they bought during the month, the price paid for it,- the quantity they sold, and the price at which they sold it. We were authorized, under that Order in Council, if those answers were not completely satisfactory, to send out an examiner with authority to- inspect their books and examine witnesses under oath.
We also submitted a series of these questionnaires to 110 cold storage concerns in Canada, and we received from them statements of the quantities of supplies that they get in every month, what they pay for them, the quantities they sell and the prices at which they are sold. That inquiry went back for five years up to the time we started to operate under the Order in Council, and after that we got monthly returns from- those concerns. My hon. friend from Cape Breton North (Mr McKenzie) says that we have done nothing; that we have attacked the little fellows and have done nothing to the big fellows. What has resulted to some of the big fellows through the action that we have taken under that Order in Council? I have already said that wre submitted, those questionnaires to 110 cold storage plants in Canada, and as a direct -result of the information we got through those questions, and from a report we issued based on this information, we have to-day the packers of Canada paying to this Government a large portion of their pro-fits. Yet my hon. friend from Cape Breton North says that we have not attacked the big concerns at all. The packers under the last Order in Council are
entitled to retain only 11 per cent of their profits on their capital, -and they have to pay the balance into the treasury of this country.
I am going .to- call the attention of the House to a few cases. I remember very well a case of a large and wealthy sugar refiner -who bad refused to- supply a retail merchant with sugar unless he wo-uld keep up the price fixed by the sugar manufacturer. I have here the whole correspondence touching the matter. I shall not read the whole of it, but I shall read to the House enough to satisfy hon. members that we have not devoted our whole attention under that Order in Council to what may be considered the "little- fellows." This first letter -was -written by an offtoer of the sugar manufacturer to- the retail merchant:
May 23, 1916.
Dear Sir:
We have yours of recent -date. Now we might as well be frank with you and advise that we cannot send on the sugar that you request as our representative stated to you when he was in last -that -our -good customers in your vicinity were complaining about you cutting prices and of oourse have written complaining . rather harshly. Of course we wish to do all the business we can and we think by cutting your prices you have hindered your cause a great deal. However, this is all we have -to say at the present time and regret that we cannot send on sugar as ordered.
He communicated with me, and on the 8th of December, 1916, I wrote to the company in the following words:
I have information, which seems reliable, that you are refusing to supply sugar to dealers except upon the terms that they re-sell at a price to be fixed by you. I am enclosing a copy of an Order in Council recently passed, which will probably satisfy you that the attitude you take in this regard is a violation of the provisions of that Order and renders you liable to prosecution thereunder. I hope, therefore, that you will at once notify any persons to whom you refused to supply sugar except on the terms as to the price of re-sale that you withdraw from that attitude, and that you will supply them what sugar they require, regardless of that condition.
X think that I should say to you frankly that we should not, and will not, permit any such conditions to attach to any such sale.
He was not very long in changing his attitude, as will appear by the following extract from his letter in reply:
We assure you we are very sorry this letter was written, and further assure that it will not occur again, as we have notified all our selling force to this effect. If you are at ail dissatisfied with our explanation, which we are trying to make as frankly as possible, we would be quite agreeable to come to Ottawa and explain it further, or if you would prefer, we will be very glad to have an inspector look over our book3 and files.

I got a letter from the retail merchant afterwards, saying they had sent him all the sugar he was able to pay for.
I have also a lot of correspondence here concerning bread. I think I should be strictly accurate in saying that we have received hundreds of complaints concerning bread, milk, and other articles. In every case I have taken the matter up, forwarded a copy of this Order in Council, and the party against whom the complaint was made has receded from his position. So our efforts have not been confined, as my hon. friend from Cape Breton North (Mr. McKenzie) says, " to a few shoemakers." In that case we received complaints that the shoemakers had entered into an agreement to charge a certain price for their work. Following our usual practice when a complaint of this sort comes into our office, we wrote them enclosing a copy of the Order in Council, and I am glad to say that they also have receded from the position they had; taken. So we have not been idle in enforcing this Order in Council, and we have not confined our efforts to small men, as the House will realize after what I have said about the packers of this country, the bakers of bread, the vendors of milk, and so on. I rose to refer to only one or two matters. I w'ould not feel justified, whatever others may feel, in taking up one minute of the time of this House in discusising matters that are but trifles when compared to the great task before us of saving this country and the liberties of mankind.


Mr. A. B. COPP (Westmorland):: I agree that it is hardly necessary for my hon. friend (Mr. Crothers) to take up any of the time of this House in making explanations in connection with the work of his department, except that some of the new members of the House are not familiar with the story that the rest of us have heard told over and over again by the minister in sessions of the last Parliament. I congratulate my hon. friend on having an exceptionally good memory, for he has followed the speech he made 'several times in the last Parliament almost word for word. He always used to refer to the coal question, to the questionnaires his department sent out and the answers received to those questionnaires, and to the -sugar manufacturers.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I would remind my hon. friend that when a man is dealing in truth he does not have to change his statements every day.
r.Mr. Crothers.3


Arthur Bliss Copp: Quite so, hut if he tells the whole truth it is not necessary for him to repeat it time after time as my hon. friend has' done. But I am not going to criticise my hon. friend for taking up the time he did in making his explanation, because it is the privilege of every member to take, within reason, the time he desires to express his views on the different public questions that arise from time to time, and it is for that reason I take this opportunity of saving a few words, -as a representative of a portion of the province of New Brunswick, on the subject now before the House. The Minister of -Labour (Mr. Crothers) I might add, might have done better if he had just quoted the volume and page number of Hansard containing his speech on these matters last session.
In ordinary times and under ordinary conditions the annual Budget of the Minister of Finance with its statement of the revenues and expenditure of the past year and its estimate of the expenditure for the ensuing year is not of very deep interest. It affords, however, an opportunity for hon. members of this House to express their views on almost any matter that may be of interest to their several constituencies or to the Dominion as a whole. But the Budget during the last three years of this terrible conflict now waging in Europe has been of more than ordinary interest to the members of this House and the country as a whole. This Parliament meets under very changed conditions. The people of this Dominion since Confederation have been divided into two great political parties-the high-protection narty, and the low-tariff party, or tariff for revenue only, with a general grading down of the tariff, as the situation warrants, almost to a free trade basis. To show that my right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was true to his pre-election pledges in 1896, he had two of his distinguished and representative colleagues in his Government, in the years 1910-11 enter into negotiations with our American neighbours the result of which was a reciprocity agreement. If that agreement had been carried into effect it would have practically established free trade in food products at least between these two great countries. But that agreement was fought -persistently and viciously in this Parliament during the session of 1911 and when the Government of that day appealed to the country on the twenty-first of September of that year they were defeated, not on that issue, but on other issues. By the defeat of the Government that measure, which "would

have been of incalculable benefit to the people of Canada, was annulled and became of no effect. The people of Canada were debarred from learning by actual experience, the very great advantages which would have accrued to them had that reciprocity pact been carried into effect.
The hon.' member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) the other night, in discussing some matters before this House, referred to my right hon. leader and criticised him because he did not carry into effect his pre-election promises when he came into office in 1896. It seemed to me that my hon. friend was seeking for excuses to explain his own political meanderings and ramblings rather than establishing any charge against my right hon. friend.
Those of us who had the privilege of seats in this House during the historic session of last year cannot fail to be impressed with the situation as we see it in Canada to-day. Quite a number of hon. gentlemen who occupied seats on this side of the House and gave loyal support to the party lead by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) saw fit, conscientiously I have no doubt, to withdraw their support from the Liberal party on the stand which our leader took upon the question of the Military Service Act, better known as conscription. I have no fault to find with the hon. gentlemen who took that view. As a matter of fact, they were strong conscriptionists [DOT] themselves. They have proved their faith in conscription by allowing themselves to be conscripted without question or murmur to different positions in the service of this Dominion. When my right hon. friend, the leader of the Government (Sir Robert' Borden) attempted to form what ie known as his Union Government, he wended his way to Toronto and there met my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell). That hon. gentleman bad, early in the campaign apparently realized the duty devolving upon him to support the Military Service Act or conscription measure. He fell a willing sacrifice to conscription himself and said: While I have urged young men to go to the front, and while I believe we should force young men to go to fight the battles of the country, I am quite willing to go to the front benches of the Treasury, occupy a seat there and fight the people's battles, but of course I must have a salary of $7,000 per year, and have all the perquisites attaching to the position. It is also stated that the hon. gentleman insisted on his particular friends in the city of Toronto being
provided for and getting good jobs in the Government services and I have no doubt that condition has been carried out. He willingly and patriotically came forward and said, "HeTe I am; take me." The next gentleman that the right hon. gentleman appealed to was the hon. the Minister of Customs (Mr. Sifton) who, after making due apology and repentance for his action at the celebrated Winnipeg convention last summer, enlisted and was at once made chief recruiting officer in the safety first election Union battalion, better known as the Union Government. After he had accepted the position of returning officer, he had little trouble in persuading the hon. the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) that it was his duty to get into uniform and1 training. True, there was not actual front trench work then but it was necessary to have a man properly trained for service after the war when immigrants would again flow into Canada and he fell a willing sacrifice.
In the meantime, the hon. the Minister oif Militia and Defence (Major-General Mew-burn) and the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne), realizing that colossal mistakes had been made in the past, decided it was not in the public interest to longer continue to hide their lights under a bushel, and chose the Departments of Militia and Defence and Marine and Fisheries respectively to be the candlesticks upon which they would place the light they had to 'illuminate the dark political and mismanaged recesses of these departments.
Little trouble had so far been experienced, but the Maritime Provinces had to be reckoned with and the name of the present the hon, Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell), who had the reputation of a dangerous foe and who had undoubtedly locked within his breast and desk reams of most damaging information against the different departments of the Government, as was proved by the results of the investigation of the affairs of the Militia Department by a Royal Commission the year previous, was added to the list of new ministers. This doughty erstwhile Government opponent, whose patriotic offer to go to the front in the early days of the war had been refused for reasons one can only guess, was pressed into service, and he in the interests of his country at this time decided, if not to completely bury the hatchet and forget the past shortcomings of the Government, to at least place them in cold storage for a time-not that their value would be enhanced, but

