1918-05-02

QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. MOLLOY:: 1.	Did' the Prince Rupert Journal receive a cheque from the Government, dated September 4, 1917, for $1117? If so, on what account?
2.	If for advertising-, what advertising was
done, what was the name or names of papers which published same, and oni what date or dates?	.
3.	If for printing-, what printing was done, on what date or dates, and/ where?
*	4, Were any cheques issued to the Prince
Rupert Journal by the Government from January 1, 1917, to the end of the year?
5.	If so, on what account in each case?
6.	Have any cheques been issued to O. H. Nelson,' Prince Rupert, since January 1, 1917, from any Department of the Government?
7.	If so, for what reason, and amount in each case?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Interior: Yes. Advertising coal mining regulations, 3 months to 30th June, 1917.
2.	Interior: Advertising in the Prince Rupert Journal, 3 months ended 30th June, 1917.
3.	Interior: Not for printing.
4.	Interior: Yes. Naval Service: Three. Public Works: Yes, cheque for $110.60 on 25th January, 1917. Finance: July 30, 1917, cheque for $16. Marine: Cheque for $9, dated February 9, 1917.
5.	Interior: January 22, 1917, advertising coal mining regulations, 6 months, to 31st December, 1916, $234; April 2, 1917, advertising coal mining regulations, 3 months to 31st 'March '1917, $117; September 4, 1917, advertising coal mining regulations, 3 months, to 30th June, 1917, $117. Naval Service: Cheques issued January 24, 1917, for $37.10 on account of advertising under dates May 11 and May 13, 1912, and June 6, 1912; cheque issued February 1, 1917, for $12.90 on account of advertising under date of December 1, 1911; cheque issued July 11, 1917, for $3.40 on account of advertising under date November 19, 1914. Public Works: Advertising, Victoria harbour breakwater, $21.60; Victoria harbour breakwater, $4.80; Massett wharf, $13.40; Refuge Bay wharf, $13.60; Sand Spit Point wharf, $20.40; Digby Island, doctor's residence, $13.20; Prince Rupert departmental building, $19.20; Prince Rupert public building, $4.40. Total, $110.60. Finance: For advertising debenture stock. Marine: For advertising

respecting persons supplying provisions or goods to stewards of Dominion vessels.
6.	Information in reference to this question is given in the Auditor General's Report, 1917, volume II, pages T-54, 55, 56.
7.	Answered by No. 6.


CANADA FOOD BOARD.
Mr. CURRIE:: 1.	Under what authority was the Canada Food: Board established?
2.	Has this Board the right to impose taxation on the public without the consent or authority of Parliament?
3.	Under the British North America Act, has the Dominion Government the right to issue licenses for trading, or collect fees for the
same?	_	.
4.	Has there been a decision of the Privy Council on this question and did that Court give the sole right to license, to Provincial Governments ?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: In reply to
question No. 1, the Canada Food Board was established under the War Measures Act, 1914. The remaining questions seem to ask for a legal opinion upon the interpretation of Statutes, and it is not usual to give such opinions in answer to questions.


ONTARIO MINING TAX ACT.
*Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Has any application been made to the Government for the disallowance of the Ontario Statute, 7 George V, Chapter 7, assented to 12th April, 1917, which amended the Ontario Mining Tax Act, or as to any portion of the same relating to (1) the taxation of nickel, or nickel-copper mines, or (2) the ascertaining of the profits of nickel or nickel-copper mines?
2.	If so, by whom, on whose behalf, and when, was such application made, and was the same made orally or in writing?
3.	What action, if any, was taken by the Government in regard to the matters referred to?
4.	Has any application or representation been made to the Government from any source, either (a) in Canada, or (b) in the United States with regard to the sum of approximately $1,366,000 that was recovered for the use of the Province of Ontario from the International Nickel Company, or the Canadian Copper Company (instead of the $80,000 that had been previously received ,by the province in question for two years' mining taxes), looking to the refund of any portion of the moneys so recovered, or any action being taken by the Dominion Government?
5.	If so, by whom, and upon what grounds?
6.	What action has been taken, or does the Government intend to take in respect thereto?.


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Canadian Copper Company, dated 28th November, 1917. By written petition supported by oral argument.
3.	It was determined not to exercise the i power of disallowance.
4.	No.
5 and 6. Answered by No. 4.


MILITARY SERVICE ACT-EXPENDITURES.
Mr. PROULX:: Referring to the. return showing the total amount expended up to the date of the said return in connection with the enforcement of the Military Service Act-
How much has it cost per man to secure each soldier enrolled under tbs said Act?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: The total expenditure to date incurred in connection with the Military Service Act is $1,803,581.61. This total expenditure includes the expenditures incurred in connection with the publicity campaign, the Dominion police, printing, subsistence and travelling expenses of men ordered to report for duty, and travelling expenses of men ordered to report for medical examination.
The registration of Class I men under the Military Service Act is, to date, 397,671. Therefore the total cost per registrant is $4.54.
There have been 39,760 Class I men actually placed on service to date, but to estimate the cost of securing these men, by the simple process of dividing the total number of men now on service into the total expenditure in connection with the enforcement of the Military Service Act to date, would not give a true estimate of the cost of drafting such men, for the reason that the greater percentage of the expenditure shown above has 'been spent in organization, the results of which are only now bearing fruit. One may safely say that every man drafted in future will materially reduce the cost of securing a recruit. It may therefore be plainly seen that at the present time it is impossible to estimate the cost of securing a recruit under the Military Service Act.


WAR INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
Mr. DESAULNIERS:: 1.	Is the Government aware that the Insurance companies charge an extra premium on insurance policies issued to enlisted men before such enlistment?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to pay the difference between the regular and the extra premium? If not, why?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	The Government is aware that on life insurance policies now being issued, and on such policies issued since the outbreak of war, extra premiums have as a rule been demanded in respect of military service. Policies in force at the outbreak of war

have as a rule been continued without extra premium.
2. It is not the intention of the Government to pay the difference between the regular and the extra premium, for reasons which were fully explained to the House at the last session of Parliament. The discussion on this point will be found on pages 4019 and 4020 of Hansard for 1917.


CHAMPLAIN MARKET SITE.
Mr. LAWGUEUR:: 1.	What area of ground and water frontage has been purchased by the Government for the Transcontinental Railway, between Sillery and the Champlain Market at Quebec?
2.	What have these properties cost, and what use is intended to be made of them?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The Transcontinental railway purchased all water frontage between Sillery and Champlain market at Quebec; 81.74 acres of land along said front.
2.	(a) 31,039,377.02, which includes amount paid to the city of Quebec for Champlain market site.
3.	These properties were acquired for right of way and station purposes of the National Transcontinental railway. They are available for future developments, docks and yards and wharves, in connection with the railway.


TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY QUEBEC SHOPS.
Mr. LAVTGUEUR:: 
Hon. Mr.   RETD@: Yes, whenever required.


NORTHWEST GRAIN TRADE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LAV1GUEUR:
Is it the intention of the Government to take any steps to put a stop to the diversion of the tl'ade ,of the Canadian Northwest, two-oti'S, °f whlch is now being shipped at United States sea ports, and' to give this trade to Canadian ports ?
Sir ROBERT BORDEiN: It is necessary, under war conditions and in view of the submarine peril, to utilize from time to time iall Atlantic ports on this continent.

Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Has the Government been informed that mechanics have been hired to go to Halifax in connection with reconstruction work, with the 
understanding that their return fare would be paid provided they remain at work during a period of three months?
2.	If so, is the Government aware that in spite of that promise, travelling expenses have been kept back from the wages of mechanics, even from those who have been at work for more than three months?
3.	Has the Government been informed that after a lapse of more than one month after notification given by Colonel R. S. Low, manager of reconstruction works in the Finance Department, a certain number of mechanics have not yet received the balance of their wages?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to order these men to be paid what they are entitled to and to be reimbursed with the moneys retained?


Hon. Mr. CROTHERS:: 1. No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by answer to No. I.


DOMINION-WIDE PROHIBITION.
[Stage Direction]
"Mr. CANNON:
1.	Prior to or during the General Election which took place on the 17th of December last did the President of the Council have an interview or interviews with Mr. Samuel Carter,
AI. J i'., for South Wellington, regarding the question of temperance or Dominion-wide prohibition ?
2.	If so, did the President of the Council represent the Government at the said interview or interviews, and had he authority to act for the Government?
3.	Was any understanding or agreement arrived at between the President of the Council and the said Mr. Samuel Carter at the said interview- or interviews?
4.	If so, did the President of the Council request the said Mr. Samuel Carter, or w-as it arranged at the said interview or interview-s between the said President of the Council and the said Mr. Samuel Carter, that the said Mr. Samuel Carter should consult W. A. Warburton, General Secretary of the Young Men's Christian Association and Chairman of the Committee of One Hundred, and the Reverend T. A. Moore, of the Methodist Church, with a view to lining up the Temperance and Moral Reform and religious denominations in Ontario in support of the Union Government, on the secret pledge or intimation that if the Union Government was returned, Canada would be made bone-dry, or that some other drastic measure would be taken in connection with Temperance?
5.	In consequence of such request or arrangement, is the Government aware that the said Mr. Samuel Carter consulted Messrs. Warburton and Moore and that the said Messrs. War-burton and Moore associated other workers in the Temperance, Moral Reform, and religious denominations to line up the Temperance and Social and Moral Reform Associations, as well as the Protestant Churches, for the Union Government?
6.	Did the said Mr. Samuel Carter report to the President of the Council the result of any negotiations w-hich he had with the said W. A. Warburton and the said Rev. T. A. Moore, or either of them, to further the line of action which he had been authorized to take by the President of the Council, or which the President of the Council knew he was to engage in?
7.	Was the President of the Council aware of the advertisements published by the Citizens' Committee and by the Unionist Party Publicity Committee in the Canadian Baptist, of the 13th

of December, 1917, and the Presbyterian Review, of the same date, and other Protestant religious papers of the same date?
8.	Did W. A. Warburton, or any one connected with the Citizens' Publicity Committee, or the Unionist Party Publicity Committee, submit such advertisements to the President of the Council or to his private secretary?
9.	If the foregoing was not the understanding or agreement arrived at between the President of the Council and the said Mr. Samuel Carter and others, what arrangement was made between the President of the Council and Mr. Samuel Carter, or with Mr. Samuel Carter and others, at the interviews which the said President of the Council had in connection with the secret assurance regarding the position that he and the Union Government would take on the Temperance question?
10.	Did the President of the Council assure the said Mr. Samuel Carter at one of the interviews above referred to that if the Union Government did not carry out the views of the President of the Council and Mr. Samuel Carter in respect to prohibition, that the President of the Council would withdraw from the Cabinet?
11.	Was it arranged or suggested by the President of the Council or by the said Mr. Carter at any of the interviews between the President of the Council and Mr. Carter, that the arrangement with regard to Temperance was to be kept secret, and that the issue to be presented by W. A. Warburton and others associated with him should be the policy outlined in the advertisements above-mentioned, namely, that Conscription was the only issue?
12.	Did the President of the Council subsequently learn from the said Mr. Samuel Carter of the result of his conference with Messrs. W. A. Warburton, Moore, and others, that they were willing to accept the secret assurance and take the necessary steps to line up the Temperance, Moral, Social and religious denominations and their supporters and adherents in support of the Union Government?
13.	In the agreements or assurances given by the President of the Council to Mr. Samuel Carter, did the President of the Council have the authority of the Government to enter into the same on behalf of the Government?
14.	Was any other arrangement or assurance entered into between the President of the Council and Mr. Carter, or with Mr. Carter and Messrs. Warburton, Moore, and others, or any of them, respecting any other measure of moral or social reform?
15.	Is the Mr. Samuel Carter above referred to the gentleman named by the Government authorities or the Minister of Militia to take the registration for the Georgian Bay District of the man-power of that district?
16.	If Mr. Carter is the same gentleman above referred to, was he named by the President of the Council for such position, and what recommendations were given before such appointment was made?
17.	Did any of the recommendations to the Government for the appointment of Mr. Samuel Carter urge that he should be rewarded on account of the efforts which he had put forward in connection with the secret campaign for temperance at the last election?
18.	Was Mr. Samuel Carter appointed by the Government to the position of Registrar by reason of the activities which he showed on behalf of the Union Government during the last election?
19.	Was Mr. J. M. Godfrey at any time prior to or during the election in conference with the
President of the Council and Mr. Samuel Carter regarding the line of campaign to be adopted in the Province of Ontario?
20' Is the Mr. J. M. Godfrey appointed as Registrar for the District of Toronto to take the manhood power, the same Mr. J. M. Godfrey who acted as Chairman for the promotion of a Union Government at the meeting in the Arena, Toronto?
21. If the said J. M. Godfrey is the gentleman who acted as Chairman of the Arena Conference in Toronto in connection with the advocacy of the formation of Union Government, was he appointed to his present position on the recommendation of the President of the Council, and was the appointment given to him as a reward for the support of the Union Governntent at the
IaS2t2.eDld°the said Mr. J. M. Godfrey and the said Mr. Samuel Carter while actively supporting Union Government at the election in December last, publicly endorse the policy advocated by the Union Government of abolishing Party Patronage?
Sir (ROBERT BORDEN:
1 to 6 and 9 to 14 inclusive. Shortly after the Union Government was formed, the Prime Minister brought the question ot Prohibition to the attention of his colleagues and submitted to them copies ot a memorial which had been received during the summer of 1917 regarding the prohibition of the importation, manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor in Canada. The Prime 'Minister advised that he had informed the. committee which had presented the memorial, that the matter would be submitted to the members of the Union Government, when formed, for their consideration. After prolonged and most careful consideration of the whole matter in all its aspect©, the Government reached the conclusion already announced, and embodied in several Orders in Council passed under the War Measures Act.
The action taken by the Government was not the result of any conference, agreement or compact with .any party or parties relating to the election or any matters connected therewith, hut was taken by the Government solely 'from the standpoint of the public interest.
7 and 8. No.
15.	Yes.
16.	No. Mr. CaxteT only accepted the position as a matter of public duty and on the understanding that he was not to receive any personal compensation for his work.
17.	18 and 19. No.
20. The Government is not aware of any meeting such as is referred to. The Government is advised that a Win-theA\ ar Convention was held in the Arena in the city of Toronto in the summer of 1917 and that Mr. J. M. Godfrey was chairman of the convention.
[Stage Direction]
21- No. Mr. Godfrey only accepted the position as a matter of public duty and on the understanding that he -was not to receive any personal compensation for his *work.
22. The Government has no information.

Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	On What date was the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Railway, running between Sackville and Cape Tormentine New *nS5Llok:' al0<luirea' by the Government?
"[DOT] What was the purchase price?
mucb, if any, was paid on account'
4.	What is the reason why the balance of the purchase money has not been paid?


Hon.   M@: 
MR. E. BEAUFORT.
Edmond Proulx: 
Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: Respecting questions 1, 2, 3 and 15, Mr. Beaufort was employed on the Chief Press Censor's staff from July, 1916, to June 30, 1917. He was recommended by the Chief Press Censor. He did work as German translator and was paid $4 a day. In Tegard to- other questions, Mr. Beaufort was not under surveillance and was not dismissed. His services were no longer necessary as the work he was engaged in had considerably decreased. The Government is not aware of the circumstances connected with Mr. Beaufort's subsequent employment. All articles from the Press Gallery are treated alike. As to further matters alluded to, the files and documents of the Chief Press Censor's ofiice are necessarily secret and confidential, and it is not in the public interest to disclose them.


NET DEBT PER CAPITA.
Mr. ETHIER:: 1.	What was the net debt per capita on the 30th March, 1941?
2.	What was the net debt per capita on the 30th March last, 1918?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 
NEWSPRINT INQUIRY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. OAiSGRAIN:
1.	Was there a suib-committee of the Privy Council appointed to deal with the regulations orders or interim report of the Commissionerconducting the newsprint inquiry?
2.	If so, did such sub-committee consist of Messrs. Rowell, Reid1, ('aider and Maclean?
3.	Did such sub-committee deal with any regulations, orders or report proposed or made by the said Commissioner? If so, what action was taken?
4.	At the time the said sub-commiittee dealt with such proposed regulations, orders or interim report, did' Honourable N. W. Rowell have any financial interest in the Toronto Globe or the Toronto Star?

5.	Was Honourable N. W. Rowell a director of the Toronto Globe? If so, is he still a director, and if not, when did he cease to be a member of the Board of Directors?
6.	Did the said Honouraible N. W. Rowell prohibit in writing the said Commissioner from investigating the affairs of any newspaper or newspapers in Canada? If so, will a copy of the said prohibition or instruction be brought down in the House?
7.	Is the said sub-committee of the Privy Council, or ithe said Honourable N. W. Rowell, still exercising any supervision or control over the conduct of the said Commissioner conducting the said inquiries?
Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, but Messrs. 'Carvell and Doherty were also associated with that sub-committee.
3.	The sub-committee considered the regulations, orders and report alluded to and reported to Council. Any necessary action was taken by Council and not by the subcommittee.
4.	No.
5. iMr. Rowell was a director of the Toronto Globe about five years ago. He resigned his position as director at the time that he undertook the leadership of the Liberal party in the provincial legislature and he has not been a director since. He has no personal or financial interest in either the Toronto Globe or the Toronto Star.
6.	Mr. Rowell took no such step except in so far as.he may have communicated to the Commissioner the opinion of Council with regard to the sdope of the investigation, and this he did in the discharge of his duty as President of the Council.
7.	The sub-committee alluded to is still acting, when necessary, within the scope of its duties.


RELIGIOUS SERVICES FOR ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: _	1. Is it a fact that at the different camps
of the Royal Flying Corps situated in the Province of Ontario, and particularly at Queen's Park, there are no church parades held to enable members of the different religious denominations to perform their religious duties? If so, why?
2. Is it a fact that at the above mentioned camps of the Royal Flying Corps, there is no Chaplain, specially assigned to attend to the religious welfare of the men now undergoing training? If so, why?


Robert Laird Borden: The camps of the Royal Flying Corps situated in the province of Ontario and elsewhere on this continent are under the direction of the British authorities, and not under the direction of the Government of Canada. It
has been represented to this Government that there should be greater opportunity for the members of the Royal Flying Corps in camps in this Dominion to attend religious services, and this matter has been taken up in correspondence with the officers in charge of the camps.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

["I think if the machinery is. not made in Canada-and I do not think it is-it would be quite proper to have the duty removed under the 'circumstances, because the industry of making munitions, is a very temporary affair, and the machinery would have to be scrapped perhaps in the very near future. So I think in that case the Government would be well advised to let it in free. But I am not advocating that as a policy; I am in favour of protecting every interest and every industry; that is my platform, and I make no bones about saying so. I am a protectionist for every class, because I believe protection is good for every class. It has been proved so in the past, and will De proved again in the future, if we are not so foolish as to destroy what we have with pains and enterprise got together in the last forty years; and I do not believe Canada will do that. The farmers in Canada,\n90}\nin our part of the country at all events, have time and again supported the policy which I am now enunciating, and which I think is a very safe one to follow. *\nI will not weary the House any further. I have been drawn aside considerably from what I intended to say by a few interruptions, but I make no complaint about that, because it is always pleasant to be interrupted when you are speaking; it gives you a chance to get the blood circulating a little more freely. If I have spoken harshly to my hon. friend from North Cape Breton who seems to be resting quietly now, I hope he will be kind enough to forgive me for having provoked him to invite me to accompany him home. I have finished my remarks now, Mr. Speaker, and I regret having kept the House until such a late hour as this. But, I was compelled to go on.\nOn the motion of Mr. Papineau the debate was adjourned.\nOn the motion of the Hon. Mr. Maclean the House adjourned at 12.35 a.m. Friday.\nFriday, May 3, 1918."]
Mr. SEGUIN:: What municipalities have been authorized by the Minister of Finanoe to issue debentures on the market, since the Order in Council enacted in this respect?



[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenae):: The Minister of Militia and Defence stated the other day that the young men would not be taken from the farms until after those in the cities and towns had been called to report, but as a matter of fact young men

on the farm are being called to report right along. Is any provision being made whereby these young men will be allowed to return to the farm temporarily until the men in the cities and towns have been called out?
Major-General MEWBURN: I think I stated clearly the other day that a request had been sent to the Registrars under the Military Service Act, in sending out notices to the young men between the ages of twenty and twenty-two inclusive to report, to first give notice to the young men living in urban centres. I understand that in some cases instructions have not been carried out to the letter, as there has been difiiuelty in ascertaining just who are and who are not farmers. I asked the Military Service Council to send another wire out to-day urging that our request be conformed with as far as possible. We are now endeavouring to arrive at some means whereby young men of this age who are in the midst of seeding operations, after reporting-it is necessary to report because otherwise the machinery would be complicated-shall be allowed to return to their farms for a couple of weeks to complete their seeding, and I hope arrangemenits to this end will be completed to-night.


