1918-05-08

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the year ended March 31, 1917.-Sir Robert Borden.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: An hon. gentleman on the other side of the House inquired a few days ago regarding the opportunities afforded to men training for the flying service to attend religious services. A telegram was sent to the officer in command at Toronto, to which the following reply has been received:
Toronto, Ont.
General Gwatkin,
.Ottawa, Ont,
Reference your letter May 2nd. Applied to Military District No. 2 on 30th April for six chaplains of suitable religious denominations for service in various units. No religious services held at School of Aeronautics, Queens Park, Toronto. This not considered necessary in view of excellent church accommodation in Toronto. Cadets and men of this school are given every facility to attend any religious Sunday service they Wish and are free from 10.45 a.m. each Sunday.



QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. MACNUTT:: 1.	What is the number of volunteers for Military Service exempted on account of physical
unfitness?	, . ._
2.	What is the total number exempted for the same cause, including the men who were called up under the Military Service Act, to 15th of April last?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	There were no records kept for those rejected for physical unfitness under voluntary enlistment.
2.	There have been 118,772 men who registered and claimed exemption examined by military medical boards and placed in .a lower medical category than "A. These men have been automatically granted a temporary certificate of exemption _on account of their medical unfitness. An exemption certificate granted on medical grounds automatically expires immediately the men in the medical category under which the certificate has been granted are called upon for military service.


BARGE BENMORE.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Did the Government own an iron barge called the Benmore?
2.	What are her dimensions and tonnage?
3.	Has this barge been sold? If so, when?
4.	What is the name of the person who purchased said barge?
5.	What was the amount received by the Government for said barge?
6.	Does the Government know for what purpose she is to he used?


Hon. J. D. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Length 242 ft., breadth 39.2 ft., moulded depth 24.9 ft., registered tonnage 1,355, gross tonnage, 1,477.
3.	Yes; the 22nd September, 1917.

4.	J. A. Farquhar, Halifax.
5.	$22,500.
6.	The Department of Railways and Canals has no information.


ST. CLAIR WEST.
Mr. TRAHAN:: 1.	What rank did St. Clair West, No. 68,113 hold in the 25th Nova Scotia Battalion?
2.	Did he proceed overseas in said Battalion?
3.	Did he see active service in Prance?
4- If not, what duties did he perform?
5.	Was he wounded in Prance?
6.	If not, by what authority does he wear stripes on his uniform usually worn by and designating wounded men?
7.	Is he still engaged in military duties?
S. If so, what are said duties?


Robert Laird Borden: Stand.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Since the Government does not seem disposed to grant this motion, as I believe they should, I shall withdraw it. But I give notice that I will bring this matter up before the House at *the first opportunity.
Motion dropped.


ADJOURNMENT FOR ASCENSION DAY HOLIDAY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Government notice of motion that the House do adjourn over Ascension Day, being called:
Major-General MEWBURN: The information asked relative to this man is not available in Canada. It is being requested by letter, from the Overseas Military Forces of Canada.

Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1. Has the Government entrusted the Hon Albert ,Sevigny, former Minister of Inland Revenue, with any mission?
o' Jl80' what ls the nature of such mission'
3.	What remuneration does the Hon. Albert Sevigny derive from this source?
4.	How long ago was he appointed, and what sums have been paid him to date?


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Sevigny has not been entrusted with any mission by the Government, and he is not in receipt of any remuneration from the Government at the present time.


CHAMBLT-YEEOHBRBS ELECTION DOCUMENTS.
Joseph Archambault: 
Robert Laird Borden: Stand.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Is this motion not to be passed P


Robert Laird Borden: I did not intend to move it at present. I will speak to my right hon. friend about it. It is probable that the Senate will sit to-morrow, and it is very desirable that this House should sit unless there is very great objection. I might point out that we are faced with one or two alternatives. This House will have to prorogue not later than Saturday, May 18th, or else adjourn until about the first of August. I am not saying this with a desire to in the slightest degree restrict discussion. 1 am only stating the fact. If it is desired that further discussion with legard to any matters of public business shall take place, I am perfectly willing that . the House should be adjourned until the 1st of August. All I desire to point out, and I do so with all respect, is, that unless this House can prorogue by the 18th of May 'it will be necessary tor us to come back about the first of August.


Wilfrid Laurier: That view of the case has nothing at all to do with thj question of the House sitting to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: It has in this way, that we could make some progress to-morrow, and it might assist in enabling us to prorogue on the date I have mentioned. I desire to say, however, that I do not wish the House to sit to-morrow if there is any grave or serious objection. I thought I would let the motion stand for the present, and we can return to it later. In the meantime I will confer with my right hon. friend about it.


Wilfrid Laurier: It will he called again to-day?


Robert Laird Borden: Oh, yes. if necessary.


IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
Sir SAM HUGHES:: Before the Orders of .the Day are called, and in view of some .remarks made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) yesterday about the Prime Minister not going overseas this summer, but that other ministers of the Crown would; and in view of the remarkable statement just made by the Prime Minister that we must either prorogue, or adjourn by a certain date to come back later, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to give to this House and to the country -a statement as to what the ministers are going to do when they go overseas; whether they are going to do any more than they did last year, and whether they are going to get the overseas forces in order? We want to know what is going to be accomplished by this trip to England, and why the members of this House should be called back here on the 1st of August, if matters stand as we understand they do.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Samuel Hughes: I heard it was not.


Robert Laird Borden: My bon. friend
must not believe everything he hears.


Samuel Hughes: I believe I read it
in the minister's own organ.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon.
gentleman refer to me?


Samuel Hughes: I read it in the
Evening Journal.


Samuel Hughes: I desire to ask
another question.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member must resume his seat when the Speaker rises.


Samuel Hughes: The Speaker must
not rise.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member must be amenable to the rules of the House, as must any other member of the House, and it is my duty, charged as 1 am with the responsibilities of my position, to see that the rules of the House are carried out. The hon. member is not in order m entering into any discussion.


Samuel Hughes: When I am charged with stating an untruth, I am within my rights.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member was
not charged with stating an untruth.


Samuel Hughes: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, take your seat, please. The point I want to get at is this, if Canada is going to be committed


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member is out of order.	[DOT]


Samuel Hughes: I am not out of order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member is not in order in entering into a discussion, and I must rule that he is out oi order.
Sir SiAIM HUGHES: I am asking a question. I am within my right in asking a question, with all due regard to the chloroform that has been administered here.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I must ask the hon. member to resume his seat at once. If by using the word'" chloroform, he has reference to the ruling of the Chair, I must ask him to retract that statement.


Samuel Hughes: I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. If the hon. member, in using the word "chloroform" has reference to the ruling of the Chair, I ask him to withdraw that statement.
SiT ROBERT BORDEN:	If the hon.
gentleman refers to that or any other paper as my organ, he is transgressing the bounds of truth.


Samuel Hughes: He is not transgressing the bounds of truth .at all. He is not in the habit of transgressing the hounds of truth.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Samuel Hughes: I am not in the habit of answering hypothetical questions.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member may not proceed unless he withdraws that statement.


Samuel Hughes: I will not withdraw the statement. I am perfectly m order, Mr. Speaker.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. If the hon.
member persists in refusing to withdraw that statement, I shall name him.


Samuel Hughes: It is the privilege of the Speaker to name me if he wants to.


Robert Laird Borden: I would suggest to the hon. member (Sir Sam Hughes) that he is too old a member of this House to defy the authority of the Speaker. The reason I made the reference to him that I did was that, he had stated, without any warrant, that a journal which he described as "my organ"-


Samuel Hughes: A Government
*organ.
asking: Is it the intention to bring before the House the subject matters that are to be discussed at the conference in Great Britain, or is it not?


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon.
member will put his question on the Order Paper, it will be answered.


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 7).
Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member said it was my "organ." I think the on. member said it was my personal organ. .1 resent that statement, because I assure him and the House that I have no personal organ in this country, nor have I control over the editorial utterances of [DOT]any newspaper in Canada, nor have I sought to have any such control.


Mr. FIELDING:: Gazette.
Except the Canada


Robert Laird Borden: That has no
editorials.


Mr. LBMIEUX:: And Orders in Council.


Samuel Hughes: I accept the explanation of the Prime Minister. I desire to ask him this question. Is it the intention to discuss with this House and with the country the questions that are to arise at the Imperial Conference as to the future of this country in connection with the Empire? If we are to judge by the statements that have been made concerning what transpired at past conferences, I do not agree with those, and I would ask the Prime Minister respectfully-[DOT]


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Samuel Hughes: I would ask the
Prime Minister respectfully if he purposes to lay before this House and the country-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Samuel Hughes: -the facts in connection with the matter.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. If the hon.
member does not make himself amenable to the constituted authority of this House,
I shall have to take the proper measures to see that he does.


Samuel Hughes: I have asked the Prime Minister a question, and I purpose


Mr. A. B. HUNT (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make the remarks which I believe it is my duty to make on the present occasion, I wish to say that, at this stage of the debate I intend to be as brief as possible. I do not wish to take up the time of this House in wandering far from the question which we are now called upon to discuss. I shall, therefore, not attempt to discuss many of the questions that have been brought up by members on both sides of this House.
I claim, Mr. Speaker, that the only important questions .before us at the present time are men, munitions, ships, food and the financing of this great war, and, in my opinion, the most important of all is food.
I 'believe this Government should move very carefully and study well the great question of the shortage of food. I feel, after they have weighed the question from all sides, they will come, to the conclusion that the young men should not at this critical time be removed from the farms. It must, however, be clearly understood that the farmers in our part of the country are ready to do their share, either at the front or on the farm, in winning this war, and I dislike hearing the slurring insinuations that are thrown across the floor of this House at Quebec, because nothing but harm can come out of such statements. You cannot produce more food and, at the same time, take the men from the farms. You must choose what you consider the most essential at this time, and then carry out one plan or the other. You must not endeavour to do both with the same class of men. I consider a great deal of time has been lost and a great deal of harm has been done by discouraging the farmers and young men of this country by pulling them from one exemption tribunal to another and not <nv-

ing them any satisfactory answer as to where their best work may be carried on in order to win the great struggle which is now being waged. If those young men are wrongly directed by this Government, the ministers of the Crown and hon. members supporting the Government will be held by the people of this country to be responsible, for the action they have taken and the method they ha/ve used in carrying out what I consider an unnecessary law. They say that we can replace those farmers by sending out men from the cities. It is absurd to think that anything of the kind can be done. How, many men can you get out in the morning and milk ten cows and do the same thing at night? If they were willing, not more than one out of ten can milk, and not more than one out of twenty is willing. And when you stop the dairy industry of this country, you stop the production of cheese, which is a most essential and necessary food for the soldiers at the front.
What advice do we get from our food controllers, both in Canada and in Great Britain? Are we carrying out their views by taking men from the farms? Let us see what they say. Although this has already been placed on Hansard, I feel it is of such great importance that it cannot be too carefully considered. We even have the statement of the Prime Minister of Canada that food may be the winning card in this war. We also have the opinion of Lord Rhondda, the British food controller, who, from London on the 10th of April, cabled the Cam ada Food Board as follows:
In these stern days it is inspiring to learn that Canada is tackling the food problem with redoubled energy. The terrific pressure on our military front makes it all the more imperative that those behind the lines should strain every nerve to defeat the enemy's avowed object of destroying the British Empire. Germany hoped first to starve the Old Country by the submarine campaign and then to smash her land forces. She has failed to starve us and she will fail to smash us hut we cannot achieve victory without food. There never was a time when it was more needed. The Canadian farmer and the Canadian farm hand now have the opportunity to make an effective reply to the enemy's present onslaughts by bending their undivided energies to the increased production of those food supplies for which we depend to such vital extent on your great Dominion.
We also have our own Doctor Robertson, who has .assured us that the world faces a food situation that is nothing short of appalling.
The increased dependence of our Allies, France, Italy and: Belgium, upon ns for food production is shown by the following
facts: In France the average yearly production of wheat for the five years preceding the war was 317,000,000 bushels. In 1916, the production had fallen to no less than 214,000,000 bushels, and in 1917 the crop was estimated at 161,000,000 bushels. Likewise in Italy, the average pre-war production for five years amounted to 183,000,000 bushels. In 1910 this had dropped to
176.000.	000 bushels, and in 1917 the estimate was 147,000,000 bushels. In Belgium the average pre-war production was almost 15,000,000 bushels. It fell in 1916 to almost
12.000.	000 bushels. The estimate for 1917 only amounted to* 9,000,000 bushels. The total reduction in those three countries amounted to over 198,000,000 bushels, representing >a reduction from pre-war production of nearly thirty-eight per cent. In view of these facts Canada finds itself one of the most important factors, if not the most important factor, in the food situation. Supplies from Eastern Europe no longer exist. Supplies from Australia and Africa are too fiar away to be moved. As Lord Rhondda has said: What we ask from the United States and Canada we cannot procure elsewhere. As between ourselves and the United States we have a far larger exportable surplus of wheat than she has. In the past year our exportable wheat surplus amounted to 154,000,000 bushels, while the United) States had only one-third1 of that amount. Canada is called upon to be a factor in saving the world which is face to face with starvation. Now, Mr. Speaker, you can see by this shortage that Canada and the United States are looked upon to save the situation. We have, in our great West, vast prairies and wheat land which can produce an immense quantity of all kinds of grain, if we can only get the help to cultivate those vast fields. We also have, in our own country, a large quantity of land not cultivated on account of shortage of labour, and if the Government takes away many of our hoys, the situation will be still more serious.
The Government must be congratulated on the stand they have taken in removing the duty on tractors to assist in greater production. Should that increase production, as I am ready to admit it will, would it not have been wise, under the same Order in Council, to go further and .absolutely eliminate all the duty from farm implements? No doubt there would have been some objections from manufacturers, but the Government could have called the measure a war-time measure and waved the old flag, and it might have passed with-

out any .serious objections being raised. Some years ago there were brought uip in this House cases where manufacturers sold farm implements to dealers in the United States, paying the duty, and those dealers sold them back again to our western farmers, another duty being paid, and even then those implements were sold1 for less money than the price at which our dealers could sell them. Does any hon. member think that those manufacturers still require protection on the part of the .Government? This is an opportune time, when the war is on, to remove the duty on farm implements altogether.
A pledge was made by members of this Government to the farmers of my county that the latter would not be taken from their farms., that the object of the compulsory service legislation was to get at the slackers in large cities, such as Montreal. The same statement was made by some clergymen on public platforms, and no doubt they had authority to -make such statements. If not, they should have had authority before making such statements on public platforms. I believe the Government should be in a position to tell the farmers what they really intend to do. They should settle down to some kind of a policy whereby the people of this country will know what they have to do, and in that way the Government will prevent all this trouble that is now going on. They should call off many of the officers who are, without any reason, arresting young men. Judgment should be used, and when a young man is ready and willing to go he should not be taken as a criminal and locked up. All he asks is to be notified when he is wanted and where he has to report.
In my constituency, on the 16th of April, two young men were arrested; they were marched four miles down the track that evening and placed in jail. Two other young men, one only nineteen years of age, were asked to come to a village, and when they drove up with a team they were taken away from the team, not being allowed to drive the team home again, and put into jail. The next morning a man was taken from a field where he was working and also put into jail. He was not allowed even to go home and change his clothes. The men who were put into jail in the evening were taken out in the morning and given breakfast, and then they did not receive anything more to eat until night. They went without dinner. They had no chairs to sit down on, and there were no sanitary ar-

rangements. They were locked up in one room, being treated worse than criminals. At night they were given supper and were again locked up. The Government should see that the proper men are authorized to bring these men wherever they want them. Everybody is willing to help to win the war, but what the young men want is to know when they are wanted and where they have to report. A letter with a three cent stamp on it would have brought any one of those young men wherever they were required to report. They were later on taken out of jail, and four or five officers took them to Sherbrooke or Quebec. It is no wonder riots occur, in Quebec when young men are treated that way. It must have cost twenty or twenty-five dollars to round up each of these men. I did not intend to bring this matter up; but I have received letters from many of my electors requesting that this should he discussed in the House of Commons, and I hope nothing of the kind will happen again.


Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, this debate has already continued to such a considerable length that it is not my desire to prolong it unduly; but a consideration of the Budget touches upon the national interests at so many points that I believe it provides a suitable opportunity for the discussion of national affairs as would be provided under possibly no other circumstances. While, Sir, it gives occasion for constructive criticism, and also perhaps criticism of the opposite kind, I may say that I do not propose to approach the questions which I shall briefly discuss from the point of view of party politics at all. I believe that to-day the people of this country are not particularly concerned with party polities. They are interested in the war. They are interested in the heavy financial responsibilities that they have to bear, and in all those *things which result from the conduct of the war.
The national interests are to-day already iso delicately balanced that it would be nothing short of criminal on the part of the members of this House to attempt to make this the occasion for the making of party capital or for the securing of any purely party advantage. We have arrived a^ the most critical stage of the war. Our financial responsibilities are extremely heavy, [DOT]and the harmony which ought to exist, but which, unfortunately, does not exist amongst the members of the various races which go to make up this Dominion, deserves, to my mind, a different treatment

from that which was accorded to it yesterday on the occasion of the speech delivered by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken).
It is true that nearly all of us on this side of the (House differed and still differ from hon. gentlemen opposite on the question of conscription. It is not my intention or desire to re-thrash old straw. We were and are honestly opposed to conscription, and I believe we are right. I believe further that the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) showed the only . statesmanlike course we should have pursued in that matter. Now the Act has been tried out, and since we have heard hon. members of the Government admitting it has been a failure and have amended the Act within the last two weeks, I think I am absolutely correct in saying the leader of the Opposition will not be required to await the verdict of history, but that he is vindicated already in the opinion of the majority of the people of this Dominion. While we cannot support the Government in all its measures-I think every member on this side should realize and does realize he has nevertheless a responsibility to his constituents, and that it is his duty to support whatever legislation may be brought down by the Union Government which is deserving of support. It is no less the duty of hon. members on this side of the House to offer suggestions and criticism, constructive wherever possible, and to do all they can to advance the interests of the people of this Dominion.
Those of us who are new members have observed the proceedings of this House with a great deal of interest, and particularly with a view to observing how the Union Government will reconcile in a practical way its protestations of democracy with the actions of the executive branch of Parliament, so far as it relates to the members of the House at large. I admit, as a new member, that we have a great deal to learn but after all the new members come here with certain very well defined convictions. Among these, first of all, is the duty we owe to our constituents; we must not forget that we should represent their views. Secondly, we have the conviction, just as strong, that the Cabinet owes a direct responsibility to and derives its powers from the members of this House, and through them, from the people of this country. Believing that, I have observed, if not with surprise, at least with considerable disquiet, the undoubted tendency of the Government to arrogate to themselves powers that I believe should never be surrendered by the members of the House of Commons. We have to-day, as has been stated by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, Government by Order in Council. I do not profess to have any great knowledge of constitutional history or practice, but I have always had the impression that the Cabinet of a democratic country was supposed to employ itself more in the way of administration, and that the legislative function belonged to the House of Commons, directly representing the people. I believe I am right when I say that to-day, to a grave degree, the Cabinet has usurped the legislative functions which ought to rest entirely with the House of Commons. While I should like to enlarge on that point, time does not permit, and I will pass on to the. Budget itself.
It had been my intention if the. Acting Minister of Finance were here, to congratulate him on the very clear and comprehensive address he made in presenting the Budget. But after hearing the speech of (he hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. (Lemieux) I hesitate to do so, because he stated that the speech of the Acting Minister of Finance was really the speech of the Minister (Sir Thomas White). If that be true, I fear it will be a matter of considerable grief to the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) who told the House 'that it was the best Budget speech he had ever heard. (If the speech was really the brain-child of the Minister of Finance, it would be " the most unkindest cut of all " for the hon. member for Victoria thus to compliment that best beloved friend of his, Sir Thomas White. However that may be, I am inclined to give credit to whom it is apparently due. The Acting Minister of Finance has the honour of pra enting what I think is the largest Budget ever presented in the Dominion of Canada. It is a billion dollar Budget. Four years ago, a Budget of this size would have been thought not only absolutely impossible, hut entirely ruinous to the Dominion. To-day we are spending millions where formerly we were spending perhaps thousands, and conditions are such that we must go on. But I trust that in raising the money that is required we, the representatives of the people of Canada, will not ignore entirely the principle of financial conservation. To-day Canada is prosperous, and she is prosperous because we are living on borrowed money, and because of the abnormal conditions resulting from the war. But the reckoning will come, and with that in mind I am sure it will not he considered unpatriotic to be practical, or


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: -and it is quite unnecessary to place any further burdens upon him to make him realize that to the full. We may speak as we like of the high wages that are earned by the workingmen in these days, but I want to say that the working people with their big families, and it is usually the workingman who has the big family, already have all that they humanly can do to make ends meet. I believe it was rardly worthy of the Government to place the taxes which they have placed upon tea, and the little luxuries that the workingmen have in the form of tobacco and matches. I would like to see those taxes cut off altogether when the Bill is considered in Committee, and provide for the raising of money from other sources which can very well afford to pay.
I am quite in accord with that provision of the Government's proposals which grants an exemption of $200 for every child under the age of sixteen. I thought that when the Acting Minister of Finance made that announcement he would receive most hearty commendation f-cm my friends on this side of the Honan



from the province of Quebec, where, we are told, the families are very large. In that connection I can remember a certain occasion, about a year and a half ago, in the city of Hamilton, when I had the honour and the pleasure of attending a meeting m connection with the Bonne Entente -movement, which, by the way, has ended so suddenly and so unfortunately.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Godfrey's Tory speeches killed the Bonne Entente.