that they might be preserved for personal use or the country's benefit in future.
The only obstacle in the way of the hon. gentleman's entry into the Union Government was thait he preferred the Department of Public Works to that of Marine and Fisheries. This was overcome by the occupant of that office being forced to realize that he was best fitted to reorganize and conduct the Department of Marine and Fisheries that had been left in somewhat of a chaotic condition by the sudden, and, of course, unexpected resignation of its former head, after having been conscripted to the position of Chief Justice of the Appellate Court of New Brunswick. I am bound to say, however, Mr. Speaker, that the present Minister of Public Works has shown his worth in his department and he is the only member of the Government who has evinced a desire to cut down expenditures and to do house-cleaning a3 he always did when he was on this side of the House.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: The hon. gentleman has intimated that the reason why the Minister of Public Works was selected for a place in the Cabinet was, that he held certain dangerous isearets within his breast, and that it was a means of quieting him. Will the hon. gentleman be a little more explicit in that regard?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have taken the responsibility of making the statement I did, and the hon. gentleman will be. good enough to draw his own conclusibris, either from my remarks as he has heard them, or as he. reads them in Hansard to-morrow.
Now, Sir, the Government was not yet fully constituted. There was a province remaining to be considered, and that was the old reliable province of Nova Scotia. After Hon. Mr. Murray had consulted with his friends and decided that he could not well be spared from his duties in that province, the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean) was induced to join the Cabinet. His demand for responsible office was not so pronounced as that of other members of the Cabinet, provided, of course, the question, of salary was not overlooked, and there was provided for the hon. gentleman the chairmanship of some committee. I do not know just what the duties df that committee are, but doubtless the hon. gentleman is eminently qualified to discharge them with distinction.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) who is a member of the House, also willingly allowed himself to be conscripted for the Cabinet, and I have not yet heard

him making any appeal to any local tribunal to he relieved of his duties. Whether he may be forced to do so or not, I cannot say, but I am sure we on this side are willing to give him a fair trial and if he continues ae he has commenced, I personally, shall have no fault to find with him.
In the position of 'Solicitor General we now find an old and very respectable member of the Opposition (Mr. Guthrie) in whom we had very great confidence. He also saw fit to withdraw from this side and accept a position of emolument in the Government that is now controlling the destinies of iCanada. I have no doubt that a number of others would have been quite willing to accept office, if the opportunity to do so had been vouchsafed to them.


John Wesley Edwards: Including the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp).


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have never yet had occasion to withdraw from the party that [ have always supported, and so long as they continue to advocate the policy which I believe to be in the interest of the country I shall not forsake them. I am not finding fault with those gentlemen who retired from this side, but when I am convinced that the policy of my party is wrong, then, I may tell my hon. friend, I shall have no hesitation in saying so and taking such steps as I believe to be in the interest of the country. That is the duty and the privilege of every hon. gentleman.
Now, Sir, the Union Government was formed, they went to the people and received a mandate from them. Let me impress upon the Acting Minister of Finance that I do not believe it was in the interest of the country that for the purpose of forming a Union Government the necessity existed for creating five or six new Cabinet positions, at additional expense to the people, at the present time. If hon. gentlemen opposite had the interest of this country at heart, as they wanted to make the people believe they had during the last session of Parliament, if it were in the public interest that a Union Government should be formed, and that polities should be dropped for the time being, in my opinion it would have been a more truly patriotic course for a sufficient number of ministers to have retired from the old Government, and to have replaced them by Liberals from this side of the House, and to do that without causing any extra expense to the country. Economy should be the watchword of the Government, but by

adding these additional departments to the administration of public affairs,. the Government have augmented by between a million and a half and two'million dollars the expenditures entailed in the carrying on of public business. Such a large additional outlay the Government were not justified in undertaking at the present time, when the people are being taxed, and practically bled white, to maintain the ordinary and capital expenditure of Canada, to say nothing of the enormous cost of carrying on its share of the burdens of war.
The advantage of the Union Government has yet to be demonstrated, and so faT as the new members of that Government are concerned, no criticism can ibe offered on account of past acts, because they were not a party to those expenditures. I have no criticism to offer of the gentlemen now on the Treasury benches who went from this side of the House. That must be deferred until they come before Parliament to give an account of their stewardship and to explain the conduct of their departments, as they will have to do next year.
The Acting Minister of Finance in his Budget speech announced that the revenues of the Dominion during the fiscal year 1917-18 amounted to $258,000,000, of which, he told us, $203,000,000 were required to meet capital and ordinary expenditures, leaving $55,000,000 to go towards war expenditure during the past year. While $55,000,000 is a fairly large sum of money, yet, if we may judge by the criticisms in which the bon. gentleman himself indulged with respect to past financial statements, that sum is not nearly enough to meet our requirements. In 1913-14, the financial year immediately preceding the war, our total revenue was $163,000,000. If out of $163,000,000 Canada was able to carry on her business affairs and meet her outlays in both ordinary and capital expenditure, I say that during these times there is no reasonable or fair excuse that $203,000,000 is needed to pay our annual disbursement. If the Government had economized as they should have done, surely we would have been able to get along without larger expenditures than in the year 1913-14. And if that had been done, instead of having $55,000,000 to pay towards war expenditures this year, we would have had $94,825,000. Under these conditions we should have been able to save a larger amount than $55,000,000 by paring down our expenditures on public works and civil government all along the line. I wonder if I may have the privilege of reading to this House a few lines from a 96
speech made by an hon. gentleman whose word, I think, should nave some weight with the present Government, and, at least, upon the present Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean). In a speech delivered in this House oil April 24, 1917, a year ago, criticising the Budget of that date, the following language was used:
Now it is a fair question to put to this House and to the country: With our expenditures on war account, great as they are, and with this country so prosperous, whether it is satisfactory that we should have contributed out of our revenue toward that expenditure only $60,000,000 or less? Are we now doing our full duty or are we leaving too much to the future to pay? I believe that we are borrowing too much and paying too little.
There are facts which should be carefully considered in this connection. After the war, we shall have a national debt of from $1,300,000,000 to $1,500,000,000, with charges for interest and pensions approximating, as I have already pointed out, $100,000,000 a year, which must be paid and for which the people must be taxed. We shall have a smaller supply of capital, interest rates will be higher, and the productive capacity of the country will be less. The transition from a state of peace to a state of war, was made easier in our case by the absorption of men into the army, but the transition in the reverse direction will be complicated not only by the discharge of munition workers from . their employment, but in addition there will be the demobilization of the army. These are important facts and should be considered in discussing the question whether we should or should not now tax ourselves more in order to pay a greater portion of our war obligations than we are paying. We must further remember that the immense expenditure for war which is being added to our debt is unproductive. It leaves us richer in ideals and in history, it is true, but in a monetary sense the expenditure is unproductive. If the amount which we are obliged to borrow for war purposes were expended in the construction of railways, the development of agriculture, and the establishment of industrial enterprises, it would add to the productive power of industry and trade thus making it relatively easier to meet interest and sinking fund charges upon the debt. With these things in mind, is the Government policy with respect to taxation for war expenditure the correct one? Is it one which is approved by the best judgment of our people? Are we not handing down to posterity the obligation to pay too largely for patriotic performances?
Taking the position, as I do, .that we are not presently contributing sufficiently to war expenditures, I realize that hon. gentlemen opposite will naturally enquire what suggestion hon. members on this side would make, what policy they would propound. In the first place, I assert, and this is but a repetition of what we on this side have said on every Budget deliverance of the Minister of Finance since the beginning of the war, there should be further retrenchment in civil expenditure so as' to leave a greater amount to apply to war expenditures, thus minimizing the additions to our debt.
That was the statement made by a gentleman who occupied a seat in this House. He pointed out distinctly, when $60,000,000



was put aside for war expenditure for that year, that that sum was not enough. We have had a lesser amount put aside during the past fiscal year, because only $55,000,000 was saved out of a revenue of $258,000,000. In spite of that fact, the hon. gentleman from this side of the House who made that criticism of the Budget of last year is the very gentleman who brought down the Budget this year as Acting Minister of Finance. I want to ask that hon. gentleman frankly, and my hon. friends on the other side of the House, in what position is he? Was he right when he made that criticism, from this very chair, I believe, last year, or is he right to-day in bringing down a financial statement such as he has and asking us to vote a large amount of money, while giving practically no promise for the coming year of any definite amount being put aside for war expenditure? He does say, however, that he hopes there will be some reasonable amount left out of next year's appropriations and the revenue he expects to derive from taxation he is now bringing into force for paying off some of the war expenditure.
The Acting Minister of Finance has suggested that he is making some changes in the taxes. Taxation is necessary. Money is required to carry on this war, and money must be got by taxation of some sort. My hon. friend has started in by putting a special tax upon tea and tobacco. I want to say to him frankly, and to put myself on record, that I am absolutely opposed to that taxation on these two articles. In the first place, it brings in only a very small amount of revenue-by his own estimate I think $3,000,000. To-day, tea on the table of the labourer or of the rich man is a necessity, and tobacco, to a very gieat extent, is the same. I grant you that on cigars and cigarettes, and possibly on high-priced tobaccos, a substantial tax might very well be levi'ed. With that I find no fault, because I am one who believes that taxation should be so adjusted that we could pay more of our war expenditure as we go along and not leave so much to be paid by those who come after us. But I want to suggest to my hon. friend that, instead of putting this small tax on tea, which would only net the comparatively small amount of $3,000,000, he might have tried another means. I want to refer briefly to the amount of income tax that he proposes to put upon the people. I am sure that every hon. gentleman on' this side of the House will agree, and will very gladly congratulate my hon. friend, if he is responsible, for increasing, in the very small de-