Mr. P. MICHAUD (Restigouche and Madawaska):: In the northern part of New Brunswick the seeding season lasts until the 15th or 20th of June. In the case of farmers in that section of the country two weeks' leave of absence would be altogether too short, and I would ask the minister to extend their leave.
Major-General MEWBURN: We are giving every consideration to the conditions existing in every province of the Dominion, and if it is possible to carry out that suggestion we shall endeavour to do it. But it depends entirely upon the urgency of the call for men.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Has the provision which has always been usual in war time been made, that the only son of a "widow and the sole support of a family shall not be taken at all, whether or not they are on the farm?


Robert Laird Borden: I think that matter was dealt with in the statement which the Minister of Militia and Defence made on Tuesday. I understand that his statement embodies all that can be said on that subject at the present time.


THE RETURNS- OF THE LAST GENERAL ELECTION.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright):: It has been the custom to give the returns of a general election in printed form. Will that be done this year?


Robert Laird Borden: I understand the report has already been printed. A statement of the results of the last general election was prepared in printed form and placed at the disposal of hon. members about two "weeks ago, I think. Perhaps what my.hon. friend has in mind was a return in somewhat different form.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I mean a return similar to the one printed after the twelfth general election giving the votes by polling divisions.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The report is in course of preparation and will be issued in due course.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Will there be a separate column in the report for the women voters?


Robert Laird Borden: I could not
answer that without ascertaining what steps the Clerk of the Grown in Chancery is taking, but it seems to me that any such proposal would be attended with a great deal of difficulty.


THE NEW TOBACCO TAX.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. B. McCOIG (Kent, O.):: Would
the Acting Minister of Finance say whether the 5 per cent tax on Canadian-grown tobacco will apply to all qualities' of tobacco? The reason I ask is that in many seasons we have early frosts in different parts of Ontario which damage the crop, and the tobacco has to be sold at five or seven cents a pound. Would the tax be applied in such a case?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The regulations
will provide that in the event of the destruction of tobacco from any cause there will be a remission of the duty.


CORRECTION.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. M. R. BLAKE (North Winnipeg):: 
MILITARY SERVICE ACT.
[Stage Direction]
On t!he Orders of the Day:
Charles Joseph Doherty: The right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) made inquiry with regard to an item which appeared in a newspaper, the Ottawa Journal, I believe, to the effect that the father of two young men, who were defaulters under the Military Service Act, had been arrested and was being held as a hostage. I have caused inquiry to be made, and the statement, as might have been expected, turns out to be entirely unfounded. The facts are that a man named W. Humphke, who had two sons liable to service under the Military Service Act, was arrested by the municipal chief of police and carried to Pembroke for having in his possession deer skins out of season under the provincial law and was held pending trial at Pembroke. The two young men who were defaulters, whether in their own minds they connected the arrest in any way with their default or not, did subsequently come forward and surrender themselves. There was no connection whatever between the two matters.



Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Prevost) asked a question with Tegard to the report of an incident which was said to have transpired in the town of Terrebonne. It was said that a young man had been accosted by the police, that his exemption papers had been taken from him because, it was said, they were not in proper order, that he was detained, and only discharged in the evening after communication with the registrar. Another alleged ground of complaint apparently was
that there were too many police officers in Terrebonne. I have caused inquiry to be made, and it is reported to me that the facts are that the inspector in Montreal endeavours, wherever it is possible, to get the co-operation of the local chief of police. For some reason that was not procurable at Terrebonne, and, in consequence, the inspector having received information that there were a certain number of defaulters in and around that place, made the necessary arrangements to investigate. In connection with the case of the man named as having had his papers'taken from him, it was reported that his papers were not in order, and in order to prevent the man losing any time from his work, a constable to)}k his papers, telephoned the registrar during the course of the afternoon and returned them to the man when he came along after his work.


ENLISTMENT IN ROYAL FLYING CORPS AT QUEBEC.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX:: I have been asked by the president of the committee of the Royal Flying Corps at Quebec City to communicate to the House the following information :
It may be of interest to the country at large to know that applications for Royal Flying Corps are pouring into my office from Quebec and rural districts; all well educated young men and belonging to good families.
(Sgd) Adelard Tourgeon.


MILITARY SERVICE ACT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Major-General MEWBURN: Mr. Speaker, I might be permitted to reply to a question asked by the hon. member from Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux) with regard to a report in a paper a few days ago that a returned soldier had been placed under arrest and held in the jail at the Soo. I made inquiries regarding that matter and I have a report to show that this man was really not a soldier; that he never had anything to do with the Canadian Expeditionary Force, but that he was for some time employed as a Soo canal guard. Subsequently to that he got drunk, created a disturbance, was arrested by the civil police, was fined, but preferred to stay in jail rather than pay his fine. He was not a soldier at all.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Where did he get the liquor?


MEDICAL SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Samuel Hughes: The following cable appears in the Montreal Gazette of to-day:
Dr. Bruce of Toronto to visit United States.
An important British commission will shortly visit the United States. It is composed of three prominent surgeons who will attend the National Medical Association at Chicago, and other gatherings. It is understood that Dr. Bruce, of Toronto, now with the Imperial Medical Service in Prance, will be a member of the commission and represent the bodv with which he is serving at the front.
I would like to ask the Government if, in view of the scandalous condition in which the medical service is reported to be in England, it is the intention to continue Dr. Bruce in charge of the medical service, or to reinstate him.


Robert Laird Borden: If he is going to the United States he could not very well be in England.


Samuel Hughes: You might stop him.


Robert Laird Borden: In so far as the
Canadian Medical Service in Great Britain is concerned, I have no information whatever that would justify the reflection that has been cast upon it by my hon. friend. My information is absolutely contrary to the opinion which he has just expressed.


ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Samuel Hughes: I understand that more than fifty per cent of the members of the Royal Flying Corps are young Canadians. In view of that fact are any steps being taken whereby our men may be constituted a separate body from the Royal Flying Corps, whereby the Canadians would be -able to form squadrons of their own, and whereby Canadian officers who have given very excellent service might be recognized by being promoted to some of the senior positions? There are one or two subordinate positions given them but that is about all.


Robert Laird Borden: I will take into consideration the inquiry that the hon. gentleman has made and answer him on another day. He will recognize the difficulties which seem to stand in the way of organizing the Canadian flying men in a distinctive unit.


Samuel Hughes: I knew all the difficulties and I had them removed.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN',- I am bound to say that such information never reached me. If my hon. friend will give us a suggestion as to how the difficulties may be removed, we should be very happy to consider his proposal. The difficulties which arose seemed to be pretty serious, but this is not the time to enter upon a discussion of the matter. It is possible that something might be done along the line which the hon. gentleman suggests, but I am not prepared to say to-day whether it is possible or not.


Samuel Hughes: I want to ask the
right hon. gentleman-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member cannot pursue the matter further.


Samuel Hughes: Just a question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not in order to
have a discussion-


Samuel Hughes: There is no discussion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not in order to have a discussion on the Orders of the Day.


Samuel Hughes: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the information. I am well aware of it. However, I may aek a question. May I recall-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Samuel Hughes: May I ask the right hon. gentleman if he proposes-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member cannot recall anything at this stage.


Samuel Hughes: Well, then, I will
ask the question: Does- the Prime Minister not Temiember the fact that he took his information from the wrong source rather than from the right source in connection with these matters in days gone by?


Robert Laird Borden: I have always
endeavoured to take it from the best source available.


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 1).
Mr. JAMES McISAAC (Kings, P.E.I.):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the House for the first time, I crave that indulgence which is always so readily granted to a new member when he makes his maiden

speech. The questions now before the House are so important and so far-reaching that those of us who are unaccustomed to parliamentary debate are encouraged to take the opportunity to express our opinions with a feeling of less timidity than we would otherwise entertain. It is not my intention, in fact it would be extremely presumptuous of me as a new member, to discuss the questions now before us at very great length, but permit me to say that in my humble judgment the Acting Minister of Finance deserves to be highly congratulated on the excellent Budget Speech which he delivered-the most comprehensive and most important Budget Speech ever delivered in the Parliament of Canada, and under the most momentuous circumstances that ever faced a finance minister of this country in presenting the annual financial statement. The new taxation imposed involves a number of new departures and is in many respects drastic, but, Sir, under the existing circumstances there is not a member of the House, there is not a loyal Canadian, who will not cheerfully accept the impositions called for and endeavour to meet them so far as he is able.
The assembling of Parliament annually for the granting of supplies is . a basic feature of our system of responsible government, and the procuring of ways and means wherewith to administer the public business imposes upon those charged with the affairs of government a serious and onerous obligation. If that is true in normal times, it is far more iso at a time like the present when such serious conditions confront us. The result of the financial operations of the year, as disclosed by the Acting Minister of Finance, seems to me to be quite satisfactory; that is to say, all the ordinary or civil expenditure of the country has been provided for, and there is available the sum of $55,000,000 to be devoted towards paying off the debt created by the war. In the debate which has so far taken place upon the Budget, as well as in the discussions which have occurred on other occasions since the opening of Parliament, two questions have been deemed by hon. members opposite to be of primary importance in dealing with the serious situation which the war has created: One consists of a demand for the removal of the duties on agricultural implements, and the other is founded on the cry that if men are taken from the farm food production will seriously suffer. With regard to the first, I cannot pretend to any expert knowledge as to the merits or demerits of the subject, and, therefore, I will not venture to discuss it. But I understand, and I have heard the statement made repeatedly here, that it has been, agreed that all matters of this kind should remain in abeyance until the war is over. So far as regards the denuding the farm of labour is concerned, all will admit that it is a serious proposition, but it must be remembered that a far more serious proposition is waiting to be disposed of: The Hun is at the gate, the very existence of our Empire is trembling in the balance, civilization and liberty are in jeopardy, and the call is for men, more men, and still more men. I admit that serious inconvenience, and even hardship, will be caused to many by the taking of able-bodied men from the farm, but, Sir, this is a time when all our people are called upon to make some sacrifice, and I do not apprehend that the consequences to farm operations, as a result of conscripting our manhood, will be as serious as some would like to make us believe. Even after all our young men of military age have been called to the colours, we know there will be a certain percentage who cannot conform to the physical standard required by the Military Service Act, and such persons will be available for work on the farm. Again, there are a great many men employed in non-essential industries in our large cities, and these I think could also be commandeered to some extent to do farm work. The objection has been raised by the practical farmers, " Oh, such men do not know how to do farm work." Even so, Mr. Speaker, we must endure the inconveniences and hardships involved, and solve the problem as best we can. The great problem that faces us, and which we must do our best to solve, is to do our utmost to send men overseas to beat back the invaders.
Sir, we know, and it is a matter of record, that, at the special session of Parliament held in 1914, regardless of political parties or affiliations, Parliament and people were unanimous in declaring that they were behind those men, to the last man and the last dollar, who first went forth to do battle for Canada in the allied armies. Those sons of Canada who have distinguished themselves as brave soldiers, in numerous battles-Courcelette, Vimy Ridge, and other scenes of carnage-were assured when they went to fight for Canada's cause that Canadians to a man would stand behind them; and those forty thousand brave sons of Canada who made the supreme sacrifice for their country, and are



now sleeping in Flanders .fields, died with the conviction that their death would be avenged, because they were told when they left home that Canada was behind them to the last man and the last dollar. Our friends on the opposite side appear to question or to demur as to whether they should enter into the matter of supplying men or of doing what is necessary, or at least of doing so with enthusiasm and spontaneity, for they say: "The Government did not do this and that thing as it should have been done; the Government have made mistakes; therefore why should we show any enthusiasm in rallying to their support now?" Let us see: suppose we admit that the Government has made mistakes. Is there any Government that has not made mistakes? Has the British Government not made many mistakes in this war, as it has made in some other .wars? The wonder to my mind is that Canada in this titanic undertaking has made so few mistakes. Canada had no knowledge, at least very little practical knowledge, of warfare. She knew little of recruiting men and making soldiers of them, or equipping and sending them to the scene of battle. She was engaged in peaceful pursuits, developing her great natural resources, when the war broke out. But, Sir, in face of all that, Canada did a marvellous thing when, within the space of a few weeks, she sent a flotilla of transports across the Atlantic carrying 33,000 trained Canadian soldiers who, but a few short weeks or months before, were all civilians. That is something for which Canada should get credit and of which she might well he proud. It is true that she has received encomiums. The United States, which had not then entered the war, that great nation, our last and greatest ally, of one hundred million people, say: We take off our hat, we bow to Canada for her extraordinary achievements in this war.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James McIsaac: Canada became a name to conjure with in Great Britain, in France, and on the continent of Europe in consideration of what she has done, and of what she is still doing, towards upholding her place, her dignity and her prestige in this struggle.
There is something else that Canada has done in consequence of the war which has brought her before the world in, I might say, an envious light. She has become a great financial country. Before the war, when Canada needed money, she went abroad to borrow it. But the time came

when it was very difficult, indeed next to impossible, for Canada to obtain money from other countries. She then turned to her own people, and you know, Mr. Speaker, the record of the loans that have been placed in Canada, the generous, enthusiastic, and overwhelming response Canadians have made by pouring their money and treasure into the coffers of the country for the purpose of carrying on the war. In this respect Canada has established herself among the nations in an important light, of which a few brief years ago we scarcely had any conception. Having done so much, it is our duty to continue in well-doing. When the Minister of Finance comes down to Parliament and asks for almost a billion dollars, there is no murmuring; every one is satisfied that this money must and shall be raised, and that that portion of it which it is necessary to raise by borrowing, apart from taxation, can be furnished by our people when the loans are issued, as has been done before. In view of all these things, we have reason to be proud of our country, and it is our duty to continue to make sacrifices even greater than those we have so far been called upon to make. The one thing necessary is to win the -war. For, Mr. Speaker, should we fail, should the Hun break through, what would be the good to us of our farms, or our money, or anything else we possess and cherish most dearly? The iron hoof of the invader's war horse would despoil our country; we would become serfs; civilization would be wiped from the face of our land, and freedom and constitutional liberty would be trampled under foot. God forbid that there should be any reason for believing that this will take place-but the possibility exists. Under these circumstances, Sir, is any sacrifice too great to be made by an honest, honourable land patriotic people? I have all along been convinced that a great many of us im Canada have not taken the war with sufficient seriousness. Look at the conditions across the Atlantic, in England, Scotland, prance, Belgium. No able-bodied men aTe found there; farming operations are carried on by women, old men and young boys. Yet iwe murmur if we are subjected to some inconvenience; if we are not allowed to carry on our farming and our fishing operations just as we have been doing all along. The venerable member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) who addressed) the House the other night, desires that the fishermen shall be allowed to carry on their business until the 1st of September, when they wdll be will-

ing to enlist. In order that such a course should be of benefit to Canada, the hon. gentleman should have a conference with the Kaiser and ask him to restrain his forces until that time. That is the way these extreme proposals present themselves to me. However, I am satisfied that the men will be procured and that not such great inconvenience will be suffered by the farmers and fishermen as hon. gentlemen are disposed/ to conjure up. In any event, the winning of the war is the one and only grand and paramount object which we ought to have constantly before us.
Having said so much about the immediate question involved in the motion before you, Sir, I may be permitted to discuss a question which peculiarly affects the province from which I come. I refer to communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. Doubtless some of the older members of the House have often heard the complaint of members from Prince Edward Island; as a matter of fact, when the Island members made their statement regarding their disabilities in the matter of winter communication, the press used to say that it had been "Prince Edward1 Island day" in the House of Commons.. Sir, I shall not inflict any wail or complaint upon you, but I wish to give a brief history of the winter navigation of the etraits between. Prince Edward Island and the mainland. To many members of the House the subject may not be of particular interest, but it is. my duty to those whom I represent to raise my voice here with regard to the disabilities of Prince Edward Island, in the matter of railway facilities and winter communication.
It is a misfortune, perhaps., to live on an island. The people are necessarily shut off from other lands by water, and in northern latitudes, where the water congeals in winter, it is a serious, problem to be on an island. We are isolated, land, if I may play upon the word, we are and have been ice-olated during the winter. But if we have been isolated, and if we have been ice-olated, I think it cannot be said that we are insulated; that we come here with insular ideas, or are not sufficiently broadminded and magnanimous, to meet the views of our friends from the other provinces. It is said that people 'bom on an island sometimes have insular ideas, but I shall endeavour to show that I am not one of them, and that if there is- anything like that in my make-up, it is something over
87J
which I have no control and for which I cannot properly be held responsible.
On account of our ibeing in this isolated condition, the crossing of the straits, of Northumberland during winter has been a very serious, difficult and hazardous undertaking. During all the days before Confederation, this was our condition. Some gentlemen here to-day may have gone through the experience of crossing the Straits in winter, .the crossing being made in ice boats to which the passengers were, in a sense, harnessed with straps over their shoulders. They paid their fares* and worked their passages, too. Of course, under these conditions passenger traffic between the Island and the 4 p.m. mainland during the winter was not extensive; no one left during the winter season unless it was absolutely necessary for him to do so.
The first meeting to bring about the confederation of the provinces was held in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, which may justly be called the cradle of Confederation. Curiously enough, when Confederation was consummated in 1867, Prince Edward Island did not join the union because she thought that the terms offered were not such as would meet her necessities, the crux of the difficulty being the' winter navigation of the straits. In 1873, however, when she thought the matter had been so arranged that there would be no further difficulty, Prince Edward Island, under what is known as the " better terms," becange a province of the Dominion. In order that we may have a fair understanding of one of the conditions which induced Prince Edward Island to become a member of the Confederation and which was cited in the bond, I quote these words from the Imperial Order in Council under which Prince Edward Island came into the Dominion of Canada:
Efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers to be established and maintained between the island and the mainland of the Dominion, winter and summer, thus placing the island in continuous communication with the Intercolonial railway and the railway system of the Dominion.
That was the condition that the people of Prince Edward Island desired the most. Prince Edward Island became a member of the Dominion of Canada in 1873. About three and a half years later, the first attempt was made to implement the above promise by putting the steamer Northern Light on the route between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. The Northern