William Daum Euler: At that meeting I can remember the mayor of one of the cities of Quebec rather proudly acknowledged that he was the father of a family of twenty-five.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: I wish to ask the Acting Minister of Finance whether, in cases such as this, where the family is so large that the exemption of $200 per member of that family will wipe out the excess of income upon which that man might otherwise have to pay, the minister would not consent a bonus to those people.
I realize that I -am, perhaps, trespassing on the arrangement made to confine the length of speeches to some twenty or thirty minutes, and therefore I shall endeavour to bring my remarks to a close very soon. There are just one or two further observations I would like to make.
With regard to the question of production, the ground has been very well covered, I think, and yet I believe the Government do not realize the gravity of the situation which they have created. Those of us who have been among our constituents during the l-ast two weeks, have -a very much more accurate conception of the feeling of discouragement and consternation, and the lack of confidence that to-d-ay exists among the farmers of the province of Ontario. And when I read a few lines from a cablegram sent on April 13 to the Canada Food Board it seems almost the sheerest irony in view of the nature of legislation that has been placed upon the statute book in the form of amendments to the Military Service Act:
[DOT]'In these stern days it is inspiring to learn that Canada is tackling the food problem with redoubled energy.
"We cannot achieve victory without food. There never was a time when it was more needed. The Canadian farmer and the Canadian farmhand now have the opportunity to make an effective reply to the enemy's present onslaughts by bending their undivided energies to the increased production of those food supplies for
fMr. Euler. 1
which we depend to such vital extent upon your great Dominion."
That cablegram was sent by Lord Rhondda, Food Controller of Great Britain. The member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) the other day made reference to what he called a "vicious circle." I believe that the legislation that the Government have passed in conscripting the farmer will result in another vicious circle: No men on the farms, no food, and ultimately, if there be no food, there will be no men.
I was going to comment, Mr. Speaker, on -another phase of the subject, which has already been touched upon, and with which I will deal very briefly. I was somewhat surprised yesterday when the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Glark) gloried in the fact that the pledge given -to the farmers had been violated. I hope, Sir, I am no Pharisee, but it is difficult for me-a.s I am sure it is for many other members of the House, some of whom sit on the other side, if they speak -thei-r convictions-to understand the mental attitude that permits any man, or any responsible body of men, to violate a solemn promise given to the farmers of this country. As the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Ross) stated the other day in the House, a pledge is a pledge. In my opinion a pledge can be obviated only by the consent of those to whom it was given. The Government nrge military necessities as the ground for thei-r -action. Those military necessities may be very great, but that was the doctrine that was invoked in another case, to which I need not refer, at -the beginning of the war, and which doctrine meets with the condemnation of the whole civilized world.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: I trust, Sir, that we have not adopted the vicious doctrine that "the end justifies the means."
I have not noticed in the speech of the Acting Minister of Finance any reference to the claims of the letter carriers of Canada. I do not know what the intentions of the Government are with respect to this deserving class of Government employees, but I read in the press a few days ago that it was proposed to give them some recognition in the form of increased remuneration.
I believe the Government would be justified in giving to these men a very substantial increase in pay. Their work is difficult and responsible, and1 they have not been paid in accordance with their needs. While I say that, I would also make ia plea on behalf of the country postmasters, and the

men who are in the service of the Government driving vehicles on the rural routes, whose case, I believe, is just as good as that of the letter-carriers. While we should exercise economy, the people should not forget that the labourer is worthy of his hire.
One thing more, Mr. Speaker, and I am through. We are told that it is desirable that this House should adjourn to give opportunity for the Prime Minister, the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell), and, I believe, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), to proceed overseas to confer with the representatives of the Imperial Government and of the other Dominions. While I do not begrudge the trip, to the President of the Council,-and I would like to remind the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) that this time the President of the Council will go at the expense of the Government-and while I believe that the Minister of the Interior is weil worthy of any consideration, because we have been told, and I believe it is true, that during the last session at least he was the hardiest worked) member of the Government, it, seems to me that if the consultation pertains to the carrying on of the war the Minister of Militia (Mr. Mewburn) and the Minister of the Naval Service (Mr. Ballantyne) should rather be members of that delegation.


Sir WILFRID LA DRIER:: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: Some one near me mentions also the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) and I might say that that is a good suggestion. We have an Overseas Minister of Militia (Sir Edward Kemp) and it would be quite in the interests of the country if the two Ministers of Militia were able to get together once in a while to compare notes. The Minister of the Naval Service in presenting his estimates, I can say without flattery, earned the approbation of members on this side of the House. He handled his work and his figures not only courteously but in the most businesslike way, and with great ability. His department has in charge a work of great consequence to the people of Canada, the construction of ships, which, in itself, is a large factor in connection with the war. It seems to me that these two ministers, in any conference pertaining to the war, might very well accompany the Prime Minister across the sea.
Now, Sir, a last word. We know there are members on the other side of the House who are not altogether in accord with
103i
some of the actions of the Government. We know that is the case in connection with the exemption of the farmers, we know that they desire free implements, and they are setting that desire aside for the time being in the interest, as they say, of the winning of the war. We know that they do not altogether agree with the recent increase in freight rates. But we have the disappointing experience, and the disappointing spectacle of having the protests on the part of these gentlemen made, not in the House where such protests count, but in the corridors of this House and in the Committee on Agriculture. Let me say that so far as, I am concerned, and with all due deference to my right hon. leader I propose to exercise a very considerable degree of independence. We have been told that the Union Government created the opportunity for the exercise of a measure of independence by members on that side such as never existed before. For my part, so far I have failed to see it in a practical way, or in any way that counts. I would say to these gentlemen- and I do not know that it is quite fitting that any advice of this kind should come from a humble back-bencher, a man new to this House-that it is their duty to represent their constituents, that we should all realize that, after all, the Cabinet, the Government, the executive power, should be the servant, not the master, of this Parliament; and that these members will find if they do follow their convictions that they will maintain not only their own self respect but they will not in any way prejudice the winning of the war.
Mr. JOSEPH ABCHAMiBAULT (Chanr-bly and Vercheres) : Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively on Tuesday of last week to the most interesting address of the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean) also to the speeches made by the various members in the course of this debate. It is not my intention to pick holes in the Budget or to make a long speech at this stage but. simply to draw attention to certain sides of the question which might be of some interest.
Last year, when the healthy, but now convalescent, Minister of Finance (Sir Ihomas White) introduced the income tax measure an article appeared in a newspaper in Montreal on July 31, 1917, of which the following is a translation:
Nobody will pretend that the father of eight or ten young children can easily take away from a salary or income of three or four thousand dollars, the same amount that the head of the

believe that the prices of these commodities were rising because of their great scarcity. He was the Nemesis of the profiteer. But everybody knows that he was practically forced to resign. Change after charge followed in his reports, but despite all this he had to resign; the situation made it impossible for him to carry on his work successfully. Who possesses the power to minimize the effective work of the food investigator? This is a proper question to ask and I hope the Government will answer it. But Mr. Speaker, the resignation of Mr. O'Connor did not come to me as an extraordinary shock, because at the beginning of the session, when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) brought down his estimates he gave the House a foretaste of his policy. The hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) was questioning the Minister of Labour 'about the prehistoric chickens of Winnipeg', and the minister replied- (page 212 of Unrevised Hansard):
As soon as X heard of the chickens that had spoiled in cold storage in Winnipeg. I wired the manager of that concern, and he referred my wire to the head office in Toronto, who wrote me at once concerning the matter. A few days later I got an explanation from the manager of the concern in Winnipeg, which satisfied me there was no intention of wrongdoing.
I was told before I came to this House that I should expect some surprises from the Minister of Labour-and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I got a surprise at the start.
Why, the people of this country are buckling their belts tighter and tighter every day. . While the Government is asking the people to economize and conserve food for the Allies, profiteers and food hoarders like the William Davies Company when caught in the act-and not their first offence-are allowed to go scot-free by simply writing a letter that tickles the ear of the Minister of Labour. I had always thought that we, the representatives of the people, had something to- say in these matters, and may 1 add these people would not have got off so easily if their explanation had reached this House instead of the well-seasoned and trained ear of the Minister of Labour. We might have been more suspicious of this wonderful hypnotic letter which so easily convinced the minister.
I said that the second condition required by the people of this country to accept cheerfully the pecuniary sacrifices involved in the Budget, and a condition essential to winning the war and avoiding famine, is the maximum production of food. Every-
!'M:\ Archambault.]
one admits that, so I will not take the time of the House in demonstrating it. I might, however, remark that when we on this side of the House were urging this fact during the last election we were accused of disloyalty and called traitors. The great economists of the world.-David F. Houston, secretary of the Department of Agriculture of. the United States, Prof. Arthur Bichmond Marsh, Director of the Economic World; Mr. IBoret, president of the French Commission of Agriculture, Sir George Paish, Mr. Prothero, Daniel Belief, Georges Blondel, Victor Gambon, Edward Lyall Fox, Austin Harrison-all agree that famine is at our door. We are now facing a crisis, and it is imperative that production be increased. Remember, Mr. Speaker, the plough will be the gun that will fire the last shot in this war. Appeals for greater production have frequently been made by the Canada Food Board in their bulletins. That appeal is made on practically every page of the Bulletin of February 23, 1918. I am glad to say that the province from which I come is doing wonderful work in that respect. All authorities in the province are bending their energies to that end. The Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal of the province of Quebec, Sir Horace Archambault, appealed to the people of the province through the newspapers. Archbishop Bruchesi has also made an appeal to the people of Quebec, and if il were not afraid of scandalizing some of my friends opposite I would read what he said. However, I do not see present the hon. gentleman who would Ibe scandalized, so I will read his letter, which was read in every Church of the province of Quebec on Ash Wednesday:	.
At the present time, other voices than her's Cthe Church's) imperious in their demand for the practice of abstinence and economy, have been heard. These are the voices of governments dismayed by the disastrous consequences of the war, and who foresee perhaps the awful spectre of a universal famine.
Appeals are becoming more urgent day by day.- We must, it is said, eon\e to the aid of our soldiers by sending to them the food which they ask for. The most urgent question of the day is the question of assistance. We must look forward to the eventualities of the future; let us therefore economize; let superfluity be banished from our tables; deprive ourselves every day of some bread and some meat. In certain quarters leagues are formed. Citizens are asked with insistence to sign cards pledging themselves to cohform to these measures called economical, but which are, after all, real measures for the practice of penance.
Restaurants and hotels must abide by laws of privation, the infraction of which entails severe fines. These rigorous rules, these pressing recommendations, are inspired by sympa-

thy towards our brothers, by public interest and the fear of evils ever menacing us.
What is solicited or prescribed by the stress of circumstances and for merely human motives, although praiseworthy and legitimate in themselves, let us continue to do for the supernatural motives recorded in the Gospel, and recalled to our mind by the Church.
This doctrine is for all times; it should especially be understood and accepted during days of suffering and mourning such as those we are now traversing. How can we give ourselves up to pleasure, how can we speak of banquets and worldly feasts, when we think of the thousands of men, women and children who lament and weop, without food or shelter, submitted to all the sadness of a cruel exile; and above alii, when we think of those poor soldiers agonizing in the hospitals or dying on the field of battle.
I think every one in this House will say that that is the kind ot appeal that should be made to our people. I think it was a splendid effort on the part of the head of the church in Montreal. But it is not only the ecclesiastical authorities in the province of Quebec that have made these appeals. Mr. J. A. Grenier, Deputy Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec, made the following special appeal:
Our first step was to organize an educational campaign. For lecture purposes the Province was divided into twenty-five districts. In each of these districts we placed two lecturers, one an experienced agricultural attached to the Provincial Department of Agriculture and- the other a practical farmer. These men were made responsible for visiting every parish in their respective districts, and at the present time nine-tenths of the parishes, both French and English, have been covered in this way. The staff of Macdonald College have helped in our campaign in certain constituencies and have given much information to the agronomists of these districts.
We are supplementing this series of lectures by publicity in the Journal d'Agriculture and other newspapers, and also by circulars addressed to the parish priests, mayors, postmasters, bank managers, railway station agents, and others. The first circular letter addressed to the parish priests was read in the churches. The letter to the mayors is being sent out and the others will be issued from month to month in order to maintain the interest of the public.
Up to the present time we have purchased 540 choice sows, which will be distributed in the spring. We are making arrangements with the abattoirs for the purchase of an additional number. The Department has bought several car-loads of shorts which will be sold to the farmers. We are also planning to buy corn as soon as supplies are available.
We are awaiting the decision of the hanks upon the question of exhibition of hogs. At these exhibitions entries will be received from young people, the object being to organize our own hog contests. We are counting upon an increase of 20 per cent in the number of hogs this year over normal production if the province can obtain a sufficient quantity of feed.
The Federal Department of Agriculture has assured us that the province of Quebec will receive the necessary seed wheat to cultivate
700,000 acres and to produce 12,000,000 bushels of wheat, which would be enough to provide for tlie consumption in this province. As this wheat is sold only in car-load lots, we have made arrangements with the more important co-operative societies to provide seed wheat in small quantities in localities where the farmers are not able to buy a whole car load. The Agronomists and Agricultural Societies, and agricultural circles are taking orders at the present time. We have good hopes of being able to treble our normal production of wheat this year.
We have taken the necesary steps to ensure to the farmers seed peas and beans to meet all their requirements. We are confident that the production of these two products will be double the normal crops.	.
Here is a short article in the Canada Food Bulletin reporting the pledge card campaign in Quebec:
Quebec Pledge Campaign.
Splendid meetings have been held and card canvass is going well.
The pledge card campaign in Quebec is going well. Splendid meetings have been held under the auspices of Chief Justice Lemieux, Hon. Mr. Caron, Minister of Agriculture, and Hon. Mr. Chapais, a member of the Legislative Council. The first housewife in Quebec to sign the card was the Mayoress, Mrs. Lavigueur, and the second was the President of the Housewives' League, Mrs. Tanguay.
We are not confining ourselves to appeals or preaching, but we are also getting results. Let me compare the agricultural production in Quebec in 1916 with thalt of 1917. The figures are:
	1916.	1917.
Sheep 	. . . 497,711	849,148Pigs	. . . 531,303	712,087Cows	. . . 639,805	911,023Other cattle . . . ,	. .. 535,693	958,010Bushels.	Bushels.Wheat	. . . 960,000	3,883,600Oats 	. . . 24,411,000	32,466,200Barley 	. . . 1,456,000	3,063,600Peas 	797,500Beans 	. .. 78,000	827,400Buckwheat	. . . 1,919,000	2,699.000Potatoes	18,158,000Turnips 	. . . 2,650,000	15,759,000
I take these figures from the Journal of Agriculture of the province of Quebec dated February 15, 1918. But when we are asked to produce food and when we are bending our efforts towards that end, we are stunned by (the announcement of an Order in Council passed by this Government calling off the exemptions from military service of men between the ages of twenty and twenty-two inclusive who are engaged' in agricultural production. This was followed by voting down an amendment proposed in this: House exempting farmers. This amendment was voted down on the 19th of this month, and the Canadian Food Bulletin of the month of March, issued by authority of the Government, stated that

we were short 118,500 farmers. The publication in question, at page 5 of its issue of 7th of March, 1918, states that the shortage of farm hands in Alberta was 13,000, in Saskatchewan 25,000, in Manitoba 17,000, in Ontario 35,000, in Quebec many thousands, in New Brunswick 2,000, in Prince Edward Island 500, and in Nova Scotia 2,500. Assuming a comparative pro- [DOT] portion for the province of Quebec I might put the shortage there at 20,000, which makes a total shortage, as stated, of 118,500. What will be the result of this policy? It will mean that we will miss our best opportunity to help the Allies. It will mean that if the Allies lose the war on account o-f the food shortage, the Government, whose short-sighted policy has always been to render not the most effective but the most spectacular aid, will be partly responsible.
At one o'clock the House rose.
The House resumed at three o'clock.


Joseph Archambault: (Resuming). Mr. Speaker, when the House rose I was trying to impress upon hon. gentlemen the absurd and illogical reasoning of the Government in refusing to exempt farmers from military service, while at the same time declaring in an official publication, the Canadian Food Bulletin, that there was a shortage of 118,500 farm hands this spring. By this short-sighted policy we aTe missing the opportunity to render effective aid to the Allies and are running along the road to suicide at a tremendous pace. You may open the newspapers every day, Mr. Speaker, and find advertisements by farmers offering to sell their land because they cannot get help. Delegations from every province, except perhaps Quebec, are pouring into this House protesting against the folly of such an enactment. Meetings of protestation are being held everywhere from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Why is the province of Quebec not protesting so strongly, why are there practically no delegations from that province? The reason is very simple. The people of ny province were prepared long ago for the reversal of the promises of this. Government. When the candidates of the Union Government in my province told the farmers that they would be exempted the electors did not believe them, and they are not surprised at what has happened now. But the electors of the other provinces, whose votes the Government obtained under false pretenses, are beginning to realize the hollow

ness of its promises; they know how the Government got their vote. On December 3 last, fifteen days before the election, an Order in Council was passed exempting farmers, and on the following day a message from the Government appeared in the press announcing that even those farmers who had already been drafted could apply to the Minister of Militia and be returned to their farms. On December 7 a case was submitted to the -Central Appeal judge, that of Mr. Rowntree, and the judgment was that a person who is habitually and effectively engaged in labour essential to the production of food should not be conscripted. Why, there was a paper published in Montreal, which lived only during the campaign, called Le Vrai Patriot-the True Patriot-in which appears an article which I have translated as follows:
The Central Appeal Judge has rendered a decision in favour. of the exemption of farmers' sons, which the Liberal press does not acknowledge. In order to maintain the Military effort of the allies, it is essential that Canada should not lessen its agricultural production.
Farm hands are not superabundant in the country, they are rather insufficient.
Here are two important principles enunciated by Judge Duff, who constitutes the central appeal tribunal under the military law, on an appeal from the judgment of an exemption tribunal, which had refused an exemption asked by a farmer. The exemption of the farmer was immediately granted.
The decision in this test case will bring happiness to all the farmers of Canada.
A short-lived happiness, Mr. Speaker, after the last announcement.
It will reassure them not only for the present, but for the future.
A future which ended last week or two weeks ago.
Their status has been fixed on a definite unequivocal question. By this decision the farm hands will not be taken away from their work, no matter how hard pressed, we may be by our participation in the war.
The national interests and the Allies interests are served by the farmers continuing to work on the land. Although the law theoretically does not exempt them from military service, it does exempt them practically.
Here is assuredly something that will disappoint the poor Liberals, who were so happy in trying to convince the farmers that they would not escape military service. This judgment of Judge Duff will fall on them with much more vigour than a sunstroke. Any way, these good Liberals never thought for one moment that the farmers would come under the law. They knew that the intention of the government was to exempt all farmers and all farm hands.
This article is from a paper published by the Unionist organization in Montreal. I find on the third page portraits of the hon. Mr. Sevigny, the hon. Mr. Blondin, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), the

[DOT]ex-vice-president of this House, Mr. Rain-ville, all good supporters of the Unionist party, as well as portraits of all the candidates endorsed by the Union Government in the province of Quebec. And talking about the ex-vice-president of this House, [DOT]here is a letter which was sent to every farmer in my constituency by Mr. J. H. Rainville, my opponent in the last election,
I will translate.
Dear Sir,
I am pleased to inform you that the regulations of the military law exempt the bona fide farmers

It will be observed that he went further than the election paper to which I have referred, and further than the' Order in Council.
-exempt the bona fide farmers, their families and industrials. X have at last succeeded' in winning this point, and it is only justice. You can, then, send without any fear your sons to the tribunals. Special instructions have been given to that effect.
I hope that the farmers will do all they can to ensure greater production of all that is necessary to feed the population.
With the assurance of my best wishes, believe me,
Yours very truly,
(iSgd.) J. H. Rainville.
But that is not all. In order to get the vote of the farmers, which was slipping away at that time, the whole of the Unionist Press, in elaborate articles, insisted that the Military Service Act did not threaten them; that they would remain on their farms-and similar arguments were addressed to those engaged in national industries. In its issue of August 30, the Montreal Star, referring to the Military Service Act, said:
It is merely a scheme for raising- a definite number of new recruits-one hundred thousand. This is less than one-fourth as many as we have raised already. It proposes to raise these recruits among the young men in the community who have no domestic responsiblities and who are not usefully employed) in war-winning work. It will take only young men who should have gone long ago or who have not before reached military age.
It is, in short, a scheme of selective recruiting. v
If the recruiting officers had continued to get volunteers in sufficient numbers, this Act probably would not have been proposed. But the country would have suffered. Voluntary recruiting-as we now know in ^Canada and as they learned even more -bitterly in Britain-is a wasteful and mischiev/ous way to get men. The working men volunteer very often. That is, a man who is needed for some essential war-work at home offers to go; and) he is taken. In Britain, they were compelled to weed tens of thousands of these skilled' workers out of the army in France and bring them back to the factory, the foundry and the farm. If these
skilled workers had properly known their own value, they would have known that they had no business ta volunteer. For them to volunteer was to desert. But they could not know. That is a matter for the expert organizers of war services. So these expert organizers got a law in Britain which enabled them to simply tap the right young man on the shoulder and say-"You go"-and shake a prohibitive finger at the wrong young man and say-"You stay."
Not only did the Star make these assertions on its editorial page, but papers generally from other provinces were full of similar messages. On December 4 the following article appeared in the Star:
The Military Service Act will be no hardship to Alberta farmers. A short time ago H. W. Wood, President of the United Farmers of Alberta, representing 150,000 farmers, issued an interview to the press stating that it was most unwise of the Government to rob the farms of the producers,- for military service, and stop the production of food for the Allies. On hearing of Premier Borden's anouncement and on receipt of a letter from the military registrar, Mr. Wood has decided that the Military Service Act will not impose any hardships on the farmers of Alberta, pointing out that appeal can be made by all farmers against decisions of tribunals and arguing them to take action in accordance with the modified Government regulations to get exemptions.
On the same page, the Star says:
Ontario has 82 seats and Unionists are confident of carrying 70 of them. That there has been some unrest in the rural parts owing to the anomalies in the ruling of exemption tribunals is not questioned, but the steps taken by the Government a few days ago to ensure that a Ibona fide agriculturist will not -be interfered with neutralize effectively any adverse tendency.
What were the papers of the other provinces saying? I read in the Toronto World of December 10 the following:
General Mewburn announces that all farmers coming within Class A called out for military service under the provisions of the Military Service Act who are actually employed on a farm in the production of foodstuffs for Canada and her Allies, and whose services are necessary in the work of such farm, will be exempted from military service. If such a farmer Is drafted in the army General Mewburn feels that it will be his duty to relieve him from military service on the condition that he returns to the farm and continues to be so employed.
The Canadian Thresherman and Farmer,
of Winnipeg, dealt with this subject nnder such heads as the following: " Vote for Union Government," " Agriculture, Canada's prime industry, must carry on, unchecked iby the draft." " Farmers' sons needed on land." "Sir Robert Borden's guarantees." " General Mewharn's explicit statement in regard to the sons of farmers needed on the home farm." "Necessity of selective draft." This paper says:

Class A men will suffice, and will be placed where they can give most value to Canada and the cause, whether in the ranks, on the land, or in the factory.
No reasons have been brought forward for the changing of the law; the Government is simply going back on its word. Before the election I was against the Military Service Act; I conscientiously believed that we could give better aid to the Allies and to our own country by continuing the system of voluntary recruiting, by encouraging shipbuilding and by increasing food production. I am still against this law; I conscientiously believe that it is a failure, and, if it were possible to do so, by constitutional means, I would repeal it for the sake of .harmony and unity. But I have always been a law-abiding citizen, and when this Act became law I held meetings in my constituency explaining the Act and urging my fellow-citizens to obey it and register. Other hon. members on this side of the House did the same thing. The result was that the province of Quebec had the highest percentage of registrations. Nevertheless, I must confess that the last Order in Council, abolishing exemptions for a certain class of men, is mere national suicide and will not help to win the war. It will reduce production and create, throughout this country, a feeling of unrest.
I must apologize for having taken up so much of the time of the House, but I felt it was my duty to-day to explain my opinions frankly, without prejudice, in accordance with the dictates of my conscience and to the best of my ability. I believe I am expressing the sentiments of hon. members on this *ide of the House when I state that, since the beginning of this session, v, e have felt there has been a distinct effort on both sides to bring harmony between the two great races comprising this Dominion. It is true, a few hon. members on your right, Sir, have to have their unavoidable attacks of nettle rash after a bad digestion. Some of them will never take a polish. Even for the sake of unity, they will not stop their ramblings; but, thank God, they are the minority, and the true Canadians on your right are just as sick as we are of their exaggerated expressions. Let me, in conclusion, read a short article, published in the Toronto Saturday Night of the 27th of April, 1918, regarding one of those hon. members who do not -stop attacking the province of Quebec:
The present session of the House of Commons cannot wind up any too soon to suit the average intelligent Canadian, and last week we noted with (pleasure that thereafter Government

business was to have the preference. This, it is to be hoped, will give the Administration more control over the debates of the House, and the public will be spared some of the imbecile and mischievous oratory which has marked the discussion of almost every question that has come before the Commons this session.
Of all the speeches, perhaps the most mischievous was that of Mr. Clements, of Comax-Alberni, B.C., who went so far as to propose that o0,000- or 75,000 French Canadians be carried away from Quebec and forced to work in the forests of British Columbia. It is nothing short of damnable that such a proposal should be made on the floor of Parliament in times like these. Everywhere, the Prussian policy of forcibly conveying Belgians into the heart of Germany to do war work has been denounced ; yet Mr. Clements has the coolness to propose that we adopt the same course toward a group of fellow Canadians. He added insult to injury by stating that this policy would make better citizens of its victims, which is a good deal like the German boast that it will make better citizens of the Belgians to place them under the yoke of German "kultur."
To this school of thinkers we shall say -that on this side we are well able to tell them what we think of them, and I can assure you, Sir, that our opinion of them is a hundred times worse than their opinion of us. But we keejj ourselves under control for the sake of harmony and unity. We understand in a practical and patriotic way that we are at war. To the others-and they are tlhe -majority-we are glad to say that, through their behaviour and their evident disgust of these intolerant and ill-natured attacks, we foresee the near return of the bonne entente, the harmony, union and prosperity which will make of this Canada of ours a better place to live- in, a better place tp thrive in and a better -country to fight for.