gree that he ha&, the income tax. We have advocated from this side of the House ever since the compiencement of the ' war that an income tax should be placed upon the rich people of our country who are receiving large incomes. They are the people who should be very thoroughly taxed, and taxed until they feel it. I submit to my hon. friend that in the small increase he is placing upon the rich men of this country, they are not being taxed to an extent that they will feel. Let me refer to a few of the incomes on which my hon. friend proposes to increase the tax to some extent. I start with the income of $10,000. At the outset, I want to say that I care not how people have lived in the past or how extravagant they have been, or what city they live in, but, to-day, when the Dominion of Canada and her sons are sacrificing everything under Heaven, no man should be left with an income of more than $10,000 a year to live on.
I go further and say that no man with an income of $10,000 or $20,000 up to $100,000 should be allowed to receive additional wages or profits during the war. The Government should allow him a fair annual living expenditure and take the remainder of his income for war purposes. Even then he would nolt be sacrificing nearly as much as the young man who is sent to the front to fight for the protection of the property from which the large income is derived. The tax should be made sufficiently high to cause the man of large income to feel that it really means something. For instance, the hard-hearted Acting Minister of Finance says to the man living in St. John, whose income is. $10,000: I am taking $300 from you and leaving you the mere pittance of $9,700 to live on for a year. The man in Halifax-where the people are richer than they are in St. John-with an income of $20,000, is left only $18,618 to get along with during the year. The man of $30,000 income is left with only $27,298; the income of $50,000 is reduced to a mere $44,218; $75,000 to $63,000; $100,000 to. $82,000; $200,000 to $150,000, and-so on up to $400,000 and $500,000. I am not finding fault because the young [DOT]men are taken, nor am I criticising the Military Service Act. But consider the-matter from this viewpoint: a young man appears before a medical board and is examined in respect to his eyesight, hearing, chest measurement and general physical fitness. The Government then says to him: yon are physically fit; you go-to the trenches and fight for us at $1.10 a day. Would it not

be just as fair to have an auditor examine the accounts of the millionaire, so that he may be instructed: You have no son to go to the front, but Mr. T's son has gone; you must deliver up some of your wealth to help pay the cost of sending the boys to the front? It is only fair that the rich man should make sacrifice as well as the poor man or the man who goes to the front. The small increase proposed in income tax is not yet sufficient. I can see hon. gentlemen on the other side who last year made this chamber ring with their denunciations of the Government because they did not put on a larger income tax. I sincerely hope that they will have sufficient influence with the Union Government to induce them greatly to increase the tax on the incomes of rich people, and to do so during the present session.


John Wesley Edwards: How much would the hon. gentleman allow the so-called rich man before he confiscated his salary?


Arthur Bliss Copp: occupies a position in the present Government, will stand'toy what he said last year. I am going to read only a few lines of his speech, and I would ask my hon. friends to read all that he said in regard to this question This is what he said:
And then take the trade returns. Last year we imported altogether, of agricultural implements and parts thereof, everything which you can possibly imagine, including scythes and hand rakes and all the little things used on the farm, only $1,6713,000 worth. I have again no idea how many million dollars worth are consumed in Canada, but there must be a great many millions, tens of millions of dollars worth of farm machinery consumed and yet we imported only $1,673,000 worth in Canada on which the Government received only $309,000 in duty, a mere bagatelle.
Imagine what a trifling amount. During' the year 1916 we received only $309,000 in duties paid upon agricultural implements imported into 'Canada, while we used tens of millions of dollars worth of agricultural implements. But what we on this side of the House lay stress on is the fact that the consumer who uses agricultural implements has to pay the amount of the duty on these goods when manufactured in this country. The hon. gentleman goes on to say:
And yet, 'Sir, we paid from 12 per cent to 17 i per cent and 25 per cent on all these millions andi tens of millions of dollars1 worth of machinery used in Canada. We paid this, not to the Government, but to a little coterie of manufacturers in Ontario, and that same little coterie of manufacturers in Ontario were able to sell 'to the rest of this world practically $4,00'0,000 worth of these same articles. The exact figures are $3,854,000.
Those are the words of a gentleman who now occupies a seat in the Union Government, and I have no doubt, if the hon.
- gentlemen who sit behind him and who are and must be in favour of agricultural implements coming into this country free, could refer him to the speech he made last year in this Parliament, he would give their suggestions careful consideration and give them some encouragement that in the, near future this action might be taken.


John Wesley Edwards: Who is the gentleman?


Arthur Bliss Copp: If my hon. friend will read
Hansard of last year at page 1707, he will find the remarks I have quoted.


John Wesley Edwards: I was not asking for
the page; I was asking for the name of the gentleman who made the remarks.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If the hon. member will read the page, he will find out the name of the gentleman.

Mr. EDWA/RDS:	I rise to a point of
order. The hon. gentleman has, quoted a speech made toy some person. My contention is that he should give the name of the person who made the speech.


The CHAIRMAN:: I know nothing in the rules of the House which obliges an hon. member quoting from a speech to give the name of the speaker. The hon. gentleman has quoted the page of Hansard from which the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) can get the information.


Mr. OOPP:: The hon. gentleman will, no doubt, as he is interested in the paragraph I have just read, look up Hansard and read carefully and fully the whole speech, and I know he will be very much impressed by the remarks made by the hon. gentleman whose words I have quoted.
I want to congratulate the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) upon the action he has taken in regard to embarking on a shipbuilding programme in Canada. I regret exceedingly that, the Government have, during the. past four years, been absolutely silent and dormant in regard to this great industry. I well remember the gentleman who represented the city of St. John in the last Parliament, hour by hour urging upon the Government to embark on a shipbuilding programme. 1 am sure if the whole time he consumed in this way were added together, it would run into weeks of steady argument and talk, and yet the Government turned a deaf ear. Two years ago he told them that the transportation question would be practically the deciding issue in this great war, and he urged upon the Government to embark on a shipbuilding programme, ais we had the materials and the opportunity. He stated that we could buy or construct shipbuilding plants, and he urged upon them the necessity of immediate action. Yet during all those months not a hand was turned, until the Minister of Marine and Fisheries came down this session with a policy of establishing a shipbuilding industry in Canada.
I am sure every man who. has the interest of his country at heart must realize that is the proper thing to do. While I sincerely trust the war will be over before the ships now under way can toe turned out, we shall still require a great amount of shipping for transportation purposes after the war, and I trust that my hon. friend's policy may be crowned with success, and that in the future we shall have steel ships built in this Dominion sailing over the seven seas. I regret' that my hon. friends on the other side of the House have not been

able to influence the minister to start a shipbuilding plant in the Maritime Provinces. There we have the men, the material, and everything that is necessary for successful shipbuilding. In days gone by there was no place in the Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific that was richer in opportunities for the shipbuilding industry than the ports of the Maritime Provinces, and I sincerely trust that the minister, after studying this question carefully will reach the conclusion that there is a splendid opening there for shipbuilding.
I sincerely believe that every man, woman and child in this Dominion is heart and soul in this war. We are all willing and anxious to do everything we can to win this war, but naturally there are differences of opinion as to the best things to be done, and that, I suppose, is the reason for so many different suggestions being made in this debate as to the taxation methods and other matters. We have been told to save, serve and sacrifice. If we will study those words carefully and apply them each to his own individual case, I am sure it would be very much better than to apply them to the other fellow. The rich men with large incomes do not require to save, but they should be forced to serve and sacrifice. The acting Minister of Finance the other day, in introducing his Budget, spoke of the deep feeling of earnestness throughout the country, and commended the patriotism of our people who subscribed so handsomely to the Victory Loan last year. While I do not wish to detract in the slightest degree from the loyalty and patriotism of the people who subscribed, I say it is no very great proof of patriotism for a man with $50,000 in the bank drawing three per cent interest to withdraw it and invest in a war loan paying six per cent, when the security, moreover, has the whole resources of the Dominion behind it. The Government, instead of borrowing this money from these people at such a high rate of interest, should take a little of it if these wealthy men are not willing to sacrifice, so that they will be made to pay a fair share of the .money necessary to carry on this. war. If we only will examine ourselves we will see that we are all more or less selfish. The other night one hon. gentleman, who no doubt thinks himself a high-souled patriot, one of the most patriotic people in the Dominion, said that the Cockshutlts had done everything possible to win the war, and no doubt he believed it. But in his very next breath he said that within twenty-'four hours of tractors being put on the free list, in the interests of greater production and to help win this war, he had a delegation on the way to Ottawa to protest against any such action. Why? Was it because he thought the Government were not sincere in. their efforts to win this war? No,. It was because he feared its influence on the industry in which he was engaged. I speak with all due respect to my hoo. friend because if our hearts were searched to-night I have no
10 p.m. doubt we should find many Cockshutts among us, who would take the same course were our interests affected. It is as natural as it is to breathe for a man to stand up for his rights, and when his particular industry is interfered with he will naturally rise in protest. That is a reason, I contend, -why the Government should come down with a strong hand. Now is their opportunity. We have now a Government, we are told, from which politics has been divorced, and which is carrying on the affairs of this country in what they believe to be the best interests of our people. Here is their opportunity, then, to do away with all political interference such as has been going on for some time.
The Acting Minister of Finance said that the Union Government had abolished political patronage. I sincerely hope he is right, but I am afraid he has not been on the penitent bench long enough to realize he may be, mistaken as to. the outcome o.f what he thinks is Civil Service reform and the abolition of political patronage. When this Union Government was formed some members of the Borden Government had to give place to the new members. The Minister of the Interior in that Government was waited upon and was willing to step out provided he got an equally good position. So he was made Chairman of the Civil Service Commission. Another gentleman from my own* province, when asked to retire, also professed his willingness provided he got a good position. So he was made Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the province of New Brunswick. I think the only member of the Borden Cabinet who retired without getting some position almost as lucrative as that of a minister of the Crown was the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr.. Cochrane), but I understand he is still hoping that when the railways of this country have been nationalized he will secure the very honourable and lucrative position of chairman o,f the commission that will operate the system.