the mainland should wait until times are better and money will be easier to obtain.
During the past winter, for the first time, the car ferry plied between Port Borden and Cape Tormentine, and the success that has attended its operations during a winter of unprecedented severity has revolutionized the ideas of the people of the island regarding their connection with the mainland. They now feel for the first time that they are a part of Canada, that they are not isolated as they had been in past years. Here is the proof. There was not a day during the winter that the car ferry could not cross in these heavy ice flows, and on some days it made two or three round trips. It is able to make the passage in fifty minutes under favourable circumstances, and at no time was it more than three hours in making the crossing. There was not a day upon which it might not have crossed, although there were a few days when it did not cross, because there were no trains on either iside and consequently nothing to cross for.
What we desire now is to have the Prince Edward Island railway standardized. We would like to see this work commenced as soon as possible, but no one realizes more fully than the people of Prince Edward Island that this is not a time when we should ask for extra appropriations when so much of our money is required to carry on the war. The standardization of the Prince Edward Island railway could be regarded in the light of a war measure. Prince Edward Island is an agricultural province, and it is extremely productive- in fact,, we have really no idea of the extent of its productivity-but if facilities are afforded for the transportation of the island's products it is capable of increasing its agricultural production at least a hundredfold. If that Ibe true, Sir, and if we can contribute that much more towards feeding the soldiers than we are now doing, would it not be sufficient ground for the Government undertaking the work of standardization without much delay? It is for the Government to say when that work -shall begin, but the people of the island would like to see it started forthwith. If that were done the output of Prince Edward Island's products would be augmented to such an extent that it would be by no means a losing speculation for the Government."
Let me give further reasons why, in our opinion, it would be wise for the Government to undertake this work now.. The operation of the narrow gauge car at present used costs about as much as the opera-
tion of the great car used on the Intercolonial railway, so that the improvement suggested would effect a saving there. Economies could also be brought about by a change in the system of handling produce. At present all freight shipped from Prince Edward Island goes to Port Borden, where it is transferred from narrow gauge to broad gauge cars, and then the cars are run on to the ferry and carried to the mainland. The cost of transferring freight in this way is from four to five thousand dollars a month. Now, taking the annual cost as $50,000 or $60,000, that amount capitalized would be equal to about $1,000,000, or, in other words, it would represent about one-half the cost of standardizing the road, as far as I am able to learn, in order to handle the increased volume of freight. Last year, owing to want of transportation, there were two million bushels of potatoes that could not be carried away from Prince Edward Island. More than that, the numerous steamships carrying freight from the island to other points-for example, to Newfoundland, Montreal, Boston and Halifax-have all, or nearly all, been eliminated owing to the abnormal conditions brought about by the war. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, almost any kind of vessel that is available is quickly picked up now for war transportation purposes, with the result that Prince Edward Island shipments are confined to the one route via Port Borden.
Another point arises in connection with the shipment of coal. In our province there are no coal mines, and coal has to be imported from Nova Scotia and other places. The volume of coal requiring to be transported by the car ferry, in addition to all the other products to which I have referred, represents something like forty thousand tons. There is this further point to be borne in mind: It is expected that Prince Edward Island, as a result of the campaign in favour of increased production, will this year have seeded some seventy-five thousand acres more. The product of that area, representing probably fifty-six thousand tons, will also need to be transported. All this great volume of freight, representing a total of something like 247,846 tons-calculating from the figures of last year's exports and taking into consideration the freight that was held up and could not be forwarded- will have to go by the car -ferry during the present year. The present export facilities will therefore not be adequate, and when they involve a transfer it means delay and an increased outlay of money.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, I am not wearying the House, tout even at the risk of doing so, I must present the case for my province.
I am talking on behalf of those who sent me here and who expect me to do my duty, and it is in the humble endeavour to discharge that duty that I am making my plea to the House this afternoon.
In addition to the expenditures to which I have already referred it will cost, to begin with, probably four or five hundred thousand dollars to put the narrow-gauge railway as it now exists, into a condition for handling business this summer. Again, there is the further expense of transferring the freight, and handling the additional freight that will need transportation. These figures will indicate to you the extraordinary disadvantage from which Prince Edward Island is suffering at the present time; and in my opinion the improvements desired with the elimination of these extra costs would not involve such a large grant from the Federal exchequer as it would if none of these subsidiary conditions prevailed.
There are other items that might be introduced to swell present expenses. There are, for example, the claims against the Government which may be brought any day arising out of the loss of potatoes and other perishable goods owing to the failure of the narrow-gauge railway to move them from the Island. Adding all the items together, I estimate $936,409 a%.the amount which the Government stands called upon to pay under present conditions.
There are other reasons why the people of Prince Edward should have the railway gauge broadened and its standardization commenced. They are reasons which will be beneficial to the Dominion, and to Prince Edward Island especially. During the past winter, it cost $67,000 to fight the snowstorms blocking the road, which had to be shovelled out. Every one acquainted with railways will understand that with a broad gauge and more powerful engines the snow blockade could toe better handled and its inconvenience reduced to a minimum at a much smaller cost.
There is the movement of certain perishable products also to be considered. In addition to toeing a great agricultural province, the richest and most abundant fisheries abound on our coast. The fresh fish industry would secure the best results from the quickest possible transportation to the markets on the mainland. If the beautiful fish that we catch on the coast of Prince Edward Island could be shipped from there
in the morning and brought into Montreal, for instance, the next morning, fresh from the sea, would that not be something worth working for? Prince Edward Island would benefit by it, and certainly other parts of Canada would not lose by it. There are other perishable products which should get to the markets in the shortest possible time and in the best possible condition. We have no hope that this ever can be done until we have the gauge standardized. Standardization will come some time; we have got so far ahead now, and the conditions that I have laid down seem to me to be of sufficient force to be some inducement to the Government to take up the work at as early a date as possible. Altogether, apart from the sentimental question, there is no longer any doubt in Prince Edward Island about the feasibility of practical daily communication, winter 1 and, summer, between the island and the mainland. The problem involved in the winter navigation of the straits is solved, and we feel that, at least, we have taken the first and greatest stride forward towards being really part of Canada. We no longer feel ourselves isolated. We only wish the completing of the railroad standardization to make our railroad situation as that of any other part of Canada, and to enable us to ship our products from any part of the Island to any part of North America without breaking bulk, and that any passenger boarding a train on the Island will not be obliged to leave his car until he reaches his destination. These are reasons which appeal to us, and I wish I was sufficiently persuasive to convince the Government that now is the time to standardize the Prince Edward Island railway. If I could convince them, I feel sure that within a short time the work would be commenced.
I do not know that I shall trespass upon your patience any further, Mr. Speaker, unless to thank you very sincerely for the generous hearing that has been accorded to me, upon*these matters so dear to the hearts of the people of Prince Edward Island, the first time that I have risen in Parliament to address you.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Mclsaac) who has just taken his seat will pardon me if I do not follow him very much in the speech which he has just made. If I had any criticism to make of his speech, it would be that he was lacking, like some of us, in terminal facilities, in knowing where to stop. The

great difficulty of the hon. member was where to begin. He began away too far back; if he had begun at the end of the railroad, as he should have begun, he would have been through with his business long ago. But, of course, when the hon. gentleman makes his next speech he will know better where to begin, and he will be shorter and more to the point. He will learn, of course, that if he desires to tell us that the sun is in the heavens, that the sea has its 'boundaries, and thait they will not trespass them; that there is light and darkness-he can tell us these things without going back to Genesis and saying that the Lord crealted the heavens and the earth in a certain set number of days. Some of these things could have been taken for granted, and it would have shortened his time a good deal. However, there is great latitude to be given to men who speak for the firslt time in the House of Commons, and I rather congratulate my good friend on the way in which he presented his case.
Before il forget it, there is something else in connection with his speech which seems to be coming to us from that side of the House a great many times and from a great many members. It is this somewhat secretive agreement that was entered into some months ago evidently when the Union Government was formed. It was first mentioned in this House some three or four weeks ago by the hon. member for Brantford (/Mr. Cockshutt) who made the open statement that there was such an agreement. There was no denial of it, except that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) was in his seat and I noticed that he ominously shook his head, which I took to be a disagreement with the hon. member's statement. However, the country had the advantage of hearing the statement of the hon. member for Brantford, but they did not see the Minister of Agriculture shake his head. So the statement of the hon. member goes uncontradicted. Last night we heard a revival of that atement by the hon. member for 'Springfield (Mr. Richardson) who told us again that there is such an agreement, and from his remarks we would gather that he is a party to it himself. To-day, the hon. member for King's, P.E.I. (Mr. Mclsaac), has once more stated that there is such an agreement. There are people in this country who would regard an agreement of that kind as unconstitutional and unparliamentary.
In dealing with public questions, representatives of the people in this House are flMr. McKenzie.]
supposed to be free agents, to be governed by the facts put before them, and it is at , variance with the principles of proper representation that members should come into the House like sheep going to market, their legs tied and their heads in a bag, and do exactly what they are told. If they venture for a moment to differ from the course laid down for them, this agreement is pointed out to them. Some day an hon. gentleman on this side may move that this agreement be brought down-for, of course, we have every reason to believe that it is actually in existence. It will ibe interesting to learn when it was made and who are the parties to it.
I realize that any criticism we make of the Budget and of the Government should be sane, serious and well-founded, and that nothing be said that savours of a desire to impede the progress of the Government in the steps which it is taking to deal with the serious question now confronting the country. I think I may safely say that no criticism of an unfair kind has been made from this 'side of the House. I congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance upon the mechanical paTt of his speech-as to its style, construction and delivery-and, so far as it is consistent with the position I take,
I congratulate him also upon his success in presenting to the House a very difficult and a very bad case. The hon. gentleman has disappointed some of his friends outside of the House by the ability he has
5 p.m. shown in dealing with this very important matter. The Journal-Press, the special organ of the Prime Minister in this city, has, of course, a monopoly of the brains of this country and of the foresight and thought of the city of Ottawa. It is said that the editor of that great journal is in close touch with the Prime Minister, by whom he is guided in the more intricate and difficult questions with which 'he has to deal. Picking up this newspaper two or three weeks ago, I noticed that in an outburst of wisdom the Journal-Press had declared that surely the Prime Minister would not entrust such a very serious task as the delivery of the Budget speech to the incapable hands of the member for Halifax. For the sake of Nova Scotia and of auld lang syne, I am glad that the Acting Finance Minister has acquitted himself in such a way as to demand that the Journal-Press apologize and take back its gratuitous opinion of his capacity. We assure the hon. gentleman that whatever hie friends over there may think of him, we on this side

etill have a lingering regard for him and hold a good opinion of his ability to deal with such important matters as have been dealt with in the Budget. Of course, in the minds of evilly-disposed persons there is a doubt as to the paternity of this speech. It is said that the speech was born in the United States of Canadian parents; that the hurried visit of the Prime Minister to New York recently was for the purpose of smuggling this infant into Canada and handing it over to the hon. gentleman who has presented it for christening to the House. Personally, I do not believe that. In any case, I give the Minister of Finance credit at least for not having written that part of it which refers to his own excellence and to all the wonderful things that he has accomplished.	'
Having said that much about the style and character of the Budget speech, a conscientious and God-fearing man like myself cannot say anything further in praise of it. The ridiculous suggestion is made that we have a surplus. That fallacy, that heresy, has been running through the speeches of the Minister of Finance ever since the war broke out. We always had a surplus in one part of the account and a deficit of some millions in another. The Acting Minister of Finance should not have been induced to incorporate in the Budget speech the statement that we had a surplus. To say that we had a surplus on ordinary expenditure might be tolerated. If since the war began we had continued the same revenue, the same taxation, the same sources of income that we had when the war broke out; if we bad dealt only with ordinary expenditures and had something to the good, we might reasonably and with a fair degree of consistency say that we had a surplus on ordinary expenditure. But such is not the case. Immediately on the outbreak of war we levied war taxes. We levied business taxes, and we are getting money from stamps and from many other things which the minister mentioned in his Budget Speech. From the Business Profits War Tax the minister told us we are getting $21,271,283; from banks, $836,724.28; from insurance companies, $385,127.68; from trust and loan companies, $267,917.68; from inland revenue from railways, steamships, telegraph and cable companies, stamps, etc., $2,229,922.81; making a total, according to the speech of the minister, of $24,990,975.45. Besides those taxes which the minister has specified, there was the flat 7J per cent extra duty which was placed upon the whole trade of every kind and description of the country. Possibly
the minister could not tell us exactly what that amounts to, but it would probably amount to somewhere around $25,000,000.
I am only guessing at the amount. At all events we have a specific tax of something like $50,000,000 or more, which we have collected from the people of this country as a special war tax. The minister has taken that $50,000,000 of special war tax, and he has applied it, with the rest of the revenue, to the ordinary business of the country, and then when he adds it all up, he does not put one cent of it to the credit of the war until he finds a surplus, and then, he says: We have a surplus. It is perfectly clear to the most ordinary person that this is not a fair nor an honest way of stating the account. When we have gone after the people for special taxes for war purposes, they should be credited to the war, and if you are going to deal with special accounts, they should be kept evenly balanced, having the one fairly meet the demands of [DOT]the other. When the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) in the past told us that we had surpluses, and when the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K-. Maclean) to-day tells us that we have a surplus of $55,000,000, they are absolutely stating a case which is not fair, and which is not, so to speak, putting their cards on the table, and showing the people of this country exactly how the account stands. That is not dealing with us fairly, and we should have the account presented and stated just as it is, so as to let the Canadian people know exactly what they have to deal with. We, as representatives of the Canadian people, are willing to put everything we have into the pot in connection with war conditions, but on the other hand we have a perfect right, and it is the inalienable right of every taxpayer of this country, to know where every dollar goes and what is done with the moneys of the people. In the early stages of the war I remember well the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) making one of his eloquent speeches in this House, telling us that he, as a member of the Government, would begrudge the mis-spending of the moneys of the people for	anything
other than the purposes of the war. At that time, we expected that those words meant something, and that great care would be exercised in the expenditure of the moneys of the people in accordance with the true reason for which those extraordinary taxes were being collected. We are given part of the account, but we are not given all. It does not follow that, because our very hearts are set upon war

duties, and because every nerve is strained to do our full duty in the war, we mu-st be lax about other phases of our duty is representatives of the people, nor that the people of this country can be lax about the other branches of their business. If there ever was a time when proper care should be taken to safeguard every influence and opportunity for good and for the accumulation of wealth in this country, that time is the present. No advantage should be taken of the temper of the people and their feelings about expenditures, because in this time of war the people may not be as critical about expenditure as they otherwise would be. The closest attention should be given to expenditures, and we should know where every dollar goes.
This year there is a new departure in connection with some of the Estimates, and large amounts of money, that must come from the pockets of the people of this country for the purpose of carrying on the affairs of the country, are not being put into the ' Estimates at all in accordance with the old conditions. That is not right; that is not proper. If I should criticise the Government along those lines, I do so in accordance with my right as a representative of the people in this House. What is the good of sending men to this House unless they have a free hand and an open voice to place before you, Sir, and this country, what they regard as proper criticism and direction of the Government who, after all, ave but directors of the big concern of the people of Canada to carry on, in the best way, what they regard the will of the people to be? That is the position, and that is the way in which the business of the House should be conducted. I complain, I find fault with and I criticise the Government, and I bring that criticism as squarely as I can before the people, that the Government have no business to endeavour to get money in the thousands of dollars, much less in the millions, and possibly the hundreds of millions, without putting that expenditure before the House and having the members pass it with the ordinary conditions attached to- it as to how it shall be spent. That has not been done with the millions of dollars which we shall require for the purchasing of rolling stock and the operation of Government railways in this country. Why has that not been done? Is it because the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), or the Government has no confidence in the people? Is it because they are afraid that hon. gentlemen in this House are not big enough and
[IMr. 'McKenzie.] [DOT]
broad enough and have not business ability enough to give them the money if it is properly required? And, are they afraid that we shall not place sufficient confidence in them- to allow them to spendi this money in the good old way? At all events we are, I am told, to pass an Act of Parliament by which we shall have nothing to say as to how, this money is to be spent. That should not occur, and free agent-s in this iHouse, whether they sit on the Government side or this side, should have something to say in the matter. We in this country are to-day in a condition when the people will no't stand for monopoly of that kind, whether that monopoly is exercised by the Government under Orders in. Council, or by concerns who have with the Government a pull which they should not have and which will perhaps induce and compel the Government to do things which they otherwise would not do. I submit that the temper of the Canadian people will not stand for that, and possibly we have stood too long for imposition of that kind. As far as expenditure,of railway money is concerned, it is not in the Estimates at all, and if my hon. friend took the moneys he will require out of this $55,000,000 alleged surplus, the whole amount 'would be wiped out and there would not be even a shadow of a surplus left. In order to show a surplus, he leaves this expenditure out of sight altogether; but he deceives nobody.
We had a lecturing address from the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) last night, and I have not been able to tell exactly on which side he is. He reminded me of the fellow who was perhaps a little under the weather and who asked, when out walking, "Which is the other side of the street?" A man told him "There is the other side of the street over there." The man went over, and when he got across asked another man, "Is this the other side of the street?" "No," said the man, "the other side of the street is over there." "Well," said he, "that man over there told me this was the other side of the street." The hon. member for Springfield, I think, is somewhat in that position; it is difficult for him to find which is the other side of the street. However, he wanted to criticise us and criticise the leader of the Opposition. Of course he had to criticise the railway policy of the present Administration; had a right to do that, and a very excellent field for criticism. I will not weary the House by going very far into these railway criticisms, but somewhat in answer to the

hon. member for Springfield, I must remind him that he has been in public life for a great many years. I have not the honour of his acquaintance, but I know he has been in this House before. He knows the history of the railway policies of the different parties in this country; how in 1903 the policy of my distinguished leader, the Bight Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was launched in this country for the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and launched in no hole-in-the-comer way, but in the most open manner possible. Before a sod was turned or a dollar expended on that magnificent enterprise the people of this country were appealed to, and their verdict was given on the Government's policy in connection with that great enterprise. It is well known that in 1904 the battle royal from the Atlantic to the Pacific was between the railway policy of the then leader of the Opposition, now the Premier of this country, and the railway policy of the Laurier Government, and the verdict of the people was overwhelmingly in favour of my right hon. leader. Whatever else there may have been a division on there was practically not a dissenting voice on that policy from coast to coast. So that, as far as the railway policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier is concerned and the course his Government took in connection with the railways of this country, he had the full sanction and approval of the people of this country. Again in 1908, after four years' work on the road, the people of Canada had the opportunity of passing judgment upon the railway policy of my right hon. leader again, and he was triumphantly returned to power. So satisfied were the people of Canada with his railway policy that during the campaign of 1908 the leader of the Opposition had really nothing to say about the railways at all. It was accepted by both parties that the proper course had been taken for the opening and development of this great country, of which we are all so proud and whose resources are so immense; it was this policy alone, within proper bounds, that was necessary to full discharge of the duty of any Government that might have been in power at the time. The difficulty is that new men have taken the wheel and are trying to work out the destinies of this country. Conditions which were all right in the hands of a master like the Premier of that day have become burdensome and too heavy to carry in the hands of people who do not understand the art of government as he did when he had control of the affairs of this country. The rod of empire has
fallen into hands which are not capable of wielding it in his masterful way, and the mole has become a mountain and the grasshopper a load. The new men are unable to carry these matters along, and the result is that the financial conditions in connection with the railways are such that the Government of the day, if I am to judge from their actions, will not dare to bring before the House the rea-l state of affairs in connection with railway matters. I would remind the hon. member for Springfield and the members generally who are supporting the Government that shortly after the Borden Government came into power in 1911 the Minister of Finance made his first speech in February of the following year. He was then, of course, fresh from his financing, fresh from the critical training which he had had as a financier, and anxious to discover any weak spots that could be found in the financial conditions of the country. There was a good deal of criticism then by newspapers supporting the Government of the railways the Government had on their hands at that time. If conditions were very bad, if there was anything that was dangerous to the finances of this country, or that might have a bad effect on the credit of this country I am sure the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) could very well have been entrusted with bringing that difficulty and weakness to the notice of Parliament and the country. Any person who wishes to see what he stated on that occasion can look up his speech. Of the financing of the country generally he spoke in glowing terms; he was delighted to find the country in such a prosperous condition, and glad that after every obligation had been properly met by the outgoing Government, that Government was able to hand over to him the sum of $40,000,000 to meet any fresh obligations that might arise; you will find that in his speech. He also said that while there was some criticism in connection with Grand Trunk Pacific, he was glad to be able to say that instead of that road being a burden or a debt on this country, it was a magnificent asset to the Canadian people.
That is the position as far as railway matters in this country were concerned at the time the Government of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), whom I am pleased to follow, passed over the reins of power to hon. gentlemen opposite. If there is anything wrong, if things are not what they were at the time they took charge, it is their lookout. It is for them to see that

much at heart. If you think well of my suggestion I will be happy to assist in any way that may be deemed advisable, and I will hold myself ready to meet at your convenience for a mutual exchange of views, both as to the object itself and the best means of attainment.
Yours sincerely, Wilfrid Laurier.
That offer was submitted to the Prime Minister in the early stages of the war. Why was not advantage taken of it? Was anything done by the Prime Minister to implement that offer? I am sorry to say nothing at all. The manner in which attempts were made to organize recruiting in Quebec has already been discussed several times, and the subject is not new, and what occurred is well known. If it was the intention of the Government to create dissension in Quebec and make recruiting a failure-and it was said that such was their intention-they could not have gone about it in a better way than they did. In most of the Canadian provinces our young men speak the English language, and they suffer no disadvantage from being trained by English instructors. But it is otherwise in the province of Quebec, where in large sections the population speak French exclusively. Not only the old people but the young folks use French entirely, and when it was a case of obtaining recruits it was hut natural to look for instructors who could make plain to these young men the requirements of the drill in their own tongue. Had there been a proper organization in connection with recruiting in the province of Quebec, men who could speak the French language, and who were in sympathy with the French people and understood their ways and their peculiarities, would have been placed at the head of that recruiting and in charge of the training of French Canadians.
What has happened? You would say at once: Surely they did that. Nothing of the kind. They sent men there to do recruiting, at least for the first two or three years, who did not know a word of French, and who were not of the same religion as those to whom they were sent. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that we get closer to men who are of our own language and religion than we do to those who are not. I do not say that in a sectional way, or as finding fault with any man's language or religion; but these things are natural to us. As far as Quebec is concerned, men were sent there who were not in sympathy with the people on one or other of these very important phases of character, and the result was an absolute and a huge failure in re-