Mr. J. E. O. GLADU (Yamaska):: and less again do they represent Great Britain. It is the wound which imposes upon us the sacred duty of healing as quickly and as energetically as we can, but, Sir, it is childish to maintain that such a situation, however grave and pitiful it may be, materially changes our general situation, our obligations as a people* at all times, conscious of its honour, its dignity and its liberty.
I love sufficiently my country, Sir, to be moved by the keen desire to see it fulfil its duty to the end, confident as I am that by these means, and this means alone, it will assure for itself the material prosperity which it deserves coupled with the future and the honour of its children. .
Gentlemen, whatever you may say or think, rest assured that alone in the triumph of the Allied Cause will we find the remedy to the evils from which we are now suffering and the guarantee of our future peace and happiness. To attain, Sir, that lofty purpose it is above all others essential, that we should bind together the individual energies of each of us, direct them as a whole towards that supreme object which constitutes the programme of the Prime Minister of Prance, Mr. Briand, a programme unique in the world's history, and which can be summarized in one word "Victory".
Gentlemen, I do not wish a change in the political status of my country ; let it grow and prosper in the future as it has done in the past; let the link that binds us to Britain remain as it is, imaginary in fact but strong in reality. This is all the liberty that I ask for Canada.
Sir, that is the kind of disloyalty I have been preaching in the province of Quebec.
I am proud to say that at a later day in Quebec I preached the same gospel. I am proud ,to say that in speaking in the way which I have indicated I was but following the advice, of my Tight hon. leader. A year later I addressed some young Liberals in Montreal but it is not necessary for me to quote what I said then because my observations on that occasion were along the same lines. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), in concluding his speech yesterday said: "I want the province of Quebec to respect the constitution and to recognize it." I would ask the hon. gentleman if the fact of spreading hatred of one race against another, as he has been doing in the past in his newspaper, is respecting the constitution. We have heard much of late about respecting the constitution but would it not be fair to ask those who are so anxious to have the constitution respected to show some respect for it themselves? I would not like to say anything disagreeable to anybody on the other side of the House, hut if the hon. gentleman to whom I have referred desired to be disagreeable to his own leader he would never have spoken otherwise than he did yesterday, because I contend that since 1911 no one has shown more contempt for
[iMr. Gladti. 1
the constitution than the .right hon. the Prime Minister himself.
Let us have a glimpse at his political career since 1911. There is no use trying to make people believe that we are not respecting the constitution when those who are supposed to have the constitution in their special charge do not themselves respect it. When the Prime Minister was called to office in 1911 his first act was to commit a breach of the constitution. We all know that according to our constitution the members of the Cabinet must foe in accord, that they must all feel and think the same way. Is it necessary to remind the House that the right hon. gentleman, unable to count on a majority elected by the people, was forced to appeal to gentlemen who' had. been elected to combat his Adi-ministration and his policy? In 1916 every body remembers perfectly well that the right hon. gentleman sent a message to the people of Canada in which he stated: " I have promised 500,000 men to England and have promised them without consulting any of my ministers." Would the Kaiser himself dare to do the same even in the autocratic country over which he rules? In 1917, the Prime Minister, after having asked for an extension of the term of Parliament, obtained that extension under the distinct agreement and understanding that no contentions measures would be brought before the House. During the session that followed we had the Canadian Northern, measure which was brought in against the will of the members of this side of the House, aud. which was more than a .contentious measure. It was not exactly a violation of the written law of the country, but it was. a violation o.f the law of honour.
In that same year, 1917, we had another measure brought forward. As I was not in the House at that time, I would like to discuss that question at a certain length, because I think that at an early date it will have to be discussed in this House, and, if not this session, certainly at the next session. I refer to the War-time Elections Act. If there is in our statutes a law which deserves the condemnation of the people of this country and of the members of this House, it is the War-time Elections Act. This Act was passed for what reason? Because w.e were at war? To win the war? No, Sir. The reason that measure was passed in 1917 was that the Government did not dare face public opinion on its own merits, and it had to disfranchise hundreds of thousands of British

citizens who were entitled to vote and who were not favourable to the Government at that time. The worst feature of this legislation, to my mind, especially for those who are always boasting of their loyalty and devotion to the British Empire, is that the Government has adopted measures which are a dishonour to this country and to the British Empire. When men of German and Austrian origin came to this country several years ago, they came, as the Prime Minister stated himself in 1914 and 1915, because they were invited to come here knowing that this was a free country, that their rights would be respected, and that they would be treated as British citizens. They took the oath as British citizens. They knew when they took that oath that they were binding themselves to respect the King, and Constitution of this country. When these men were disfranchised, those who did it simp'y repudiated the King's signature and dishonoured the Crown of England.' They gave that legislation retroactive effect going back ais far as 1902. This is an abuse of a serious character. I intended to quote what the Prime Minister said at that time, but I shall just read two or three lines of it. Speaking of the Germans, in 1914, the horn, gentleman said:
Nearly half a million of the very best citizens of Canada are of German origin, and' I am sure that no one would for one moment desire to utter any word or use any expression in debate which would wound: the self-respect, or hurt the feelings of any of our fellow citizens of German descent.
Some 'hon. MEMBERS:	Hear, hear.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: The hon. gentleman added:
We have no reason to doubt, and we do not doubt, that these people will toe absolutely true to the country of their adoption.
Sir, if the Germans in Canada were true to the country of their adoption in 1914 and in 1915, when the Prime Minister spoke of ithemi, they were equally true to- theii adopted country in 1917. But the very reason why the Prime Minister and his colleagues Changed their attitude towards those Germans who were then British citizens was, as I said a moment ago, that they had no fadth whatever in the Government of that time, any more than one-half the' ministers who are now sitting on the other side had faith in the late Government.
In a copy of the Current History Magazine, published by the New York Times a year ago, I found this article:
Germany's Form of Government
Strange to -say I found in this work the very principle of the legislation which was
submitted to the House last session, and which' is called the War-time Elections Act. So that not only wae this legislation not British legislation, and legislation' in which, of course, there is no British fair play, hut it has been borrowed if not stolen from Germany. IThat is a reason, ISir, why that very legislation, especially from the point of view of the ultra loyalists, should be considered a stain on our statutes: and should be expunged from them,. 'Sir, When you think of the way in which the hon. the Prime Minister is trying sometimes to impose his views upon this side of the House, and upon the country, it is very interesting to notice that there is. another man in the world who. uses practically the same language, and here is what he says:
It is a tradition in our House to consider ourselves as designed toy God' to govern the peoples over which it is given us to reign.
Just as. those gentlemen opposite sometimes tell us, we do this because we want to win the war, and we are the only ones who want to win the war.
:My grandfather placed-, hy his own right-
In our case the hon. gentleman cannot, say that he has been placed by the people's right or voice, when he has been placed only by this outrageous and: scandalous legislation, the War-time Elections Act.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I regret that I
have to call the hon. member to order. It is not competent for him, to speak in disrespectful terms of a,n Act of Parliament, namely, the War-time Elections Act.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: Mr. Speaker, I very
willingly abide by your ruling. I do not contend that this legislation is absolutely bad, because it has produced some good results so far. I cannot say that it has produced only bad results, lest . I forget, Sir, that we owe to- it the great privilege, and the greater honour, of retaining .your services as presiding officer of this House. I quote further:
'My grandfather placed, toy his own right, the crown of the kings of Prussia on his head, once more laying stress upon the fact that it was conferred upon him toy the Grace of God alone, not by Parliament, by meetings of the people, or by popular decision'; and that he considered himself as the chosen instrument of Heaven, and as such performed his duties as regent and ruler. Considering myself as the Instrument of the Cord, without heeding the views or opinions of the day, I go my way which is devoted' solely and alone to the prosperity and peaceful development of our Fatherland.
Sir, it was the Kaiser who uttered those words, and he says further on:

More than ever, unibedief and discontent raised their head. It may happen, though God forbid, that you may have to fire on your own parents and1 brothers. Prove your fidelity, then, by your sacrifice.
Would you not think that had been written for the present situation in the Dominion of Canada? Sir, knowing, as you have reminded me, that I should say nothing against the legislation which has been , passed by this Parliament, let me say at least that I regret its enactment. To my mind it is not only a violation of the rights of the people, but it is un-4 p.-m. patriotic, anti-Canadian, and anti-British.
We have been told, Sir, on several occasions, that we do not show enough loyalty. We have been told that we were not fulfilling our duty as we should in the present conflict. We have been told also, that there were many in this country who have given the best examples of loyalty. I remember a few years ago sitting in the press gallery, a post of honour from which, according to circumstances, I rwas forced to step down to where I am to-day, that a discussion took place in this House, and we heard of several men specially mentioned for their loyalty. I will only mention by name a few of those men, because I want to be brief. I remember that the then Minister of Militia gave us as ian example of loyalty and of devotion to the British Empire the name of a man who had refused any salary to work for the Empire's interests. That man was doing the Empire's work, it is said, from mere patriotism, and his name was Mr. Allison. I remember, also, that at that time they were boosting the name of a man, Sir Joseph Flavelle, who was also refusing any salary, or refusing to accept any money from the British Empire. No, Sir, that man would not accept any money from the British Empire; he was giving his services'on the ground of loyalty and nothing else. Think of Joseph Flavelle giving his services without any indemnity! The man whom we know now would apply the methods of Shylock to his mother's breast if by doing so he could1 pile up a little more money. There were other men-and I hope, Sir, that I am not speaking disrespectfully when I am not speaking of an Act of Parliament passed1 by members of this House -who boasted of their loyalty >and devotion to the British Empire, and they were tue two greatest scoundrels this country has ever produced-Mackenzie and1 Mann. It is rather surprising to learn that these

very men are still before Parliament asking for more of the people's money. There are others I could name, but these are sufficient for to-day. These men have been held up to us as examples of loyalty and devotion to the British Empire. Well, if to be loyal to the British Empire it is necessary to follow in the steps of these men, I will never be loyal to the British Empire. And I will say further, that if all those who have made the British Empire great and glorious, as it is, if all1 those who have immortalized England',-Nelson, Wellington. Wolfe, Roberts, Kitchener, and those who are making history to-day-were told that such men as those I have mentioned have been branded as examples of loyalty and as descendants of their blood, they would simply tell you, Mr. Speaker, that they were- not descendants of their blood, they were not even the foam or the slime of it.
I listened the other day to the Budget speech of the Acting Minister of Finance, and, as was stated yesterday by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), I think the acting minister was more of a mouthpiece than anything else on that occasion, I think that that speech was framed up in the land with which we were to have no truck or trade, and does not represent the personal opinions1 of the hon. gentleman. I cannot understand-I may be wrong-how the amount of our national debt could be specified with exactness by the acting minister. I remember that, two years ago, the Hon. Mr. Pugsley forced an answer from the Minister of Finance. We were -told what our liabilities to England were in the present war, that we would have to contribute in proportion to the number of men we sent to the front, compared with the number of men sent by England. We were also told that not a shell would explode on the front without Canada paying her contribution. I do not know whether I am misinterpreting what I heard !at that time, but if I am right, it seems to me impossible for the Acting Minister of Finance to state exactly what our debt situation is to-day. We are told that we will have to pay proportionately to the number of soldiers we have at the front compared with the number that England has. If England has five millions, and we have five hundred thousand, would it be wrong to think that we would be Liable for one-tenth of the war expenditure? We are bound certainly to pay a certain part of it. How can we know exactly to what proportion we are bound? Is there any understanding

*which has heen communicated to the House as to exactly where we stand on that question? I do not think so. I think that we are living in a desert absolutely on that question, and that neither the Acting Minister of Finance nor any one else can state where we stand. I say that not to find fault in any way with the Acting Minister of Finance, but 'because it is the right of the people of this country to know exactly where we stand. The Government is asking the people every year for hundreds of millions of dollars. They tell us the money will be loaned to England, that it will yield a good rate of interest; and that some day it will come back to us. The Prime Minister stated the other day that he thought there was a little balance in our favour; but there is nothing certain about that. Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, it only fair that the public should be informed of the exact situation?


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: For the past year or more the arrangement with the Imperial Government is that we pay the British Government the equivalent of, I think, $1.25 per day per man for the upkeep of our troops, and that arrangement has not been interfered with, so it is an exact amount. That includes also the equipment required for our men and our proportion of the munitions.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: That amount covers the whole thing?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: I did not understand it that way when the Prime Minister referred to it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not speaking definitely of the exact amount per day. It is either $1.20 or $1.25, but which I do not pretend to say exactly.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: The only point in my mind was whether the amount .covered' all expenditures for munitions .and eo' on. I understand by the answer of the acting minister that we will not be called upon to pay any more than $1.25 or something like that.
Coming to another point, the Government claim that our credit stands good. May I tell hon. gentlemen opposite that I ao not agree absolutely with that statement. Not a month ago, the Prime Minister and the acting Minister of Finance went to Washington. For what purpose? We do not know exactly; we can only suppose. How is it that immediately after their return the cost of exchange between the two countries, which was at seveneighths of one per cent when they left for Washington, jumped to two per cent? Does this not indicate that they had to show their cards before the officials of the American Exchequer? The member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) suggests that it would be better for the country il those hon. gentlemen had stayed here.
It is represented that the cost of floating the Victory Loan, which amounted to over $400,000,000, was about one and one-quarter per cent, or $5,000,000. Papers supporting the Government expressed the view that that was a fair and honest cost, and that the people ought to be satisfied. With that I do not agree. It must not be forgotten that this cost of $5,000,000 was incurred in floating a loan not for $400,000,000, but for $150,000,000, and that if the people had subscribed only $150,000,000, as they were asked' to do, the cost would have been the same. The cost, therefore, of floating a loan of $150,000,000 amounted to $5,000,000, or three and one-third per cent, and when the Government float their next loan for $500,000,000 in a few months, the cost, if they proceed as, they did with the last loan, will be $16,666,000, at three and one-third per cent, rather than $6,250,000 at one and one-quarter per cent.
Just a word with regard to the coal question, in which the people of the province of Quebec are specially interested. In past years the freight rates on coal coming into Quebec from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick was $1.80 per ton. In 1916 the rate was increased by the then Minister of Rail- [DOT] ways to $3.20 per ton, making it prohibitive for the people of the province of Quebec, to import coal from New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. This condition is unjust to the province of Quebec, and should be remedied at once. The Acting Minister of Finance knows as well as I do that an extraordinary situation exists with regard to soft coal. The Intercolonial is using and will probably require large quantities of soft coal. This coal has been brought in from the United States where it was formerly purchased at the rate of $10.25 per ton f.o.b. Montreal. This year a quantity of that coal was bought at $7.85 f.o.b. Montreal, and hauled from Montreal to Campbellton, a distance of 464 miles. The cost of that haulage should not be more than $3.40 per ton, making the cost of the coal $11, whereas if the coal had been bought in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick the cost at the mine would not exceed $4 per ton, and the cost of hauling, as fixed by the former Minister of Railways, $3.40,

representing .a total of $7.40 per ton, and a saving to the country of at least $3 per ten. Why has this matter not been taken into consideration? The province of Quebec is entitled to protection in this respect as well as any other province. If proper steps were taken to safeguard our interests with regard to this coal, hundreds of thousands of dollars, which the Acting Minister of Finance so .badly needs, would be saved. We have hired the services of a fuel controller and of an American expert whom we have been paying $24,000 a year-


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 
Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: Well, it is fair to say that wa have been hiring the services of an expert on coal.


George Green Foster: I did not deny that.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: 
Mr. R. H. BUTTIS (South Cape Breton and Richmond) :: Mr. Speaker, referring to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Gladu) when he was called to order for his statement in connection with the War-time Elections Act, although I think his assertion was intended as a retort, I really regard it as a very high compliment to yourself. I have no doubt it was intended to refer to the soldiers' vote, and if the soldiers' vote was instrumental in electing you, I think the hon. member's, assertion was a very high compliment, for I assure you, iSir, I would sooner take my seat with a very small majority contributed by the soldiers' vote than come here by acclamation from a constituency of slackers. I do not intend to make any reference whatever to many of the somewhat excited remarks that have passed from one side of the -House to the other in regard to both racial and religious matters. I have long ago come to the conclusion that such a course is anything hut wise. Such remarks may be carried on as long as may be, hut in the end, racial and religious matters are albout the only victims. It is, therefore, somewhat out of keeping in this House that such remarks should be hurled across the floor and it would -be well if they were discontinued for all time.
The hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie), in his speech the other evening, referred to some secret- I think, mythical-agreement between hon. members, both Liberal and Conservative, on this side of the House, as to the tariff. I have only to say that, ii such an arrangement was ever made, I never heard of it previously to the opening of this House or to debate upon the Budget, and it is hard for me to understand why such an agreement should be made. As far as 1 can see, we -are all tariff men, we are all protectionists when in office. Even on the other side of the House, hon. members are protectionists when they are in power. It is only when they are in Opposition that they talk free trade. I remember some years ago when, previously to 1896, the last Conservative Government was in power, I was

then in the early days of my political inclinations, and I -was an ardent free trader,
I read the speeches of the then right hon. leader of the Opposition, the late Sir Richard 'Cartwright, and of many others, and from their speeches on free trade and their denunciation of high tariffs, I was led to believe that, on their accession to power, we would have a free trade Government, and that, under such a regime, great manufactures would grow up in this country; that the Northwest would be opened up with a rapidity unknown before; that small villages would become towns; that towns would become cities, and that cities would extend their borders. In fact, we were led to believe that, under the benign influences of this almost heaven-born policy, old men would be rejuvenated and old maids made marriageable. My hon. friends did not come into power altogether on their trade policy, but they did come in on a side issue; and if we are to take the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) they, during their regime, reduced the tariff by 71-100ths of one per cent. That was the degree of free trade to which they were prepared to go. When they were defeated in 1911, they immediately again became free traders. This reminds me very much of the old couplet:
When t'he devil was siok, the devil a monk would be;
When the devil got well, the devil a monk was he.
From my constituency over 4,000 young men volunteered for the front* and before 'conscription was spoken of they were in Flanders. Many of them are now home maimed. Many of them have made the supreme sacrifice in Flanders. I have heard from those who have returned many an interesting story about the condition of affairs at the front, about all the hardships they have had to- endure. The other night, while some free trade speeches were being made, I was thinking of certain stories that I had heard, and I was picturing to myself some of the scenes that had been depicted to me by those returned soldiers. I could see before me the condition of affairs as it had been described, and I was picturing those young men there in the trenches with the great cannons booming all around them, with shrapnel bursting in the air over them, and with machine gun and rifle bullets whistling on all sides. Perhaps at the gray of the morning the order was given for them to scale the parapet and take the front trenches of the enemy, and in No Man's Land he that fell and was instant-104
ly killed was perhaps not the unluckiest. Others lie bleeding the whole day long, suffering agonies compared with which the Cross itself, if I may say so without irreverence, was mercy. In the midst of my reverie, when I ivas thinking of the sacrifices made by parents such as those in the county of Cape Breton, where five mothers have sent twenty sons to the trenches, where two mothers who had sent four sons each, had each lost three, I was aroused by my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) deploring the five cent tax on the poor man's pipe and the ten cent tax on the old lady's cup of tea, and I thought then what different conceptions some people have of the sacrifices we are called upon to make in this war. Ten cents a pound on tea i3 surely an awful sacrifice for one old lady to make, when compared with the sacrifice of four sons by a mother. Did the terrible disparity, the awful misproportion, never occur to my hon. friend as he talked about the poor man's pipe and the old lady's cup of tea, and about these old ladies having been a factor in electing this Government?
He preached free trade, but it was not the kind of free trade hon. gentlemen opposite practised when they were in power. He said the Liberals had reduced the duties on steel during their regime. That is quite true, but if protection can be corrupt, they resorted to the most corrupt form of protection when they Temoved, or partially removed, the duty on steel, for they granted a bonus on a sliding scale to last for ten years. Let me give another example of how sincere hon. gentlemen opposite are in their professions about free trade and protection. The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) said in 1897:
If we know the hearts and minds of our people at present, I think I am not making too wide a statement when 1 say that the general feeling in Canada is not in favour of reciprocity. There was a time when Canadians would have given many things to obtain the American market. There was a time when the market of the great cities of the Union was the only market we tad, but those days are passed and over now. We are not dependent on the American market now.
In 1907, in a speech at the Imperial Conference, he said:
There was a time when we were wanting reciprocity with the United! States, but our efforts and our offers were put aside and *negatived. We have said good-bye to that trade and' we now put ail our hopes on the British trade.
And justly so. I do not think the right hon. gentleman ever made a truer pro-