I have trespassed longer on the time of the House than I had intended, particularly after the Minister of Labour had lectured us so severely for taking up the time of the House, but I sincerely trust that when he remembers I have not occupied more than fifteen minutes of the time of the House this session he will forgive me for speaking at such length to-night.
It will be my pleasure-I believe, my duty -to give to this Government all the support that will be in the interest of the country to give it in connection with the very great and grave questions and responsibilities with which it is faced. I realize as fully as any one what these responsibilities are. I trust they will be successful in working out the very difficult and knotty problems that arise in ^connection with the questions which are engaging their attention. I have no desire to take any part in any party or petty criticism of their acts. I sincerely trust that they will realize more this year than the Government did last year the very great importance of the responsibilities resting on them and will see to it, when the country is asked to bear such a heavy lead of taxation to assist in carrying on this war, that they themselves set an example by practising rigid economy as well as preaching it.


John Wesley Edwards: 
Mr. ROBB:: Does the hon. gentleman state as a fact thaj the duty on corn for feeding purposes was kept at 7J cents a bushel until 1907?	-


John Wesley Edwards: 
James Alexander Robb: May I again be permitted a question? The hon. gentleman admits that

the Liberals removed the duty on corn in 1897, which was to be used for feeding purposes. Will he also admit that there was a drawback of 99 per cent of the duty on corn used for distilling purposes?


John Wesley Edwards: I do not admit either part of the hon. member's statement at all, because I understand that the Liberal party did not remove the duty in 1897, they did not get busy until 1907. That is my understanding of the fact, and I think I am right. The hon. gentleman said that in addition to corn and cream separators, there were other changes made. Yes, there were some other changes made in 1907. The duty on cattle and sheep was increased from 20 to 25 per cent by the Liberals. The duty on meats, poultry, lard and tallow was left just as it was in the tariff of 1894. The Liberal party reduced the duty on eggs from 5 cents to 3 cents a dozen, .although the duty on the American side was 5 cents against our eggs. The Liberal party left th'e duty on butter and cheese the same as it was, at 4 cents and 3 cents respectively, although the United States duty was 6 cents on each of these articles. The Liberal party increased the duty on tomatoes, and on cabbages and onions; they put 10 cents a bushel extra duty on beans and 5 cents a bushel on peas. The Liberals also, in 1907, increased the duty on potatoes from 15 cents to 20 cents a bushel, and even that was 5 cents lower than the American duty against our potatoes. When the duty was raised on potatoes from 15 to 20 cents a bushel,did any one .hear any great noise from the hon. member for Prince Edward Island (Air. Read)? Not that I heard of. Did any one see any tears running down his bronzed and weather-beaten face because they had increased the duty on potatoes? Not that we have ever known of. The hon. gentleman at that time, and others who sit on the opposite side, and Who at the present moment are great free traders when potatoes are in question, had not a word to say during all those years that the Liberal party kept the duty on potatoes and actually increased it when they made a change. Was that a step in the direction of free trade? No. But it was accepted, and accepted cheerfully, by those hon. gentlemen who laid aside their great principle?' very readily when party expediency called for it, when their party leader said: You must take this and accept it. Then they had not a word to say about free trade. They tied their free trade principles up into a bundle and conveniently tucked them
away. Even when an added duty was put on potatoes, there was not a whimper from any of these gentlemen, not even the hon. member for Brome.
But the hon. member for Brome paid his respects principally to agricultural implements and it is in regard to agricultural implements that I desire to give a little past history. The hon. gentleman has said that the acting Minister of Finance has not yet had time to dissipate the sound economic views which he held on the other side of the House, that he has not been long enough on this side to be contaminated * entirely with the protectionist doctrine.
He, and other hon. gentlemen on the other side, have spoken of the sound', economic views which the Acting Minister of Finance learned when he was on that-side. What were they? Well, in 1871, the Liberal party deplored the fact that Canada was dependent upon foreign countries for manufactured goods and .said: " It is our duty to foster our national industries." That strikes me as pretty strong protectionist doctrine. In 1876 the present leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) said:
It is asserted by many and assumed by more that free trade is a Liberal principle and protection a Conservative principle. If I were in England I would' be a free trader, but I am a Canadian born .and resident here and I think we require protection.
In 1878 his policy was "tariff for revenue" ; in 1887, "commercial union"; in 1891, "unrestricted reciprocity"; in 1893, " free trade as in England." In 1895 and 1896 the Liberal party came out with blood in their eye; nothing short of complete destruction of protection would satisfy them. They said: We will cut off the head of protection and trample on its body. And these hon. gentlemen who hack up that party learned sound economic views, we are told, from leaders of the Liberal party on the other side of the House. Why, those leaders were changing their views practically every day.
It has been known for years that there are as many fiscal policies on the Liberal side as there are Liberals; each one has a fiscal policy of his own. The member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) will speak very loudly of free trade till you touch something in Cape Breton North- and then he shies off to one side. So it is with other hon. gentlemen from different parts of the country: When their own district is affected, they want protection. They cannot and never have been able to see this matter from the standpoint of Canada as a whole. The Liberal party has been an

That is, agricultural implements.

free of duty ; but I must frankly say to them that we do not think that it is fair. Like all others they must be prepared to give and take; they must be prepared to bear their share of the burdens of the country.
And so on. He then proceeded to say that the duty, which was 171 per cent, had been reduced to 15 per cent. The then hon. member for Dundas, Mr. Broder, put this *question to the Minister of Finance of the *day. You can see the reason why he put the question:
Mr. Broder: Is there any change to be made in the valuation for duty?
Mr. Broder was a farmer who thought and read and who knew what had been done on the previous occasion, and naturally he put this question. What was the answer given?
Mr. Fielding:	Our negotiations have not
touched the question of valuation; that must be left to the operation of the customs authorities of the two countries.
And so they intended at that time, with the support of hon. gentlemen like the hon. members for Brome and lYestmorland in this House supporting them, if they possibly could, to pull the wool over the eyes 1 of the people of this country, making the farmers believe that they were free traders and were moving in the direction of free trade, while at the same time they were holding out the glad hand to the manufacturers, who, of course, were the source of their election fund. That was the situation in regard to agricultural implements. I do not blame the hon. members from Western Canada one particle ' for asking foT free agricultural implements. Everybody understands the position taken by hon. gentlemen opposite on this particular occasion. They have to throw something before the public, and they think this will be catchy out in the West. But this is not the time to tinker with the tariff. It would, in my judgment, be absolutely impossible, while the war is in progress to arrange a fiscal policy for this country which we could be sure would be perfectly satisfactory after the war had terminated. We are passing through great changes. Our tariff will necessarily, to a greater or less extent, be .affected after the war is over by the position taken by our neighbours to the South and by the position taken by other countries. I do not believe any man is in a position to .say what the fiscal policy of this country .should be after the war is over. We shall then have to meet changed conditions that have been brought about by this war, and so far as I am concerned, while I have strong views in regard to protection, while I believe in protection for a country like Canada, I have an open mind as to -What should be done after the war is over in dealing with the duty on agricultural implements or on anything eFse. II am a believer in protection because I represent a farming community, because I represent a constituency which is as strictly rural as perhaps any constituency in Canada. In my constituency I have not a single incorporated village. I am in favour of protection for the farmers of this country because, every year that goes by. science has more and more annihilated distance; science had brought the countries of .this world closer together. We now reckon distance in time, not in miles, and our competitors are brought closer to us to-dav than they ever were before. Do