cruiting. That failure has been taken hold of by some men who wanted to start a sectarian fire in politics and use it to win the election. I sulbmit that if w-e had been playing politics and sectarianism with the Victory Loan the same result and the same failure would have followed that followed in Quebec recruiting when elements were introduced that were calculated to produce failure. I make these explanations on these statements to show that the Government of this country who Were in charge of the war 4id not always have the singleness of mind and heart which they wish other people to have to-day, and that they always and at all times had something else in view different to the winning of the war. There was no stage of the proceedings when they did not have the primary idea of politics and the winning of the election which was really a very heavy factor in whatever course they took in connection with these matters.
Having said that much on this question, I propose to give a little attention to some matters which came before the House, particularly last night, regarding the political situation and the policy of the different parties so far as the trade of this country is concerned. Let me assure you, Sir, that I do not propose to go very lengthily into these things, or to take up too much time. But it is well that we should always), whether we are Liberals or Conservatives, have a proper understanding of the faith and doctrine of our party and the principles for which we stand. If we lose that, if we have not the proper chart and compass upon what we stand for, and what we toelieve our party to stand for, we lose the full force and effect of the service which a party is supposed to render in the Government of a country. For, after all, partyism is an institution in this country; we have two parties, Liberals and Conservatives, and whether the Government is good or bad, whether the system is good or bad, it is still the system, and I must submit as my own opinion that, so far, it is the best system of governing that we have yet found. If we are going to have clean administration and proper cheeks one on the other, we must have a Government party and an Opposition party, and I wish to remind hon. gentlemen of the fact that in any province in this, or any, country, where there is an admixture of parties, and a forgetting of the responsibilities, rights .and privileges of parties, there has been corruption and a falling off in proper

administration, much to the loss of the people. For that reason,, if we are to recognize party government, we should have the best possible party government, and each party should take pride in its doctrines, ideas and traditions. Belonging, as I do, to the Liberal party, I am proud of its traditions and history, and I wish to keep it as much as possible unsullied from anything that might tarnish it, or stain the names of the great men who have been in the past and are to-day its leaders, or which would interfere in any way with the doctrines which we have always espoused as a party. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) last night endeavoured to mix things up and to lead the House and the country to understand that the Liberal party was not true to its principles and to its professions as set forth in the platform of 1893, three years before the Liberal party took over the Government of this country in 1896.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: paper resources are sacrificed in another market and we import millions of dollars' worth of their manufactured products; so long as the lead smelters of the United States grow rich whilst they put one and a half per cent duty upon lead in ore and 2 1-8 per cent upon lead in bullion; so long as those things are unredressed, there is reason for the existence of the Liberal-Conservative party.
That is the view which Sir George Foster, Sir Robert Borden and* Sir Charles Tupper took of the difference between the policy of the Liberal party and the policy which they advocated when they were in power, their policy being better known and understood as the National Policy. It is only fair to the House and to the Liberal party at this stage of our history that I should again remind the House of what the policy of the Liberal party was in 1893. These are the ten planks of the famous platform of the Convention of 1893:
1.	That the customs tariff of the Dominion should be based, not as it is now, upon the protective principle, but upon the requirements of the public service; that the highest interest of Canada demands a removal of this obstruction to our country's progress toy the adoption of a sound fiscal policy which, while not doing injustice to any class, will promote domestic and foreign trade and hasten the return of prosperity to our people; that to that end the tariff should be reduced to the needs of honest, economical and efficient Government; that it should be so adjusted as to make free or hear as lightly as possible upon the necessaries of life, and should toe so arranged as to promote free trade with the whole world, more particularly with Great Britain and the United States.
2.	That the Liberal party is prepared to enter into negotiations with a view to obtain a fair and liberal reciprocity, including a well considered list of manufactured articles.
3.	That the Convention deplores the gross corruption in the management and expenditure of public moneys.
4.	That we cannot hut view with alarm the large increase of the public debt and of the control of the annual expenditures of the Dominion and the consequent undue taxation of the public, under the Governments that have been continuously in power since 1878, and we demand the strictest economy in the administration of the Government of the country.
5.	That it is the ancient and undoubted right of the House of Commons to inquire into all matters of public expenditure and into all charges of misconduct in office against ministers of the Crown.
6.	That in the opinion of this Convention the sale of public lands of the Dominion should toe to actual settlers only and not to speculators upon reasonable terms of settlement, and in such areas as can be reasonably occupied and cultivated by the settler.
7.	The repeal of the Franchise Act, that we should revert to the provincial franchises.
8.	To make the House of Commons a fair exponent of public opinion and to preserve the historic continuity of counties, it is desirable that the conformation of the electoral division,
[iMr. McKenzie.]
county boundaries, should be observed, so that in no case no parts of different counties could he put in one electoral division.
As regards the ninth plank, I am not sure that these are the exact words, but this is the substance of it:
9.	That the policy In regard to appointments to the Senate of Canada should he revised and brought forward in conformity to certain public opinion.
10.	That, whereas public attention is at present much directed to the consideration of the admittedly great evils of intemperance, it is desirable that the mind of the people should be clearly ascertained on the question of prohibition by means of a Dominion plebiscite.
In moving that resolution, the right hon. gentleman who now leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) made the following observations, which form a small section of the speech that he delivered to the Convention on that occasion:
I say the policy should be a policy of free trade such as they have in England-
That is, he says, it should be.
-That, I am sorry to say that the circumstances of the country cannot admit at present of that policy in its entirety, tout I speak to you from this day forward that it should fie the goal to which we aspire. I propose to you from this day forward, although we cannot adopt the policy itself, to adopt the principle which regulates it; that is to say, that though it should be your misfortune for many years to come to have to raise the revenue toy customs duties, those duties should be levied only so far as is necessary to carry on the business of the Government. Nothing is more difficult-that is one of the evils of protection-than to wipe away protection because under it interests have been established, which every man who has at heart the interest of all classes must take into consideration. It is always easy to increase the tariff because toy doing so you increase the private fortunes of certain individuals, but whenever you decrease the tariff it has always to be done with careful consideration, and I am sure that when the Liberals are in power they will not be in different to this primary truth.
I have quoted the particular part of the speech which dealt with the character of that policy. It was clearly laid down at the time that, although the goal of the Liberal party was to be free trade, it could not be accomplished at one bound, but that the Liberal party hoped to go forward from step to step and to adopt freer and freer trade from time to time as that could be accomplished without any deterrent to or interference with vested interests in this Country. I need not tell hon. members, who are familiar with the progress of the country the rapid strides that were made under the administration of the right hon. gentleman and how this country

prospered under that policy and under the management of it by himself and the wise men whom he gathered around him to compose his government. It is unnecessary to point out how, under his administration and under his policy, population rapidly flowed into this country,
The great West, which is of course the great hope of this country, has developed and expanded so that villages have become towns and towns cities, and those vast territories' which were practically unorganized at the time the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) took office were flourishing provinces before he left power, and rapidly coming into a position where they could vie with the older provinces of the Dominion. Those were the conditions brought about by the policy of the Liberal party, and that is the policy which we want to keep to the fore all the time. We have no thought of departing from the policy which we followed when in power. When we return to power again we hope to bring happiness, prosperity and honest administration to this country, and we shall not be called upon to depart from that good old basic old rock of the constitution of the party, on which we have built for so long, and built so well.
The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) hinted last night (that he did not know where the Liberal party was; he did not know whether there were any of that party still alive. He need only look across the floor to see a very sturdy section of them left, and if he will go to the country to-morrow, stripping his platform of this cry about the war, the cry by which the people have been falsely and improperly divided, if he will appeal to the country on a clean, straight -administration and the best policy for the people in peace times, he will find out where the people are, and whether there is any of the Liberal party left.
Referring once more to the development of this country under the regime of my right hon. leader up to his going out of power in 1911, what is the testimony and what are the declarations not only of his friends but of his. political opponents as to what he achieved in the glorious period during which he had charge of the affairs of this country? When we declared for reciprocity in 1911, what was the slogan of the then leader of the Opposition? From the Atlantic to the Pacific his appeal was: The policy which has been in force for the last fifteen years has brought this country to such a high mark of success, the country
is in such a magnificent state of prosperity that it would be folly and a sin to interfere with present conditions. Let well enough alone; Sir Wilfrid Laurier with his immigration policy, his tariff policy, his expenditures of the revenues of this country, and everything that goes to the making up of a successful administration and a growing country, has done well; we' have no fault to find; let us stand by the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and leave well enough alone. That was tlhe appeal made on every hustings by the then leader of the Opposition. He did not recognize that it was well enough; it was very good, and a magnificent departure from the conditions he found when he took office. Then the country was bankrupt. There was not enough revenue collected to meet the ordinary expenditure. One province was flying at the throat of another, and there were dissensions and dissatisfaction between men of different religious creeds-. But Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power, and brought this country into the harmonious and happy condition it was in in 1911.
We have a magnificent territory, extending from ocean to ocean. Our resources are just as good as those of the United States -and we have a territory that is wide and comprehensive, and capable of receiving and looking after something like one hundred millions of people, but to-day we have only got seven millions, what was the vision of that great statesman? Am I to sit here, he asked, with -a territory around me capable of making homes for one hundred or one hundred and fifty -million people and foe satisfied with only seven million people? Is it not my duty as the responsible head of this Government to provide -such means as will make 'Canada a happy and contented country, an inviting country for people to live in? And he started out to make Canada a place where there would he open markets, where the man who was settled on the land would have right at his door a ready market for whatever he raised. Although the English market was very good, it was three thousand miles away, and you h-ad to send your goods by rail to a steamer, and then by steamer across the Atlantic, and then perhaps by rail for a further distance. The English market was good, but it was not natural and proper to ship to that market when we had right by our side some one -hundred and ten million of people, speaking our own language, and requiring the things we produced. Would it not have been better and more reasonable to sell our products to them, where we could get the



best price, than to send them to the English market three thousand miles away? Was not that the proper course for the Government to take? That was the policy which Sir Wilfrid Laurier placed before the people at that time with a view to making Canada an inviting place for the millions of people for whom we had room, and who would no doubt have come to this country if reciprocity had been accepted. But there were people in this country whose interests were being interfered with. As was said by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) the other night, there was a Diana of the Ephesians in this country; the profits and trade of certain people were likely to be interfered with if the national barriers against trade between Canada and the United States were broken down. There was enough force brought to bear on that occasion to defeat us, not squarely and honestly, but through raising the cry of disloyalty and traitorism. The flag was waved and the question was asked, " Under which flag will you live? ft is well enough to have trade, but we must stand by the flag." But those days have gone by, and now everybody who has any proper conception of national development can see that that would have been the best course for this country to pursue. Friends of the Government and the Government themselves, one after the other, are. forsaking the props and pillars that supported them at that time, and everything that we advocated in connection with the trade relations between the two countries is about to Ibe adopted; at least they are making a show of doing it, whether they mean it or not. It is pretty hard to know sometimes whether they are going or coming, because they try to make every circumstance suit their whims and caprices. At one time they put Ontario against Manitoba, and at another some other province against another section of the country, just as it suits them for the time being. We have evidence enough of that. On 3rd December last, a certain policy was good enough for them, but now it has been changed for the time being; there is now a new fiddle and a new tune, but they will find out that the people of this country will not change the tune as rapidly as the Government think they ean do in matters of the gravest consequence with which they have to deal.
I have outlined the course which my right hon. leader has followed since he laid	down his broad
platform in 1898, and the policy upon which he came into power in 1896
['Mr. McKenzie.]
under which he administered the affairs of this country so grandly and magnificently up to 1911 and upon which, in its advanced state, he gloriously went out of power m that year.
I said in the early part of my remarks that it was important for every man, if he belonged to a party, to do what he could to keep that party clean, strong and devoted to the best interests of the country. Let me remind the House that although we had fifteen years of office, although we had handled millions of money in dealing with every kind of public enterprise, service and work in the country, we -went out of office in 1911 and every possible investigation was thrown after to discover where we had done -anything wrong. It is the proud boast that we can make to-day that although every department of Government was rifled from one corner to the other, not only with such men as they could employ in that work in Ottawa but with men brought from the Old Country to investigate the books of the department in the effort to find some scandal, no scandal was found. It was not shown t-hait one fifty cent piece was misappropriated in the fifteen years when we were in power. I do not like scandal-mongering and I am not a scandal-monger but I wish to remind the hon. gentleman of the conditions under which they went oult of power in 1896 and ask them to compare the conditions of those days with the conditions under which we handed over the reins of Government when it was our duty to do so in conformity with the views of the people.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he remembers a man by the name of Miller whom we had to lock up in the Carleton County jail because he would not tell us who had received the money which he had paid out to obtain Government contracts and that part which the hon. gentleman opposite took in backing him up in defying the House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In what way did I back him up in defying the House? I will take no insinuations from, the hon. gentleman. I will tell the hon. gentleman that I never exchanged one English word with a man named Miller; I never saw him. I do not know who he is. and if the hon. gentleman thinks I shielded him in any way he is absolutely and entirely mistaken,. If he has any such insinuations to make, let him make them like a gentleman. He has either said too little or too much.

-Mr. SUTHERLAND: I spoke about members of the Opposition defending Miller and backing him up in defying the House when we were trying to make him say to whom he paid the money.
Mr. MeKENZIE: Absolutely incorrect. I defy the hon. gentleman to put his finger upon .anything -that will go to show that any member of the Opposition did anything to shield, protect or shelter that gentleman. That shows the straits to which these gentlemen are put, that shows their lack of information, that shows- that they have nothing to talk about except this miserable, picayune Miller business.. That happened years and years after we went out of power. That is the only thing they can talk about. The hon. member for South- Oxford is the lone pelican on the housetop who has anything to say here to-night andi that is- all he has to say. The whole Dominion of Canada will have to accept my statement now that there was nothing wrong except that the hon. member for South Oxford says that there was a man by the name of Miller who paid some trifle as a travelling agent for something we knew nothing about and had nothing to do with.


Donald Sutherland: the country it is advisable to place wheat, wheat products, and agricultural implements on the free list; and that without doing injustice to any class, steps should be taken to alleviate the high cost of living by considerate removal of taxation.
The Conservative members of the House voted against that motion, the Liberals voted for it. On April 28th, 1914, Mr. Loggie, an hon. gentleman representing a New Brunswick county, moved:
That tariff item No. 83 he amended by adding thereto the following words:-
Provided, however, that potatoes, dry, dessi-cated or otherwise prepared, being the growth and production of the United States, shall be admitted free of duty when, and as soon as, the United States removes the embargo regulations now existing against like articles, the growth and production of Canada.
For that motion the Liberals members of the House voted, the Conservatives voted against it.
On February 23rd, 1916, Mr. J. G. Turriff, M.P., for Assiniboia, moved:
That in the opinion of this House, in order to secure to the farmers and people of Canada the advantages of the American market for wheat products and potatoes, steps should be taken at once to put these articles on the free list in the Canadian tariff.
The Conservative majority in the House solidly voted against the motion, the Liberals voted for it.
Now, Sir, that is the course that was followed by us as far as those resolutions are concerned.
Again, on the 16th of March, 1915, Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved as follows:
That the Speaker do not now leave the Chair, hut that it he resolved;
That this House is ready to provide for the exigencies of the present situation, and to vote all necessary ways and means to that end, but it regrets that in the measure under consideration duties are imposed which may be oppressive on the people, whilst yielding little or no revenue; and that the said measure is particularly objectionable in the fact that instead of favouring, it is placing extra barriers against Great Britain's trade with Canada, at a moment when the Mother Country is under a war strain unparalleled in history.
The Liberals voted for that resolution, the Conservatives voted against it.
On the 23rd of May, 1917, less than a year ago, the Hon. Mr. Oliver, member for Edmonton, moved the following resolution:
In the opinion of this House it would be in the public interest if the Customs Tariff Act were so amended as to provide;
1. That wheat, wheat flour and all other products of wheat be placed upon the free list;
21 That farm implements and machinery, farm tractors, mining, flour and sawmill machinery, and repairs for same, rough and partly dressed lumber, illuminating lubricating and

fuel oils, cement and fertilizers, be added to the free list;
3.	That staple goods and food products (other than wheat flour), domestic animals and food therefor, he admitted into Canada free of duty when coming from and being the product of any country admitting like Canadian articles into such country free of duty.
4.	That substantial reductions be made in the general tariff on all articles imported into Canada, excepting luxuries.
5.	That the British preference be increased to fifty per cent of the general' tariff.
This resolution was moved on May 23, 1917, by Hon. Frank Oliver, ex-flVTdnister of the Interior, and seconded by no less a personage than the present Minister of Public Works. That, Sir, was the attitude taken at that time, and all the time, by the Liberal party in this House, and I have enumerated these resolutions so as to put the matter in concise form. T have done it so that everybody would know what our attitude has been, throughout, and that we put ourselves on record, not upon the hustings, not where we /might say one thing in one place and another thing in another place; in the House of Commons [DOT]where everybody has an opportunity of seeing at all times the position we have taken.
Now, Sir, 1 come to another resolution of great importance to this- country, and of particular importance to our friends from the West. As I said before, when we are talking on the question of development, when we are talking on the question of trade with the United States, and when we -are talking on the question of free wheat, free farming implements, and free admission of all that enters into the proper and economical conducting of the farms of the West, we expect the western men to he particularly interested in what is taking place, in what tve are saying, and in the purposes of political parties in this country. Everybody remembers the famous convention at Winnipeg last August. At that time the attitude of the Liberal party on the war iwas put in such clear-cut .and concise language in the resolution that was adopted [DOT]at that convention, that I wish to adopt it as far as I can as the attitude of the Liberal party, not only in the Western Provinces but in. the other provinces of (Canada 'where (Liberalism ie understood 'and acted upon according to its real meaning. The resolution in question was put to the convention, no doubt after discussion, and adopted, and it so well expresses my own views with respect to the war, that I wish to 'adopt it .as my own and' put it on record, lit was moved by Dr. Neely, .and seconded by Lieutenant C. B. Reilly, *both of them returned soldiers.

In -this war for the defence of democratic civilization against military despotism, the conditions call for the putting forth by each allied -belligerent of its full power as the only assurance of victory. In times of peril the entire resources of the country, moral and material, man-power and wealth, are justly disposable by the state for the preservation of its national liberty. The imperative duty of the Canadian people in regard to the war is its continued! vigorous prosecution.
(1.) By conferring with the British Government for the purpose of definitely ascertaining the scope and character of all the services that can best be rendered by Canada in the conduct of the war.
(20 By the maintenance in unimpaired strength at the front, of our fighting forces, and the taking all steps necessary to secure the required reinforcements for this purpose.
(3.) By organizing the production of our other contributions to the war, such as food, munitions and other war necessities upon lines of the greatest efficiency.
(4.) By the complete extinction of profiteering in all business having to do with munitions and the necessaries of life, If necessary, by the nationalization of these industries or by an adaptation of the British system of controlled establishments ;
(5.) By the recovery for the public treasury of undue profits obtained' since the beginning of the war by the exploitation of the necessities of the people or the urgent requirements of the state;
(6.) By the application of a. combined system of sharply graduated taxation upon incomes and assessed profits which shall insure that every citizen shall bear his or her^ full share of the war burdens, according to his or her means.
(7) By thoroughly organizing the nation and carrying out this program by whatever means may be necessary for its accomplishment.
Then comes another resolution by Mr. Roderick McKenzie, of the Manitoba Grain Growers, seconded toy Mr. D. W. Warner. I will not detain you, Mr. 'Speaker, by reading it, because it is word for word the Oliver resolution, which I read a moment ago. Exactly the same things are asked for to be put on the free list by the Government. I come now to another resolution, and the last resolution I am going to read, and it contains the opinion of the convention as to the conduct of the Government then in power, and which is practically in power still. It was moved by Premier Sifton, of Alberta-I do not know whether th-at is the Mr. Sifton who is now in the Government- and seconded by Mr. Laidlaw, of British Columbia. I call the attention of the Government particularly to that convention's estimate of it, and to the estimate which the hon. gentleman who moved that resolution bad of it at that time:
This Convention of the Liberals of the four Western Provinces of the Dominion assembled for the purpose of assisting in the solution of the many serious problems facing Canada at the
present crisis feels compelled to place on record its most severe disapproval of the war administration of the Borden Government.
War is essentially the business and concern of the entire nation and not of any section, class or political party. It can he waged to the greatest advantage only when behind its prosecution all classes of its people are enlisted in the same passionate determination to defend the right, and triumph over the forces of despotism and unrighteousness.
Any attempt to arrogate to one section of the people or one political party a monopoly of its prosecution and the prestige of the conduct of the national struggle for freedom and existence can be characterized as only base and unworthy in the highest degree
Because the Borden Government has sought from the outset to make our national life and death struggle the prerogative of one political party, to the exclusion of one half of the Canadian people, and an instrument for selfish, political advantage rather than the triumph of national ideals; and because it has exhibited gross incompetency and inefficiency in the face of national peril; because it has substituted partisan selfishness for honour and fair dealing, because discussion has overcome leadership in its councils and weakness and vacillation have taken the place of firmness of resolution,
- courage and efficiency in execution wre condemn it as no longer entitled to the confidence of the Canadian people.
That-, -Sir, is the resolution passed by the convention, and which w,as sponsored for by the hon. member (Mr. Sifton), who, I believe, is -Minister of Customs in this Administration. What happened? Evidently the Prime Minister believed this statement. He believed, evidently, that he was not capable, with the outfit he had then, of running the Government, and he began to oast -about as to what he should do. He saw that the Hon. Mr. Sifton, then Premier of Alberta, was rather a courageous gentleman, and thought it would be a good thing to have him out of the way somewhere; so he got somehow in touch with him, and I imagine that I can hear the mellifluous voice of the Prime Minister breaking forth in song to -our friend, Mr. -Sifton, and saying:
Come under my plaidie, the night's gone to fa'; Come in from the cold and the drift of the snaw; Come under my plaidie and sit down beside me, There is room, my dear Arthur, believe me, for
twa.
That, -Sir, is what happened. The Prime Minister can smell trouble, because his olfactory nerve has been cultivated strongly to trouble ever since he became Premier, and he could see what was coming from the West, and he thought he would steal their thunder by bringing these men under bis plaidie, and in they came, and there they are for better or for worse-we hope not for worse. That is some history in connection with the stand of the Liberal party and