Robert Hamilton Butts: 
Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to prolong this debate, because I think all the questions involved have been already discussed at considerable length, but there are some matters in connection with this Budget which I have not yet heard any person mention,1 and which are of vital importance in connection with the affairs of the country. For that reason I trust that the House will bear with me while I refer briefly to those questions, and pass them on to the Government in the 'hope that they will receive consideration.
The Budget which we are discussing, as we all know, is the annual financial statement. I have heard quite a number of Budgets disbursed an Parliament, and the procedure is that when the Minister of Finance comes down to the House on that occasion he presents a statement of his stewardship during the past year. He states what the expenditures and revenues have been, and how much the revenue exceeded the expenditure, or, if there has been undue expenditure, what the balance is on the other side. The Finance Minister also takes occasion to estimate the amount of money that will be required for the various public services during the coming year, and then summarizes the various sources from which he hopes, by the imposition of taxation, to meet those expenditures. If additional expenditures are required, he indicates the direction from which he hopes to receive the necessary revenue to meet those expenditures.
Now, the Acting Finance Minister made a speech which, to my mind, was a model of clearness. Personally, I regret very much indeed that the Finance Minister himself was unable to be present. Knowing the tremendous amount of work and labour which has devolved upon that hon. gentleman since the beginning of the war, it was not to be expected that a man of his

physique could stand such a strain continuously. There is no doubt that so far in the financial history of the war, the Minister of Finance has met the situation. When confronted with almost unsurmountable obstacles he has overcome them, obtained the necessary funds, and in that respect has displayed great capacity. In the hon. gentleman who recently delivered the Budget speech, we have a worthy successor of Sir Thomas White. The Budget was excellent in its clearness of detail and lucidity of exposition, dealing with the expenditures of the past and the possible exexpenditures during the coming year. The Acting Finance Minister also very clearly outlined the new methods of taxation. But there was one omission from his speech, which he must have overlooked, although it has always appeared in previous Budgets, and that was the estimated amount of revenue expected to be derived .from the new taxes. 'Now, the present Administration is a Union Government, we are not supposed to -be attachedi particularly to one side of politics or the other, and, naturally, we would expect to be enlightened as to whether the Budget was a Union Government Budget or not. I regret to say that in my judgment the Budget which was submitted to the House a few days ago is not a Union Budget.	;
In the first place, if the Budget were a Union Government Budget the taxation would be collected, to some extent, equally from our two principal sources of revenue. At the present time some of our revenue is derived, from direct taxes, such as the income tax and the super tax and that constitutes what is known as a free trade or international method of taxation. We also receive a large amount of revenue from customs and excise duties,
5 p.m. which form wh.at is currently known a's the protection, the national or indirect system of taxation. Now, if the present Administration were in reality a Union Government the new taxation would, as I have already said, be collected to some extent equally from the two sources of revenue to which I have referred1; but that course has not been followed. I have looked very carefully over the statement of the Acting Minister of Finance, and I find that the new taxation applies' almost entirely to incomes. It is true that a tax has been imposed' on tea, coffee and tobacco, which will bring in some additional revenue. None of these articles, however, are produced to any extent in Canada, and the placing of any taxes what-;[Mr. Ctorrie.I
ever upon goods produced) in this country has been carefully avoided. To my mind that is not a proper system of raising additional revenue from the country. I may have my own views as to that, but I say that when you are applying added1 taxes to income only, you aie adopting the Free Trade method of taxation. Why should we have such a Free Trade Budget, and why, in the application of taxes, should we have recourse to only one onerous form of taxation? We are standing on the threshold of the fourth year of the war, which may be prolonged for another two years, we may have to raise additional money yet, and we have consistently, in the Budget, avoided a source of enormous revenue to this country, we have avoided the imposition of taxation that would .bear upon the people with scarcely any pressure at all, namely, .an addition to the customs tax.
In the first place, I would say this to the Acting (Minister of Finance: In looking over the blue books I find that the percentage of taxation upon imports this year is something like seventeen per cent, whilst in 1916 the percentage w.as over twenty per cent. In other words, the taxation on imports had been reduced three per cent during the war, whereas if it hadjoeen increased by 'that amount this year it would have yielded something like $25,000,000 to the country. Furthermore, had we adopted an increase of ten per cent it. would have yielded the enormous sum of $80,000,000 of additional revenue. For that reason I .say that we are eliminating and neglecting a most important source of revenue. I may be told that a taxation of twenty-seven per cent on imports is too much. I do not agree with that for the simple reason that the average in the United States is nearer fifty per cent. They are not neglecting any source of revenue over there, they are exploiting every source of revenue. Therefore, after examining the Budget, with all due regard to the Acting Finance Minister, and the manner in which his taxation proposals were framed, I must come to the conclusion that this is a Free Trade (Budget, .and deliberately framed as such, and that as far as the manufacturing and other industries of this country are concerned, we might as well roll up the industrial map on the wall. Why do I say that? I will give the House my reasons as briefly as I can, bearing in mind the fact that hon. gentlemen on both sides are anxious to get on with business. Why should we eliminate the source of revenue to which I have referred? Why

should we, instead, take away the profits of manufacturers and tax the people directly more and more every year? There is no particular merit in an income tax. The only claim to merit which an income tax finds among the people of England is that when they .are taxed on their income they will know how much they are paying and devote more attention to the administration of public affairs. During the war, when we have to raise such enormous sums, would it not be logical that we should place taxation where the people would feel the burden the least? To my mind the idea of playing free trade, as against protection, during the war, is exploded as far as this country is concerned.
The idea of free trade and protection is busted so far as this war is concerned. We have had to eliminate a great many of these old ideas. I am appealing to men of common sense in this House, and those who have studied economics know very well that it is only a matter of a few years since the gold standard as a basis for currency was accepted as an axiom, and no country was supposed to issue paper money unless it had a gold dollar in its treasury to meet a paper dollar. When the war broke out all those theories of the schoolmen, whose ideas of finance which had been propounded for years by the professors of Oxford, Cambridge and other universities, were swept away within the first two weeks, and Great Britain found herself compelled to go on a fiat money basis. England had to take tea paper, print her currency on this tea paper, and hand it out as money. Fortunately, they struck the secret of success so far as financing the country was concerned. I remember when the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) used to come into this House and declare that we ought to issue paper *money. We all looked upon him as a heretic, a greenbacker, a man who wanted fiat money. To-day, every country in the war, with the exception of the United States, is on a paper basis, and it is only a matter of a few months until the. United States will be on a paper basis also. That is to say, the country promises to pay on paper, which paper takes the place of gold, and is not redeemable in gold during the war. We have had to revise our views, and a great change has come over the thinking community in England and every country. It is as if some new discovery had been made, such, for instance, as the discovery that the earth was round instead of flat. We all know that for centuries
professors preached the doctrine that the earth was flat, until suddenly one man advanced the view that it was round, and the discovery of the telescope proved that it was round. Nobody holds the opinion any longer that the earth is flat except a very few cranks. In the same way our preconceived notions of finance on the eve of the war are all going to be changed.
I think I have clearly established that we are on the threshhold of these great changes and we have to face that situation. We have in our imports, a source of taxation from which, if we took one-quarter as much in duties as do the United States, would give use at least eighty or ninety million dollars additional revenue every year.
There is nothing new in taxes; the world has used all methods of taxation. The first taxation ever adopted, I understand, was a hut tax which is still used in Africa amongst the primitive savages. They pay a hut tax to the colonial governments. The lottery system is another method. That system has been dropped out of consideration by the English-speaking people, although I understand it is used in some foreign countries. Another method of taxation is that on business transactions. It was put forward by some of the press, we were to have this here, that there should be a stamp on every business transaction. That is the alcavala of Spain, and its effect was to ruin business and to destroy industry and trade in Spain, and to make that country poverty stricken. We must not adopt that system. My idea is that we must adopt every reasonable expedient, because we need large sums of money, and the first thing we should consider is to find a system that will bear as lightly as possible on the shoulders of the people during the war. There are people going around the country endeavouring in every possible way to contrive something to make the people here feel there is a war on. Some people want to take away our tea, others our bacon, others want to take 90 per cent of our incomes; and in every possible way they are devising means to make the people feel that they are at war. If I were the German Emperor and wanted the people of this country to be directed in a certain channel which would make them tired of this war and cease to support it, I would adopt a policy, not only in taxation but in other things, that would stir up resentment. I think it is a great mistake that the minister omitted to add a substantial percentage to the customs duties of the country.

There are two methods of taxation known to the world, direct 'and indirect. One of the old fashioned direct taxes is a head tax or a poll tax. That would get a very large sum of money, 'hut *would be unpopular. There is also the taxation on real property. And the very reason that England has a tax on incomes is because the landowners would never stand for a tax on their property. We know that a few years ago Lloyd George proposed to impose a tax oh landed property, and they were all up in arms. It is not necessary for us to follow those methods; the methods for us to follow are those adopted by the United States. With reference to the income tax itself, it works out very unfairly. The man who pays an income tax on rentals, for instance, can pass that tax oai to the tenants, tout the man whose revenue is derived from his labours cannot pass the tax on, and therefore it bears heavily on him and his family. There is no particular merit in an income tax any more than in a hut tax; they are only methods of deriving revenue. For our country the income tax is the moat dangerous system we can adopt. England has raised large sums of money in this way, but England is beginning to realize that there is a limit. The 'United States after the war of the Revolution and the War of 1812, adopted the system of taxation on imports, because that was a method' which assisted the country in selling as much in a foreign market and buying little, keeping down the trade balance. By 1837 the cost of the Revolutionary War and of the War of 1812-14 were fully paid up. About the same time England was engaged in the Napoleonic Wars, and as near as I can find out, the cost of those wars is still toeing borne by the British people and they are paying interest on it still. Is that a policy for us to follow? When a tremendous amount of money is going to be charged to us, should we not adopt the policy of the United States, and struggle as (best we can to get rid of this burden inside of ten or fifteen years? It is a great mistake not to have adopted the policy of adding an additional amount of taxes on imports. Take the case of trade: In addition to the expenditure on the war, which is one of the dark clouds on the horizon, there is also the war itself. I have no idea in my mind at all as to when the war is going to end, and whilst many members of this House and many of my friends are pessimistic over war conditions at the present time, knowing every foot of that country as I do and knowing that all that territory which the Germans took back a few .days ago, 
I know that a great deal more of territory was held by them in 1914, I am still confident of the success of our arms.
They have not gained one foot of new territory. They are stopped and I am satisfied that it is only a question of time when they will be driven back. But we must face the necessity of constantly raising more men. I am glad the Government has adopted a policy for men which has some ginger in it. We must, however, get a little more ginger in our finances and not be afraid to put a tax on imports simply because one or two members on this side of the House happen to be theoretical free traders. I have listened to the avowed free traders on this side of the House with care and find they are reasonable men, men of great ability. I am sure that if any question is put fairly to them they will be satisfied to do what they consider to be Canada's duty. Why should we impose heavy direct taxation upon the people when we can get three times the money without their knowing anything about it or feeling the burden? The United States has constantly followed the protective financial policy laid down by Alexander Hamilton. By 1890 they had paid for the expenses of the Civil war, whereas Great Britain under free trade has not yet paid off the expenses of even the South African war, which are a burden every year to their people. The people of the United States are wise and practical; they do not run to fads; they take a common sense View of things; they do business without much regard to sentiment. Why do I say that we should add a tax on imports now? That may seem like heresy to a free trader, but there is no such thing as freedom of international trade at this time-. A great change has come over all states. There is no free interchange of products. Nations are placing an embargo on many things that formerly came into their country. What is the use of having free trade with the United States if that country will not trade with us at all? Almost everything is embargoed that might go from Canada to the United States; we cannot sell an axe handle there, let alone a bushed of wheat, unless the Government of the United States grant us a special license. The result of that policy during the past year is that we have bought unlimited quantities of goods from the United States-something like $600,000,000 or $700,000,000 worth-and we cannot sell one dollar's worth of goods to them to pay our debts^-nor can we borrow and fund our debt. In view of this fact, how

can any sane man say that -we should stick to old ideas and old doctrines? There is a proposal on the Order Paper to give to Minister of Trade and Commerce the right to place an embargo on the importation of non-essential products into Canada from the United States. That is one way of avoiding the difficulty that confronts us,_ but another way would be to impose a heavy customs tax on all things that come from the United States. But we are in debt to the United States some five hundred million. They have refused to lend us the money to pay off our trade balance, but suppose they lent us the money, what right has any loyal Canadian woman to buy an American pair of shoes at $10 and make it necessary for the Minister of Finance to go to Washington and borrow $10 for thirty years at interest in order to pay for them? If a farmer's wife in the West buys from the United States a Chicago cook stove at $50 the Minister of Finance, if he can borrow in Washington -which he cannot just now-will have to borrow $50 in the United States to pay for that stove, and every man, woman and child in this country will have to pay 6 per cent interest on that $50 for thirty years. To do these things is absurd when we can buy these articles in this country with Canadian paper money instead of paying gold for thbm in the United States. If this condition continues and our trade balance keeps going up, we will owe the United States $1,000,000,000 on our trade balance before the war is over. When the Allies meet in final conference to adjust their balances the United States is going to exact that $1,000,000 in some form or other. We haven't the gold; how can we pay? They will not lend us the money; will we have to give territory for it? United States is a great country, and we all welcome her into the war. But, speaking on my responsibility as a member of this House, I submit that United States has failed to recognize Canada as being on the same plane as the other Allies, so far as war finances are concerned. Everybody knows that. We are not treated even as neutrals.


Samuel Hughes: Is that the fault of the United States? Did not the United States offer to deal with us on the same basis that they were dealing with England? Did they not offer us orders for munitions if we wanted to accept them?


John Allister Currie: I know the United States gave Great Britain an order for munitions a
few months ago through Secretary Baker to the extent of $1,300,000,000, in order to enable Great Britain to make munitions and get out of the debt she owed the United States.


Samuel Hughes: And we could have had the same.


John Allister Currie: If that same policy could be adopted here we should very soon be free of our debt to the United States. However, the matter is beyond me. Some of these boards and commissions, over which we seem to have no control but which seem to be spending plenty of money for us all the time, are simply stop-logs, in the current of our trade. No man who is a profiteer or who has. been in the shell game should ibe put on a board or commission that has to do with our foreign trade. I do not like to name anybody. We all know who are on some of these boards. We know that they have factories in Canada manufacturing things for which they are liable to get orders from, the United States, and that they have moved machinery from Canada to the United States in order to make munitions. They want to be in strategic positions.


Samuel Hughes: Did they not go to the United States because they were not allowed to bring goods from the United States into Canada?


John Allister Currie: Well, I do not know -as
to their going to the United States because they could not get orders for munitions here. I was told by a Montreal man who has an order for shells; from the United States that to get that order he had to pay 7J pear cent commission to the Imperial Munitions Board. I do not think that any foreign institution in this country has the right to impose taxation upon the people of Canada. That should be done by Parliament alone. As far as the munitions business is concerned, the money raised by the Victory Loan in Canada during the last year was divided between munitions and wheat. Great Britain was unable to finance us. They said: If you want to make munitions, you must do your own financing. We must have wheat; we cannot give you the money to pay for it; you will have to raise the money yourself for the wheat-and we did so.
i I 'think it is most hateful for members of Parliament to be provincial. I am a son of the great province of Ontario. We grow big men there; we try to let the people enjoy their full rights; we wish that justice Ibe done to every one.

We are struggling hard to get out of the clutch of the so-ca/lled interests. We are an example to the whole world in public ownership institutions and in public-owned industries that are great and successful. Seventy-five per cent of the Victory Loan was raised in the province of Ontario. Seventy-five per cent of the munition orders went east of the Ottawa river. Seventy-five per cent of the grain and foodstuffs orders went west of Fort William. Yet Ontario has been constantly attacked by hon. members. You would think we were a lot of selfish people. You have never heard us complain about these orders in the press of Ontario, and every man in business in Ontario knows very well that we got the small end. We have tried to do our duty. We know that it is impossible for this country ever to achieve the greatness and the status that it should achieve if we are going to preach constantly sectionalism, class hatred, and stir up trouble between the provinces. We cannot have that. We must forget all those things, and now, of all times, is the period when we should forget them.
We are constantly charged, because, unfortunately, two or three so-called trusts have their headquarters in Ontario, that we are robbing the western farmers. I shall refer to some of these trusts, and it is just as well for us to have the matter spoken of openly in the House. Let us take the question of agricultural implements. There are in Ontario, and also in the Western Provinces, many concerns manufacturing agricultural implements. But there are agricultural implements and agricultural implements. The one item that stands out most of all is that which is controlled by a large trust. I refer to the binder used by the farmer. The question of reaping machines and binders is constantly being raised by the farmers. They say: Everybody is taking advantage of us, because we are taxed by protectionists on our binders. This is a matter of regret to every manufacturer, great and small, in Ontario, aye, and in Quebec, where they must have in the future greater manufactories, if they are going to retain their population, because they have not the agricultural land to support their population without the help of industries; they must depend on industries. Every legitimate manufacturer in Ontario regrets that there is such a thing as a binder industry in Ontario. It is of no use whatever to any other industry in Ontario than itself.
All the goods that go into the manufacture of a binder, for instance, the wood that
[IMr. Currie.]
goes into the tongue of it, or into the platform of it, the canvas, the tacks, the pig iron, are brought into this country free of duty, and those small manufacturing concerns in Canada who are manufacturing and who could manufacture those parts legitimately, do not get a cent out of the business. It is doubly protected. No other industry in Canada is protected in that way. Take the question of ploughs. Last year over $2,500,000 worth of ploughs were brought into this country. There is in the world no better plough made than the plough that is made in Canada, A plough is a very low priced article. There are in my province dozens of concerns manufacturing ploughs, but the race hatred cry has so grown in the West and the farmers are so stirred up against our ploughs and other small articles that we are legitimately trying to manufacture in order to support the population in our towns and villages, that they are boycotting our Ontario manufacturers, and they will not purchase our ploughs. What merit is it for a farmer in the West to buy an American plough at $25 or $30, and then send the Minister of Finance down to Washington to borrow money on that amount at 6 per cent for thirty years, simply because the farmer wants to buy an American plough? I have here a long list of articles. Last year we imported over $1,000,000 worth of cot.ton socks which could have been made ' in Montreal, where large quantities of socks are manufactured. Last year fully $400,000,000 worth of manufactured goods were brought into Canada which could have been manufactured by Canadian concerns.
The manufacturers of Canada have, during the last four years, been constantly subjected to unfair competition by the Americans. Let me point out an article that is free of duty, and that is made in this country, so that we need not become involved in any question of tariff in regard to it. I refer to barbed wire. The western farmers buy an average of 125 tons of barbed wire a day. The manufacture of that in Canada would give employment to about 5,000 people. Those people would be eating western wheat, whereas the people in the United States cannot eat western wheat, because the United States will not allow any western wheat to enter that country. There is an embargo on it. But, as I say, we import that barbed wire. Barbed wire has two prices in the United States. There is an " ordered " price of $3.80; there also is a " spot delivery " price, which is an

export price to the Allies and all other countries in the world of $4.75. If you live in the United States and you want a car of barbed wire, you go to the United States Steel Corporation and you ask them the price. They will say: "Well, we shall give it to you at $3.70 on order, or if you want 'spot' stuff, we cannot give it to you at that price." You say: "If I order it, when can I have it?" They will tell you: "You can have it after the war." But your wire was broken down and the cattle are running around your ranges, and you want the barbed wire right away, so you ask them: "Have you any "spot" wire? They say: "No, but John Jones across the street has some of our wire, and you can get some of it if you want an immediate order." If you go there, you will find that you will have to pay $4.70 to $4.80 for it. I know these are facts that I speak of. The documents are in Canada to prove them. If, however, a western Canadian jobber went down to Pittsburg and asked the United States Steel Corporation what barbed wire was worth, they would say: "The 'order' price is $3.40." He would ask them: "Can I get some?" They would say: "Where do you live?" He would reply: "I live in Saskatchewan." Then they would say: "All right, you can- have it right away at $3.40." They thus flood this country not only with barbed wire, but they dump every other manufactured article which can be shoved into Canada on what is called an "order" price. That has been the unfair policy of the manufacturers of the United States. Some of the large trusts in the United States have tried this two price system on various other commodities. They have applied it on coke, of which they virtually have a monopoly. If you wanted to buy "order'' coke, you could get it at $3 a ton, and have it delivered after the war. But if you wanted coke for immediate delivery you had to pay $12 a ton for it. The Government here was negligent in not taking cognizance of the two prices system in the United States, and stopping its application here, but they were more negligent than that, because if a good stiff customs duty were put on those articles it would have brought in to our treasury from seventy to eighty million dollars a year which would have enabled us to pay a hundred million dollars of the four hundred million dollars that we spent annually on the war. In 1916-17, we paid $100,000,000; in 1917-18, we shall pay not more than $50,000,000. If we were able to carry on our taxation in
such a way as to pay on this war a hundred million dollars every year, inside of ten years after the termination of the war Canada would be free from all war debt. 1 am sure that every man who gives a thought to the finances of this country would say that is the proper method of carrying on taxation.
I wish to refer now' to other things that are giving us a great deal of trouble. I refer to the proposal to grant the Minister of Trade and Commerce the right to embargo imports. We must do either one of two things, We must make up our minds to go behind the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) as one man and say: We give you full authority, for every year from now until the war is over, to put an embargo upon goods coming into this country from countries that will not trade with us, or else we must insist that the Government take the other method of imposing a stift tax on goods coming from countries of that description. Otherwise Canada will be on the auction block after the war is over; we shall owe the United States so much money that we shall have to hand over to them British Columbia or Quebec or some other part of the country in payment. The manufacturers of Ontario, when they can meet the American manufacturers in a free market, are not afraid of their competition. In the manufacture of chains, for instance, Canadian manufacturers have discovered a method of making the chains automatically by electrically welding them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What kind of chains?


John Allister Currie: Logging chains, cow chains, and other chains of that description, of which a very large quantity is used in the United States and Canada. These Canadian manufacturers went to the United States, and inside of five years, by this new method, put the American chain factories out of the running. That shows what the Canadian manufacturers can do when given a fair chance. Our manufacturers are not behind our soldiers in enterprise, energy or courage, and you know how good our soldiers are. All we want is a fair and square deal. We do not want to be constantly subjected to one-sided unfair competition.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE:: Is the hon. gentleman of the opinion that a protective tariff operating to the advantage of eastern manufacturers operates equally to the advantage of western farmers? s


John Allister Currie: Certainly it does, because every extra mile the western farmer has

to send his -wheat-I am speaking now of after-the-war conditions,-represents a toll on him. If the farmer sold his wheat to the industrial workers nearby, we would save this extra freight, and be that much more in pocket. But there is such a thing as selling the hide for six pence and buying the tail back for a pound." The whole policy of the United States has been to build up home industries. Patriotic people in Canada are trying to do likewise. I am connected with a firm that has been manufacturing a line of goods that is shipped to .the four corners of the earth. They had a large shipment to make to Ceylon and India, and needed jute sacks in which to ship the goods. Hon. gentlemen will hardly believe me when I say that the city of Winnipeg, in competition with every other city in Canada that was asked to bid, took the prize and got the order for the jute sacks; and the jute sacks were made in Winnipeg, shipped to Ontario, -and then sent out to Ceylon and India. That is the condition that is going to obtain all over this country. Factories in the West are going to succeed as they are in the East. The province of Ontario has established a great trade with the province of Nova Scotia. There is more business done ibetween those two provinces, I believe, than between any other two provinces in the country, and it is because the province of-Nova Scotia with governmental assistance -has built up great iron and steel works-, -and were it not for these works the manufacturers of Ontario would not have been able during the last two years to carry on business for one-half of their time. We had to have pig iron and steel, and we received greater advantages from these works in Nova Scotia. So he would be a very unnatural son of Ontario or of Nova Scotia who would try to set up any barriers or clan hatred between these two provinces.
We must look thing-s in the face. The munitions business -at the present time is dying away, and our factories will have to go at other work very soon. I am sorry to say that in many r-espects the Imperial Munitions Board did not observe Pitt's great maxim that they must make war pay. The ex-Minister of Militia and Defence knew that maxim, and did his best to carry it out. Men in this -country who had made decent sums in the manufacture of munitions were thinking -of enlarging their factories, but during the last two years the prices imposed by the Munitions Board -have been so ridiculously low that
[Mr. Ourrie.1
these men have taken the orders at a great loss, and many of them have gone out of -business and are now ruined. Many of our manufacturers, through lack of munitions orders, are taking their plants out of the country -and working them in the United States. If the United States can give an order for one billion three hundred millions dollars worth of munitions to Great Britain, there is no reason why we should not get an order of reasonable size. What is the use of piffling with a forty or fifty million dollar order? That does not cut any figure. Last year we purchased close on to seven hundred million dollars' worth from the United States, and how -can we pay for those g-ood-s unless we get orders for a similar amount for munitions or goods of one kind or another from the United States? Otherwise we shall have to close up our factories and our working men will go to the States. I am not a munitions manufacturer, so I am not personally interested in the game, but I -am intensely interested in the success of my country. We have gone into this war, being a good loyal people, and we are now asking everybody to send their sons to the front under conscription. What do we -get o-ut of the war? What does Australia get out of it? She is going to get an Empire in the Pacific; the German empire in the Pacific will go to Australia.
What does .South Africa get? .She -also gets an empire, two empires, in fact in Africa. What does Egypt get? She is doing very little, she gave five million pounds to the war. What is five million pounds in comparison with the amount we are spending on the war? Egypt will get Palestine and Arabia. Italy will get Asia Minor. Every country of the Allies, is going to be in-damnified except Canada. The indemnity which the United States is looking for is world trade, for they cannot receive any territorial indemnity; neither can we. The only indemnity we can get is a business indemnity. Then, as solid business men, why should we not forget our petty squabbles about what some school man wrote in a book years ago? I heard the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) speaking on free trade last night, and he reminded me of the doctors a thousand years ago disputing on the -merits of, Aristotelian medicine as against experimental science.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thought we were fighting for ideals and not for business.