you mean to tell me it is fair that a farmer in tile province of Ontario, who has to spend thousands of dollars in building expensive barns and stables in which to house his stock; who for five and isix months of the year is under the expense of feeding that stock, awaiting the opening of the next season; who, during that time is not making a. dollar out of this stock which is a bill of expense to him, should be placed on an equality, his protective duty being removed, and obliged to compete with farmers from the Argentine Republic and from certain parts of the United States where they have not the climatic disadvantages which we have? A protective duty is, in my estimation, the only means of equalizing conditions which are made unequal by climatic conditions.
I do not think that I would be doing my duty if I did not express' in 'a few words my opinion in regard to another matter. We have in this country men of different races and different creeds. We have our differences, and no doubt will continue to have them. But I, for one, do not despair of unity in Canada in the days to come. Why, Sir, in England they have been working for a thousand years rectifying mistakes, smoothing out wrongs, and adjusting difficulties, and they are not free from dissension and strife over there yet. But who will say that progress has not been made in England? No one, I venture to say. Progress has been made in that country, and at. this moment England is recognized as the leader of that world democracy which had its origin in and which circles around her to-day in the fight for human liberty on the battlefields of Flanders.. We have our differences here, and our differences, in my judgment, are due to a great extent to political cowardice. They are due to the fact that so-called statesmen in this country, place, and have placed, political party expediency ahead of the future good of this country. We have had too much compromise in this country. We have often heard it preached that compromise is the proper way to deal with differences in this country-compromise, compromise. Compromise is illogical. It is an invitation to future trouble; that is all it is. A question is never settled until it is settled right, and I do not believe in the compromise which has taken place in this country. By a system of compromise we have encouraged people in this country to carry on a propaganda here which is nothing less than seditious and treasonable.
If we are going to have unity we must 
teach all races that no one race in this country is going to dominate, that all must obey the laws, that if they want to share in the privileges this country offers they must share in the responsibilities this country places upon them. And I repeat here to-day what I have said on former occasions in this House, that it strikes me as disgraceful that men should be allowed in this time of trouble and stress to maintain their rank in the militia of Canada who have' been a disgrace to the uniform they wear because of the seditious utterances they have been allowed to make. Compromise is not the way to deal with a man like that. There is only one of two things to do with a traitor: either put him behind the bars, or put him with his back to the wall and shoot him.
There is another thing I wish to raise-my voice against. There has been too much compromise in regard to- the press;, of this country. Newspapers in the Dominion of Canada, and notably in the province of Quebec, have been allowed to- preach treason day after day, week after week, and year after year since this war started. Those ' are the people who are largely responsible for the situation down in that province, a situation which does it no credit, and which in my humble judgment is- unfair to the habitant and to the ordinary people of Quebec, who I think would show themselves to be made of the same timber as the men who made name and fame- for themselves at Courcelette if they had not been wrongly led by certain men and certain newspapers.
I say we are not doing our duty as public men. if we do not raise our voice against any sort of compromise in dealing with these people. I for one have no use for that kind of compromise. In my judgment there is only one way to deal with them, and that is to deal with them in snch a way as to silence them- forever.
Just one word more. An hon. gentleman speaking in this House the other day alluded; to the Orange Order in the Dominion of Canada as the Yellow Peril. Do we need- to be afraid of that Yellow Peril in this country? Let me tell the hon. gentleman who spoke that way the other day that there have gone over to France more members of the Orange Order in Canada than the whole province of Quebec has enlisted from 1914 down; to the- present time. That is. a fact. If these men are a menace to this- country, then I ask him what can be said of the mem im the constituency he represents. I resent anything of that kind. Me have too many men connected with

the Orange Order in this country, who lie in Flanders to-day, having given their lives i-or the great cause, and I for one will resent on the floor of this House any aspersions on an Order which not only in this war >but in all former wars has always shown a loyalty to British institutions and to British principles which hon. gentlemen opposite who criticise the Order might very well emulate.
I have not dealt with public finances to any great extent, and I shall not do more now than to- express my very great gratification at the speech delivered by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean), which indicates that the people of Canada, so far as their financial (burdens are concerned, are prepared to do their full part in carrying on thisi war
Mr. FRANCHlS N. McCREA (-Sherbrooke):
I arise at this late hour to express my views, not at too great length I hope, but whatever time is required that I shall have to take. The question under debate is the expenditure and revenues of this country. I had not the pleasure of being in the House when the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean) brought down the Budget, and I have not had time since to go 'into it thoroughly. I have no very eerious comments to make on it. Taxation is something that nobody likes, whether he be rich or poor, but taxation under the present circumstances is something we cannot avoid and we may as well accept it cheerfully.
There are two things in a Budget which always interest the people. The first is that all taxes should be equally apportioned so that every person bears his share according to his circumstances. It has been said by some and by an hon. gentleman on this side of the House only this evening, that we should not tax tea and coffee, that we should not tax the poor man. The rich-man, in his opinion, should bear the whole burden. If I understand him aright he argued that the poor man and the poor man's sons were doing the fighting, and therefore the rich man should pay the 'bills. As he belongs to the middle -class 'I presume he would be exempt from both. I do not look at it that way at all. This war is the nation's war and every man, rich and poor, should bear his fair share of the burden. This should be demanded if only as a matter of principle, that every one may realize that the country is at war. I admit that the rich man is the best -able to pay and I think under the present taxation proposals he will have to pay. So long as
the taxes are evenly distributed, whether they be high or low I have no fault to find. Personally, I would rather favour high taxation at the present time. The country is prosperous. There is an immense amount of money coming in. Everybody is prosperous, the farmer, the labourer and every one else. When the people have money is the time to provide for paying the bills. There is a time coming after the war when probably the country will not be as prosperous as it is at present and we will be less able to meet the taxation that will be imposed. Consequently, I would not object to high taxation to meet a large part of the expenditures which have been made for the defence of our country, providing every person bears his equal proportion according to his means.
I have no objection to taxation providing the money is legitimately, properly and economically spent. That lis quite as important as tlje imposition of taxes. We must provide the amount of money necessary to meet such expenses as cannot be avoided, but on the other hand we should not spend a dollar for any purpose that can be avoided. The expenses should be cut down in every department of government and otherwise. The Government should see to it that every man in its employ gives service for the money that he receives, gives a dollar of value for every dollar that he receives, whether it be in labour or anything else. One of the ministers, when 'submitting his estimates the other day, admitted that his department was very much overloaded, that other departments were in the same position, and that offices were maintained where there was nothing doing. But he wound up by saying that it was a hard thing for a man who has a heart to say to a person in the employ of the Government: We have nothing for you to do; we must discharge you. I would he sorry to think that the whole Cabinet would be so tender-hearted as that.
Let me put this matter in a proper light before the House. The Union Government went to the people on the question of conscription. The mothers of this country have spent their lives sitting up at nights weary and tired, nursing and caring for their boys. Now, when these boys have grown to be nineteen or' twenty years of age, the Government, under the authority of Orders in Council which they have passed, say to each of these mothers: Your King and country requires your son; kiss your boy good-bye, it may be good-bye forever.	I am not finding fault with

this; it may be necessary to do it, but the Government that has a heart to tell the mothers of this country to give up their sons and say good-bye to them surely cannot turn around and say that they have not the heart to tell a man in their employ for whom there is no work that there is nothing for him to do and that he must look for another position. I am not finding fault with the Government for imposing conscription, but they cannot escape their responsibility when asking the country to sustain heavy financial and other burdens, by saying that they have not the heart to dismiss an unnecessary employee. That does not seem to me to be logical. I am not finding fault with the Government for their measure of conscription. It is the law and we must abide by it. I was not in favour of it because I did not believe it was necessary. But I say it is necessary to preserve the money and resources of this country, to see that the money is properly spent and that no man is kept in his position simply because he has a position unless there is something for him to do and he can give value for the money he receives.
The conscription measure brought down last session does not seem to have produced the desired effect. It was evidently a measure of conscription to get exemption. The Government have brought in a measure lately by which they have tightened the screws and made conscription more stringent. It may be wise, or it may be otherwise. My judgment is that if it is true that the overseas forces need reinforcement and that we should send men over, I doubt very much the wisdom of doing it just now". The men who are conscripted now cannot be trained, equipped and got into the firing line before winter. This Government and every other power we have in Canada, have been preaching greater production to the people. The farmers have just got to the point where they were ready to commence their seeding when this Order in Council was put through declaring that every man from nineteen to twenty-three should be conscripted. The order has gone out and some of these young men have been called. Inasmuch as these men cannot be got into the firing line before winter is on, it would have been wiser on the part of the Govern- [DOT] ment to have delayed until the crop was in, and probably out. Then they would have had all the winter months to prepare these men and get them into the field ready to take their places at the front.