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think my hon. friend is misrepresenting the facts, unintentionally, no doubt. If he will examine the report carefully he will se'e that 5 cents is the margin, not the profit. The profit was considerably less than one cent.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I will adopt the language of the minister and say it was a margin. The company took umbrage at Mr. O'Connor's report that they had even a margin of 5-05 cents, and immediately asked for another court. What did that court find? It did not find that they made a profit of 5 cents, but a great deal more than 5 cents. The company would not give Mr. O'Connor the necessary information to ascertain the difference between gross and net profits, so Mr. O'Connor figured it out from the overhead expenses of other companies and reached the conclusion put forth in his report. He found there was a margin of 5-05 cents. But what is that compared with what was found by the court that was appointed to whitewash Sir Joseph Flavelle, in the expectation that it would find that Mr. O'Connor was absolutely wrong and that there was no such margin. I have in my hand the report signed by Mr. Henderson, Mr. Brodie and Mr. Clarkson, the three gentlemen who were appointed to review the investigation of Mr. O'Connor and to report. It is only necessary for me to read the first section of their finding, as all I am concerned about is: Did they find that the profit was greater or less than 5:05

cent, as represented by Mr. O'Connor. Let me point out that Mr. O'Connor finds that on the turn-over, that is, in the handling of that particular quantity, there was a gross profit of the amount he mentions, but as I understand it, that does not include plant and overhead expenses generally, such as the land upon which the building stands and the machinery used in a business of this kind. I do not understand that Mr. OConnor figures on that at all. I think he simply deals with buying the goods and the turning over of them without any reference to the value of the stores, land, horses, engines or stock that the man might own. But what do Mr. Henderson and his commission find? They find that there is not only 5 per cent on the turnover but that the profits made by the companies during the war, were excessively high and yielded an extraordinary return on the capital investment. They say that in the year 1916 the trading profits of the Davies Company- that is iSir Joseph Flavelle-equalled eighty per cent on the company's investment in packing houses, plants, retail stores and everything else in connection with the business. Eighty per cent upon land, upon buildings, upon horses, upon engines, upon every conceivable thing they had in connection with the business. That is the finding of Mr. Henderson. It is plain, simple, clear and easy to be understood.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that there iwas no ground or justification given before the commission, of which Mr. Henderson was the head, for the appeal from the findings of Mr. O'Connor. I wish to bring this matter to the notice of the minister and to tell him in the most particular way that the people of this country think it was only because of the pull that this man, Sir Joseph Flavelle, and those who were associated with him in making these *huge fortunes, have with the minister and the Government- generally that has influenced them, and that it is only this hydraulic pressure that has lifted this man O'Connor out of office and thrown him on the street. That is the belief of this country and I submit that there is some fair *ground for it. From the day that he found fault with this man, Sir Joseph Flavelle, to this, in so far as the office of the Minister of Labour is concerned, it appears that there was no continuing city for him any more and that he could no longer live in comfort there.

But the manoeuverings and dealings of this great concern did not end with making eighty per cent out of the poor people of this country by reason of the fact that Sir Joseph Flavelle had the inside track, by reason of the fact that Sir Joseph Flavelle, through his influence, or his friendship with this Government, managed to secure a contract with the Imperial Government which no other concern could get. He could lose nothing no matter how much he paid. He had a contract with the Imperial Government that he would get a certain percentage on his buying price whatever it might be. There are hon. gentlemen sitting in front of me who know something about buying and they know that if they can go through the country with the knowledge that, whatever they pay, they cannot lose any money, and that if another man has not such a contract he cannot compete with them at all. A man, if he expects to make a few dollars, or a few cents, on his bargain, must buy at a certain price (because he knows what he has to sell for. Sir Joseph Flavelle was in the fortunate position that if he bought at ten cents he knew that he had a margin beyond that and if he bought at twelve cents his margin was the same. If the market went up by twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty per cent, he could not by any possibility lose. Together with that he had access to transports which enabled him to send his goods over to the other side and make profits on the turnover there through agencies to which he attached his machinery and he went on dealing and working and squeezing money out of the poor people of this country without any check or interference whatsoever. As one of the representatives of the people of this country, I maintain that there should be a check on conduct of this kind. The Government should have known what was going on in this business and this man should not have been permitted to make these extraordinary profits out of the life blood of the poor people of this country. This is a fair subject for comment and it should be brought to the notice of the Government and of the people. I do not think that I should apologize, or feel that I am imposing upon you, Sir, or upon hon. members, in bringing a matter of such vast importance to the notice of the only tribunal in the world with which we have anything to do that can remedy matters of this kind.
There is one thing more. Sir Joseph Flavelle was not satisfied with what he had done in connection with the investigation that took place, but, before I leave

that I venture to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a most extraordinary thing that although this man has been found guilty by Mr. O'Connor of extraordinary profiteering, and although Mr. O'Connor says that if this had been done while the Order in Council was in force, he would have regarded it as his duty and obligation to bring the matter to the notice of the Attorney General with a view to prosecution, no action was taken. If the minister discovered that this prosecution could be brought about by just making this Order in Council, which was produced with such a great flourish of trumpets, retroactive, by just changing the date from the twentieth to the first of the month, why did he allow this man, who was a criminal and who was robbing the people of this country, to escape punishment? If he were a cobbler he would have no show for his life, but this millionaire, this multimillionaire, a friend of this Government, the godfather Of the hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) and who has a lease evidently on everything that is powerful and strong about this Government, can do as he likes and smile at any person who may suggest that he is injuring the country and discrediting its Government. I make these somewhat extraordinary and strong charges in the hope that I may stir up the Minister of Labour a little bit and that he may get on his cobbler armour and go after the man who has millions and who has great strength in this country and that he will give the country to understand, the poor as well as the rich, that there is only one King, one Government, and one line of justice for every man whether he be rich or poor. It remains for the Government to satisfy the people that that is the way things should be done. If they leave this matter as it is now and let this man escape with his eighty per cent, his millions and hundreds of millions, this man who was enabled to make five millions in less than six months out of the life blood of this country, I do not think that it will be regarded as wholesome for the Government or for any person who may be supporting them particularly in this zone where this disclosure has been so keenly felt.
In the city of Winnipeg only the other day we had an investigation into the conduct of this same man and his agencies in that part of the country. Food of the most delicate character, food that is not easy to get, to the extent of thirty-five tons of chicken, I understand, was allowed to rot in a certain cold storage in Winnipeg.
It was allowed to go to decay and had to be thrown out upon the dump rotten rather than sell it to the poor people of Canada at half a cent a pound less than the ordinary high price out of which these millions were being made as I have already stated. The Government appointed a Commission of Inquiry and this is what the commission says. But before I read its findings, let me say that it is sad to think that on a question of fact you cannot believe those people. You cannot believe Sir Joseph Fla-velle, I am. sorry to say, on a mere bald question of fact. He swears before Mr. Justice Meredith or Mr. Justice Duff, that certain work was being done for them for nothing, that it was being done absolutely free. We find his hand to an agreement according to which, in connection with identically the same work, he was getting five per cent on a million, or at least his company was getting five per cent on hundreds of millions of money. This man has spent a million dollars a day, the money of the Canadian people, three hundred millions of money a year, if not more, and a large slice of that was going through this company and somebody was getting five per cent. We would like to know how much it was.


Mr. EDMUND BRISTOL (Toronto Centre):: Who owns the stock of the company that is getting five per cent commission? I understood the hon. gentleman to say that that stock was all owned by the Imperial Munitions Company which was giving the contract to the subsidiary company. So that if the hon. gentleman's statement is correct that five per cent profit would be something that would go back to the parent company who owned the stock [DOT]in the subsidiary company.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I must tell the hon. gentleman that when it comes to talking about Mackenzie & Mann's companies-


Edmund James Bristol: But the hon. gentleman was making a statement and I merely asked him to explain it, I wish to understand him. If his statement is correct that one company owns all the stock in the other company then the five per cent is a question of bookkeeping, and neither Sir Joseph Fla-velle nor anybody else is getting it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I can give the hon. gentleman an agreement with another company according to which this five per cent never comes back directly to the Munitions Board, never in the world. These agreements came into my possession as being

genuine, and I believe they are. The facts are not of my creation, and all I am saying is this: Sir Joseph Flavelle states that this company was getting nothing at all. He says: Those men are giving their time and energy and experience for nothing.


Edmund James Bristol: That may be so.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Well, they are incorporated into a board, and right on top of that there is an agreement by which these philanthropists, who are giving their time, energy, and experience for nothing, are to receive five per cent.


Edmund James Bristol: No, the company is getting five per cent, and the other company owns the stock. The philanthropists are not getting it according to the hon. gentleman's statement.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Very good, I say .that they are getting it, and that is what they are after. That is why a paper like Saturday Night is making an investigation and letting daylight into this, matter, to see that the people of this country are protected. If it can be shown that there is nothing wrong about this transaction, well and good. It is no business of mine, and if the transaction turns out to be honest and above board no person will be more pleased than myself. On the face of it, however, it looks as if this man was making a statement that does not square with the facts as they develop afterwards. If that is not so all right, but, as I understand it, his statements are not borne out.
As. to a question of fact, I have here the report of an officer, I presume appointed either directly or indirectly by the Government, in which the finding appears that a certain transaction of the William Davies Packing Company in Winnipeg was far from proper, and that the statements made in connection with the conduct of their business there are far from the truth. Now, Sir, there is no use in going half way with this matter, and I must ask your indulgence while I read to you a report:
J. D. McGregor, Esq.,
Western Representative,
Canada Food Board,
Winnipeg-, Man.
Dear Sir :
I received your letter dated March 14th, 1918, instructing me to hold, an investigation into the cold storage business of the William Davies Co. of the city of Winnipeg, with particular reference to the destruction recently of a large amount of poultry at the city incinerator.
After careful consideration I beg to report as follows:

Meetings of the Commission for taking evidence were held on the following dates: March 18th, 19th, 20th, 2ilst and 2'3rd, of 1918. On the morning of the 20th an inspection was made of the plant.
Mr. Isaac Pitblado, K.C., and Mr. A. E. Bowles, were counsel for the William Davies Co., and Mr. C. E. Finklestein for the Canada Food Board. They were present at all meetings.
All witnesses were duly sworn and evidence taken under oath.
I enclose herewith the transcript of the evidence taken before me, together with Exhibits filed.
In the following findings I refer to the pages of the evidence. I take it from your letter that while you wished me to deal with and recommend upon collateral matters arising therefrom yet you desired me to investigate and report upon the following two points in particular:
1.	Was there any "hoarding" of food?
2.	What was the cause of the deterioration of the poultry?
Mr. Karl Symonds, Manager of the plant of the William Davies Co. of Winnipeg, swore that the Head Office at Toronto knew nothing of his purchasing the poultry but he bought them "off my own bat" (Page 41). He did not at any time report having this quantity of poultry on hand to the Head Office, but he reported daily temperatures of the room in which they were held. He further swore that he gave instructions to his travellers to, sell "regardless of cost*' (Page 23). He swore "no price was set to Williams," one of his travellers (Page 23) that his instructions to sell "regardless of cost" were for the whole of the summer of 1917 (Page 33) that he never fixed the minimum price (page 104) that he instructed his travellers to meet alll competition (Page 35). On being recalled the following day he again swore that he gave instructions to seil "regardless of cost" (Pages 103 and 105).
Now that is the evidence of the manager, now comes the evidence of the travellers to whom he refers:
Symonds' evidence was contradicted by the evidence of his own two travellers, Messrs. E. A. Williams and F. D. Cundell.
E.	A. Williams swore Symonds did not instruct him to sell "regardless of cost" (Pages 261 and 26'6) swore that he, Williams, had an offer from John Campbell at the General Hospital at 19c and Williams phoned Symonds who instructed him not to sell at less than 20c (Page. 262).
F.	D. Cundell, also a traveller of the Davies Company, swore that Symonds did not instruct him to sell "regardless of cost" (Pages 271272) was not told that he had to undersell and get rid of it (Page 271) ; had to sell according to set price (Page 277) ; could have sold if price had been reduced (Page 272).
In addition to the evidence of the manager, Mr. Symonds, and the two travellers of the Davies Company, several quite disinterested parties gave evidence before me to which I give the utmost weight and to which I now refer. Mr. T. J. Coyle, broker, swore that Symonds offered him 20,000 pounds of poultry August 22nd, 1917, at 20 cents per pound. He wired order to Gunn-Langlois, Montreal, but they would not accept at that price. He swore Montreal firm would have purchased if

price was reduced, and that if Symonds had had a standing order with him to sell regardless of cost he could have sold the poultry.
John Campbell, Steward of Winnipeg General Hospital, swore that Davies Company refused to sell at market price, in October, [1917. He swore that he offered 19c. to Williams, the Company's traveller quoted 20c. and says he got some fowl from Swifts and Gordon Ironsides at 19c. during the month of October, 1917. He swore that Williams told him there was no fowl for sale in December, 1917, and January, 1918.
John Guest, Manager meat department, T. Eaton Co., swore Eatons could have sold the poultry, says he would have purchased it in January, February and March, 1919, at 20c.
W. D. Haight, produce Manager, Gordon, Ironsides and Fares, swore he could have sold chicken in January, February and March, 1918.
James Gallagher, President Gallagher, Holman and LaFrance, swore he disposed of a carload in Montreal to William Clark in December, 1917, at 21c.
At this point I should state that the evidence submitted by the Winnipeg branch of the Davies Company was to the effect that the poultry in question, amounting to 70,000 pounds was put in cold storage in their Winnipeg plant during the months of October, November and December of 1916.
In March, 1918, about one year and five months later, 50,000 pounds still remained, and it was found thar a large portion of it had deteriorated and 8,500 pounds was sent to the city incinerator for destruction. The W. Davies Company have been instructed and are rapidly disposing of all stock on hand that are fit for food at very reduced price and there will be about 1,500 and 2,000 pounds more to be destroyed out of the balance in storage.
A comparison of prices for storage poultry as shown in Gordon, Ironsides and Fares price list and Cundell's price list will show that the prices of Cundell, traveller for Wm. Davies Co., run slightly higher all through the year 1917 for both fowl and chicken.
The commissioner has added a table here which shows that the prices of the William Davies Company all through are higher than those of Gordon, Ironsides & Fares. In June, 1917, he says that Gordon, Ironsides & Fares quoted fowl 21 to 24 cents and chicken 23 to 26 cents, while the William Davies Company were quoting 22 to 25 cents for fowl and 25 to 27 cents for chicken, and right through to September they were charging more than other companies, and he recommends that the cold storage plant should not be permitted any longer to carry on business in that way, and he criticises severely the fact that this [DOT]enormous quantity-perhaps not enormous, it is 35 tons or more of very excellent and delicate food needed in the country at that time of the year-was allowed to deteriorate and had to be thrown into the dump, and says that it should not be allowed to hap-[DOT] pen again.
In conclusion, I must say that this .gentleman who is at the head of these
great operations should not be allowed by the Government to go along any further having such power and control over these matters as he now has. Sir Joseph's power of spending is one million dollars a day, over three hundred millions a year, of the money of the people of Canada. His conduct in his own private business, his greedy profiteering, his defiance of public sentiment, his outraging of public opinion, do not make him a fit custodian and spender of this vast sum of the people's money, nor can the Government of Canada retain the confidence of the people when a thrice-convicted war profiteer and food hoarder is kept in the powerful position which he at present occupies. Surely the people have paid a sufficient price for the services of Sir Joseph Flavelle. He parades-the fact that he works without salary, but he demanded as the price of his services not only a tribute to his bacon factory, not only a knighthood, the ordinary reward of public service, but -a hereditary baronetcy, .against the establishment of which in this democracy the people of Canada very properly rebel. The " pork barrel " in politics is an Americanism which is not required in Canada, and the time is long past due when this baronet with the conscience, which " has no qualm " should be retired from public life, and the Prime Minister of Canada should so intimate to the Imperial authorities, who, no doubt, would be only too glad of a reasonable excuse to conform.
A very small part of the operations of this concern has been in this way brought before the House, and particularly before the Government,-and I trust such steps will be taken as will prevent any further profiteering at the expense of the good people of Canada. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that it is only necessary to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister of Labour and the Government to insure that such steps will be taken as will for ever put an end to any man having power to conduct his business in such a way as to unduly rob the poor people of the country of the food which should go to the sustenance of themselves and their children. It does not contribute at all to the high standing of the Government, or to the efficiency of our army and navy, or to anything that is being done in connection ,with militarism in this country, if it is for one moment believed that there are men who have backstairs and backdoor influences in connection with matters of this kind which operate to the disadvantage of the

ordinary, everyday, poor man in this country.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I was obliged to take so much time in presenting this case.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: Hear, hear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I hear the hon. member for Brantford saying, " Hear, hear." I suppose that he is in full sympathy with those millionaires and men who make such extraordinary profits, and he does not feel very much in sympathy with me and other poor people to whom a dollar is a consideration. I can only hope that the hon. member will excuse me for living upon this planet and for having exercised my right of free speech as a member of this House in presenting these matters to a free-Parliament.