John Allister Currie: We are fighting for an
ideal, and that ideal is freedom, parliamentary freedom. When Strafford- stood at the

Bar of the English House of 'Commons, charged -with trying to suppress parliamentary liberties in England, he urged in his defence, "I have given a Parliament to Ireland." What answer did Pym give him? He said, " Parliaments without parliamentary liberties are but a fair and pleasant way to greater servitude." Stick that under your hats, gentlemen. That is a good motto for us in this House. We are fighting for freedom, but we must not forget to have a little eye on what we are going to do at home after the war. We all know that after the American war there was heard all over the country the tramp of the boys in the blue overcoats on all the roads of the United States; they were soldiers out of a job. The outhouses, the fence corners were filled with soldiers begging their bread. The United States immediately grasped the situation and did everything they possibly could by a high tariff to get factories established to give employment to these men. 'That is why I am calling at tention to these matters now.
There will be three or four hundred thousand men coming home after the war, seventy-five per cent of whom are not farmers. Why, at one time at the front, there was a whole battalion of students, most of them in their third or fourth year- the Princess Pats, the brainiest men that ever stood in France.
The Princess Pat men were the highest type of men that ever set foot in France. Our battalions are composed of men of high educational attainments, men who can take their places in the factories, the mines or industrial institutions of the world. Why should we not help these men to secure profitable employment in industrial callings' at home, as well as to put them on farms? The majority of these men from Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia are skilled in industrial trades and employments, and if you insist on putting them on farms you are going to impose a very great hardship upon them. Is it not better that we should keep this country on an even keel? We should not build up one industry at the expense of others. In order that these men .and their families may have, their bread and butter assured to them in the time to come after they leave the army and are disbanded, we should try and make the war pay for itself new, build up factories all over the country so that these men when they come back will have employment and take the places of the women factory workers, because the women in many casesi, while filling the men's places for the present, will not continue to work in factories.
It is no use to talk about free trade, because there, is no such thing as free trade.
No man will stand up before me in this House and say that free trade is a possibility now in Canada foT a moment. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. MoMaster) knows very well the facts that stare him in the face. We are face to face with new conditions. With all our patriotism, with all our love of country, with all our love for those men who are now serving at the front, we are surely not going to divest ourselves- of .all our interest the moment these men come hack. Both our interest and our affection should teach us that it is our duty at the present moment to forget all this piffling about protection and free trade. We want to 'build up a country that will sell its- products to the world and buy as little as possible for the time, being. We can thus only get out of debt. Let political economy wait until we are past this great crisis. If we do that we will be in a better national position. If a 10 per cent customs tax were imposed on imports we would get at the very least $80,000,000. Nobody would be any the worse for that except those foolish women who buy American boots and those young fellows we see on the streets who are working in munition factories and who like to wear .some American collar or tie. Why should we support them in trading abroad?
With reference to our industries, I am almost ashamed to confess that I am a manufacturer, because there is nothing good Said of t'he manufacturers. 4s long a? I have 'been in this Parliament I have heard nothing but sneers, and expressions of scorn directed .at the manufacturers. When the history of th'is war is written, as far as Canada is concerned, it will .show that the greatest patriots in any of the allied countries have been tbe Canadian manufacturers. You may say that their patriotism earned money for them. It did not. When they started -to manufacture munitions in England what happened? Lloyd George would go to a manufacturer and say: "You have a fine factory; how many hands do you employ?" " Three hun

J*dred hands." "Can you make shells?" " Yes." " Alright; go ahead and make them." " I have not the machinery, and I have not the capital to -go on paying wages.
" The Government of England will advance money to buy you the latest machinery, it will advance you money as the work progresses to buy your raw material and to pay wages. Then we will give you a price tor your munitions which will enable you,

*at the end of the year, to scrap every tool you have in the factory and give you a substantial profit." They amortised the plants in the price of the shells. The hon. the exMinister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) knows that that is true. Lloyd George, after another year, said: "Gentlemen, have you your plants free?" " Yes." I will continue the price of munitions on condition that you give me a quarter or a third "-I	forget iwhich-" of your
profits." Why should they not give him a third of their profits? He had given them a free plant and they were quite willing to give him a fair share of the profits. That is what took place in England. Now, what happened in Canada? When the Imperial Munitions Board was established they said to the manufacturer:	We want you to
make shells." The manufacturer said: "I have not any plant." " You will have to vet a plant."


Samuel Hughes: We preceded England in that.	"


John Allister Currie: That is right, but it was dropped here when England took over the manufacture through the Imperial Munitions Board. The arrangement which was made by the late Minister of Militia and Defence 'to start the manufacturers of Canada making munitions, in justice to him, was borrowed by Mr. Lloyd George. There is no doubt about that, and we want to give the hon. gentleman full credit for that. The manufacturers of Canada and England do. But the Imperial Munitions Board said to the manufacturer: " Do you want to mal^ shells?" The manufacturer said: "Yes." " You must get your own plant and put it in. Alright. The directors of companies went to the banks and the bank directors stretched their imaginations a great deal and lent them the necessary money. But the directors of the companies had to go on the notes personally in almost every case in order that these plants might be put in. The prices for shells were very low, but still there was a margin of profit in it. No sooner had these manufacturers succeeded in showing a slight margin of profit for the first year than everybody in this country started yelling: " You are making too much profit out of this thing; the Government must take your profit." The Government have done so in the form of the supertax which has been imposed. I do not believe there is one out of a hundred corporation directors in this country who sleeps soundly at night. Why? They are a badly abused lot. 
If they go to the bank to borrow $100,000, they have to get down on their knees before they can get it, although in some cases the banks are very good. Some of the older banks are exceedingly good, but the company directors have to go on the notes of the company. What do they get out of that? If they get a ten dollar fee from their company for a meeting of directors, it is known all over the country. They have to go on the notes of these corporations, and if one fails to make any profit the directors have to make good the loss out of their own pockets. Do the shareholders have to pay that? No, they have paid up stock in their pockets, and like everybody else they have a kick at the directors. This country owes a great debt of gratitude to every director of a public company. If there are any people in Canada who have helped Canada to carry on the war, they are those men who are the directors of public companies and those carrying on manufacturing industries. Yet these men are constantly abused and are looked upon as outcasts, and as being unfit for ordinary society. I am ashamed to see this country forming small factions about this, that and the other thing.
I was the other day reading May, the well known authority on constitutional law, and he says the only safety for a country is partyism, that if you have not partyism you are going to have faction, and government will not be staple but will fall to pieces. Are you going to have in this country factions, differences and class hatreds, the farmer against the manufacturer, the manufacturer against the man who is working for him, and the labourer and the labour union against the manufacturer? Why should we begrudge a fair profit to the man who is at the head of a factory? There is no reason why we should. There is no reason why the directors of corporations and the captains of industry in this country should not be allowed to carry on their business as free, honest men, or why they should be constantly classed as rascals and renegades. It was faction and class hatred that ruined Russia. Where do you get your Victory Loan from?
You do not get it from those people who are going about the country crying down the manufacturers. The working class are sound and I must say for them, they have subscribed to the Victory Loan to the limit of their ability, just the same as any other class. The manufacturer also has subscribed, but in order to enlarge his factory, as is necessary in order to make pro-

vision for the future, he cannot willingly take all the .loans you offer him. What is the policy which has been adopted in England? There Lloyd Genrge has done what he could to help the manufacturers, his idea being that war should pay and that their co-operation was necessary towards the winning of the war. It is from these manufacturers he is getting money for his loans. The same policy is pursued in Germany where the government have aided the manufacturers to develop their industries, believing that in so doing they were helping to win the war. The Germans do not buy abroad, and buying at home use paper money. As long as they do this they can go on indefinitely. In this country, however, no man can make a dollar but what everybody joins in an attack upon him. I think it is time that sort of conduct was .stopped.
There is another phase of the Budget I wish to discuss, and that is the railway situation. Let me say that it is one of the most dangerous issues this country has to meet at the present moment. The war of. the railroads in Canada is far greater than ihe war of Great Britain on Germany at the present moment. It is well known to members who .sa't with me on this side of the House in the last Parliament, that we urged the policy on the Government of following the example of the Government of. Great Britain and relieving the railroads from the possibility of giving us any trouble during the war. What happened in Great Britain when the war broke out? There one-third of the railways were excursion lines and could not earn a dollar. Many of the large roads could carry on, but very few of the small ones could. The British Government very wisely called the heads of all these railways together and .said to them: "Form a board. Every railway in Great Britain is going into this board, and the directors will manage all the systems as one concern. All the money that comes in will be pooled/ in one pool, and the Government will see that every shareholder gets a return equivalent to what he has been receiving on his investment for the past three years." That was a very successful idea. For three years the Government of Great Britain successfully carried on the railways in that way, Although I cannot say what the results of last year's operations were, they have increased the earnings of the employees from time to time by what they call war bonuses. That is, instead of an increase in wages the Government would give them
a war bonus of ten per cent. In that way, as the cost of food went up the railwaymen's earnings kept pace with it, and the Government have done that after attending to all the wants of the debenture holders and the shareholders. Not only so, but the Government have carried free on those railways all their munitions and all the men that they needed at the front. We know that in 1914 all the British and all the Canadian soldiers got a free ticket on the railways to go and visit the localties where they came from, and it didn't cost the Government a farthing. We suggested the same thing should be done here, but the interests had too much control. For some reason, although many of us, including some able men, tried to do our best to get that policy carried out, we failed. The Government, however, succeeded in running us into a debt of thirty or forty millions a year that we have to pay, for these railways. No wonder the United States does not want to finance this country at the present moment, bearing in mind the improvident and wasteful policy we have pursued with railways. What has the United States Government done? The very moment they were involved in war they followed exactly the same course as Great Britain; they established a War Board to control their .railways exactly as Great Britain has done, and they are putting men of business ability at the head of their great departments. I have no hesitation in saying that if we had placed ourselves at the beginning of the war in the same condition as Great Britain did and given the management of our railways to that great Canadian, Lord Shaughnessy, he would have established operating traditions on all our roads. The first tradition that would have been emphasised on the employees would1 have been honesty, from the water-boy right up to the president. The second tradition that Lord Shaughnessy would have developed in the course of three weeks after he had taken charge, would have been loyalty to the road. Travel on the Canadian Pacific railway and say anything to a brakesman or a water-boy derogatory .to that road and the first thing you get is a sharp rebuff. That is loyalty. Every man feels that he is a part of that great machine, that he is doing a great public duty, and a great public service. He is not looking round to see if he can slink off and steal an hour from his employers, or get away into a corner and hide himself, but is doing his utmost to earn his pay. If we could have such a fine spirit established on every Canadian railroad there

bee; wherever they could find a subsidy they were prepared to build a road and bond it-and now we have to pay the piper.
They went to British Columbia also on [DOT]the principle that they must get an outlet on that coast. It was argued that elevators were to be built and that all the grain of the western provinces was to be sent from the Pacific coast around the Horn and the Cape of Hood Hope to feed the Englishmen. Of course .they never dreamed that when the grain crossed the equator the midge fly and the maggot would get into it; that every bushel of wheat which goes over the equator must be specially treated and disinfected in order that it may be transported without injury. That was all forgotten; there was millions on the Pacific coast, they thought, for any enterprising promoter who went there. So the road went from Edmonton through the Yellowhead Pass, never more than one hundred or two hundred yards from the National Transcontinental that we are [DOT]sweating blood to pay for. The line went as far west as the other side of Prince George. They thought they could get a lot of fine scenery that way; they turned down and took some of the scenery from the Canadian Pacific. As a matter of fact, I suppose the Canadian Pacific would have been glad to give them the heavy grades along the Thompson and Fraser rivers. They paralleled the Canadian Pacific down the Fraser valley, the Canadian Pacific on one side of the creek and the Canadian Northern on the other, and they landed at Vancouver. If it were possible to operate any of these roads as a double-track line, a great deal of trouble would be saved, operating expenses would be reduced, a smaller working staff would be sufficient, and less equipment would be required. The grades could be readjusted on the up-and-down tracks.. >One staff of superintendents and operators and one private car to trot round the country in, instead of three or four, would be sufficient. We find our-[DOT]selves in a difficulty so far as these roads [DOT]are concerned; we have to provide money; and there will be great difficulty in synchronizing operation. I always like to find historical parallels for peculiar incidents in history, but I cannot find in any country in the world a case that at all parallels that of Mackenzie and Mann. A man by the name of Law blew certain bubbles in France, but he did not constantly bleed the people because they benefited by his operations in the establishment of banks. He left the Bank of England and the Bank of France. He blew the South Sea bubble 
in England; but these Mackenzie and Mann bubbles beat anything I ever saw or heard of in history. We are stuck for something like $25,000,000 a year for these gentlemen. When anything ever happens around the corridors of [DOT] any legislative body in this country they have a lot of lawyers versed in the art of talking to members, and if you are a newly-elected member a very smooth gentleman offers you a cigar, gets into conversation with you and after a while wants to know your views on granting Mackenzie and Mann $50,000,000 of a bonus, or something of that kind. They operate amongst public men, the legislatures of the provinces and the Parliament of Canada. There is hardly a mile from the Behring -sea to the trenches in France would fail to disclose wrecks strewn by these two men. Everything that they touch has blown up. At first their stocks went flying up like a kite, and when the public set in and woke up they had nothing but the stick left. Take the street railway in Winnipeg, the stock of which at one time was about 200, and is now down to about 50. When they owned the Toronto street railway the stock went up to 150 or 180; to-day it is down to 50. They are out. Wrecks all the way-saw mills, coal mines, trawlers, saw mill companies, whaling companies. I am informed that the coal lands on Vancouver island for all time will be obliged to earn an extra tax of something like $2.50 a ton because of the operations of Mackenzie & Mann. Now they are broken, they say, and they want more money. Nobody seems to know where they lost their money, what latitude or longitude, but they want more.
This country has- entered into an agreement with them now to pay $10,000,000 for the rights of a road which is really in real financial difficulties. We have to take care of it by issuing short-term notes, and when we do get it, we shall hardly know what to do with this white elephant. No doubt, Mackenzie & Mann will come down to Ottawa after we pay them and want it back. I am credibly informed that those gentlemen are still in control of the Canadian Northern railway. I would have thought, when this country has used Mackenzie & Mann so well and has agreed to arbitrate their equity in the stock, a question which we really did not need to arbitrate at all, because we could have taken over the road under a mortgage; when we are so willing to hand them over $10,000,000, if they can only show us a reasonable

excuse for doing so-and some of their excuses are rather flimsy-that they would have the good grace to step out of the directorate and management of the company pending the conclusion of that investigation. I am told that Mackenzie & Mann are still in control of the Canadian Northern and direct its resources and enterprises. Furthermore, I understand that a very strong effort is being made to see that the control of the Consolidated Railway Companies of Canada is put into the hands of Sir William Mackenzie as general manager. This will need an Order in Council but the people of this country will rise in rebellion if anything of that kind occurs. We are tired of those gentlemen and their exploits. I have nothing personally against either of them. As a clannish Highland Scotchman, I would like to see them succeed. They have not, however, shown the slightest evidence of ability to manage public affairs, except to plunder the people. If a man had a good steam sawmill at any place along theiT line, they were not satisfied until they put another one in and beat him out of what he had. If a 'man had a coal yard out of which he was making money, they would put in another coal yard and destroy his business. It was nothing but a record of wrecks, as I said, from the Behring sea to the trenches. It is very hard for me to make these statements, but I have to speak the truth. It is difficult for a public man to tell the truth as he should do in a public place like this, but I am stating facts. We have to handle their derelicts. We have to pump the water out of those floating hulks of theirs. We have t0' get them into some shape again, and if we are going to do that, let us put in charge of therm somebody who has business ability, and let us see that the road is properly managed and is not to continue a streak of rust as it is at present.
What is the condition of the National Transcontinental, which is another problem we have to face? For a number of years I handled the financial Bills of the Grand Trunk Railway in the House of Commons, and I shall say this, that under the management then of Mr. Hays, and those men who came here, especially Mr. Wainwrigbt, an effort was made to put the old Grand Trunk on a first-class financial footing. Those men made that effort. They saw their troubles; they started in to pay up all their debts with debenture stock, which did not carry a mortgage against the road at all. Those debentures were sold in England, and
as bonds matured the mortgages were taken off that road until, at one period, before they started financing for the new railway in the West, I think there was only something like $8,000,000 worth of bonds against the whole road. That was a very small amount, the road being at that time valued at between fifty .and sixty million dollars: That was a splendid example of financing, unequalled by .any other road on the American continent at that time; but they got into the flotation business, the transcontinental fever, and they agreed to finance the greater portion of those roads in the West which connect with the Grand Trunk Railway. The result is that the shareholders of the Grand Trunk are now so much involved that it is almost hopeless for those who hold the debentures ever to expect to receive a dividend. Did this country put the shareholders in that position? No. Their own directors, whom they appointed with their own votes, put them into that difficulty. That road, or a portion of it, must be taken over, and, as far as I am concerned, I think the only solution of the matter is to deal fairly with those shareholders and take over the whole road. The East will then, if it is properly managed, take care of the West; it will help the West. The tremendous arteries the Grand Trunk has running into every town and village of the East, coupled with the western connections and the similar web of the Canadian Northern in the West-those two gigantic webs joined together will, to my mind, pay and can be made to pay.
Last year, however, we found ourselves in the face of a peculiar difficulty. Those roads were constantly running into debt, and the Canadian Pacific was constantly making money. Instead of adopting the plan in existence in the United States of pooling the roads, we must adopt some expedient, and the expedient adopted was to raise the rates on those roads by 15 per cent. As a shipper, I do not see anything wrong in an additional freight rate of ten or fifteen per cent, because we must realize that the cost of operating those roads has tremendously increased. The price of coal has risen to almost three times its former cost; steel has advanced to an equal extent; rails which formerly could be secured for $28, now cost $70; looomotives that formerly cost $20,000, now cost $55,000. You see, therefore, the tremendous operating difficulties those railways had to bear. But

say to them when they start hogging our trade and our ships, " There are men to-day in the Parliament of Canada who do not appreciate your walking off with our business and taking ships that are not necessary." I have been informed that some of our ships which have been taken over by the British authorities for the purpose ol tiansporting munitions and food lay for weeks in the harbours of the United States without cargoes. 'One ship, I understand, lay in New York harbour for six weeks and then had to be taken back again by this Government to its owners., and from the noise that went up there you would have thought there was only one ship left in the Anglo-Saxon fleet, and that we were taking that one over. We must do things in a business-like way. Canada is not a crown colony. We are prepared to pay our way and more than pay our way. We are prepared to finance this war and grow the grain the Allies need in this war and wait for our pay. Where can you get anybody else to do that? That being so, I insist that justice must be done in the allotment of ships, to enable us to carry on our former business, unless it is absolutely impossible.
The ministers of this Government must have a very difficult time. There is always suspicion on account of their political leanings in the past. They are constantly confronted with new problems, and every interest will be trying to pull them in various directions. Members of Parliament on both sides of the House are critical, perhaps a little too much so, but so far as I am concerned, I want it understood that my criticism is made in no carping spirit. In a free Parliament, and a great Parliament such as we have here, it is the duty of every member to speak out and give his views instead of sitting behind and grumbling. The proper thing is to come to the front and say what you want to say. I have endeavoured to keep out of politics and follow the straight path as a Conservative Unionist. But, II am sorry to say that some of the press are trying to make it exceedingly difficult for any member of the great party to which I belong, the Liberal Conservative party, to be a minister of the Union Government in this country. I am referring to the Unionist press. The Conservative party supplies at least sixty-five per cent of the support of this Government.
I was ashamed the other day to see in the Globe newspaper, which professes great friendship for the Unionist party, a mean and contemptible attack on my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) who

happens unfortunately, like myself, to be a Tory. I do not think it is fair. I am ready to take all the blows I get, but when a man is endeavouring to do his duty in a very difficult situation I think that some credit should be given to him and the paper which would be the last to criticise him would be a paper of the opposite party in the Union Government. We want fair play in these things.
The food situation in Canada is critical and the food department of the Government is receiving a tremendous lot of criticism. It is very difficult to decide what to do under the circumstances. But, if the Government is willing to lend an ear to anything I say, and in this I am only voicing the sentiments* of the country, I would favour fixing maximum prices for the principal food commodities so that the poor man will know bow to adjust his breakfast table to the market. Prices have gone far too high. We fixed the price for wheat never expecting that oats and barley would, through some remarkable process, appreciate in value to such an extent as to reach a higher figure than wheat. Give the farmer whatever is the right price for his wheat and adjust the prices also of the other commodities* according to that scale. In Great Britain they have had to come to fixed prices. In this country we are_ paying 37 cents a pound for oleomargarine while in the Old Country the advertised price is 27 cents a pound. The same applies to foods of other kinds such as meal, flour, etc. Why is it that you have to go to the United States to import com in the face of an adverse trade balance in order to meet some requirement of the food controller that we shall not eat white bread? I do not see anything sensible in that. The food controller is collecting taxes under an Order in Council. He is selling a monopoly to a woman who serves a cup of tea in the morning to her boarders; he makes her take out a license. The regulations are so intricate that you cannot tell whether you are breaking the law if you sit down to a meal. Let the regulations be simplified as in the United States. There they have their meatless day and on that day they know they cannot eat meat. Monday is a meatless day and they refrain from eating meat on that day. Tuesday will be a wheatless day and they will not eat any bread that contains wheat on that day. I *am unable to eay whether we have a wheatless day or not. But, I do know that these regulations are yery confusing, that I have

been receiving bunches of correspondence from farmers in my constituency asking such questions as this: " Is it true that I am contravening the law by eating pork or bread on Wednesday?" To my mind, all these confusing regulations are not in keeping with the spirit of the times. I do not offer any criticism of the Pood Controller, excepting that. If Parliament is to give him the right to collect taxes, let it be brought into this House in the form of a Bill and let us put a law on the statute-book. I am -quite willing to vote for it and I do not think a single member will raise an objection, but let us carry on our business- in the proper way. Let us be straight with the people. I do not know but what 1 am going to find an order issued under an 'Order irt 'Council some morning sending me down to Halifax or some place else. I do not say this in criticism. I am only repeating exactly what every man in the country, from one end of it to the other, is saying. Orders in- Council? Why not give us an Order in Council to put 10 per cent on the customs imports and perhaps that would be a reasonable measure. We would get $70,000,000 in that way. That would be an order worth while. In order not to further detain .the House on this particular question, I want to give notice that I intend to discuss the question of Orders in Council the first time we go into Committee of Supply. Ilf nobody else does it I will.
Now, I have offered some criticism to the Government and I trust they- will take it in good part. I trust they will take counsel together in these matters. It is well that the Government has somebody sitting behind it to say some of these things because many people think my way -and if nobody offered criticism against free trade proposals the first thing we would know every factory in this coun.try would be closed. If nobody offered any criticism in regard to railway rates and other matters *concerning the railways the first thing we would know this Parliament House would be occupied by the railways and- we would be all out of business. Somebody has to speak against these things and I think it is the duty of members on this side of the House to express their views just as much as it is that of members of the Opposition and perhaps their word will carry more weight.
I trust that members of this House will take into their consideration that we should do everything we can at this time to stop all this snarling, contemptible agitation and class hatred of various kinds. Do you not think it ie time that we all got together?
Quebec is doing its duty now in so far as the war i-s concerned. There was snarling between Quebec and Ontario, but we know, and everybody knows, that Quebec and Ontario are inevitably husband and wife and they cannot be permanently separated. There is always, however, a nasty hard man who is sticking his nose into our affairs, like Bourassa or LaveTgne, and trying to cause trouble at the fireside. Let us get rid of all these trouble-makers, and let us unite behind this Government to win the war.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They have lost the wedding ring.