This brings up another matter which I have in my mind. I have never heard it expressed by anybody else; perhaps there .s nobody else who thinks as I do on it. But, I think it is a very grave question and one well worthy of consideration, whether Canada would not have better served the Empire and the Allies if she had sent less men and more food. We are told that Italy has two million five hundred thousand men whom they cannot put into the field simply because they cannot equip and feed them. Would it not have been the part of -wisdom if they had said to Canada:	Your
country is one of unlimited and unbounded resources from an agricultural standpoint; produce food and produce munitions?* Would it not have been equally wise if we had said to Italy: Put your men in the-field and we will equip, and feed them. This is a combination of nations at war,, and a combination of nations resembles a combination of people. If one nation can supply men, and another nation can supply food, why not develop their resources along those lines? This is a suggestion I am throwing out. I believe, and have believed for a long time, that the Government would have been well advised if they had considered the question of producing more food and more munitions, and had sent fewer men. The point may well be worth' considering yet, but I do not imagine that the Government will take my advice. The people of the country perhaps may not credit what I say now, 'but when they recover their rational senses and , get over their enthusiasm they will conclude that it would have been wiser and better for Canada, and this country would have been of greater assistance to the Allies, had we followed to some extent the suggestions which I am now making. So much for matters of finance and the Budget.
There is another matter which has been raised by the hen. member for Springfield (iMr. Biehardson) which I am very glad to have the opportunity of discussing, and that is the matter of the pulp and paper business in Canada. I shall endeavour to deal with it as briefly and as carefully as I can. I shall endeavour to place before the House and the country the respective attitudes of the manufacturers, the publishers and the Government. At the outset let me say that this great industry has attained the proportions, of being the third largest exporter in Canada if not the second largest. Under the circumstances we would expect the Government and the press of Canada to show it due consideration. The-press sets itself up as being a public edu-

cator, if not a public benefactor, and a public benefactor is one who supports everything that is- in the interest of the country. Now the paper industry is not only a source of revenue to the people engaged in it, but the export of paper of all kinds from Canada, if we take this year alone, represents a value of upwards of $60,000,000. This large sum of money attracted to this country and distributed among its people indicates that the industry is one which is not only worthy of the attention of the Government, but is entitled to their support, as far as they can give it.
Perhaps it would be well for me, as a sort of introduction, to briefly review the state of the industry prior to the outbreak of war in 1914. At that time the industry was at a very low ebb and so keen was the competition that only those mills that were located close to the raw materials, with the advantages of cheap water-power, cheap labour, freedom from strikes, and things of that kind, could succeed in making any money. For example, the International Pa-per Company had reorganized once, if not twice, in the five years immediately preceding 1915, and had not paid a dividend even on their preferred stock for some years prior to that time. They were not alone, fox there were some manufacturers in Canada who were in the same position, and could not even pay a dividend on their preferred stock. The wax broke out and in the latter part of 1915, or in the early part of 1916, the business of manufacturing paper commenced to improve. The demand increased, but the cost of production increased as well. Let me illustrate my statement that prior to 1915 the paper manufacturing industry was in a very bad state, by stating what the conditions of doing business were. The conditions were these: The manufacturer of newsprint had no-t only to manufacture his paper, -but had to ship, it and prepay the freight to destination in the United States, and had to store it at destination and deliver it from day to day at the publisher's sidewalk-iw-hat they call " sidewalk delivery."
This meant that he had to keep at least two months' supply at bis storehouse to guarantee the publisher against strikes or other interruptions to trade that might happen,. Such were the conditions of the paper trade prior to 1914. Under the circumstances any gentleman in business, or who understands the situation, realizes hoiw essential an improvement in prices was.
But, strange to say, when prices commenced to rise early in 1916, the publishers came down to Ottawa and interviewed the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), and I do not know who else, and practically, without consultation with the manufacturers, without hearing what their claims or reasons were, the minister undertook to fix a price. In the autumn of 1916 he wrote a letter to Mr. Chabtoon to the effect that a suggestion had been made to him in some' way, or from some source, that the puib-lisihers would consent to a rate of 2J cents a pound on paper, and he wound up his letter by saying: My advice is accept it, because if I have to pass an Order in Council I shall make the price much less. From the interviews we had with the Minister of Finance, as the_ arbitrator between the publisher and the manufacturer, we thought we discovered that we had an adverse jury, and we also found that the Finance Minister had been at one time in his life connected with one of the large papers in Toronto, and still had a leaning that way, and rather than take any chances the manufacturers consented, for a period of four months, starting from March 1st, 1917, to undertake to supply the necessary requirements of paper to the publishers of Canada at 2\ cents a pound, but with this rider and understanding, however, that the Government would appoint a commission to investigate the matter. Not only did they ask the Government to appoint a commission, but they asked that they should also appoint an auditor, which they did. Mr. G. T. Clarkson was appointed to examine -and audit the books of the manufacturers and to establish from the books what the cost of manufacturing paper was. Mr. Clarkson audited the books of thirteen of the largest newsprint mills in Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who is Mr. Clarkson?


Mr. McCREA:: He is a chartered accounted, appointed by the Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: From Ottawa?


Francis N. McCrea: From Toronto. Mr. Clarkson reported that from the books of these thirteen companies, as he bad examined them, the cost of manufacturing paper was $56.90 a ton. Mr. Pringle, after having held I don't know how many sessions at different places, but very many, on the 1st of September, or prior to that, made an interim report to the effect that he had not completed his investigation and examination, but that he had gone far enough to satisfy himself that the cost of making paper -as established by the auditor was a

fair and reasonable conclusion to arrive at, and he stated in effect: Whilst my examination is not completed, I would recommend that the price of newsprint to the Canadian publishers from September 1 to January 1 be 2.85 cents a pound, or $57 a ton. The publishers, who had all the opportunity they needed, could have produced any evidence that they wished to, attended all the sessions and sittings, and asked all questions. They could have been represented to establish their case that paper should be sold at $50 a ton. They evidently did not take any part in the investigation, or not very much, but instead of accepting the recommendation of Mr. Pringle of 2.85 cents a pound they came down in force to Ottawa and simply told the Cabinet and the minister: You shall not accept Mr. Pringle's report; if you do-I do not know what they said, but it sounded to me like a threat.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: Nothing of the kind. The hon. gentleman will permit me to say 'So, as I was present. Nothing of the kind was said by the publishers. There was no threat whatever.	*
Mr. MicCREA: No threats? Just listen. Mr. Richardson, Member of Parliament for Springfield, is, I may state, the proprietor of the Winnipeg Tribune, and wias one of the publishers who attended that meeting, and spoke before the sub-committee of the Cabinet. The publishers came down to protect against the Government accepting Mr. Pringle's report. Naturally, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. gentlemen, if you would hot expect, when this delegation came before the sub-committee of the Cabinet, that they uTould offer some argument why they could not stay in business and pay the increased price, or give some reason to show that the manufacturer was getting an exorbitant price. But what did Mr. Richardson say?


Rodolphe Lemieux: What was the date of that interview? Before the election?


Francis N. McCrea: Shortly before the election. Here is what Mr. Richardson said:
The newspapers are doing a good work for this country. You may And if you grant this order that it .will be necessary for the Union Government to take over the national newspapers and furnish their own editorials.
I)S that giving an argument why the publisher could not pay the price, or why the manufacturer was getting too much? Was that a threat or what would you call it? I would call it a threat not an argument.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Will the hon. gentleman allow me a word? That is not a correct transcription of what wras said because there is no such thing as national newspapers. How'ever, the point I made was a joke and was laughed at and aocepted as a joke, as the hon. Acting Minister of Finance, wrho was there at the time, knows.


Francis N. McCrea: Did you ever see this in print?


Robert Lorne Richardson: As to the furnishing of their own editorials, the hon. member must see, as everybody saw, that that was a joke.


Francis N. McCrea: Did you ever deny having said so?


Robert Lorne Richardson: I never saw' it before to-day. I do not deny it nowr.


Francis N. McCrea: Mr. Rowell, replying to your statement, said:
They would lack variety in that case.


Robert Lorne Richardson: That proves that what I said is right.


Francis N. McCrea: Hold on a minute. Here is what follows:
Mr. Richardson: If you contemplate that possibility I think you would rather hesitate before making an order of this kind.
Is that a threat, or giving a reason? I ask you

	.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The hon. member must address the Chair.


Francis N. McCrea: Is that an answer or a reason wdiy the manufacturers of newsprint should not get the price suggested by the commissioner w'ho had been appointed by this Government?


Robert Lorne Richardson: It w'as no particular reason. The reason the publishers waited upon the Government and asked that the order be not enforced was that the publishers withdrew from 'the investigation months before, having made up their minds that the investigation wyas loaded against them and that they could not rely upon having a decent investigation. They refused to proceed. They never asked that the price of newsprint be less than cost plus a reasonable interest on capital.


Francis N. McCrea: Who was to establish the cost?


Robert Lorne Richardson: An honest investigation was all we required, not a loaded one.


Francis N. McCrea: Mr. Speaker, I put it to you and to this House, the Government

had not been asked by the manufacturers alone to appoint a commission, but by the manufacturers and' publishers jointly. They appointed Mr. Pringle, who is well known to the members of this House, and I do not think any hon. member has a right to impugn Mr. Pringle's character or honesty. They not only appointed Mr. Pringle, but Mr. Clarkson, a capable and prominent auditor. The Government appoints only capable men. Mr. Clarkson's report* that he investigated the books of thirteen of the leading manufacturers in Canada, and that he found the cost to be $56.90 per ton. Mr. Pringle recommends that $2.85 shall be the price from September 1 to January 1, and when he completes his report the price may be more or may be less.


Robert Lorne Richardson: What did you say the cost was?


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The House is not in committee. The member for Sherbrooke has the floor.


Robert Lorne Richardson: He puts questions to me, Mr. Speaker.