Mr. D. L. RBDIMAN (Calgary East):: jMr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. gentleman (Mir. McKenzie) on making the *longest speech which we have heard during the course of this debate. I regard this as the more remarkable because when commencing hie speech he gave some very weighty advice to the member for Queen's, P.E.l. (Mr. Molsaac) who preceded him. Perhaps the hon, gentleman thinks that the fact that he read for 'two hours out of the three during which he addressed the House will take something from the length iof his speech. However, I will say nothing further with regard! to that.
I wish to congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance (Hon. A. K. Maclean) for *the able manner in which he presented his Budget to the House and for the firm way in which he has grappled with the tremendous financial problems that confront the country. The record of the Finance Minister and of this Government in the financing of the country's affairs during the war, in the splendid loans' which they have floated, in the well-placed taxation which they have effected, is one of which they may justly he proud. The people of Canada have reason to he proud of their splendid response to the call for subscriptions to war loans, of the manner in which ordinary business affairs, of the country have been carried on, and of the wealth which has* been produced throughout the land. !We can look with satisfaction upon our financial position, and we can feel that no matter how long the struggle may last we shall be able to keep up in the collar; we shall be able to maintain the position we now occupy until that victory comes of which we are assured.
While our position is an excellent one, we should not lose sight of the fact that at

the end of Mlarch of this year our national debt is approximately $1,200,000,HOO. What that debt will be When the war is over no one can say, but if the struggle continues one, two or more years, we can be certain that i't will be substantially larger than it is now. We must remember also that in addition to our current expenditures and capital outlays, we have to make annual payments out of revenue by way of interest on our national debt, which to-day is estimated at approximately $50,000,000, and which will increase as our debt increases. Moreover, we have to meet annual payments by way of pensions, for which in the Estimates of this year some $15,000,000 are being asked. It is safe to predict that when the war ends the amount payable for pensions will exceed $50,000,000 a year.
We should have regard to two things in considering this Budget: first, the manner in which we shall raise funds during this and possibly the next year; second, the financial position in which our country will be placed at the termination of the war. To-day we have an opportunity of greatly influencing that post-war condition. In discussing this matter I wish to keep that second point more especially in view.
For many years it has been the policy of this country to rely upon customs revenues for the means to meet ordinary expenditures. I shall not make any comment upon the merits of that source of revenue, except that in time of war we must without question continue it. But our reliance upon this source of revenue should not blind our eyes to other possible means of . raising money; in the circumstances existing to-day, it is desirable that every possible source of revenue should be carefully investigated and, if deemed advisable, taken advantage of by the Government.
The other great form of taxation is direct taxation, of which in England the most important factor is the income tax-and it should be the case in Canada. Income tax has existed in England since the year 1799, when it was put on by Mr. Pitt to raise moneys for the prosecution of the Napoleonic wars. Since that date, and more especially since the repeal of the Corn Laws, that tax has been the mainstay of each Chancellor of the British Exchequer, and in England to-day that tax, more than any other source of revenue, is enabling England to carry on the war and to pay as substantial an amount as 17 per cent of its war indebtedness. They can do that in England better than

we can, do, it here because they have been accustomed to income tax for one hundred years. It is proper that in Canada we should introduce new modes of taxation slowly; no important departure in the way oi taxation should be made suddenly. Our people should be gradually educated to a new form of taxation, and only when they have accepted it can it be considered successful. What is the history of income tax in this country? The subject was discussed early last session. The Minister of Finance stated: at first that an, income tax would not be introduced-he pointed out various objections, to it-but later, towards the end of the last Parliament, the income tax which is now on our statute book was brought in. The imposition of that tax was in itself a great step forward, and after sax months we can feel that it has been favourably accepted iby the people. They have looked into that tax; they have considered the rating under it, and viewing the matter in relation to the requirements of the country, they feel that it is a tax which they should be called upon to pay. That being the case, we should consider whether or not it is advisable to make any substantial increase in the rate payable under that tax. That brings ue to the changes proposed in the tax as outlined by the Acting Minister of Finance. I agree with him in the lowering of the minimums of exemption in the case of unmarried men to $1,000 and of married men to $2,000, and the placing of the rate of 2 per cent on the amounts by which these minimums have been respectively reduced.
I feel that is only fair, and especially that those unmarried men, although not earning a great deal, should be called upon to pay some little part-I believe the tax amounts to about $10,-so that they will feel that they are citizens of this country; that they have responsibilities, and that they are taking their fair part in this war. The next important point in regard to this change in the tax is that it affects a very large number of people, and, as a consequence, a substantial revenue will be received. No one, I believe, can take exception to the exemption of $200 granted in the case of each child. A similar provision has for some time existed in the American and British Acts, and this provision will tend to make the Act a great deal more fair, and as an Act 'becomes more fair, so will it become more popular, and so will the people of Canada become more willing to pay it.
I cannot say that the surtax which is proposed to be imposed by the Government,
has impressed me as have the other two items. I do not know for what reason this tax has been imposed in this manner. As I understand it, this surtax is a tax upon the super tax already imposed, and it varies in degree as the incomes become greater. I do not, however, think that this surtax is substantial. It commences with a tax of 5 per cent on the tax already assessed under the old Act, and a tax of 5 per cent on the former tax is, in my opinion, not substantial, and I cannot see that it makes any great difference in the Act.
Speaking of the classes who should be exempted, I put out in a more or less tentative manner this idea, that while possibly those who are serving in His Majesty's forces and navy should not be entirely exempted from the operation of this tax, some exemptions, greater than those ordinarily given, should be granted to them, because I think it is evident to every one that, in most cases, those who are overseas are not receiving as much as they were heretofore receiving, or as much as they would to-day he able to earn in this country. If by sending them overseas we have taken away a source of income from them, then to that extent they should he exempted from the operation of this tax.
Leaving, however, those points which are more or less smaller points in this subject, I come to the next change which has been proposed by the minister. That is the very heavily increasing taxation on incomes over $50,000. To this I can only most heartily agree and say that I personally would he willing to go considerably further in regard to those increases. There is another great class of incomes in which no change has been made. There are large incomes, underneath the sum of $50,000. per year which are not very heavily affected by the present tax. iln order that I may present this matter definitely, I shall lay before the 'House a table showing what the tax on incomes between $5,000 and $50,000 would be if the rate were doubled. This will be in the case of a married man without children, premising that the exemption would be $2,000, and that the rate between $2,000 and $3,000 would be one-half of the normal tax. This is the table:
Income.	Tax.	Net Income.$ 2,500	$ 20	$ 2,4803,000	40	2,9604,00!0	120	3,8S05,000	200	4,8006,000	280	5,72010,000	760	9,24020,000	2,5.60	17,440
I have read these figures to the House because I think they will show that even m the lowest income, for example, that of $2,500, the payment wtould be only $20. I do not think that could be considered as being too heavy a drain upon the individual, nor one which he could not well afford to pay. As we get up into the higher amounts, for example, an income of $20,000, 1 d'o not think the sum of $2,560 would be a tax which that man could not, having regard to everything in this country,. pay, and I think that the balance of $17,440 should be sufficient for him to maintain himself upon each year. The first point I want to make is that I feel that the rate under the income tax should generally be substantially increased, and that especially the higher incomes should be very substantially taxed. I believe, upon the figures which I have just given to the House, showing the effect with the rate doubled, it is apparent that each person should be able to afford the tax which he would have to pay and should have quite sufficient left to maintain himself in the degree of comfort to which he has been accustomed. If any further evidence should be required as to the possibility of a family having an income of $2,500 being able to afford a tax ci $20 and to live on a net income of $2,480, I should like, for purposes of comparison, to draw the attention) of the House to a large class of families living to-day in Canada. Every hon. member has met with them in his constituency. I refer to the families of soldiers overseas who are living on the moneys which the Government and the Patriotic Fund give to them. We all know the sort of life that some of those families have to lead. We know they have nothing but the bare necessities of life. I believe $15 is the amount of the assigned pay, $25 the amount of the separation allowance, where there are no children, and the amount donated by the Patriotic Fund varies. Think for a moment of the amount on which those families are living, and they comprise no inconsiderable proportion of the people of this country. Some
400,000	men have enlisted, and from that we can deduce the number of families in our country who are living on that scale. Personally, I believe the amounts payable to those families should be increased; but I am using this illustration to show the possibility of a family living on a less income than it now receives. I quite agree" with the statement that a tax to be successful must be popular. I believe the people of Canada would accept a very substantial increase in the income 
tax, and the more readily because the strain of war is upon them. Our people are interested in the war more than in any other question which could possibly come before them, and for that reason I think they would not object to the payment of this additional tax. It may be urged that the cost of living is higher, but on the other hand money is freer and wages in a great many, if not the majority of cases, are higher.
Another reason why I think the tax should be increased ruow is that we are having wha't might be termed a period of prosperity to a certain extent caused by war conditions, and I think we should collect for the purposes of the war a substantial portion of the money that has been made by reason of the war. I am not advocating any vfery drastic tax. I do not think the figures I have given could be considered drastic. Another reason why I think we should increase this tax now is lest our people might get the idea that the tax will never be increased, that the present tax is fixed and furnishes a precedent. If the time is ripe, and I think it is, we should move up logically to the next step.
Referring to the collection of the income tax, the Minister of Finance last session stated that one great objection to such a tax in this country was the vastness of our territory, compared to our population, which made its collection difficult, but that objection is eliminated as regards the increased tax I am proposing, because we already have our collecting system established, and it would cost very little, if anything, more to collect a higher i;ax.
Let us consider what would be the result to the finances of this country if the present income tax were doubled or trebled, and if higher rates were assessed on the bigger incomes. The Acting Minister of Finance, in introducing this tax, estimated it would yield between seventeen and twenty million dollars, and I do not think any public ^statement has been made in reference to that estimate since. Taking that as our basis, and premising the doubling or trebling of the rate and increasing the assessment on higher incomes, we could hope to obtain in this way a sum between fifty and seventy-five million dollars. I believe this amount is required in this country to-day. It is true we are paying our current expenditure, and still have some surplus to apply on our post-war indebtedness. It is all a question of the extent to which we should go >n the imposition of taxes, in the reduction of our

indebtedness, and in the amount of indebtedness we are justified in leaving to the future. I believe the amount realized from this tax, together with the surplus which we now appear to have from year to year, would enable us to reduce our war expenditure by at least one hundred million dollars a year, and I do not think we should set our ambitions at anything lower than that. England in the years 1916 and 1917 paid off 17 per cent of her war expenditure, and she did that almost entirely by direct taxation, for she has not, relatively speaking, any customs revenue. England has [DOT]done that while she is fighting with her back to the wall, while she can hear the guns of the enemy thundering across the channel. In view of the great strain and financial demands upon them and theii proximity to the wrar, it is astounding that the people of England have been able to pay off as much as 17 per cent of their war expenditure. The Americans are arranging to pay off 14 per cent, and while it is a matter for congratulation that we in Canada have paid off 11 per cent, I know of no Teason why Canada should not do as well as England and the United States, and I feel that this is possibly the easiest and most proper way to raise the money required to retire annually such a substantial portion of our war indebtedness.
It may be said by some, that if we impose such a severe tax it would interfere with our war loans. I quite agree that the major portion of the money we require to carry on this war must be obtained by means of war loans, but I do not think the imposition of this tax would interfere with the success of the war loans. After all, while the sum is substantial in itself, it is not very great for each individual, nor is it very great in comparison with the amount w'hich we may have to borrow. To take care of our war needs, the next loan may have to be for $400,000,000. I do not think the imposition of this tax would cause our people to subscribe less freely to the war loans, or decrease to any appreciable extent the funds 'which they would have to subscribe.
One thing at least is clear. By the imposition of this tax we should reach a class of our people who do not now subscribe to war loans, and who tout for the imposition of some such tax as this will never contribute to this war. From one end of our country to the other there is scattered a class, small, it is true, who for different reasons are not contributing to our war
loans, and this is the only manner in which they can be made to do their share.
I might suggest this further idea. If it is apparent to our people that their incomes will be substantially taxed for war purposes, and if we continue to make our war loans free from income tax I should imagine the imposition of this tax would incline people more and more to the purchase of war loan bonds. Whether we should issue our war loans free of income tax, is a very important 'question. In order to influence people gradually to buying loans subject to income tax, an option might be given to purchase bonds at par, [DOT]if they want them free of income tax, or [DOT]at something less than par if they are to be subject to the income tax. A gentleman suggested that to me in conversation to-day, and it is a possible mode of making the transition from loans free of income tax to' loans subject to the tax. Personally, I do not think this tax would have any bad effect on the war loans, and I certainly think it should be imposed. I think that all we have to do is to grasp this question firmly and put it through. I believe that we will find that this tax will be popular, that our people will pay it without complaining and that they will rise to the necessities of the situation by purchasing war (bonds as they did (before.
Soane people may object to the 'increase of this tax because they fear that our people, or their money to some extent, may emigrate to the United States. One can only estimate what the effect of a substantial increase in this tax may be in that regard. I can. only say in the light I have been able to obtain with regard to the question that I do not believe that such a result as this will be brought about. Eventually our indebtedness must be paid. The United States are perhaps, in some regards, not in as good a condition as we are with reference to the financial side of our war operations. We are further on in the war than they are; we know where we are; we know how much we must provide, what we have to provide for and what our expenses are. On the other hand the United States are practically commencing. They do not know what their, costs will be and' they do not know exactly the form o<f taxation which it will be advisable for them to im-po.se. So, I cannot see any great force in any comparison which might .be made if we should raise the rates of taxation in this country higher than those which exist in the United States. While that may be true with regard to emigration to the United



States, unless we substantially decrease our national debt that may aot as, a great de-terent to immigration into this country. We should endeavour to, so reduce our national delbt that after the war Canada can be looked to by the prospective immigrants as a country which, if it has not a proportionately less debt has no greater defb't than other countries which may be offering inducements to immigrants. Having regard to our great need of immigration after the var, the problem of the amount of our national debt will be an important factor, and we should endeavour to grapple with that problem now as firmly as we can. When the war is completed we will require a large amount of money to develop the resources of the country, to. carry on until they become more productive our railways to assist our returned soldiers and to promote those more or less co-operative enterprises which are creeping into our national life. We shall be very seriously handicapped if, at the end Of the war, we have made no substantial progress in redeeming an appreciable part of our national debt.
I do not believe that the imposition of this tax will tend to discourage or disorganize business in any manner. It may be true that the business profits war tax- that is, the tax on business itself-if carried too far, might discourage initiative and enterprise among business men. hut it -must be remembered that this income tax is not being levied on business itself, where perhaps some surplus is required for the purpose of new enterprises and expansion, hut it is being levied on money that is free even from the control of business organizations. It is not being taken away from any particular business. It is being taken from the moneys of individual people throughout the country and I do not see that there is any great danger of discouraging initiative or enterprise or harming business in any way. This is perhaps the feature of greatest importance that we must consider in imposing any tax. I feel personally that there is no substantial reason why the rate of this tax should not be doubled or even trebled and why incomes in the higher amounts should not he even more heavily assessed than they appear tc he in the Budget which has been brought down. I have not been able to discover any good reason why this should not be done and I feel personally very strongly that it should be done. I think that I have made out an economic case for increasing substantially the rate of this tax. There is another feature and that is that [air. Redman.]
this tax would act in the nature of an equalizer in the matter of sacrifice in this country. A large proportion of our people were called upon to go overseas, to work for $1.10 a day, to endure hardships and to run the risk of losing their lives, many have lost them. At home their families are living on the bare necessities. These men are not able tfo take advantage of the economic prosperity here as many of us who remain at home have been able to. We are enjoying all the conditions which we would have enjoyed in peace time. In addition, we are enjoying even greater prosperity than ordinarily exists in peace time. I have been very closely in touch with a large portion of those who are serving overseas ever since the outbreak of the war, and I think I can indicate to the House what their feelings are. They have a right to express their feelings in regard to this matter, and they feel that while they are doing these things for us we should sacrifice something ourselves. We should sacrifice something out of the money we are making and which we can well afford to part with. It seems to me that when our fellow Canadians overseas are endeavouring to defend us against the German onslaught we might he called upon to protect and defend this country against any burden of excessive debt or any possibility of bankruptcy. Therefore, I believe this measure will be an equalizer or sacrifice, and I believe further that those of our people who remain at home and who have not been called upon as yet to make as great a sacrifice as have the soldiers, wish to do their fair share. This tax will not be unpopular. On the contrary, it will be popular. I believe that the people expressed themselves on, that point at the last election, and that it was their intention, and their mandate to the Government to increase the taxation as well as to obtain the necessary men. For the reasons I have given, more especially for the economic reasons, I recommend that the question of substantial increases in the rates under the Income Tax Act, should receive the most careful consideration of this House.


Mr. W. C. KENNEDY (North Essex):: Mr. Speaker, like every member of the House and many taxpayers outside, I was very much interested in the Budget speech as brought down by my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance. I appreciate that at a time like this it is a very difficult matter to produce a Budget that will meet with the approval of every one. In this

time of stress and trouble in Canada it is particularly hard, but I believe that it is our duty, not only in connection with the Budget, but' in connection with any legislation that may be brought down, to have 'but one thought in mind, and but one object- in view: that is to enact such laws as will best assist our country and the Empire at the preseht time. Any criticism that I may have to offer will be absolutely with that object in view and animated by that spirit.
I feel that the Government are deserving of particular credit for their Order in Council permitting the introduction of tractors free. Anything that will tend to increase production in Canada at the present time will be of real assistance to the Allies and of real assistance to the country. I only regret that the Government do not see their way to going further and absolutely eliminating the duty on all farming implements. Personally I stand, always have stood, for a tariff for revenue purposes, but as has been well said by various hon. gentlemen, this is not the time for tariff discussion. It is rather a time when we should come to a decision to do what is best for the country; and surely no one can gainsay that what Canada needs now is greater production. If free tractors will make for greater production, surely free agricultural implements of all kinds will make for that result to an even greater extent, and I believe the Government s-honld give this matter further consideration.
So far as the Te-imposition of the Business Profits War Tax is concerned, I feel that the action of the Government will meet with the approval of the people at large. I do not agree with one hon. gentleman who said that perhaps the business interests will feel aggrieved. .My own experience of the business men of Canada, -during this war, is that they have been generous of their time, generous of their money, and even generous of their families, and I believe they will be the last to grumble with respect to any taxes *which the Government require them to pay. But, Sir, should there be men -mong them who do not desire to pay over to the Government some of the profits they are receiving at the present time, it is fitting and proper that measures should he taken that will enable the Government to collect such profits.
I quite -agree with wha-t my hon. friend from East Calgary (iMr. Redman) has said with reference to the Income Tax, and
89i
I think the proposition should receive 'the careful consideration of the Government. I believe that the men who are in a position to pay that tax should be required to pay, 'that the men who are in a position to carry the burden should be made to carry it; and the burden -should be made as *light as possible upon those who can least *afford to pay it, that jie, the forking classes of Canada. I agree with the hon. member for Calgary that if it is not too late some action -should be taken along that line.
In connection with the Income Tax, there :is a matter which affects our own locality, to which I would- be glad to call the attention of the Acting Minister of Finance, and *it is this: Living on the border, as we do in the city of Windsor, there are many of our citizens who -are employed across the river in the city of Detroit, and, vice versa, there are many citizens of Detroit who are employed in Windsor. To-day Canadians who cross 8rom Windsor to work in Detroit are subjected 'to a tax of two and a half per cent on their wages, *but there is no provision for such a tax *on American workmen crossing to our side. I do not advocate imposing a tax on American workmen coming into Canada, because I realize that in many instances their wages are not very large and they could not perhaps afford1 to pay it, but I do believe there should he some reciprocal arrangement between the two countries that -would free our people from the obligation *of paying this tax. I do not know whether *the minister has had the matter before him, but I hope that representations have been made to Washington that will enable us to bring about a settlement o-f this matter -in a manner that will be satisfactory to our people.
There is -another suggestion that I wish to offer to the minister. There may be reasons why it should not be accepted, but they do not occur to me at the moment, and that is ini connection- with the Business Profits- War Tax and the Income Tax. It would seem to me advisable, if possible, that when statements are sent in by corporations or by individuals, they should be accompanied by a cheque for the amount which is owing the Government at that time. I know of some cases-and I have no doubt there are other members of the House who know of many cases-in so far as the Business Profits Tax is concerned, dating back to 1915 that have not been adjusted. This country is a heavy borrower, and if it is possible to adjust anything that may he wrong in this statement, it is just

as easy and just as feasible to adjust it with a cheque rather than to allow the matter to drift for two or three years with the amount that is due remaining uncollected. I believe if the Finance Minister will take that matter under advisement he will probably find it will enable him to come into .the immediate possession of many millions of dollars that otherwise he anight have to w'ait for until the matters in dispute have been adjusted. I give the suggestion to the hon. gentleman for what it is worth.
J am heartily in accord with the tax that has been placed upon the packers; after listening to the statement of my honl friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) tonight, 'I do not (believe there is a man in the House who will say that he is not heartily dn accord with the tax which has been placed, upon those gentlemen. My thought in connection with this matter is this: I hope that the Government of this country will not realize a five cent piece from the excess profits so far as the packers are concerned; there should be some regulation of prices in the interest of the consumer, and if this is done there will be no excess profits. I know what I am talking about, because I live in a city and I am in touch with workingmen who are earning three to four dollars a day. It is difficult for them to get along as it is, and properly care for their families, bearing in mind the high prices exacted for food, clothing, shoes, rent and fuel, without paying profits either to the packers or to the Government. It does not make very much difference to the workingman with his three and a half or four dollars a day, whether the profits go to the packer or go to the Government. In the one instance he, perhaps, gets an indirect benefit, but that benefit is not very apparent to him when he draws his wages at the end of the week and settles his bills. Therefore, I believe that, if possible, legislation should be enacted with a view to regulating prices in the interest of the working classes. I do not know whether the Food Control Board can be utilized in this connection, certainly some effort should be made to regulate food prices so that the average worker may have the opportunity to live like a white man in this country of ours.
There is one tax that I do not agree wdth, but take great exception to, and that is the tax on tea. It does seem to me that the Government could have found some other method of raising three million dollars per annum than by taxing the poor man's table