John Allister Currie: They have not lost the
wedding ring. The man who says so says what is untrue, because the ring is not lost. These two peoples must live alongside of each other, and if they are going to live alongside of each other they must have mutual respect for each pther. I can . never lose my respect for the French Canadians. I deplored the situation in Quebec with regard to the war, because I knew what a false position some politicians were putting the men from- Quebec in, virtually branding them as cowards. When, you have a man of French Canadian blood voluntarily interposing his body between you and the enemy, you can never have a hatred of the people of his- race. I very much regret the feelings that have been engendered, but I hope that is all over. I hope we will all look forward to the time after this war is over when- every man who has served his country in the war will he happily employed- in his customary avocation and that we shall see him during his leisure in the evening of his life, -sitting in peace beneath his own vine at 'home enjoying that rest which he has so well earned, -because he has fought for the liberties of the world, and he, more than any one who has not taken part in the struggle, recognizes what the liberty of the world means. We want Canada to be a great country- to be not only a great country from the military standpoint, but great, also, agriculturally and industrially, because we have the motive power necessary to bring that about. We can put power on the belt of our industrial machines at a rate equivalent to coal at $1 a ton, and there is no country in the world where coal will ever again be as low in price as $1 a ton. We are going to be a great farming country, why cannot we be equally as great indus-9 p.m. trially? We are a military nation, why cannot we be also great in a truly national sense? Why can

we not stop this constant stirring up of class hatred, this continuous snarling of one race against the other, and of one business against another, and become a truly united people worthy, in every sense of the term, of those brave men whose blood is to-day being shed so plentifully for our sake, and for the sake of all that we hold most dear in life?
M. D. A. LAFORTUNE (JaoquesdJaritier) (translation): Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to preface the few remarks I am about to make by the last words fallen from the lips of my learned friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Currie) the hon. gentleman said: "Quebec and Ontario are inevitably husband and wife and they cannot be permanently separated," I am quite willing Sir, to contract marriage with the province of Ontario, but under one condition, namely, that Ontario shall deal justly with me. Husband and wife, forsooth ! After marrying an Englishman, I would not be allowed to apeak. French; that is to say, being his wife, I would be denied the right of speaking my mother-tongue. Or else, I might not be able to speak English, and he might not understand French. How well we would understand one another, at the fireside! How nicely we would live together! He would say: "How dearly I love you, my wife, but take good care you do not speak French.
How isad such a match would be.
It is all very well for the hon. gentleman to make such remarks and say: "Let us live in peace, let us love one another, let us protect one another''; and then, when the question of the French language comes up, to say: "Cut it out, amputate the French tongue, do not speak French in the Ontario Schools, it is a crime." And the hon. gentleman talks about harmony, peace, toleration, "bonne entente". Let him first of all, begin by telling his fellow-countrymen. Let us mete out justice to the province of Quebec; let us .grant the French Canadians full freedom to speak their mother tongue and practice their religion in the province of Ontario." And then we will talk about making love, an dthe courtship may perhaps result in wedlock.
Mr. iSpeaker, it is my honour to represent the mighty county of Jacques Cartier, the most beautiful, the most important, the most wealthy and the most populous in the Dominion.
Since the last election I have moved to Jacques-Cartier as a member of Parliament. I was sorry to leave Montcalm, for the old Administration had given full justice to the voters I had the honour of representing. I

had got from them a great number of public works, a post office, several bridges, good roads, a railway, all sorts of things had been given me by the old Administration which was well-off financially, and as I said I was sorry to leave Montcalm; when that constituency was joined to l'Assomp-tion county, there were two Liberal members, one representing Montcalm-myself- the other representing l'Assomption, my honourable colleague, Mr. Seguin. So I was asked to run in Jacques Cartier the old fortress of the Conservative Party, the old constituency of the ex-Minister of Public Works, the late Honourable F. D Monk. That gentleman represented Jacques Cartier from 1896 to his death, with honour to himself and a little benefit to his constituents. He was a good man, an honost man, a distinguished man, a lawyer of sterling worth.
Since 1878, the year of the famous contests between the late ex-Minister of Justice, Hon. Rodolphe Laflamme and the former M.P., the former Judge of the Supreme Court the late Hon. Desire Girouard, from 1877 up to the death of Mr. Monk the election speeches in Jacques Cartier were always along this line: "You need a bridge from St. Anne to He Perrot and from lie Perrot to Viaudreuil "-they spoke of two bridges. At every election this same appeal was trotted out and the voters were promised; that if the candidate was elected he ;would move heaven tand earth to have both these bridges erected.
Mr Speaker, when I see the millions and millions that are being asked of this House for things which are not indispensable and not a cent in the Estimates for the construction of these bridges, what must I think?
Mr. Monk went through many contests, from 1896 to hi's death, always victorious, always elected with a big majority, and always promising his electors to have these two bridges built.
When he became Minister of Public Works, the people began to feel easier, they began to expect that the bridges would be built, since their representative occupied the most important portfolio in the Government. All in vain; nothing was done. Millions upon millions were voted for all sorts of undertakings, but nary a cent for the St. Anne bridge nor for the lie Perrot bridge.
In a way, I followed the example of my predecessors. I almost promised that these bridges would be built; but if I had known that the Administration we have at present would not include an item in the Estimates for the erection of these bridges, I am not

sure that I would have been willing to run in that county.
If I must face again the voters of Jacques Cartier without these bridges having been constructed, what shall their opinion be of your humble servant? They will certainly point out: " Sir, you are no improvement on our former representatives, who made us the same promises as you did, but who in the like manner failed to make good. You promised us to make every effort and sacrifice, as in the case of the electors of Montcalm, and we blindly believed in your word."
As isoon as this House prorogues, Mr. Speaker, I will begin an electoral tour, and when I will tell my constituents, as I will be forced to, that I failed in having a sufficient amount placed in the Estimates for the erection of these two bridges, what shall they think of me? Being a lawyer, I wi'l endeavour to make the best plea possible, but I can assure you, Sir, that they expect a full account from me, because, as I have already stated, these two bridges must be constructed. How can we conceive that, since the Confederation to this date, when millions and hundreds of millions of dollars have been expended for public works of all kinds, Montreal, the Queen of this Dominion, still remains isolated? How can we imagine that even to-day it is impossible to leave the Island of Montreal by any other means of communication than by row-boat? People are fully served if they can afford to walk, but transportation of this kind is not of a ready use with a heavy load. A light parcel, a suit-case, or other small articles can easily be carried in a row-boat, but transportation becomes impracticable in the case of an automobile; it is better not to take any chance, for it would mean a straight diving to the bottom. The) county o.f Jacques Cartier, as well as Ste. Anne de Bellevue, for years a town, with a great population, having within its limits moist important buildings, such as the Macdonald College, located in the neighbourhood, and for which were freely expended millions over millions of dollars, and which is every year visited by thousands of people from all parts of the country, are nevertheless bereft of means of communication. In order to reach that town, one must cross from Ste. Anne de Bellevue to Vaudreuil, by way of Perrot Island in a row-boat. You may point out that railways are available. Granted. However, the big bug, the powerful, the rich would certainly not be satisfied With it, on account of smoke. Further, we do not enjoy so great a freedom in railway cars, being unable to go back at will.
We cannot travel along in private with beautiful women of our choice, and whose company we crave. In a word, we are somewhat interfered with, whereas in motorcar we leave and return at as early or late an hour as it suits our own convenience, nobody being on the spot to peep or gaze. Well, Mr. Speaker, I state and hold that. these two bridges must necessarily be built from a triple, commercial, intellectual and moral point of view.
lit is with great pleasure and pride that a large hospital is now being erected by the Government at Sainte-Anne \ de Bellevue, and I must especially congratulate the Government who was so well inspired as to construct such an important hospital near the limits of the ICbunty which I have the honour to represent in this House, and this would seem to me an additional reason why honourable ministers1 here present should make all their endeavours to decide and hasten the erection of these bridges. The building of Charlemagne bridge, which , was less necessary, whatever may be said in that connection, was carried out. but it was under the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The Brandon bridge was algo' erected to replace the old one, built years before, .and which was moved twice a year, in the fall, lest it should be crushed by ice, and in the spring at the time of the freshet. Now, if Sir Wilfrid so well succeeded in constructing all these bridges in my former constituency of Montcalm, why should not the present Government be in a position to build the bridges I ask to-day for the county of Jacques-Cartier? Truly, the bridges to which I referred a moment ago were not as costly, but they were needed. Therefore, at the last election, -my opponents were at bay in my electoral district, .and they pointed out: "David is unbeatable". Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I bad the honour of being returned by the voters of Jacques Cartier, as their representative, by a majority of more than 3,200 votes, although a great number of women have cast their votes for my opponent, on account of my getting older. However, I will not quarrel with them for they meant well, and I will endeavour to conquer them at the next election.
The Government friends, who were canvassing in behalf of the Union Government, stated everywhere that the Military Service Act was calculated to protect the farmers' sons, who should never be drafted, and that it was beyond reason to believe that the Union Government, if elected, would enlist the farmers' sons and send them over to

a great many costly works, through the Harbour Commission, to better the lot of the citizens of Montreal.
Now, I tell you, hon. minister, that you have done nothing; there can be no comparison between the necessity for building this tunnel and the very important works you did for Montreal. 1 feel sure that you will grant my request and will see that we get this tunnel and the day it is decided that we will get it I can assure you that it will be a holiday in your honour.
In Lachine, in the beautiful city of La-chine, a plot of land was bought to build a wharf. This land was bought' a long time ago; but the wharf has not been built. In the meantime the people are using the wharf belonging to the Grand Trunk Railway Company and this wharf is in a bad state. If the Government is not ready to build the proposed wharf I would .ask the hon. minister to see to it that the Grand Trunk wharf is repaired while waiting for the Governments. projected wharf to be built. The wharf used ie in bad shape and it would not cost much to repair it so as to make things .a little easier for those whose business forces them to use it.
You were busy, Hon. Minister of Justice, so I am going to repeat what I was saying a moment ago.


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: I would not want to miss that.


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: I am going to repeat in two words what I said a moment ago. It is this: in your division of St. Anne you were elected by a large majority; although you were opposed by a man of sterling worth, of wonderful talent, despite all his efforts you triumphed over him. You are .all the more indebted to your constituents. Rather you had two opponents and you defeated them both royally.
The people of Ville-Emard, of Monk boulevard, quite numerous, and now that the railway and1 the street cars are coming, now that we are going to have a new line along Cote St. Paul, St. Gabriel, Turcot, Ville-Emard, it is absolutely necessary, hon. minister, now that the tramways are going to run there-the commission has decided to lay new lines in that region- it seems to me, hon. minister that you should put yourself at the head of the movement to give this tunnel to these poor working people so that they will not lose any more time through waiting for the boats to go through and the bridges to be let down.
I have seen 40, 60, 60 and more women and children, poor people, waiting for the bridge to close so they could continue on their

way to work. It is a sorry sight. I feel sure that your sense of justice will not allow this thing to go on .any longer and that you will put yourself, together with your colleague, the Hon. Minister of Marine, at the head1 of our movement and see to it that this tunnel is laid and that these people get fair treatment. I feel confident that you are going to do what I suggest.
There is a wharf at Pointe Clair, where I stopped recently.


An hon. MEMBER:: and if they will shout again :. " Hurrah for conscription! "
Now 1 come hack to the town of Ste. Anne fhait I was speaking of a while ago, to tell this House how badly the town is in need of a post office. It seems to me that this post office is certainly due St. Anne which has quite a population, constantly on the increase; then they have a number of important business establishments, besides Macdonald College, which employs a great many people, and the new naval 'hospital that the Government is now building there. I hope that the Postmaster 'General will think over my request, not forgetting St. Genevieve which is also sorely in need' of a post office. My worthy constituents have asked me to submit their request to the hon. minister; it is my duty to do it; and I do it gladly. During the former 'Government's tenure of office post offices rose as if by enchantment; every city whose population, was sufficiently numerous to warrant a post office being built there was .sure to obtain one from us. I would like to see the present Administration follow the same policy. So, in a nutshell, I say that a post office at both St. Genevieve and Ste. Anne de Bellevue would be very useful.
A moment ago I heard one of the hon. members in the course of the very interest- * ing,remarks he made to the House say that he approved the taxes brought down by the hon. Minister in his budget speech; only he doesn't like the methods used to levy ffiese taxes; he would like to see the people taxed in such a way that they would not notice it. Mr. Speaker, the members who sit in this House are the authorized representatives of the' people and the people have the right to demand that their representatives here be sincere and straight forward. I want to say to the hon. member that when you start out to attain a certain good you should take the best means of getting there and not try to hide the truth. No, Mr. 'Speaker, let us he frank and above board with the people. Let us tell them just how things stand; you cannot, you should not do otherwise. The people who toil and who pay decidedly have the right to demand sincerity in those whom they pay. So I believe that we should speak out frankly to them and tell them the truth about matters. I have never done otherwise.
(Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton): Will the hon. member allow me a question?


David Arthur Lafortune: Certainly.
[Mr. Lafortune.l


Henry Arthur Mackie: If I understand the hon. member, I conclude from what he says that he is opposed to direct taxation.


David Arthur Lafortune: 
Henry Arthur Mackie: Does not the hon. member believe that members should be paid according to the length of their speeches?


David Arthur Lafortune: 

I remember what our opponents used to say to the old Administration, .about the Quebec bridge; they said that the bridge had fallen down because the Cabinet had *employed incompetent workmen; but they, who claimed to employ for this same bridge the most competent workmen., the greatest experts on the face of the globe, were overtaken by the .same disaster. Yon did not [DOT]see the Liberals take advantage of the opportunity to pass unfair remarks.
.All honour to. those who had a .part in this gigantic undertaking. The bridge is completed.
The Victoria bridge was subsidized'. This bridge had no accommodation for vehicles or pedestrians. It took many millions to alter the bridge so as to accommodate vehicles and pedestrians and help trade on the southern shore. That was done by the Liberal Government.
The Intercolonial. Railway had its terminus at [Levis; the former Government changed this terminus to the Bonavenitune Station at Montreal. The result of this change was astonishing, .and the country will he thankful to Mr. Fielding for it.
We began certain preliminary work on the Georgian Bay Canal. W.e went to considerable expense in this connection, chiefly for excavation and for hydrographic surveys, etc. I regret that this carnal was not continued; the reason given by the old Government was that there were more urgent needs to be met, like the Hudson Bay railroad, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the completion of Montreal harbour. But I hope that before long the country will be in a position to undergo the necessary sacrifices to execute this projet of the Georgian Bay Canal. It would certainly be in the interest of Canadian trade, doing .away with *a distance of some 400 miles .and bringing about .a big reduction in the transportation cost of our western grain.
When the Liberals wanted to change their fiscal policy a little, I think I still hear the hon. gentlemen who were then dn opposition saying: "Don't touch it; let well enough alone", after saying for years that Sir Wilfrid iLaurier was leading the country into bankruptcy; that hie Administration- was worthless. Coming from the Prime Minister and his friends that was quite a compliment to pay the former Administration, If it was a good administration, why did you -oppose it ? Why did you go through the country crying out against waste, .against robbery, and doing your worst to destroy his policy? That is how sincere these gentlemen are..

When the Liberals spoke of building ships in this country they were told that it was a ridiculous idea; and, to hear the Prime Minister of to-day talk then, it was absurd, it was utter nonsense, it was nothing short of childish, to speak of building ship? in our country. Are these gentlemen willing to say the same thing to-day? What hypocrites. They who .are now asking us for millions to build Canadian shine called us ridiculous when Sir Wilfrid Laur.ier .and the Hon. Air. Fielding wanted to do the same thing. That is how sincere they are.
This afternoon an hon. member .said: Give the farmer his Ibushel of wheat. We are not asking you, sir, for our bushel of wheat; we are asking you to leave us the children who belong to us; do not take away the children off our soil; leave these young folk,, the-flower of our people, the future of our country, where they are. You come into our farming districts to -take away the children of 19, 20, 2L and 22 years of age and you talk about increasing agricultural production. Don't you know what is going on in the countryside? We are told:	Take men from the
cities, take women, to work in the fields, Yes, we can take women for ploughing and for harrowing; we will take women for farm work- the -notion is childish! Take men from the- cities, we are told. Yes, they'll come and-work on a farm for a day; but the next morning not one of them will be able to stand on his feet. These things require experience and concentration. I!t isn't, airy Tom, Dick and Harry who can make farming pay. You need practical men; men who have spent their lives on a farm. Those who ladle out this advice to the farmers are off their trolley.
Mr. Speaker, I am through. I know that you will not be sorry, and I am proud that you have given me your kind attention and have listened quietly, as usual, to my remarks. I believed I was keeping within bounds. You did me justice; so much the better; you were decidedly the man to preside over the deliberations of this Chamber and I tender my congratulations to the Prime Minister for having appointed you. He never did .a better thing in hie life. If only he did as well in other resipeets I would be very grateful to him. I thank the House for their kind attention and I resume my . seat, happy if I have been of some use to those who elected me.



COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.

[Stage Direction]
Motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Ways and Aleans, iMr. Boivin in the Chair.

[Stage Direction]
Tariff item 27-Coffee, roasted or ground, when not imported direct from the country of growth and production, per pound-British Preferential Tariff 8 cents and 7 i per cent; Intermediate Tariff 10 cents and 10 per cent; General Tariff 10' cents and 10 per cent.
Wilfrid Laurier: This item calls for both a specific and an ad valorem duty. What is the reason for such a high duty?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We are only increasing the specific duty, not the ad valorem.	.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the increase?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The old rate was 4 cents and 74 per cent preferential; the general tariff was 5 cents and 10 per cent.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will the new rate not be prohibitive?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This item covers indirect importations, on which the tariff is higher than on direct importations for domestic consumption.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Tariff item 29a.-Tea n.o.p., per pound-British Preferential Tariff 10 cents and 10 per cent; Intermediate Tariff, 10 cents and 10 per cent; General Tariff, 10 cents and 10 per cent.
Wilfrid Laurier: What is the difference here?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There always was a tariff on tea under this item, and it had reference to indirect importations. The only difference is that we are adding the ten cents specific duty to the ad valorem duty which was in existence before. The purpose of the duty on indirect importations is to preserve that trade to Canadian business houses, otherwise it would go to the United States or to some other country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do you make any distinction in the tea grown in the British possessions?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is not proposed to give any preference to tea grown in British countries. This tariff is imposed particularly for the purpose of securing revenue, and we are applying here the same principle that we do to importations of liquors and tobaccos. However, there is a great deal to say in favour of granting a preference to British-grown tea

Mr. LEMIEUX': In normal times.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: but at the
present time I did not think it wise to make any distinction. Owing to the inability of shippers of teas from India and
Ceylon to secure shipping, it would really make very little difference to them, or they would have very little advantage. At the next session of Parliament, however, I think the matter might very well be considered.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Tariff item 144.-Cut Tobacco per pound- British Preferential Tariff 95 cents; Intermediate Tariff 95 cents; General Tariff, 95 cents.
Wilfrid Laurier: What is the increase on this item?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Thirty cents per pound.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Tariff item 145.-Manufactured Tobacco n.o.p. and Snuff per pound-British Preferential Tariff 90 cents; Intermediate Tariff, 90 cents; General Tariff, 90 cents.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The increase there is 30 cents.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Tariff item 657a-Cinematograph or moving picture films positives, one and one-eighth of an inch in width and over, per linear foot-[DOT] British Preferential Tariff 3J cents; Intermediate Tariff, 5 cents ; General Tariff, 5 cents.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Films are shown successively in different cities at different times. A film may be shown in Ottawa, Montreal and other Canadian cities, returned to the United States, and then sent .back to Canada. Does that film pay duty only once?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The films pay the duty each time they come into Canada.

iMr. LBMIEUX: I am not sufficiently familiar with the intricacies of the tariff imposed by this item to realize the exact extent of the duty on moving picture films. There may be something in the argument of my hon. friend that we should not overtax this particular business. But these moving picture shows are always filled to the limit. The theatres on Bank, Sparks and Sussex streets are always crowded, and very frequently people may be seen waiting at the doors. If any reduction of the proposed additional taxation is intended, I suggest, that it be made on tea.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: These films are usually one thousand feet in length and the tax of 3 cents per lineal foot amounts to $30 per reel. Since the introduction of the resolution it has been pointed out to me that at the beginning of the year contracts were made for the year with the manufacturers of films for the lease of films and there is now no way in which the persons entering into these contracts could protect themselves. The item as it now stands would be an injustice to such persons, but, as amended, with the additional tax on the exhibitors of films which I propose to submit to the committee, we shall receive as much revenue and the taxation will be more fairly distributed.