Georges Henri Boivin: He has no right to.
Mr. MoCREA: Here is what Mr. Pringle says about this :
I must say that when the investigation commenced the manufacturers of newsprint loyally came forward, produced evidence when X required it, brought witnesses from long distances at their expense and asked no compensation. On the other hand, the Press Association of Canada have given me no assistance.
The publishers practically intimated that the Government might be called upon to write their own editorials if the requests made were not acceded to.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A hold-up.
Mr. MoCREA: When the commissioner brought in his report the manufacturers were not satisfied with it and they are not satisfied with it to-day, because the price of materials, labour and everything else is steadily going up. The manufacturers say this: we will abide by Mr. Pringle's finding for the time being and accept $2.85 per hundred provided the commissioner makes his final report within three months and, in the event of that finding or report not being satisfactory to either party, we simply ask that the matteT be referred to a judicial tribunal of three of the most eminent judges in Canada. That is what has been done in th,e United States. I understand that this Government have expressed
their concurrence in the suggestion, hut so far I believe that no judicial tribunal has been appointed. All we want in this matter is a fair and square deal and no interference with our business, which represents an export valued at some $60,000,000. At a time when exchange is heavily against Canada, the matter of the export of newsprint and the bringing into Canada of $60,000,000 from a foreign country for circulation here is very important. I believe that eventually we will get justice, but this is one of the things which the Government should take an interest in protecting.
The member for Springfield said the other night that the publishers of Canada succeeded in obtaining an indictment at Washington against certain Canadian manufacturers; that these manufacturers pleaded guilty and paid their fines, and that the publishers were consequently entitled to a great deal of credit. The newspaper publishers of this country are supposed to be the educators of public thought, to be engaged in every good work, to do all they can to promote Canada's interests. Is it a credit to them that they should hound and follow the manufadturetrs pf newsprint down to Washington and assist in getting indictment against them for having sold their goods in a foreign market at the best possible price? The newspapers claim that they are a public service; that they are one of the things that cannot be dispensed with.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I did not say that
the newspapers of Canada did any such thing as my hon. friend suggests, for they had no part or lot in the transaction.
Mr. MoCREA:	You said "we."


Robert Lorne Richardson: 1 said nothing of
the kind. . It was the American Publishers' Association that brought these men to justice and had them fined. The Canadian publishers had no part in it. The hon. gentleman must not misrepresent my position.
Mr. iMcCREA: I will show the hon. gentleman before I get through that his statement is not correct. The member ifor Springfield said:	we have succeeded in
bringing them before the tribunal.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon.
gentleman is obliged to accept the correction of the hon. member for Springfield.


Francis N. McCrea: All right. I will tell you what happened. Some Canadian manufacturers were indicted and called to Washing-

crop now more than they got prior to the war. What does the increased rate that the railways are getting for carrying the goods amount to compared with the increased price the farmers are getting for their goods? If you [balance the thing you will find that the railways are getting a very moderate increase. I repeat that I am a shipper and th^'t I ship as much freight probably as any man in this House, but, we want to be fair. Whilst the times are good, and farmers and all others are getting rich, we should allow the other fellow who carries our goods to market a fair compensation for his work, too.
I hope that the Government, in their wisdom, may see their way to deal fairly with this pulp and paper question. It is a very vital question, not only to the manufacturers but to the business interests of the country, and I hope the Government will not be carried away by any threats such as I have just read, even though the Press of Canada did elect this Government. It probably would have been elected without its assistance. Whether it did or did not elect it, all we ask from the people of this country is a fair show and no favours. We will take our chances and we will conduct our business as it should be conducted. The manufacturers of Canada are endeavouring to build up their industries and to build up a very prosperous country if they get the necessary protection. We believe that we are entitled to it. We are not asking it as a favour, hut as a right, and something that we are justly entitled to.


Mr. ANDREW KNOX (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, permit me, briefly, to draw the attention of the House, to another phase of the situation developing from the application of the Budget, so ably laid before us by the hon. minister (Mr. A. K. Maclean). We have been treated to many views of this subject and from many angles, but I ask that the House look on it for a few moments, with the eyes of the West, the Northwest, at that; and let me say I am not going to treat-or ill-treat-the House to a vast array of figures.
The minister states that we must rely on our own capital and out own labour so far as we can see, to carry on our present war trade programme; and that to enable the people to do this, it is necessary that we continue to produce wealth. I wish to point out, (Mr. Speaker, that nowhere in the Dominion can greater production for the outlay involved, be secured, than in some portions of the West. The per capita production of Saskatchewan for 1917 stood

unequalled in the world. I wish, particularly, to draw the attention of the-House to the great hinterland in the northern portions of the three prairie provinces, more particularly the province of (Saskatchewan. Many localities throughout this vast territory are well suited for agriculture and I wish to remind the hon. members that the farther north wheat is grown the better is the sample likely to be in the percentage of the more important constituents, which go to make up that sample. In proof of this, I would point out that the wheat produced in the (Canadian west shows up very .much better in competition tests than that produced farther south; and I will carry this, point a little further. The wheat which has won the championship of the world on a good number of occasions, has been grown in the province *of Saskatchewan, and on most qf those occasions in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and which, with the exception of the Yukon, is one of the most northerly in the Dominion, a neighbour of my own, Mr. F. D. Cherry, located near Prince Albert, having won the coveted trophy twice, while on several occasions it has been won by Mr. Seager Wheeler, of Rosthern, also in the Prince Albert riding, whose research work has been worth millions of dollars to the Western farmer, and whose work, I think, the Government would be well advised to recognize in some tangible way. [DOT]
I said, Mr. Speaker, that I wished to draw the attention of the House to.the great hinterland to the north. For many years this . has been a fruitful source for talkfests, and several commissions have been appointed to investigate it; but, like many other commissions, no results ever came from them, and it was left entirely to private enterprise to prove what this northern country is capable of. Most of the talk in former years was -more or less conjecture, but I think I can show what is now being really produced. 1 will touch on three of the natural resources which, along with agriculture, are being developed. These are now past the conjectural stage, and from these the Dominion can very materially increase her wealth production. These three are minerals, timber and fish.
The copper and gold deposits of the northeast section of [Saskatchewan and of the northwest section of Manitoba are showing wonderful and almost unlimited possibilities at the present time, and I have been informed from an authoritative source that

this will develop into one of the largest mining camps on the American continent. One company which has been making extensive and expensive investigations down to a depth of twelve hundred feet, has already blocked out ore, which at the present price of copper, would total two hundred millions of dollars, or more than the total production of minerals in the whole Dominion in 1917. The reason why I emphasize the importance of copper production is that at the present time copper is very essential in the carrying on of the war. Another company has been shipping ore last year and this year at great inconvenience, having to transport it a long distance by team and water before reaching a railway, to a smelter in British Columbia, ore which runs as high as twenty-two per cent pure copper.
Another industry which is doing good work in Northern Saskatchewan is that of lumbering. I have been informed by the manager of a company, operating at Prince Albert and Big River, that they have al>
ready got the logs and expect to cut in the neighbourhood of one hundred million feet of lumber this year. This goes to show that the territory to the North, from which the logs are brought, is rich in timber and there are great possibilities for pulp factories located on almost unlimited water-powers, a fact which should be of special interest to some hon. members who have taken part in this debate. I might say in passing, that the estimated water-power of Saskatchewan is over three million horse-power, and that this is nearly all in the northern portion of which I have been speaking.
Then there is the fishing industry. This should also be encouraged, as its possibilities are very extensive, many of the lakes never having had a net placed in them. From lakes north of Prince Albert, during the season just closed, which lasts only two and one-half months,, there were shipped, roughly speaking 2,500,000 pounds, mostly white fish with a fair proportion of lake trout. A portion of this was shipped to consumers on the prairies, but a large percentage was also shipped overseas for the use of the forces.
I think I have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that these regions can produce a tremendous amount of wealth,, and that without any very great outlay. I am not asking for a bonus for any of these industries, neither am I asking for protection on any of them. Protection is something which does not sound good to me, and I may also say that it does not sound good to the people of the West. The point which I
wish to make is this: These three industries of which I have spoken are badly, very badly, handicapped by the lack of transportation, .and if the production of wealth is going to help to supply the necessary sinews of war, then, Sir, I believe here is an opportunity which should not be overlooked.
I said protection was something which did not sound good to the West. We have passed through a long term of it and know whereof we speak. In this connection I would like to state that anything that has been said in regard to the western members being pledged at election time does not apply in any case that I know of. It certainly does not apply to me. As to this I would like to endorse everything said by the member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg), and I have no hesitation in saying that we are all hand in hand in supporting this Union Government in every legitimate effort to push the war to a successful finish, and are willing to carrjr our fair share of the financial burden. At the same time we want to know that what we are contributing goes to the coffers of the Government and not into the pockets of the private individual.
Mr. ARTHUR L. DESAULNIERS (Champlain) (translation): Mr. Speaker, in taking the floor in this debate I am animated by the best of feeling towards the British Empire and its Allies; I am here to represent Champlain county, one the richest farming districts in Quebec province.
- Hence I feel it imy duty to express in this House what I take to be the unanimous opinion of my constituents, since my opponent in the contest of December 17 last, the Hon, Lieut.-Ool. Blondin, who, by the grace of the present Cabinet, is still Postmaster General, succeeded in polling only 398 votes out of a total of 10,000.
I wish first of all, Mr. Speaker, to declare that I fully approve of Canada's participation in the present conflict, this great war in which so many of those we hold dear are shedding their blood and offering up their lives on the battlefields of old Europe for the triumph of democratic liberty throughout the world. However, Mr. Speaker, I hold that we should take a rational and reasonable part in this struggle; a part proportionate to our resources, in men and money. That is why the tone of these few words, Mr. Speaker, is a note of protest against the actions of <our present Goveni-ment, who have brought about a condition of things whereby all the energies of Canada are being practically wasted. The