I would suggest to the Finance Minister that he take a look at the Financial Times of Saturday, April 20, 1918, where he will notice an interesting statement. It shows that $500,000,000 constituted the three-yeax profits of ninety companies, and the paper in question gives a list of the companies. Some of them were food companies, some were steel companies, and all of them will bear inspection. It seems to me that many of these companies could well have contributed the $3,000,000 that is being exacted from the people of Canada by a ten-cent tax on tea. Now, the Financial Times is a very responsible paper; it speaks for " the interests " in this country, if any paper does, and it says this:
Five Canadian steel companies: Dominion Steel Corporation, Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, Lake Superior Corporation, Ontario Steel Products, and the Steel Company of Canada for 1917 report earnings aggregating $27,582,623, compared with $9,341,460 in 1915, being an increase of 196 per cent.
I have also before me the annual report of the Steel Company of Canada, which shows that in 1914 the profits for the year were $539,811, and in 1917, the net profits, after deducting charges for repairs, maintenance and improvements, and providing for war tax, amounted to $6,040,318. The figures which I have given might well be investigated by the Government, when perhaps the Acting Minister of Finance would find some other way of raising the $3,000,000 that he proposes to collect by a tax on tea. I have another suggestion to offer in connection with the $3,000,000, and that is that the Order in Council to control the packers should be made retroactive, thus enabling the Acting Finance Minister to go back after Sir Joseph Flavelle and his eighty per cent. If the Acting Finance Minister does that it will meet with the approval of the people, and the Government will stand high in the public estimation. Furthermore, by carrying out my suggestion they will be placing the burden where it properly belongs.
There is another matter that to my mind merits the attention of this House, a matter which concerns the whole of our people and yet seems to have passed unnoticed-I refer to the amalgamation of banks. We who have been reading the press know that very re' cently there have been two amalgamations, and we know that slowly, but surely, the number of chartered banks in this country is decreasing. During the past ten years the chartered banks have decreased from thirty-four to nineteen, and it will only be a matter of a short time until we probably

will (have in 'this country three great banking systems, perhaps the Bank of Montreal, the Canadian Bank of Commerce, and the Royal Bank. And these banks, with a couple dozen of directors, will control the finances of this country. I do not believe [DOT]that that will be a good thing for Canada. Nor do I believe that any amalgamation of banks should occur at the present time, at least until the matter is brought before the Banking and Commerce Committee and this House. We are the representatives of the people; the banks are the trustees of the people. The people place their money in the banks, and they should be under Government regulations, as they are. I cannot see why the Acting Minister of Finance, or the Governor in "^Council, should have the power to permit the amalgamation of .banks without having the matter discussed in the House. I can appreciate that under some conditions there might be necessity for immediate action to protect the depositors or shareholders, but I do not believe that under proper Government inspection there is even a remote contingency of that kind. I think the banks in this .country are strong financially, and certainly the amalgamation that tobk place the other day between the Bank of Montreal and the Bank of British North America had no justification. We, representing the (people, should have the opportunity of knowing why these amalgamations are [DOT]being made and what their object is.
You know, .Sir, that in the United States very recently-and I speak very deferentially of the United States, because I notice that hon. gentlemen opposite are giving it some thought these days and are treatr ing the United States rather deferentially too-a law was enacted, as against what they term interlocking directorates. We in 'Canada seem to be getting away from that, and we are interlocking the banks rather than the directorates. I think the time has reasonably come when the law .should be changed. Perhaps it is almost sacriligeous to say a word against the (Canadian banking system. We are told [DOT]from early morning till late at night that it is the greatest system in the world, that it makes currency elastic, that it keeps [DOT]up the credit of the country, that it is so superior that no other possible system should be thought of. I believe it is a good system so far as elasticity of currency is concerned. But, while it may be a better system than they have in the United States, the Americans seem to have worried along pretty well notwithstanding the fact that their system does not begin to compare with
ours. From my knowledge of it, I have no hesitation in saying that they seem to be pretty well satisfied with it. It does something which this system of ours does not do; it encourages the growth of smaller communities and builds up small towns and cities. Under the system in vogue in Canada, the banks, outside of two or three great centres, are simply depositories. They obtain what deposits they can, which are transferred as speedily as possible to the head offices which use them for any purpose desired. It is a well known fact that money which should have been used for the development of Canadian manufacturing and other enterprises has gone into Mexico, the West Indies, South America and even into far-off Spain;-and to Germany also, as the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Joseph Read) informs me. There is a difference between this and the American banking system. Under the American system, if a man wants a credit he goes to the 'bank, and fifteen minutes afterwards he knows whether he is to get it or not. The personality of the borrower, not always the collateral that he takes with him, is the basis of the credit. A man's character, his business ability, his record in the community, are large considerations under the American banking system. What happens under our Canadian system? When a man outside a large centre wants money, he goes to the local manager of a bank and fills out two or three forms, which are forwarded to the inspector for the district. The inspector examines these carefully and turns them over to the second vice-president, second general manager, or somebody else, who, ii the loan is large enough or of sufficient consequence, turns the matter over to the board of directors. If the directors do not want the money for some one close at home on the day in question, the man is liable to get it-but he is more liable not to get it. That is the difference between tile United States system and ours. The great New England manufacturing centres have been built up by the American banking system. In banking, as in other businesses, one requires competition. It is a mistake to permit banks to amalgamate, and I submit that no further amalgamations should *be permitted without good reason therefore being given on the floor of this House.
Since I have been in this House I have heard a great deal about what the Government have been doing; how very capable the administration has been; how glad the people ought to be because they have Union Government. May I say to hon. gentlemen

how the Victory Loan was arranged for, and that he will not do anything along the same lines, but will do something different. I do not believe that the Minister of Finance handled the Victory Loan in the proper -manner. If the Government will go out to the people of the different cities and towns in this country, they will receive the support of all the business men, who will be glad to give their time for nothing so as to help this country in this great crisis.
Mr. W. F. OOCKS'HUTT (Brantford): Mr. Speaker, I presume it is the wish of the House that the debate should he continued. I do not like to inflict myself upon the members at so late an hour as this; but if it is the wish of the House, I shall proceed, and my good frend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) may bear a part of the blame on account of his three and a half hour's speech.
The proposals of the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean) were very well placed before the House, and with them I am in hearty accord. I am sorry I cannot agree with the criticisms of my hon. frend from North Essex (Mr. Kennedy) with regard to the duty on tea. No fitter tax could possibly be placed on anything in Canada that is not taxed than the tea and coffee tax. That is a 'tax that touches everybody-and so it should. The war is everybody's war, and those that cannot be reached through the Income Tax, which is only for those who have a considerable income, can be reached by such minor taxes as that, and I must entirely dissent from my hon. friend in taking exception to the taxing of tea and coffee, because those are natural products that are used by everybody and are very legitimate objects of taxation. Our hon. friends opposite are very fond of quoting free trade England, as to what should be taxed and what not. Even now the tax on tea in Canada is very much less than the tax on f'ea in free trade England, and the same is true in regard to coffee and cocoa. *Therefore, my hon. frend, if he is a free trader, must say that the precedent is good when the acting minister has adopted a tax that has been in vogue in Great Britain fo.r upwards of a quarter of a .century, and which is bringing into them .million of pounds sterling per annum. In my judgment, this tax should have been imposed three years- ago. When the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) made his first Budget speech after the war *started, I told him privately that he had .missed the best opportunity of taxation I 
knew of, and that was- tea. IBe told me it would be putting a great deal of money into the pockets of tea holders, but the Acting Minister of Finance has shown that -there can be placed upon tea a tax which [DOT]is not only prospective, but .retroactive, [DOT]and it will be collected on all the teas -that are in store as well as on teas that .are now 'to be stored. This is very commendable, and the acting minister has [DOT]followed that policy with regard -to so-me other matters mentioned in his tax list. . The new taxation is moderate and judicious and cannot reasonably be taken exception- to by any of our citizens. Exception has been taken to it to a certain extent, but, I think, in a very limited way by our friends opposite who have spoken *on the question up to the present. Taxation, in all its forms, is more or less .objectionable, and no one likes to be taxed -in any way that can possibly be avoided, -but in war times such as these taxation as absolutely necessary in order that the coffers of the Government may be filled. The coffers of the .Government have been [DOT]fairly well filled during the past year, and *the Acting Minister of Finance has- been .able to 'tell us we have a surplus over ordinary expenditure of about 555,000,000.
It is true my hon. friend from Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) takes-exception to that and says there is no surplus at all if the book-keeping is properly done. He says the acting 'minister is crediting all the taxes raised for war purposes in order to .make a good showing. But in doing that he is only pursuing the policy that has been adopted by all Finance Ministers in the past, including the Finance Minister of the Government of which my hon. friend was a supporter for so many years. They all took this taxation and credited it as the Acting Minister of Finance has done on this occasion. There are those, I know, who think that the taxation should take care of pretty nearly all the cost of the war, but in my judgment that is not a well founded opinion. This is not a war of this generation alone. This war was not brought about iby the men of Canada; we were forced into it, and in my judgment it is up to posterity as well as to the present generation to pay a share of the cost of this war, and future generations will recognize that in no uncertain way; "they will admit that part of Hie burden borne by the Allied countries has justly been placed on them, and they will bear their fair share in the years to come. When the young men of this generation are going forth to fight-

and they are worth more than our money, when they are giving their life's blood in order that the future generation may be spared such a war-it is but a light thing to ask that posterity should help pay the cost of this war. I think the Finance Minister has been very wise in not attempting to pay all the cost of the war at the present, time, and I know that here I am not in accord with two or three hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who spoke yesterday. The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Blake) stated that the people should pay the cost of the war practically as we went along; that is an impossibility, and it would be unwise for us to do it even if it were possible. This war is for future generations as well as for the present, and posterity should bear, and will be willing to bear, part of the burden that has been added to the public debt. We are giving our young men, who cannot be replaced. Capital can be replaced, either by borrowing or by production. Therefore, I say, this generation is making a sacrifice that the future generations will not ^ be called upon to make. We believe the object is worth the price. We are fighting for the liberties of the world, fighting that right may prevail, and that iniquity wherever it is exalted shall be brought low. The utmost that we can do to win the war ie what is required of us at the present time. Nothing else counts. That is the reason we have at the present time a Government that has been brought together with the object of winning the war. That brings me to a point my hon. friend from North Cape Breton made in his discursive speech of three hours and a half. He referred to me as the first man to say that there was an agreement entered into as to the formation of this Government. I was not in the House when he made that statement-I endeavoured to put in the three hours while he was speaking, but I could not put in all the time. Now 1 am not in possession of any private information that is not open to the hon. gentleman, or that has not been open to him as to any agreement or agreements that were made between the various parties composing the present Government. What I stated the other evening was* what I believed to be the truth, and what is common knowledge not only to the members of this House who take any interest in current events but to all those who read the newspapers. The newspapers have said there was an agreement by which Union Government w*as brought about. Otherwise, the Union Government could not have been brought together. This Union Government, as I understand it, ie composed of men from both sides of politics who were prepared to sink all difference and strive to win* the war; that was the one and sole purpose. ' That was declared from every platform in our part of the country, and I am sorry Cape Breton is so far from the centre of civilization and population that the hon. member did not hear of it until now. It appears our hon. friend from Cape Breton North never heard of it during the election. Up in our part of the country it was announced from every platform that that was the basis of Union Government, that all minor matters were to stand aside, that all these matters the hon. gentleman has referred to in his discursive speech of three and a half hours to-night were not to be mentioned by men on this side of the House. The one 6ole object was to win the war, believing that nothing else mattered, believing that if we lost the war we lost everything.	That was what brought
these, men	together-and all honour
to them-who, holding their opinions just as strongly as I bold mine, were prepared to lay them aside and to say; This is a special time when men are called upon to sacrifice, and we propose to sacrifice our opinions for the general good, and to devote ourselves entirely to the winning of the war and to nothing else until that has been accomplished.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. gentleman will sacrifice everything but ploughs.


William Foster Cockshutt: I will come to that presently.


Mr. JOSEPH READ:: With reference to potatoes, I should like to ask-
Mr. 'COCKSHUTT:	I shall come to
.McIntyre potatoes presently. My hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) has said that I am ready to sacrifice everything but implements. Hei may think I am a man who avoids difficulties, but I will tell him that J am going to face that question a little later on if he will have patience. I say that the people of this country are unanimously back of this Government with the object of winning the war. They sent this Government here with a majority the like of which has never been seen in Canada before, and great things are expected of it. If my hon. friends do not believe that, let them read the returns which were placed on the table a few days ago showing the majorities by which members of the House were elected, and they will see that the overwhelming opinion bf this country was

in favour of just what was proposed; that is, the winning of the war and letting all these minor issues which it is so easy to raise and so hard to allay, stand aside as matters of small moment until the one aim had been accomplished of downing the [DOT]enemy, backing the boys at the front, and seeing that the sinews of war are provided in the way that Canada is able to provide them. That is what this Government was *elected to do, and that is what this Government have set about to do. I do not admire the spirit that has prompted my hon. friend from North Cape Breton to-night to drag in so many ulterior subjects when the Empire is fighting for its life, when the liberty of the world is at stake, and when all those institutions that we have devoted generations to building up are in the balance and in danger of being lost. At a time like this my hon. friend would have us pay attention to some cobbler's letter that has been written from some little village or town up West. My hon. friend was surely trifling when he wished this House in war time to come down to such small talk as the greater part of his speech consisted of. I must say that for a man who has occupied a seat upon the Bench the frivolity with which he can debate public questions for such a length of time is surprising. My hon. friend asks if it was a shoemaker's bench. I cannot say whether it was so valuable as that. I do not know what kind of a bench it was but I am told that the hon. gentleman descended from a bench to come here.
Mr. McKENZIE- The hon. gentleman is po*sibly looking fo: another invitation to go outside.


William Foster Cockshutt: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: A commission of superb liars.


William Foster Cockshutt: I do not know whether my hon. friend thinks that he is parliamentary or not, but I do not think he is, Mr. Speaker. One or two of these gentlemen are in the Senate. They are just as honourable as is the hon. gentleman, and when he says that they are superb liars I would ask him to take that back. I would ask you to rule upon it, Mr. Speaker. At least one of these men is a member of the Senate.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That does not matter; he was not a senator then.


William Foster Cockshutt: I would appeal to you, Mr. Speaker. I ask if the characterization of superb liars, as applied to the members of a Royal commission appointed to investigate this railway, and one of whom at least is in the Senate, is a proper expression and whether it is parliamentary.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I do not think that the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) meant to cast any reflection upon any member of the Senate, but if he did so, he should withdraw the expression


William Foster Cockshutt: I do not wish to
dissent from your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is a very mild one under the circumstances.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the hon. gentleman tell this House why it was that toe Government which he supports never dared to introduce that report into' this House or to mention it within the walls of the Parliament of Canada?


William Foster Cockshutt: If my memory serves me, they not only introduced it, but we had a very long debate upon it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: You never did anything at all with it.


William Foster Cockshutt: I think the famous
George Graham, iwho no longer sits where my hon. friend sits, but who, I think, filled the seat fully better than my hon. friend does, made his famous speech of seven or eight hours upon the report of that commission.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He killed the report.


William Foster Cockshutt: It is still alive, and
if my hon. friend will allow me, I am going to tell him what that commission found.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I know what it found.


William Foster Cockshutt: I might refresh the
hon. gentleman's memory. If he does not know of any dollar that the Government which he supported misappropriated, I might remind him that this commission found that in that one matter alone they misappropriated $40,000,000 of the people's money. If the hon. gentleman has forgotten it I have not. Does he remember it now that I have refreshed his memory?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is not true.


William Foster Cockshutt: The hon. gentleman
says it is not true. What proof has he that it is not true? The facts and figures

are all given and they are recorded in black and white on the testimony of three men who spent a year or more investigating the building of that road. My hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) comes back with a very glib statement. Well, perhaps I can remind him of something else he has heard about, and that is the Quebec bridge. Did he ever bear of that? Does he know what happened to that bridge? Does he know how it happened that this country lost about twelve or fifteen million dollars in that structure alone? Still the hon. gentleman says that the Laurier Government have not misappropriated a dollar. The hon. gentleman probably has also forgotten the Newmarket canal. Did he ever hear of that? No, it is a long way from Cape Breton, and he does not travel very far from there to get his information. The Newmarket canal is a canal which exists without water; water is supposed to be pumped in under pressure of man-power to keep it going.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: You have some windmills up there that you do not want to hear about.
Mr. COCKS'HTJTT: There are some gas engines in the House that are very good indeed. If my hon. friend wants to be pugnacious I am quite willing to be the same. It is not very edifying, I admit, but when my hon. friend undertakes to tell this House that the Laurier Government never misappropriated a dollar I want to remind him of a few millions that were misspent, and there are many more that he can be reminded of if he looks through the whole period of fifteen years that he has traversed to-night.
The basis, as I have said, of the present Union Government was the winning of the war, and in order that I might not be recognized as the sole authority that there was such an arrangement, I want to read before I conclude an article that appeared in one of the western papers. I am very glad it came from the West because! the value of things of this nature is almost double if produced West of the Great Lakes.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is a good place to get them.


William Foster Cockshutt: It is a good place to get them, as my hon. friend says, and I certainly have got very good testimony on that ground from the West. I believe that the whole conception of this basis of union was a very wise one, and I think it is desirable that we should know whether or not it is true. My hon. friend has said that he did not know that there was such a

thing until I brought it to his attention. Well, I have here an article which I am going to read.
I shall not take my seat until I have dealt a little with the tariff question, with which my name has been so much identified by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) and other hon. gentlemen. That is one of my reasons for taking part in this debate; I had no intention of doing so had not hon. gentlemen opposite devoted a great deal of attention to me. I am looked upon as a kind of a monster who is engaged in a business that its more illicit apparently than the liquor traffic, or anything of that sort. A man who is engaged in manufacturing, or supposed to be connected in any way, either directly or indirectly, with manufacturing, especially the manufacture of implements, seems to be regarded as a monster of the very deepest dye, who should not appear in polite society to any extent. My hon. friend from Brome shakes his head, but I am not imputing such ideas to him at all. Indeed, I have not the slightest objection to the remarks he made with regard to myself.
I am going to refer to that a little later on. I have said that there was a basis of union that was well defined, if not placed upon paper, and that was that all minor matters-I judge everything but the winning of the war to be a minor matter- were to be left in abeyance. That is the reason I made the statement. Hon. gentlemen opposite apparently thought that the joints of our armour could be most easily pierced in the tariff direction, and it is against the tariff, and especially against farm implements, that their attack is now directed. It is true that my hon. friend (Mr. MeCrea) who is sitting on the front bench opposite, and who represents the paper business, has received a little bit of notoriety as well, and is, perhaps, a joint sinner with myself. He is a manufacturer engaged in the paper business. While my business is condemned by the member for Brome, that of the member for Sherbrooke I take it is largely supported by him-


Mr. McCREA:: There is no protection on our business now.


William Foster Cockshutt: -at least, that is the attitude to which he addressed himself. I want now to read the article to which I referred. It is expressed, I admit, in rather strong language, hut they do use rather strong language in the West. Being a man of moderate words, I think I should have put it more mildly. But it is so much in

accord with what I believe that I cannot do better than read it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where was it published?