William Stevens Fielding: Some years ago, in one of the revisions of the tariff, an item was inserted prohibiting the importation of posters and handbills depicting scenes of crime and violence-I think my recollection of the phraseology is correct. We found that large numbers of printed handbills and posters were being brought in from the United States depicting scenes which could not fail to have an unpleasant effect. I think that item is still in the tariff, and we all agree that it is a wise provision, but I do not suppose that under the wording of the tariff as it stands, that provision would apply to moving picture films. Some of the films which are being brought in today certainly depict scenes of crime and violence and are not of a very elevating character, and I suggest that my hon. friend discuss the matters with the customs officials. Let us make sure that while we prohibit handbills depicting scenes of crime and violence, we do not allow moving pictures to be brought in which are just as bad or worse. It is true that we have censors in each province, but if we use the machinery of the customs to prevent the importation not only of handbills but of

films depicting scenes of 'that character, it would be a step in the right direction.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I move:
That the following- words be added after Item 657a:
''Provided, however, that the goods hereinbefore enumerated shall be exempt from the rates of duties of customs specified in section 3 of the Customs Tariff War Revenue Act, 1915."
The purpose of that amendment is to provide that the Customs Tariff War Revenue Act, which imposes 5J per cent under the British preference and- 7| per cent under the general tariff, shall not apply to these several items.


Mr. MOWAT:: It is evident that the
picture show people have been making to the acting minister representations which have induced him to make this reduction, but I am glad to hear him say that the revenue is not to suffer by that. The point I wish to make is this, that I think he should impress -upon the picture show people the fact that the kind of -plays that are being shown are not at all popular with a large part of our population. I am not now discussing those pictures depicting crimes and things of that sort that are demoralizing, but the picture show people are utterly without discretion as to what films they bring into Canada. Whilst some of the pictures aTe very good and some of the parts are taken toy the toast actors and actresses, yet there a-re others which show altogether the seamy side of life and not our life. The consequence is that our people are getting to think that the proper way to live is as depicted on the screen. We constantly see pictures which depict, not the toest kind of American people and their life, tout the less desirable class. I would respectfully suggest that the Acting Minister of Finance if he is -again -approached for lowering of the proposed tax should tell the picture show people that, unless they are more discriminating, unless they think more of and find out more about the -character of the films they bring into Canada, they will not receive further favours so far -as many members of this House are concerned.


Samuel Hughes: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have no knowledge of there toeing any importation of films toy the Government.


Samuel Hughes: Will the minis ter kindly make inquiry?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall make inquiry and inform my hon. friend when the Bill is under consideration.


Mr. KAY:: How much does the minister expect to collect under this item as amended?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: About $300,000 altogether.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the minister is in a
mood to- confess what he will receive- through the various amendments, will he say what he- expects-to -collect fro-m each of the items? Has he an estimate?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Under the first
item, that is chicory, raw or green, an additional revenue of $900 is -estimated. The importations are very, limited, and we would not anticipate any great increase of revenue there. Under item 25, that is chicory, kiln-dried, roasted or ground, the estimated increase in revenue is $4,900. Under item 25a, -extract of coffee, n.o.p., and substitutes thereof of all kinds, the estimated increase in revenue is $7,500. Under item 26, coffee and imitations or substitutes, the estimated increase in revenue is $15,000. Under item 27, coffee not imported direct from country of growth the estimated increase in revenue is $21,000. Under item 28, green coffee imported direct from country of growth and green coffee purchased in bond' in the United Kingdom, the estimated increase in revenue is $650,000. Under item 28a, tea imported direct from country of growth or purchased in bond in the United Kingdom, the estimated increase in revenue is $3,200,000. The annual consumption of tea per head in -Canada is estimated at 4.27 pounds. Under item 29, coffee, green, not otherwise provided for, the ' estimated increase in revenue is $30,000. Under item 29a, tea not otherwise provided for the estimated increase is $25,000; under item 143, cigars and cigarettes, $42,000; under item 144, cut tobacco, $176,000; under item 145, manufactured tobacco and- snuff, $30,000; under item 147a, beverages in the manufacture of which malt, rice or corn is used and containing not more than 2J per cent of proof spirit, $30,000. I have already given the estimated increase in revenue under item 657a relating to cinematograph or moving picture films.
Mr. LEMIE-UX: That is a total of how much?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: About $4,000,000 from customs duties upon these items.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
1.	Resolved, That it is expedient to impose, levy and collect on tobacco and cigars manufactured in Canada the following duties of excise:-
(a)	On all chewing and smoking tobacco, fine-cut, cavendish, plug or twist, out or granulated, of every description,-on tobacco twisted by hand or reduced into a condition to be consumed or in any manner other than the ordinary mode of drying and curing, prepared for sale or consumption, even if prepared without the use of any machine or instrument and without being pressed or sweetened,-and on all fine-cut shorts and refuse scraps, cuttings and sweepings of tobacco made from raw leaf tobacco or the product in any form, other than in this Act otherwise provided, of raw leaf tobacco, twenty cents per pound, actual weight;
(b)	On common Canada twist, when made solely from tobacco grown in Canada, and on the farm or premises where grown, by the cultivator duly licensed therefor, or in a licensed tobacco manufactory, twenty cents per pound, actual weight;
(c)	On all snuff made from raw leaf tobacco, or the product in any form of raw leaf tobaoco or any substitute for tobacco, ground, dry, scented or otherwise, of all descriptions, when prepared for use, twenty cents per pound, actual weight;
(d)	Snuff flour, when sold or removed for use or consumption, shall pay the same duty as snuff, and shall he put up in packages and stamped in the same manner as herein prescribed for snuff completely manufactured, except that snuff flour not prepared for use, but which needs to be subjected to further processes, by sifting, pickling, scenting or otherwise, before it is in a condition fit for use or consumption, may be sold by one tobacco manufacturer directly to another tobacco manufacturer, and without payment of the duty, under such regulations as are provided in that behalf by the department;
(e)	On cigars of all descriptions, made from raw leaf tobacco, or any substitute therefor, six dollars per thousand ;
(f)	On all cigars, when put up in packages containing less than ten cigars each, seven dollars per thousand;
(g)	On cigarettes made from raw leaf tobacco or any substitute therefor, weighing not more than three pounds per thousand, six dollars per thousand;
'(h) On cigarettes made from raw leaf tobacco or any substitute therefor, weighing more than three pounds Per thousand, eleven dollars per thousand;
(i)	On all foreign raw leaf tobacco, unstemmed, taken out of warehouse for manufacture in any cigar or tobacco manufactory, forty cents per pound, computed according to the standard of leaf tobacco as hereinbefore established ;
(j)	On all foreign raw leaf tobacco, stemmed, taken out of warehouse for manufacture in any cigar or tobacco manufactory, sixty cents per pound, computed according to the standard of leaf tobacco as hereinbefore established;
2.	In all tobacco manufactories where less than fifty per cent Canadian raw leaf tobacco is used, and where ten per cent, or more, of other materials is used, such materials shall be subject to a duty of twenty-three cents per pound, actual -weight.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: With the exception of foreign ra-w leaf tobacco, -stemmed,

and foreign raw leaf tobacco, unstemmed, and with the exception also of the item referring to the materials used in the manufacture of tobacco where less than fifty per cent Canadian raw leaf tobacco is used, the increases amount to about one hundred per cent. The estimated increase in revenue is as follows: tobacco manufactured, increase $2,073,508; cigars, increase, $719,256.75; cigarettes, increase, $3,021,830.75; foreign leaf tobacco, increase, $2,096,450.64; Canadian leaf tobacco, increase, $224,750. The total estimated increase in revenue upon these items is $9,035,796.14.


Mr.   D@: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not deny that there is some force in the remarks made by my hon. friend in which he suggests that the excise tax upon cigars be based upon the selling price and not upon the quality. The excise cigar tax in Canada has always been based upon quantity, and I do not feel justified in changing that principle at the present time. In the United Statesfor a number cf years the excise tax upon cigars has been based upon the selling price. If that principle were adopted in the case of a five cent cigar, we would be obliged to apply it to all other excise taxes on cigars. Tire increase in the taxation upon cigars does not exceed two-thirds of a cent for each cigar. In the case of the five cent cigar, it is generally sold to the retail trade .by the manufacturer at $36 per thousand, leaving a profit, selling at five cents, of about forty per cent. This increase in taxation should not at the very most increase the price to the retailer by the manufacturer more than $6 per thousand, or from $36 to $42. Even selling at that price, the retailer would still have a profit of 20 per cent. Again, he could protect himself by adding one cent to the price of a five cent

cigar. It is quite true that in this country the payment of six cents for a cigar is somewhat awkward, but it is not impossible of accomplishment. If, during the present year the increased taxation upon the cheaper cigars, appears to do an injustice to the trade, -at the next session of Parliament we shall give due consideration to the representations that have been made.
Air. DuTREAIBLAY: Who will be called upon to pay the five cent tax, the farmer or the manufacturer?


Air.  A. K. AIACLEAN@: That will be controlled by regulations. The price will be paid by the manufacturer and dealer in tobacco, and not by the grower-at least I think that is probable.
Air. DuTREAIBLAY: Paragraph (a) says that 20 cents a pound will have to be paid. If this tobacco is used by a manufacturer he will be called upon to pay 5 cents -more, or 25 cents. As most of this tobacco is bought by consumers, they will have to pay this excise of 25 cents. Instead of being 20 cents it will be 25 cents a pound.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
2. Resolved, That it is expedient to -provide that no person shall grow tobacco in Canada in excess of thr amount or for purposes other than those mentioned in section three hundred and twenty-five of 'the Inland1 Revenue Act without a license, that a fee of -two dollars he paid for such license, an-d that a tax of five cents a pound be collected on all tobaooo grown [DOT]with the exception aforesaid'.
William Frederic Kay: What are the provisions of section 325 of the Inland Revenue Act, and how much tobacco can a man grow under those provisions?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: : Thirty pounds for each male member of the family.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, and to provide that the tax to be paid by (purchasers of a berth in a sleeping 'car be increased to ten per cent of the price for each berth, but in no case shall the tax be less than twenty-five cents for each berth and1 that the tax for a seat in a pullman or parlour car ib© increased to ten cents for each seat; that the definition of the word "Consumer" be amended so as to include a person who buys the articles mentioned for any purpose; that medicinal preparations and compositions excepted at the end of section fourteen be limited to those sold under the name used for them in the publications mentioned in the said section or any preparation manufactured and sold exclusively for the medical profession and on the labels of which no claim is made that the preparation has
medicinal or curative powers or any description as to the amount that constitutes a proper dose; that manufacturers and importers of matches and playing cards be required after the thirtieth day of April, 19*18, to affix to eaon package of matches and playing cards an adhesive stamp of the value of one cent for each one hundred matches or fractional part thereof in a package and of the value of eight cents on each package containing not more than fifty-four playing cards, and that such stamps be placed upon all packages of matches and playing cards held by dealers for sale on the first day of July, 1918, and that such stamps need not be affixed to packages of matches or playing cards manufactured for export; that there, be levied a war excise tax equal to ten per cent, upon automobiles, gramophones, graphophones, phonographs, talking machines, cylinders and' records therefor, mechanical piano and organ players and records therefor, articles commonly or commercially known as jewellery, whether real or imitation, for adornment of the person, when manufactured or imported after the thirtieth day of April, 1918, on the duty paid value when imported and on the price when manufactured and sold, provided that such war excise tax shall not be payable when the articles are manufactured for export or in the case of jewellery where the total amount of jewellery manufactured by any one person does not exceed the value of one thousand dollars in any calendar year; that a war excise tax be collected upon all automobiles and jewellery imported into Canada for sale or manufactured' in Canada on or before the thirtieth day of April 1918, and which on that day have not been sold to bona fide users, of ten per centum of the amount of the duty paid value when imported and of ten per centum of the price when they have been manufactured and sold in Canada, hut that no war excise tax be collected upon the same when manufactured for export in accordance with regulations; and that no war excise tax toe collected1 on jewellery imported or manufactured and unsold on the thirtieth day of April, 1918, where the total duty paid value or price of the entire stock of the same held by any one person does not exceed one thousand1 dollars; and that there be levied a war excise tax of ten cents per pound on all tea entered at Customs on or before the thirtieth day of April, 19H8, and: held by importers or dealers and which on that day had not been sold, where the stock of such importers or dealers exceeds one thousand pounds.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This resolution contains a great many items and refers to a great many matters-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have you got an estimate of the amounts you intend to collect?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: -and when the Bills are printed there will 'be an opportunity for hon. gentlemen to make any inquiries they may deem necessary. In connection with the tax on sleeping car berths and parlour car chairs, the estimated revenue is $130,000, from matches $3,000,000, and from jewellery over $200,000.


William Stevens Fielding: Does the term "automobiles," as it appears in the resolution, serve the required purpose? Is the word so distinctly understood in its meaning, or will it apply, for example, to motor trucks?


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: It is intended to apply only to passenger automobiles.


William Stevens Fielding: The resolution does not say so. I think the intention is 'all right, but the minister might consider whether in the Bill which he is going to introduce the term should be made more definite.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I might say that motor trucks do not appear in the Custom returns as "automobiles."


William Stevens Fielding: This matter is going to be dealt with by the excise law and not by the customs law. It may not be necessary to have a clearer definition, but I am only drawing the hon. gentleman's attention to the point. I notice, with regard to matches and playing cards, that adhesive stamps are to be attached. I .suppose any postage stamps may be- used, as in the case of cheques. But there is no definition of what is meant by an " adhesive stamp." In that connection I will be glad if my hon. friend could give me an idea of how the distinction is kept in the accounts between stamps that are, strictly speaking, postage stamps, and those that are- used for internal revenue purposes-. For example, if I draw a cheque I can put a two-cent postage stamp on it. Does that money go into the revenue of the post office or into the inland revenue? I have no doubt the m-atter has been considered, but I am not quite cl-ear how you can do it. I think there must be a large amount of postage stamps used for inland revenue purposes-.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When the Bill is under consideration it is proposed to insert a provision that stamps other than adhesive stamps may be used. By the amendment it is proposed that a special stamp be used by the manufacturers of playing cards. It is impossible to estimate wbat is the proportion of postage stamps now used for excise purpuse

 in Canada


William Stevens Fielding: Do you say that it is impossible?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is impossible.
I have endeavoured to secure an estimate but found it impossible to do so. When the special War Revenue Tax Act was enacted in 1915, it was -upon the strong representations of the members of the House
rMr. A. K. Maclean.1
that the Minister of Finance was induced to make the provision that a postage stamp might he used in place of the ordinary excise stamp.


William Stevens Fielding: It is a convenience, undoubtedly.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is unfortunate for statistical purposes, but it is -a great convenience to the public to be able to use the ordinary postage stamp.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The resolution provide^ for a tax on matches. Does th-e hon. gentleman also propose to provide for a tax on cigar-lighters?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A tax on cigar lighters?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. For example, if I want to present a friend with a little souvenir. I go, say, into Birks and' purchase a little silver 'box with my friend's name engraved, which by a mechanica. process will light a cigar.
, Mr. BUREAU: What you mean is a gasolene cigar lighter?
Mr. LE'MIIEUX: Yes, in which alcohol or gasolene is used.


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Because By means of these lighters a man- can obviate using matches for weeks and months without having to replenish the receptacle.


Mr. SIFTON:: That should come under
the ten per cent tax on jewellery for personal adornmenit.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In France, where match manufacture is a monopoly of the state, the Government has imposed a special tax on these cigar lighters'.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I desire to move an amendment to the resolution. I -move to insert after the word "dollars" on -the fourth line from the bottom the words "or where the jewellery was -imported or manufactured before the first day of October, 1917," and to- insert after the words "importers or" in -the second last line the word "retail." The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the payment of the excise tax on jewellery now in. stock -shall be applicable on-ly to sales made since the -first day of October last. Ae hon. gentlemen will know jewellers carry stocks orver from year to year. That is, a great -many articles ordinarily known as jewellery are not always saleable and have to remain in stock for a long time. The men in the

business represent to me that it will be highly inconvenient tor them to carry jewellery that is taxable and perhaps other jewellery that is not. The wordl "jewellery" is intended to cover only articles for the adornment of the person. A watch chain would come within the definition of "jewellery," whereas a watch would not, and jewellers, of course, carry many other lines of goods besides jewellery. For administrative purposes we thought it was better to settle now the amount payable by those liable to the tax, on stock now on hand. That amount when once assessed and paid will be in full settlement of all taxes upon sales made from stock in hand oh the first day of May. There may be a possible loss of revenue, but the administrative cost will be much less. Of course, all sales made since the first day of May will be liable to the tax.


Mr. CRONYN:: Will the Bill, or the regulations made under it, provide in what way the excise duty is to 'be paid?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It will be paid
as the goods are soldi.
Mr. OOCIvSHUTT:	I would like to ask
the minister if he has given, any consideration to the question of allowing the preferential rate in favour of tea imports from the British possessions? I have written to him on the subject and received no answer. I was instructed by some persons who were interested to place the matter 'before him, but I dio not know what is proposed to be done, because I did not receive any reply to my communication. I notice that a difference is made in, the case of coffee.
A difference is made in coffee which is 5 cents per pound preferential and 7 cents general tariff. I do not see why tea grown in India and Ceylon which are British possessions, and which have been loyal to us in the present war, should not have some little advantage in the tea duties, and I ask the minister if he has given that matter consideration.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.	[DOT]
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I wish to move a further amendment to this resolution, and it is in accordance with the notice which I gave yesterday and which now appears upon the Order Paper, and has reference to the tax upon moving picture films. The amendment is as follows:
Resolved, That at Is expedient to provide that a war excise tax he levied, collected and paid on all cinematograph or moving picture films, positives one and one-eighth of an inch in width and over of fifteen cents on each Aim for each day upon which such film is used.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: I draw the attention of the minister to the fact that representations have been made by the smaller moving picture men that the proposed tax is going to put them out of business. It appears to me that, where films are used in very small buildings, where only two or three hundred can be housed at once, these should not be called upon to pay the same rate as houses accommodating two or three thousand. I am not a sponsor for picture shows and rarely attend them, but they are a benefit to many people who desire entertainment at veTy moderate rates, and the soldier, too, frequents these places very largely. I am not offering this by way of any factious criticism at all upon his very estimable way of raising the revenue, but from representations1 which have been made to me it appears that the smaller men will be practically put out of business if some differ-

ence is- not made between the very .small houses and .the very large ones-. This tax, I understand, increases the cost of the ordinary reel from $26 to $50, about 100 per cent of a tax.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend was not in the House a few moments ago, when I moved an amendment to the tariff resolution respecting films, reducing the rate from 5 cents a lineal foot to 3 cents, representing a reduction from $50 to $30 upon film reels of one. thousand feet. Having made that reduction, and not wishing to lose any revenue on account of the change, I desire to impose this further tax upon the theatre proprietor, that is, upon those displaying the film. The small theatres use five films per day, as a rule, and the tax would amount to 75 cents per day.


Mr. T. J. STEWART:: Knowing something about the moving picture business, I think there should be a further change made in the system of placing the tax. In times gone by, the film producers furnished reels of pictures which permitted the small houses to give three different shows each night. The film producers have now changed the size of the reels and made them nearly twice as large, and have increased the price. Consequently the increased size of the reel and greater length of time required to run it takes away one of the shows from, the small picture houses, enabling them to put on only two shows in place of three. The film producers might still further increase the size of the reel and 'if that is done the small houses will have only one show each night. The reduction from 5 cents to 3 cents per foot will help the .small picture shows. I think a picture house should be charged according to the seating capacity. A 500 seating capacity should be charged a certain fee and a show which has 1,000 seating capacity charged a higher rate, and so on. I do not think it is fair to make the tax on a small show equal to that on a large one. The larger houses usually get 30, 35 and 50 cents admission while the small shows get 10 cents in the evening and in the afternoon only 5 cents. This increase in the tax practically puts the small shows out of business. If the Acting Finance Minister would allow this item to stand over I expect a deputation here to wait upon him.
I did not know that this question was coming up to-night or I would have been better prepared.


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: I am afraid that the size of the theatres changes almost as rapidly as t'he length of the films. However, I may say to my hon. friend that before the Bill which will be founded upon this resolution passes, I shall be pleased to give every consideration to the representations which he has made to-night and which the delegation which is coming shall make.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Does the minister think that the increased cost of films will add anything to the cost of the next Victory Loan?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I hope it did not add anything to the last one.


William Costello Kennedy: About $7,000 for films.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not aware that it did.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. JACOBS:: I have been asked to draw the -attention of the House to the fact that we are now sitting on Ascension Day.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, That It is expedient to amend The Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916, and to provide that paragraph (o') of section three be repealed; that any business having a capital of not less than twenty-five thousand dollars and under fifty thousand dollars shall pay a 'tax of twenty-five, per centum of the amount of the profits exceeding ten per cent per annum upon the capital; that the amount paid or payable under the provisions of Part 1 of The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, and The Income War Tax Act, 1917, shall he deducted from the amount payable under the provisions of the above Act, and that in computing the profits of such no taxpayer shall include any tax paid under the said Acts in the expenses of his business ; that the amount of capital in the excepted business mentioned in paragraph (a) of section five of the Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916, be reduced from fifty thousand dollars to twenty-five thousand dollars; that dividends paid during the accounting period shall be considered as a reduction of the unimpaired reserve, rest or accumulated profits; that the provisions of section three of the last mentioned Act be continued in force to the thirty-first day of December, 1918.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The only important amendments contemplated are to provide, first, that the Act shall apply to the accounting period of 1918 and, secondly, that companies employing a capital of $25,000 and up to. $50,000 shall be liable to a business profits tax. The rate applicable to companies employing that amount of capital is that which first prevailed under the Business Profits Tax Act. An exemption of 10 per cent upon the capital em-

ployed is allowed, and 25 per cent of the profits in excess is payable to the Government.
Mr. McM,ASTER: It has been pointed out to me by a business man that in the case of small companies with a capitalization of, say $25,000, operating under a limited liability charter, the profits realized are not so much from the investment of large capital as the reward of the energy and work of the individuals forming the partnership. My correspondent suggested that it was hardly fair to tax a company with so small a capitalization as heavily as the corporations with larger capital are taxed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The law as it now stands is applicable to partnerships as well as to corporations, though there is a difference in tfie rate.