Bxitis&i Empire with its 450,000,000 subjects has raised an army <of a little more than
7,000,000 soldiers, or li per cent of the total population, while Canada alone, a young country, barely three centuries in existence, has already given to the Allied cause nigh onto 7 per cent of its British subjects.
Our powerful neighbours, the Americans, with a population of over 110,000,000, have sent across the water so far only a few thousand troops. Should the war continue for some years to come it is my humble opinion that the United States will be neither willing nor able to equal, in proportion, Canada's effort. Hence I conclude that the people of this country have done their duty nobly .and in doing so, have gone beyond the bounds of their resources.
Now, if we look into the conduct of the war from a financial standpoint, we find that, through the most abject favouritism, the people of this country have been mulcted in millions upon millions of dollars
the people who are being forced to-day to pay abnormally increased taxes so as to balance the public treasury. It is not necessary for me to go through the political history of these last few years and read the list of the notorious scandals which have darkened our horizon-for I , ^i&h to be brief-but if the Government ' wishes to economize, let them lead the way by the adoption of measures which will not run counter to their policy of economy.
Let our friends to your right. Mr. Speaker, inaugurate a programme of reclamation and of economy rather than a policy of highway robbery.
In the course of this excessive prosecution 'of the war the Government, there is no doubt about this, .have given undeniable proof of their systematic opposition to the people of Quebec, just as the old Tory party did last session on the Lapointe motion, with regard to the French language.
If the Government are sincere, if they really wish to win the war, let me teil them this: It is true the Allies require guns, munitions and men; but let us meet the chief need of those " over there " who *are fighting for the liberty and civilization of the world by sending them the means of living and of fighting: food.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, food; the hungry men in the trenches seem to cry out for food and still more food while the trusts, backed by the Government, close their ears to every [DOT]appeal.
At present labour is scarce because so many of our men have gone to the front.
	j
If we want the wheat which constitutes the food of mankind to ripen and bear fruit, we need hands to care for it. Therefore, we need the help of the farmer. What shall we say, then, of our .conscription of to-day which is tearing our sons of the soil away from the land and sending them in serried ranks into the trenches; what shall we say of the Government's appeal for increased production, of the convening of the provincial ministers for the purpose of promoting increased production while the Government, on the other hand, with their ridiculous way of doing things by Order in Council, are advocating a contrary policy. We want to win the war; very well. But then, we should pass a law to curtail, if not indeed do away with the manufacture of articles of luxury which require so many workers, musical instruments, vietrolas, pleasure cars, which entail such heavy expense, children's toys, of such questionable usefulness.
. How is it that the food controller, who receives his salary from the Government, who is paid by the people of this country, forbids all excessive consumption of sugar in our restaurants and then closes his eyes to the manufacture of candy and sweetmeats which are of no possible use and which are even injurious to health? How is it that the Government encourages and tolerates pleasure cars into the construction of which enter so imany things necessary to our soldiers, for in the materials which go to make these automobiles we find large quantities of ..brass and leather. Now, if economy were practised in these things we would arrive at much better results for the Allied cause and we would lighten the burden which is bearing down on the people.
We are living through a terrific crisis, Mr. Speaker. Does the Government wish to carry ion our part in the war .in a sensible and rational manner or do they wish to bankrupt the country, in the words of the hon. Minister of the Interior. The great necessity of the moment is to help the Allies to the limit of our strength. This help means building ships, transporting food and leaving our sons on the farms to cultivate them and increase their yield.
In this manner we shall no- longer witness the sorry spectacle of citizens of the same country staining with their own blood the pages of our national history. The Canadian, no matter what his nationality, would have to choose between working in this country and enlisting. From whatsoever standpoint we should view Canada' -part in the war we would see the youth of

our country working together in perfect harmony for the triumph of the sacred cause of the Allies, through the assiduous and constant participation of Canadian labour.
You invite the youth of Canada to give themselves to the Allied cause. But why force them into the trenches where they cannot give the full measure of their capacity, for constraint can never be a justifiable motive of human actions.
At least let the Government adopt a policy which allows a choice between enlistment and work on the farms, in the munition factories, in the shipyards. In any case the conscript will have given useful service to the country and to the Allied cause.
Let the Government adopt this means, Mr. Speaker, and there will be an end of the racial cleavage which paralyzes the efforts of those who live in this country. At last we shall see the dawn of the day when all men of good-will, united together in a single purpose, will give all that is in them for the ultimate triumph of the cause so sacred to the civilized world.
Mr. E. D'ANJOU (Rimouski) (translation) :	Mr. Speaker, I have listened
attentively to the speeches delivered by the members on the other side of the House. To hear them one would think that they aTe not .Canadians and that, to their mind, Canada does not exist. To win the war they would wipe Canada off the map.
Well, allow me to tell you that I do not entertain the opinions of these hon. gentlemen ; I am a Canadian, and I am quite content with that title. I acknowledge no other country than Canada and Canada alone has all my love, and all my unswerving fedelity.
It is evident that we folks from the province of Quebec have not the same frame of mind, the same aspirations as the majority of our fellow-citizens from the other provinces of Confederation, and I may assert, with full knowledge that what I say is true, that we are the only true Canadians. We have proved this on more than one occasion and we are proving it to-day by our constant 'devotion to the true interests of Canada. We were bom in this country and we are proud of our origin; we are the descendants of the discoverers of this country, the heirs of those who blazed the way and of those intrepid missionaries who* one day, left the enchanting shores olf old France, to bring to this land of America, with the Cross of Christ, the seeds of civilization. This explains, Mr. Speaker, why we hold
so tenaciously to this soil which has been sprinkled with the blood and the sweat of our martyrs and our missionaries. We are here to stay, and here we will remain. Just as our fathers were born and buried in this country, so do we intend to live and die here, too. As for myself, I acknowledge no country other than Canada and never will I acknowledge any other. Nevertheless, although I should like to see the Government take a little more interest in Canada than they have done during the last four years, I must say that I have never been opposed to Canada's taking a rational and reasonable part in this war, with the free consent of the Canadian people.
I should not like to see the Government abandon our soldiers at the front who enlisted as volunteers; but, to be consistent with my [DOT] anti-conscription attitude, and -faithful to my mandate from the voters of Rimouski county, I must say that I cannot accept the war budget in its entirety, and I wish to express a most energetic protest against the sums of money being voted to defray the expenses brought about by the application of conscription in this country.
Mr. Speaker, if I have the honour of a seat in this House, I owe. it assuredly to my sincere and well-known views against conscription. I have given my pledge that I would fight against conscription in any manner or form, and from whatsoever source, and I intend to keep .my-promise and respect my pledge; and I stand opposed to the present Government while the conscription measure is part of the statutes of Canada.
I fail to understand, Mr. Speaker, how a Government which is asking the people of this country to sail overseas and fight for violated liberty did not itself hesitate one instant to violate the liberty which is most dear to the Canadian people.
Didn't the Borden Government merely to further its political ends, disfranchise a very large part of Canada's population? Yhe Government acted like the Kaiser, taking away their political rights from thousands of Canadians to whom we had granted .all the rights enjoyed by every citizen on this free soil of America. And this, Mr. Speaker, is done in Canada, under a Government which declares its willingness to bankrupt the country, in striving to avenge the violation of Belgium and to uphold the sanctity of treaties -and the freedom of the small nationalities. While our soldiers are dying on the other -side of the water for the freedom of civilization, here, in a British country, a Government which claims to guide itself by British institutions, has

the tremendous and cynical audacity to deprive the people of Canada of the last shreds of liberty. The Canadian Parliament is no longer consulted on questions of the highest importance, which affect every one of our citizens.
The Government, in violation of all constitutional law, even while Parliament is in regular session, passes Orders in Council which ratify certain changes brought about in a law passed by Parliament during the session which preceded the general elections. The Government evidently has gone mad over Orders in Council.
If the Government decided, some day to pass an Order in Council repealing the conscription Act, they would have my entire 'support and the support of all the Canadian people. On the 3rd of December last, a few days before the election, the Government passed an Order in Council exempting farmers from military service. We have the blinding proof to-day that the said Order in Council was simply a shameful political manoeuvre meant to catch the votes of the Canadian farmers. Only a few days ago the Government cancelled the Order in Council exempting farmers, and at the same time abolished all other exemptions. Still the Government preaches production, and still more production. The conduct and the acts of the Government are pitiably inconsistent. How can we increase production if we take away from the land all those whose work we need so as to obtain from our soil the yield we have the right to expect? If the Government is sincere in its desire to increase production-and I do not believe that it is-there is but one thing left for it to do: keep all the farmers on their farms instead of sending them into the trenches. In this way it will attain its object and will be infinitely more helpful to the country and to the Allied cause.
I will not delay the House by arguing, point for point, the speech delivered by the Hon. Minister of Finance. I merely wish to note that the new taxes set forth in the budget speech will fall, as usual, on the shoulders of the poor man, who never ceases his sacrifice and toil in an effort to earn a living for himself and his family. When the Government puts a tax on the necessaries of life, it is the poor man who must pay, for the wealthy can always obtain what they wish, no matter what the price may be or what taxes the Government sees fit to impose. It is evident that the Government have not the slightest intention of taxing their good friends, the war profiteers, these new millionnaires, who in 
the course of the last four years have waxed rich by speculating on the equipment and the blood off our soldiers. Let the Government make these leeches disgorge; they would like to see the war go on for ten years more so as to continue their shameful and criminal exploitation. Instead of conscripting the blood of the 'Canadian people, the Government would have been more just and more patriotic iff it had conscripted the millions of all these bloodsuckers, who live by the war while the blood of the poor and unhappy people of Europe is flooding the continent.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time we began to give a little thought to our own poor country, threatened with horrible bankruptcy. Let us be, first of all, 'Canadians; let us guide ourselves by the proud and noble motto of the illustrious leader of the Opposition: "Canada, first; Canada, always; Canada alone."
On the motion of Mr. J. A'. CAMPBELL (Nelson) the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of Hon. A. K. MACLEAN the House adjourned at 12.46 a.m., Tuesday.
Tuesday, May 7, 1918.