William Foster Cockshutt: In the Winnipeg Telegram, which, I suppose, is known to some of our western friends, especially those from Winnipeg. I have occasionally seen it, and think it a well edited paper. I think the article appeared on March 30, although there is no date marked on it:


THE TARIFF DANGER.
[Stage Direction]
Nothing more dangerous to the continued existence of the Union Government could well be imagined than the injection into -parliamentary discussion at this time of the tariff issue.	*
1 commend that to my hon. friend the member for ©rome.
This fact is -recognized, not only by the more responsible members of the Union party, but by the Laurier Opposition itself. For the very reason that it recognizes this question as the most vulnerable spot in the armour of the Union party, the Opposition would welcome any introduction of the tariff issue into the deliberations of Parliament.
Only toy some such means could Laurier hope to divert to his own purposes the votes of certain ill-advised1 and short-sighted advocates of tariff changes among the Union majority-and he has no doubt hopes also of certain of the members of the cabinet itself- with a view to overthrowing the Government by s-tirring up discord over such a bitterly controversial subject.
It was well understood that above all things the tariff question was to be. shelved until after the war.
I hope my hon. friend from Gape Breton will take note of these words.	-
That was the understanding upon which the Union movement was based. In no other way could the Union movement have made any headway. Every public man who had anything to do with the negotiations which led to the formation of the Union party was a party to that understanding. It was openly discussed; it was freely published; it was authoritatively announced. On the question of whether or not there was such an agreement there can toe no doubt whatever. The agreement was understood by everybody to be in effect.
To break that agreement now would be a breach of faith, a betrayal of trust, which would be inexcusable. Not only would it he morally reprehensible, but in practice it would have the effect of destroying the unity of Union. It would result in the wreck of the Union Government. It would jeopardize the most vital interests of the nation.
Unfortunately there are Unionist members of Parliament pledged to refrain from advocating tariff alterations during the war who are to-day openly advocating and demanding those very changes.
However honest such men may toe in general, in this particular they are both dishonsst and dangerous in the extreme.
Unfortunately the Government has given a measure of encouragement to such unreliable persons toy showing a willingness to tamper with the National Policy on which Canada's successful past was -built, and on which its present and future prosperity depends.
This war has shown us as nothing else could show us the essential need of protecting and building up great industries from one end of Canada to the other. We must contiue steadily to become a completely organized and completely developed nation. We must not specialize in any one line of enterpries to the destruction of all other enterprises. We must be universal. We must become self-contained and dependent solely upon our own resources in any emergency that may face us.
The majority of the people of Canada recognize this fact. The minority, unfortunately, do not. For a generation, majority and minority have fought over this controversial subject both in and out of Parliament. Probably for years to come there will still be those who are determined to keep it within the realm of controversy. Consequently there is no pressing need to attempt to finish this domestic fight to-day.
The Union Government was elected for one purpose, and for one purpose alone-that was to win the war. All its followers were pledged to the same policy to the exclusion of all other policies. Any man so elected who undertakes to change his mind at this -late date will prove himself to he a -traitor to those electors of diametrically different views on questions of domestic policy who united on the one great patriotic policy for the -preservation of their country.
Canada is destined one day to be as great a nation as the great republic to the south. Canada will run a serious risk of missing that destiny, of ceasing to be a nation at all, if the present national trustees of her honour permit themselves to toe drawn into a domestic wrangle that will incapacitate them for accomplishing the one great thing for which they were appointed trustees.
There, Mr. Speaker, is a strong finding, and one, I think, that will carry conviction to the minds of all when they review the circumstances under which we are placed, jit was not my wish then that this tariff issue should have been raised at this time, -but I say, as one who has been attacked considerably during this debate by members, perhaps, on both sides of the House, that I feel it is my duty to stand to my guns, even if I do not have very much support. I am one of those who hold my opinion as conscientiously and as consistently, I think, as most, and whether hon. gentlemen agree with me or not, I think they will recognize that I try to be a fair fighter, and hang to my opinions when I -feel them to be right in the face of all opposition. And that is the reason I am to-day, as I have always been since I was a boy and took any part in public matters, a consistent supporter of the National Policy, or of protection to a moderate degree for the industries of Canada. I have -no apology to make for holding that opin-
[Stage Direction]
ion to-day. lit has been justified now by forty years of experience. Canada has gone too far along that road of development ever again to retrace its steps and become a purely agricultural country. I *say that believing it to be absolutely true, and without any fear of successful contradiction. All men are not fit for the land; all men cannot make a success on the land; and why should my friend, who is a paper manufacturer, and I, who am more or less connected with the agricultural implement business, though having nothing whatever to do with its management, be condemned for helping in the upbuilding of the Dominion of Canada? That is what we are trying to do consistently, and we look upon a dollar produced in the factory as just as valuable as a dollar produced upon the farm. I know there are those who object to that statement, but that is our view which we honestly hold. I want to point out to gentlemen on both sides of the House that Canada to-day is no longer a purely agricultural country, that at least half its citizens, and I think a good deal more, derive their livelihood from other callings, and very nearly half our citizens are employed in factories. I am speaking now of that half of our citizens who are workers and producers. About half of them are workers in the factories of Canada.
My hon. friend from Brome, and, I think, most of those who took exception to the implement business being protected, say it is a mere handful of men that these duties are being exacted, for. To all who hold that view I say, it is not the manufacturer who, I admit, is a negligible quantity, but all his workers who must be recognized as manufacturers and as master builders. Regardless of the opinions of those who may differ from me, I believe the workers in the factories of Canada work as intelligently and as hard, and put in as many hours, too, in the year, as do those of any other calling. That may be disputed, but let me point out that they work twelve months in the year, nine hours per day; whereas the agriculturist and the outside .worker, though he puts in twelve to sixteen hours a day for a certain part of the year, has a great deal of sitting in in the winter time, while the workman has to put in just as many hours in the cold as in the heat. And, I tell you, it is the experience of many farmers who thought it was " easy money " in the city and have come in to make money in the factory, that, after putting in a few months, they have decided that the farm is hard enough for

them and who go back to the fann. The lot of the workingman in a factory is harder than out on the farm, to say nothing of the danger he has of being injured, for in the heavy industries there are accidents every day. In the big smelting industries, and those requiring intense heat, he must work in the terrible heat; he has to endure that heat in the dog days when the temperature is 80 to 90 degrees outside and 120 degrees inside. Anybody who thinks that the workingman should not have some consideration is shooting entirely beside the mark.
1 want to -approach this subject, not from the position of a few manufacturers who control the capital, but from the position of the manufacturer and all his assistants, because the man behind the gun is the man that makes the factory, and the product cannot be turned out from the factory unless you have the men, as everybody knows, We have in the factories to-day probably six or seven hundred workmen, as intelligent as any in the world, who are producing per man as much as any country in the world barring only the United States, which exceeds us by a small amount. The average product of the workman in Canada is about four times what it is for the British workman, and between four and five times what it is for the German workman. You ask how I make that out. On the basis of the amount of power that is applied behind the individual workimah, and on that Ibasi6 the horse-power is threefold what it is in the older countries of Europe. In other words, we do by machinery, what is done in the older countries by hand. Anybody can see why production will be vastly more by machinery than by hand power alone. This applies to- a very large number of the industries of Canada. The prosperity that has been experienced by the people of Canada during the war is very largely due to the fact that Canada was a manufacturing country when the war broke out, and we were in a very feeble position comparatively financially, and would have been in a very awkward position, had not our works been available for the manufacture: of munitions of war. They were promptly turned to this work, with the result that millions and millions of money have come across the water and have helped to- finance all our industries and have kept us going in a prosperous way, enabling us to lend hundreds of millions, to the Mother Country, and to pay a large proportion of our war expenditure as we go along. That has been possible because years ago we es-

tablished a protective policy and laid the foundations broad and deep to make Canada a world power. Let it not be forgotten that Canada is destined, if we manage our public affairs aright, to become a world power by reason of the variety of industries we have in our mid-st. We have immense natural resources in the forest, the mine, the fisheries and the field. Wherever you -look, we have all the resources necessary to make of us a great people. And it is too late in the day, as I said, to- think of turning back now when -we are producing in our factories about a billion and a half dollars, as we did last year. In point of value, exports of products of the factory vastly exceeded those of products of the farm. Does the member for Brome object to that statement? I believe it to be absolutely true.
i Mr. MciMASTER: Would this year or last year be a fair period for the making of a comparison between exports of agricultural products and those of the factory?
Mr. COCK811UTT: No; I admit the force of what my hon. friend says-a large amount of this export has been possible because of the war. But if we had not laid, broad and deep the foundations, of our industrial institutions while peace was with us, we should -not have been able to take care of this war business. We had the plants, the resources, the enterprise, the skilled Avorkmen-all that made it possible to produce what wTe produced last year, about i$l,500,000,000 worth of goods, a large amount of which was exported to the Mother .Country to help win the war. Exports to the Mother Country up to March 31, 1917- .the figures for 1918, which I have not before me, are considerably larger- amounted to $790,000,000, a large portion of which consisted of munitions. This export has helped to sustain the Mother Country in her hour of need, and it speaks volumes for the industry, intelligence and enterprise of our people and the extent of the .accumulation of capital in our. industries. / I do not know why a man should he (blamed because he has. been successful. (A-s long as a man is losing money and his business is going to the dogs, he escapes criticism; hut the moment he begins to *make money, show enterprise, diring about development, people say:	let us get after
that fellow and put him out of business; he is making too much money. We had .the spectacle last night of the member for Prince, P.E.II. (Mir. Joseph Read) asking that new duties be placed on lead, simply because he had a son in that business somewhere in British Columbia; and at the same time calling for the pulling down of an industry that it has taken thirty years to build up. .In- other words, the is prepared to throw away the successful work of thirty years and to start a new enterprise, such as- the smelting of lead, (because his son in British Columbia thinks it would be a good thing and asks him to endeavour t-o bring it about.
The member for Brome is an intelligent man and an acquisition to the House-I say this without flattery. I have had the pleasure of meeting him in committee work on different occasions, and have looked upon his opinions as being very valuable. The hon. gentleman paid particular attention to what he considered my own business. He probably does not know that personally L have nothing whatever to do with the management of any agricultural implement business or the fixing of the prices of agricultural implements. I am simply a shareholder who has long since retired from an active part in the management of a business. The hon. gentleman quoted from some remarks of mine which he said he had been carrying around in his pocket. I deem it a high compliment to me that he should carry my remarks for months in his pocket. If he wants to be an intelligent statesman. I do not know that I can recommend him to a higher authority, especially if he is studying matters pertaining to the tariff. I am glad that the hon. gentleman, who has been in the House only a short time, should have discovered that I made a speech on this subject six years ago, and that he has taken part of his inspiration with respect to the policy which he has propounded, from the remarks which I made on that occasion. I feel it my duty to myself and to those who are looking to me for information that I should make my own defence in my own humble way with regard to any connection that I have with the implement business and show exactly what that business is and has been and what it hopes to be in the future.
In the Canadian Almanac for 1918 I find that the tariff on "implements, agricultural (wheeled), operated by hand power for use as seed drills, cultivators and .ploughs," is: British preferential, 121 per cent; intermediate 17£ per cent; general, 20 per cent; while the duty on implements not otherwise specified as above is 15, 221 and 25 per cent. In addition to that, there is a war tax of 71 per cent. I do not know that this is considered a very excessive duty. In the old reform days, a tariff for
[Stage Direction]
revenue only of 20 per cent was looked upon as moderate; not until that rate was exceeded was there talk of protection for special industries. I do not think, therefore, that my hon. friend can reasonably make complaint with regard to the amount of duty charged upon implements.
To all who have criticised the implement business in this country, I say that that business occupies as high a position in Canada as any other industry, and that agricultural implements are sold in Canada of as good a quality and as cheaply, excepting only a few sold in the United States, as those placed on the market in any other country in the world. The member for Brome, who is giving me an attentive hearing, will, I am sure, agree with me in that respect. I am aware that the farmer chafes under this duty and is asking for relief. The Government endeavoured to grant him a little relief-it was a small mistake on the part of the Government, but I look upon it as a serious mistake in principle-when they took the duty off farm tractors. Within twenty-four hours after that action had been taken my protest was on the way to Ottawa. I do not know whether anything of that kind will occur again, but I hope not, because that is not what this Government was elected for, and it cannot be looked upon as a war measure. If the Government removed the duty from agricultural implements, not one additional bushel would be added to Canada's production during this time of war, nor would the slightest reduction in price be effected in respect of any article of food by reason of the removal of that duty. All manufacturers- not only those of agricultural implements- in sending out their price lists, have regard to the cost of production. The cost of production is the keystone to the selling price, and to that is added a fixed amount of profit which varies in different indusrties from 10 to perhaps 50 per cent. The member for Brome will agree, I think, that the cost of production should he the basis of the price. But when we come to compare that with agricultural produce, the argument is thrown altogether aside.
I only regret that my hon. friend from Kent (Mt. MeCoig) is not in his seat. I wanted to hand out a small bouquet to him. I look upon him as a " seven by nine " statesman, that is, a man of very narrow breadth who cannot see beyond the water-ditches of his own county either in peace or war. Yesterday that hon. gentleman made an attack on the implement men
[(Mr. Cockshutt.]
*who are just as good and stand just as high in the community as does my hon. friend. I want to ask him: What about the price of beans? Let him tell us what he charges for his beans, and we will give our prices on agricultural implements. He accused a company of which he says I am a member-he used my name very freely- of advancing their price 25 per cent over others, and he quoted a firm in St. Thomas manufacturing ploughs-and he will excuse me, 1 hope, if I say that I never heard of them before. Upwards of 75 per cent of the ploughs manufactured in Canada are manufactured in the city of Brantford. They are not made by the Cockshutt firm alone, but by other firms in that city, and we think we have the business down to a science. Since the National Policy was introduced, the price of those implements has been more than cut in two. That is something to say, but the hon. member for Kent who pointed out such terrible overcharges with regard to agricultural implements, is prepared to sell for seven or eight dollars a bushel beans that cost $1 to $1.25 in pre-war days. I have bought hundreds of bushel,S' of them myself for that price.	The same is true in, regard to hie com. Let imy hon. friend look to hie own in, the county of Kent before he begins, to thrash the manufacturers of agricultural implements. We would think that we were robbing the people were we to ask the advances that his people-and I understand he is in the business-lare making out of their beans and pork. We base selling prices entirely upon the cost of production, that is the basis upon which our sales are made. But the cost of production has nothing to do with my hon. friend who sells for $8 a bushel his beans that ©an probably be pro-duced-now in war times for $2. He charges $8 a bushel because the people must have them. Let him hand out his prices. If we were to listen to my hon. friend from Kent we would think he was a man who got along on about five per cent profit.
My hon. friend from Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) will excuse me for diverting for a moment to Kent, but I think that when I am called in question as I was by the hon. member for Kent yesterday as being the author of an outrageous charge that, he says, is being made on the people of this country, I have reason to resent an imputation that would mean I am excessively desirous of taking more profits than would be justifiable under the circumstances. I have endeavoured to bear my share of this war like a man. I have been

called upon to make sacrifices. One of my friends, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. J. F. Reid) read a pronouncement from the United Farmers. It certainly made a strong appeal to my mind and heart, especially that part where the hon. gentleman said that df I would only beg of this Government to remove the duties the United Farmers would! wish me .a place in everlasting bliss. I presume if the United Farmers control the portals of everlasting bliss, they probably also have the keys of the bottomless pit, and I am not sure, if they can consign me anywhere at all but that I shall have a better chance of the latter place than the former. My hon. friend, I am sure, desired to make that appeal to me in all frankness. I have said that personally I should be very glad to make the sacrifice in order that I might retain the good opinion of my fellows, but I am not the personification of agricultural implements; I am only a private individual of like flesh and blood with yourselves, the owner of a few shares in a manufacturing company which makes some of those implements. Although I am often charged with being the high priest of implement exactions, I am not the mouthpiece of those implement manufacturers. But I say freely that rather than have the reproaches that I have had to bear in this House from my fellows whose good opinion I do value, I would long ago have gone out of the business. Nevertheless, I think if I had been conducting a liquor business or something of that kind, I would not have been nearly so much persecuted as I have been with regard to my attachment to implements. I do not know whether it is really so serious an offence to be connected with an industry of this kind. We have endeavoured to manufacture good agricultural implements that have won a place in the markets of the world, and we are endeavouring to distribute them throughout the Dominion of Canada in a fair and proper way at reasonable prices considering the quality of the goods. I cannot say more than that. If the House, in its wisdom, is going to remove the duties on agricultural implements and run the risk of destroying all that business, it is going to jeopardise a great many million dollars' worth of capital and turn out of work a large number of industrious men who have spent their whole lives in the development of this industry. Let me tell the hon. member for Brome that -such an action would hit probably from fifty to a hundred subsidiary industries that contribute the raw material of which the implements are tnadte.
I know he dealt a little with that subject, but seemed to think my figure© were grossly exaggerated. It will touch all manner of things^-iron, steel, nuts, bolts, screw©, dieis, cotton, varnish, dyestuffs, malleable iron, paints, and a multitude of other items that go into the construction of an agricultural implement, all of which articles are more or less manufactured in Canada. Let every hon. member remember that. If you gave us a reduction in the duties we pay on imported raw materials, and if we imported those goods, we would take all that trade away from the subsidiary manufacturers of Canada. I think my hon. friend will follow me in that, and I want him to follow me, because that is an important part of the situation.
Mr. McMASTER:: I was merely estimating that the agricultural implement manufacturers took about one-sixth of the gross manufactures of iron and steel. I should be glad if the hon. member for Brantford would tell me whether my estimate was anywhere near the exact figure.


William Foster Cockshutt: 

frontal attack and try to sweep them all away together. He says: " Here is an industry that ought to be got out of the way." He gets that out of the way, and then he looks around for another industry, .and makes an attack on that. Let my hon. friend remember that binder twine was bowled out in that way. Eleven or twelve factories were put out of business at a stroke of the pen. The result was that binder twine became almost unobtainable in the West; that is a matter of common knowledge, and even to-day the supply of binder twine is very unsatisfactory. Take the case oif barbed wire, an article that used to be manufactured in scores of factories in Canada. Barbed wire was suddenly put on the free list, and we have not had a pound manufactured in Canada since, not even during the war. Why not? Because the factories were put out of business long ago by the removing of the duty. I am not finding fault with that-let by-gones be bygones-I am simply pointing out the result. You wipe out capital, put men out of business, destroy a valuable industry, and then in war time an essential industry like that is lacking. Free-trade Britain has wakened up lately to the fact that she had allowed Germany to take away many of her fundamental industries, and now when she wants these products she cannot get them at any price, and she has had to begin all over again to produce them. That is a deplorable state of things. I want every hon. member to realize that Canada is laying the foundation for a future great nation, and in order to have a. great nation you must have a division of labour and different kinds of labour; and the tariff and industry are the only ways to produce the variety of labour into which our citizens should enter and will enter. Every man is not cut out to go on the farm, and I do not know why it is argued that everybody ought to be driven to the farm. I have heard farmers say that. If a farmer was talking about going into the plough business, I would certainly advise him against it, as a friend of the farmer and of the plough business. Farmers who-would drive city men out to the farm would only be making more competition for themselves. . More stuff would be produced and it would bring prices down.
. So it seems to me a very short-sighted policy for the farmers to adocate the driving of men hack to the land. It Would cut the prices down to where the .stuff could not safely be produced, except in Prince Edward Island, where my hon. friend told us last night they could produce potatoes that DMr. Cocksf.utt.]
beat the world at twenty-five cents a bushel; if that is so, all success to them, and if the farmers think the policy I have alluded to is the best to pursue they are certainly welcome to advocate the driving of men back to the land. I have tried to farm a bit myself in the last ten years, and in many cases it has cost me more- than two dollars to raise a dollar's worth of produce.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The hon. member is an agriculturist, not a farmer.


William Foster Cockshutt: And yet I am producing more food than my family is able to eat in a year, so I am doing a little bit indirectly, even if I lose in the operation. But it is making more competition for the farmer, and if I am as successful in farming as I have been accused of being in the implement business I shall get into hot water all round. I must confess that I have found the little bit of experience I have had on the farm most interesting. I look upon a dollar produced from the land as worth any five dollars I can make in the city, and I appreciate it more. It will not buy any more, but it gives you a feeling of satisfaction to have it in your pocket. A dollar made on the farm gives you a tremendous amount of satisfaction, and I for one am only too glad to see the farmers so prosperous. I do not begrudge them these high prices, but I want them to remember that they are getting high prices, and that the price of farm products is higher than the price of any manufactured goods that I know of in proportion to the cost of production and in proportion to what prices were before the war.


An hon. MEMBER:: On what do you base your figures?


William Foster Cockshutt: On the cost of production, on the value of the land, the labour required, and the amount of money employed in the business. As I have already pointed out, I do not think it costs two dollars to raise a bushel of beans in the province of Ontario, so it looks to me not fair to find fault with the merchant or manufacturer who bases his selling price only on the cost of production. In the case of the farmer the product is sold for what it will fetch, no matter how high the price, and I ask any hon. member which seems the fairer way. It looks as if there was certainly nothing in favour of the prices charged by the agriculturists that cannot be said in favour of the prices charged by the manufacturer or the merchant.

This is a country of varied interests, and it must not be developed in a lopsided way; that is, we must have a good development of all our resources, and so far as I am able to take in the situation, I think Canada has grown satisfactorily in every direction. I am delighted to see the farmers having a good innings, and I want them to make all the money they can while the sun shines, but I do not want them to starve the Allies or our soldiers'. I want to help them in every way I can to produce more stuff, but I think the price in itself ought to 'be ah, inducement, and I think it is an inducement. But we must remember that the demands of the world are very great. I believe the West to-day is in a sounder financial position than ever before in its history. I think the farmers are well content with present conditions, and therefore I say that this agitation which has been started in this debate, and which appears to spread not only on one side of the House but on the other, is not wise. We are not doing ourselves justice in debating what are really minor issues when the great issue of the war is before us.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Suppose there was a
great demand for munitions and a great demand for machinery to make munitions, would the hon. member think it right to remove the duty from the machinery coming into this country for making munitions?


William Foster Cockshutt: As far as I understand, there are very few of these machines made in Canada.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I was putting a hypothetical case.


William Foster Cockshutt: I think if the machinery is. not made in Canada-and I do not think it is-it would be quite proper to have the duty removed under the 'circumstances, because the industry of making munitions, is a very temporary affair, and the machinery would have to be scrapped perhaps in the very near future. So I think in that case the Government would be well advised to let it in free. But I am not advocating that as a policy; I am in favour of protecting every interest and every industry; that is my platform, and I make no bones about saying so. I am a protectionist for every class, because I believe protection is good for every class. It has been proved so in the past, and will De proved again in the future, if we are not so foolish as to destroy what we have with pains and enterprise got together in the last forty years; and I do not believe Canada will do that. The farmers in Canada,
90}
in our part of the country at all events, have time and again supported the policy which I am now enunciating, and which I think is a very safe one to follow. *
I will not weary the House any further. I have been drawn aside considerably from what I intended to say by a few interruptions, but I make no complaint about that, because it is always pleasant to be interrupted when you are speaking; it gives you a chance to get the blood circulating a little more freely. If I have spoken harshly to my hon. friend from North Cape Breton who seems to be resting quietly now, I hope he will be kind enough to forgive me for having provoked him to invite me to accompany him home. I have finished my remarks now, Mr. Speaker, and I regret having kept the House until such a late hour as this. But, I was compelled to go on.
On the motion of Mr. Papineau the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of the Hon. Mr. Maclean the House adjourned at 12.35 a.m. Friday.
Friday, May 3, 1918.