Sir HERBERT AMES:: Practically every resolution that we have dealt with to-night has been amended in some way to make less onerous the burden resting on those who pay taxes, and I urge on the Government t<p reconsider the scale now in force with respect to excess profits tax. Speaker after speaker has drawn the attention of the Government to this matter, and though the front benches have been vacant most of the time, the Acting Finance Minister has been here and I trust that he will give it careful consideration. We are placing our business houses at a very great disadvantage compared with those in the United States with whom they have to compete. In the case of two firms on the opposite sides of the Detroit river, one at Windsor and one at Detroit, with capitalization of $300,000 and making 25 per cent each in the course of a year, the firm in American territory is taxed only $12,150 while the firm in Canadian territory is taxed $24,750. Nothing is more mobile than capital; moreover, our Canadian business firms must prepare for what is in store for them when the war is over; there will be great deflation and great readjustment. Where shall our Canadian business men get money to enable them to weather that storm? They cannot borrow in England or in the United States. Our own people will have invested nearly all their available cash in Victory Loans. The banks will not lend them any money, you may be sure, to put into plant or anything immobile. The only thing our business firms can do in order to meet this period of readjustment is to save. When you take such a large percentage of savings from them' that, after paying a
dividend of 7, 8 or 9 per cent they are able to lay aside only very little towards the time of reconstruction, you are deliberately handicapping them for the competition of the future. If our business profits tax were made on a par with that of the United States, our revenue would only be $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 less, whereas the operation of the present scale is making ten times that amount of difference to the business institutions of our country. A gentleman from Toronto said the other day:	American
friends of onrs were prepared to put $500,000 into the creating of a new industry in Canada, hut when they found that the business profits tax was douDle that of the United States, they decided not to put their money into the enterprise. A Montreal gentleman said to me: We had intended to add three additional businesses to our plant in New Brunswick, but we find that we cannot save the money to do it; we cannot get the money in any other way, so that we are going on as before. In other words, Mr. Chairman, we are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. We should impose heavy taxation where 'the liquid capital finally rests and the ownership lies. We should not tax earnings very heavily at their source; we should tax them at their destination. I will support any increase in income tax the Government care to makb, even if they double it. When my revenue reaches me, I can do what I please with it I can spend it on frivolities, if I like; put it into the bank, or invest at in some manufacturing enterprise. It is on revenue of this kind that taxation ought to rest. From the business firm which is preparing to weather the gale, which has not distributed its profits, which pays only a reasonable dividend and puts the balance into plant, in order that it may create more wealth,' in order that it may, when the war is ended, employ more labour and strike out into the fields of the world, you are taking practically all that they have to fall back upon for their reconstruction. So again, in view of the fact that after the war we shall have to- make great reconstruction of all our business enterprises throughout the country; in view of the fact that, after the wTar, we shall have to find employment for thousands and tens of- thousands of additional men, I ask the Government not, at the present time, to stagnate Canadian industry; not, at the present time, to take away .all incentive from Canadian industry; not, at the present time, to put Canadian industry under a tremendous
1684 '

disadvantage as compared with the United States. After the war is over, we want to compete in the markets of the world; we want to pnt our Canadian industry on a par with American industry so as to be able to compete. We cannot do that if all the industries are overtaxed as we go along. Take the two firms of which I spoke, one on each side of the Detroit river. In three years the American company will have raised its capital from $300,000 to. $400,000, while the 'Canadian firm, supposing it is able to pay a small dividend during that period, will be able to raise its capital only from $300,000 to $350,000. Which is best fitted to compete in the markets of the world-the firm that has been allowed to prepare itself for the reconstruction period, or 'the firm which has been stripped of practically all its earnings as it goes-along? The 'Government should give this matter serious consideration. What is a matter of three or four million dollars of revenue compared with having it known in Europe, Canada and the United States that the taxation in Canada on business profits is the heaviest in the world, and that new capital, if it comes in, must face that contingency?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Many representations have been made to the Government along the lines pointed out by my hon. friend. For the present it is the policy of the Government to renew the business profits tax at the same rate as provided for during the last three accounting periods. It is proposed, however, to- impose this tax only year by year. It is not a tax that might fairly be imposed upon business after the conclusion of the war. The amendment which provides for the re-enacting of clause 3, which is the taxing clause of the Bill, provides that it shall continue in force and be effective only until the 31st day of December, 1918. During that period, the Government will, of course, be glad to hear any representations from the business men of the country, and if it should appear that the tax is too onerous, the Government shall be pleased to give every consideration to such representations. In the meantime, it is the policy of the Government to renew this taxation.


INCOME.
[Stage Direction]
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Income War Tax Act, 1917, and provided that "dependent child" shall mean a child under twenty-one years of age and dependent on its parent for support or over twenty-one and dependent on its parent for support on account of Physical or mental incapacity; that paragraph Ob) of section three ibe repealed and that an 
exemption of two hundred dollars be allowed for each dependent child under sixteen years of age; that paragraph (d) of section three be amended, toy striking- out the words "or from the net earnings" ; that subsections one and two of section four be repealed and that it be provided that there shall be assessed, levied and paid upon the income during the preceding year of every person residing or ordinarily resident in Canada or carrying on any business in Canada and upon the income received by any person from any source within Canada the following taxes :-
(a)	two per centum upon all income exceeding one thousand dollars but not exceeding fifteen hundred dollars in the case of unmarried1 persons and widows or widowers without dependent children, and exceeding two thousand dollars but not exceeding three thousand dollars in the case of all other persons; four per centum upon all1 incomes exceeding fifteen hundred dollars in the case of unmarried persons and widows or widowers without dependent children, and exceeding three thousand dollars in the case of all other persons ;
and in addition thereto,
(b)	two per centum upon the amount by which the income exceeds six thousand dollars and does not exceed ten thousand dollars ; and
(c)	five per centum upon the amount which the income exceeds ten thousand dollars and does not exceed twenty thousand dollars ; and
(d)	eight per centum of the amount by -which the income exceeds twenty thousand dollars and does not exceed thirty thousand dollars; and
(e)	ten per centum of the amount by which the income exceeds thirty thousand dollars and does not exceed fifty thousand dollars ; and
(f)	fifteen per centum of the amount by which the income exceeds fifty thousand dollars and does not exceed seventy-five thousand dollars; and
(g)	twenty per centum of the amount by which the income exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars and does not exceed one hundred thousand1 dollars; and
(h)	twenty-five per centum of the amount by which the income exceeds one hundred thousand dollars and does not exceed two hundred thousand dollars; and
(i)	thirty per centum of the amount by which the Income exceeds two hundred thousand dollars and does not exceed four hundred thousand dollars; and
(j)	thirty-five per centum of the amount by which the income exceeds four hundred thousand dollars and does not exceed six hundred thousand dollars; and
(k)	forty per centum of the amount by which the income exceeds six hundred thousand dollars and does not exceed eight hundred thousand dollars ; and
(l)	forty-five per centum of the amount by which the income exceeds eight hundred thousand dollars and does not exceed one million dollars; and
(m)	fifty per centum of the amount by which the income exceeds one million dollars ;
and in addition thereto the following surtax.
(n)	five per centum of the tax payable upon income in excess of six thousand dollars but not exceeding ten thousand dollars ;
(o)	ten per centum of the tax payable upon income in excess of ten thousand dollars but not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars ;
(p)	fifteen per centum of the tax payable upon income exceeding one hundred thousand

dollars but not exceeding two hundred thousand dollars;
(u) thirty-five per centum of the tax payable upon income exceeding two hundred thousand dollars;
that corporations and joint stock companies, no matter how created' or organized, shall1 -pay six per centum upon income exceeding three thousand dollars, but shall not be liable to pay the su/pertax; that the minister may permit any corporation or joint stock company the fiscal year of which is not the calendar year, to make a return and to have the tax payable by it computed' upon its income for the twelve months ending with its last fiscal year preceding the date of assessment; that section five be amended by exempting the incomes or such portion of the incomes of judges and retired judges as comes within the provisions of subsection three of section twenty-seven of the Judges Act and the incomes of incorporated companies whose business and assets are carried on and situate entirely outside Canada
Mr. PROULX:: In reference to the latter part of the resolution, what portion of the income of judges comes within the provisions of subsection 3 of section 27 of the Judges' Act?
Mr. A. K. MA'GLEAN: The incomes of judges appointed by the Federal Government.


Edmond Proulx: Why the exception?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Judges' Act provides that their salaries shall not be subject to any Federal tax.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is aij amendment.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, it is not an amendment; it is simply to carry out the provisions of the Judges' Act. I should like to place upon Hansard a table showing the comparison between our income tax and that of the United States in the case of a married person. It might be of interest to hon. gentlemen.	.


Mr. McAIASTER:: Has the minister a table showing the comparison betweep. what we pay and what the people of Great Britain pay? That might be very illuminating.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It might be very illuminating, but it is a very difficult statement to prepare, apd it would not be as illuminating as a comparison with the income tax in the United States.


Andrew Ross McMaster: 
Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: If my hon. friend desires it, I shall endeavour to have a statement prepared for him. This is the table of which I have just spoken:


INCOME TAX.
[Stage Direction]
Canada. United States.		
Married	Married	Marriedpersons.	persons.	persons.Present	Proposed	Income.	Tax.	Tax.	Tax.$	$	$	$3,000	Nil.	20	2-06,000	120	140	13010,00-0	360	392	35520,000	1,26-0	1,382	1,18030,000-	2,460	2,702	2,38050,000	5,260	5,782	5,18075,000	10,010	11,007	9,930100,000	14,760	17,607	16,180200,00-0	43,760	50,9-57	49,18040-0,000	101,760	142,757	142,680500,000	130,760	195,407	192,680600,000	1-59,760	248,057	246,680800,000	217,760	366,857	3-57,1801,000,000	275,760	499,157	475,1802,000,000	56S.760	1,228,157	1,130,180
I have also a statement showing the normal tax, the super-tax and the surtax, also the total. Hon. gentlemen will remember that under the Income Tax Act, ' as proposed to toe amended, we shall have a surtax, whereas in the Act of last year there iwas only the normal tax and the super-tax. The table is as follows:
Income Tax.
Married persons.
Normal Super
Income.	Tax.	Tax.	Surtax.	Total.
3,000	$ 20			
6,000	140			
10,000	300	$ 80	$ 12	$ 39220,000	700	580	102	1,38230,000	1,100	1,380	222	2,70250,000	1,900	3,380	502	5,78275,000	2,900	7,130	977	11,007100,000	3,900	12,130	1,577	17,607200,000	7,900	37,130	5,927	50,957400,000	15,900	97,130	29,727	142,757500,000	19,900	132,130	43,377	195,407600,000	23,900	167,130	57,027	248.057800,000	31,900	247,130	87,827	366,8571,000,000	39,900	337,130	122.127	499,1572,000,000	79,900	837,130	311,127	1,228,157
Mr. LEM'IEUX: I see that paragraph (d) of section 3 is proposed to be amended by striking out the words "or from the net earnings.'' What is the meaning of that?
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman has referred to the exemption from taxation of judges. From what classes of taxation are judges exempt? At all events, I suppose that the laws respecting the judges are not like the laws of the Medes and Persians. The judges, above all other things, are just men and I am sure they will not desire to be exempt from any tax, especially in these times, which their poorer neighbours are obliged to pay.


Henry Arthur Mackie: They do not get
salary enough to be taxed.
(Mr. FIELDING:	Lots of us do not get
enough salary, but we have to pay the tax.
I am curious to know from what classes of taxation, the judges are exempt


Mr.  A. K. MIAQLEAN@: All salaries or
annuities paid by the Government of Canada to any of the judges are exempt from any tax imposed by the Parliament of Canada. This is only to carry out that provision. Of course, it does not prevent judges .from paying the tax if they so de-. sire. Whether the judges should be exempt or not is a matter of policy. I am not suggesting any change.


William Stevens Fielding: How can there be a provision in the law to exempt judges from income tax when we did not have any income tax before last year? Are the judges exempt from customs and excise taxation? We have here a new system of taxation. We are creating an exemption which the judges apparently do not now enjoy. I think the point is worth looking into. The judges are most estimable men, but above everything else they are just, and I am sure they would not desire to he exempted from taxation which their less favoured brethren have to pay. I simply want to protect the judges.


William Foster Cockshutt: The last clause says:
Corporations and joint stock companies, no matter how created or organized, shall pay six per centum upon income exceeding three thousand dollars hut shall not be liable to pay the -supertax.
Under the Act of last year the income paid by incorporated companies was carried forward to the credit of the shareholders, who. received it later in the form of dividends. Is it the intention to continue that provision? I am not able to ascertain from the wording of the clause whether the income which has been taxed six per cent is to be re-taxed, as though it had paid no tax, after it has been distributed to the shareholder's.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Act as
amended will only give credit for the normal tax of four per cent. There will he no change.


William Foster Cockshutt: It says six per cent here.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is the tax on any income in excess of three thousand dollars. Only the four per cent normal tax paid by corporations will be credited.


William Foster Cockshutt: Although the corporations pay six?	.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Last year the Minister of Finance stated that the sessional indemnity was assessable. I have no objection to that, but the very word "indemnity" suggests, net a salary, but compensation for service which one is called upon to perform for the Crown. Some gentlemen have suggested that in the return to be made the indemnity should be reduced by the amount that has been expended by the member. A member who comes from afar spends a part of his indemnity in Ottawa and he should not be accountable for that in the return.


William Stevens Fielding: 1 do not desire to detain the House by asking for the information now, but if my hon. friend will make a note of it and 'bring it forward at another stage of the discussion I shall be 'quite content. I cannot see any reason why judges should be exempt. An hon. 'gentleman says that the judges salaries are not big enough. That is true of a great many people. It is a fact that the civil servants all over Canada are very poorly paid. If I may be allowed to say so, having regard to their duties and responsibilities, the most poorly paid officials in the Dominion of Canada are the Ministers of the Crown. They are the only people who have not received an increase in their salaries for the last thirty years. But still they have to pay income tax. I think they escape in the city of Ottawa-


Robert Laird Borden: No.


William Stevens Fielding: At all events it is quite understood that Ministers of the Crown have to pay this income tax like any other people. If they are to be taxed I cannot see why the judges should be exempt.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not wish to be understood as opposing the suggestion of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens, but, as he suggests, the point may he raised later on when the Bill is before the committee.


Mr. BUREAU:: If judges are exempt it
must be for one of two reasons. The minister said that all judges received their salaries from the Dominion. Government. If the fact of receiving a salary from the Dominion Government is going to be given *as a reason for exemption, I think 'the point raised by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) is a good one, that it ought to apply to all those who receive a salary from the Dominion Government. (If, it is on account of his judicial capacity, other judges who are not appointed by this 'Government and are not paid by this Government should be exempt. The judge of the general sessions of the peace in Montreal gets his salary from the provincial Government while a judge of the Superior Court gets his salary from the Dominion Government. If, on account of his judicial position, the judge of the Superior 'Court is exempt, why should not the judge of the general sessions atg Montreal, or in any other judicial district, be exempt? On the other hand, if a judge is going to be exempt because the money is paid by the Dominion Government I agree with my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens that all other people who receive their money from the Dominion Government should be exempt from this tax.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have the provisions of the Judges Act before me. Section 27, subsection 3 provides: -
The salaries and retiring allowances or annuities shall be pay.able by monthly instalments and shall be free and clear of all taxes and deductions whatsoever imposed' under any Act of the Parliament of Canada.
(Mr. CRONYN: On the consideration of the Bill there will be an opportunity to discuss the point raised by the hon. mem-_ ber for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) as to the increase in the tax in the case of incorporated companies. I do not want to delay the Committee by discussing it, but I think that something might be said on the subject.


Herbert Brown Ames: Has any further consideration been given to clause 3c of the Business Profits tax, as to a reciprocal arrangement with the United States without which the Business Profits tax that we should receive is paid to them? Has that been taken up?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is not proposed to submit to the Committee any amendment providing for a reciprocal arrangement with the United States. The Business Profits tax in the United States is based
upon a somewhat different principle from ours. They have ruled that income received by Canadian corporations from products sold in the United States is subject to their Business Profits Tax Act. For instance, our manufacturers of newsprint export to the United States 88 or 89 per cent of their total production. The United States treasury has ruled that the proceeds of sales of newsprint in the United States are subject to taxation under their Act. 'Sir 'Thomas 'White, who ie now in. Washington-, a day or two- ago had an interview with the United -States Treasury Department upon the matter, and, yesterday I had a communication from him assuring me that his representations were sympathetically received by the department and lie thought an understanding would be .reached with respect to the matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In other words, there will be no change in the law regarding non-residents?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No. You are referring to the Income Tax Act?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Mr.  A. K. MAQLEAN@: I was speaking of the business' profits tax. The matter of reciprocal arrangements- between Canada and other countries, so, as, to avoid a double income tax, was discussed at the Imperial, Conference last year, and I understand 'it was decided to allow it to stand over until after the conclusion of the- war.
Mr. MciMiASTER: I believe that the rate of taxation on incomes over $10,000 is utterly inadequate and I am sure that the country will agree with that view. When this Government is asking the poorer folk to make the sacrifice both in men and money that they are being asked to make, the rate at which the larger incomes are being taxed is utterly inadequate. I know the reply will be given that the United States is taxing incomes on the same ratio. I hardly think that applies. What we want to do is to endeavour to equalize sacrifice as between the citizens of this country, and that is not done by the taxation that if .imposed on the larger incomes.


Mr. LALOR:: Is the Acting Minister of Finance aware that a Canadian company with branch factories in the United States doing business there is taxed in the United States upon the profits of these branches and again taxed in Canada upon the same profits it has made in the United States? I know something about this from personal experience. The company is taxed on the

profits of its factories in the United States and when these profits are returned to the parent company in Canada the company is again taxed by the Canadian Government. 1 think it is hardly fair to have to pay such a tax.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why cannot the minister devise a scheme to avoid this inequality? Because it is a- clear injustice that a man should be compelled to pay a tax in the United States and in Canada.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do you mean income tax?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, income tax.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I am speaking of the Business Profits Tax.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am speaking of the income tax.


The CHAIRMAN:: The Business Profits War Tax Resolution was adopted some time ago, and the discussion is now on the Income War Tax Act. It would be more regular, I think, for the hon. gentleman, when we have disposed of this matter, to move to reconsider the one to which he has reference.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I merely draw the attention of the Acting Minister of Finance to this matter so that he may give it consideration.


Herbert Brown Ames: I would ask the minister whether any action or decision has been arrived at with respect to farming and ranching companies? I want to know whether a farmer w,ho has raised one hundred thousand bushels of grain and sold them for $2 a bushel comes under the Business Profits Tax, and whether a rancher who raises $250,000 on homes and sells them to the Remount Commission comes under the same tax? Has the Government considered whether these industries should be rightly brought under the Business Profits Tax, or left subject only to Income Tax?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I can only say it is not proposed to make these industries liable to the Business Profits Tax.


Herbert Brown Ames: What justification is there for that?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: For the reason that in the cases mentioned, I am told, it is unlikely that the amount of capital employed would he such as to make them liable to the tax, and for other reasons.
IMr. Lalor.]


Herbert Brown Ames: Are they not businesses just the same as any others that are made subject to the tax?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It was the policy of the Government which introduced this Bill not to make the Acts applicable to them. It would affect only a small class in Canada-


Herbert Brown Ames: Why shoqld that be a favoured class?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: -and the administrative cost would be so' high as to make it not a profitable source of revenue.
Mr. JACOBS. I would like to point out the disparity which, exists between the income tax in Great Britain and that which is proposed to levy under this new Act. I had occasion to look the matter up yesterday, and I find that for the present year the tax is six shillings in the pound on income. That is to say a person with an income of $10,000 would be paying almost one-third of that into the treasury. Now there is a wide difference between paying $392 a year, and paying nearly $3,000 a year on the same income. We have only increased this tax from $380 last year to $392 this year, a difference of $12 per annum. Of course we have started at $2,000 instead of $3,000, but we are only paying $12 more than we paid last year on income. I am talking of an income of $10,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It was $360 last year.


Samuel William Jacobs: We paid $360 last year?


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: But now we are paying on from $2,000 up.
Mr. A. K. .MACLEAN: And $392 will he payable under the Act when amended as proposed.	*


Samuel William Jacobs: That may be, hut we start from $2,000 instead of $3,000, so we really only have raised the tax $12.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, $32.


Samuel William Jacobs: Very well then, $32, but we have started from $2,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It does not matter where we have started from.


Samuel William Jacobs: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am' not imputing motives.
Mr. MoMASTEE: Yes, you are.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not imputing motives at all. My hon. friend says that our income tax in Canada is not as large as it is in England. That is a well-known, fact, but there are many reasons why that should be so. In the first place, there is no taxation upon consumption in England, as there is in this country. My hon. friend knows, further, that the customs tax upon practically everything coming into this country is very high indeed. The hon. member for Brome ('Mr. McMaster) very naturally bows assent to that statement, and we are not at variance upon that point. Well, that must be taken into consideration. To suggest that the income tax of Canada should he the same as that of England would, be rather preposterous.


Samuel William Jacobs: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 

good canon of taxation, well recognized by students and writers, that any new tax should grow gradually, and it should not be at its highest point when the machinery is being formed for its collection. My hon. friend may be quite right in saying that the tax upon an income of $10,000 is too small. It rather has that appearance to me,
I admit. But the- difficulty is, that if you apply a certain rate on the income of $10,000 you must carry that rate right through all the higher incomes, and if you did that the disparity with the United States Income Tax would be very much greater than it is at present. However, I am not arguing that our tax should remain fixed at the present rates forever. Circumstances and conditions in the future may make it absolutely necessary that we increase the present rates. '
iMr. JOSEPH READ: I want to draw the minister's attention to a fallacy he has been making use of with regard to the question of our people going over to the United States if we increase the income tax. If the income tax is increased and money is collected from our people it goes towards paying the debt. If we have a tremendous debt, much larger in proportion than that of the United States, won't our people go into the United States to the same extent by reason of the debt as by reason of the taxes?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think people in all communities fear taxes more than they fear debt.


Jacques Bureau: I would like to remind the Acting Minister of Finance that by the new time, and by the sun, it is now Ascension Day.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is quite mistaken so far as the House is concerned. It has been the practice for twenty-five years that if the House should meet on Monday and should sit continuously until Saturday it still remains Monday.


Jacques Bureau: I appeal to the Prime Minister's sense of respect for all creeds, and he knows the position we are in. Of course, we can remain if necessary.


Robert Laird Borden: We will be
through in a moment. I discussed this matter with the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and it is important to get these Bills .introduced if possible. It will take us only a few minutes. All the in-

formation that is being asked for now could just as well be asked for when we are in committee on the Bill, so there is really no great advantage in delaying now.


Herbert Brown Ames: I would like to ask the Acting Finance Minister whether any consideration has been given to certain representations made to him recently.by the trust companies. I know that while we have the income ta-l under consideration other amendments that are desirable can be considered, and while this resolution is being considered seems the proper time to make suggestions: One of the suggestions made is that the date, February 28, is too early, and-that March 31 would be preferable. Did that suggestion receive consideration?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is not proposed to change the date.


Herbert Brown Ames: The second suggestion was with respect to exacting what is callled for in Clause 6 from fiduciary companies. They find that clause extremely onerous. Has that suggestion -been considered?	'


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is proposed to repeal Clause 6.	[DOT]


Rodolphe Lemieux: The acting minister has not answered my question.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the hon.
gentleman renew his question on the Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: All right.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.	[DOT]
Resolutions reported as amended and amendments agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The resolutions to amend the customs tariff, of 1907, were read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. A. K. Maclean thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 81, to amend the Customs Act, 1907.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
The resolutions respecting Duties of Excise were read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. A. K. Maclean thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 82, to amend the Inland Revenue Act.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
t

The resolution respecting the Special War Revenue was read the second time and agreed to.
(Mr. A. K. MACLEAN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 83, to amend the Special War Revenue Act, 1915.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
The resolution respecting the Business Profits War Tax was read the second time *and agreed to.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 84, to amend the Business Profits War Tax, 19:16.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
The resolution respecting the Income War Tax was read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 85, to amend the Income War Ta^ Act, 1917.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) the amendment made fey the Senate to_ Bill No. 3, to confer the electoral franchise upon women, was read the first and second times and agreed to.

Robert Laird Borden: That when this House adjourns on Wednesday, the Sth instant, it stand adjourned until Friday the 10th instant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Sir Robest Borden the House adjourned at 1.22 a.m., Thursday.
Friday, May 10, 191S.
Friday, May 10, 1918.