1919-06-12

EFFICIENCY IN THE CIVIL SERVICE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (South Perth) presented the third report of the Special Committee appointed to inquire regarding the staffs of the Inside Civil Service, recommending that the committee's proceedings, and such evidence as may be taken by them, be printed from day to day, and that Rule 74 be suspended in reference thereto.

Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance) :: Id the absence of the Prime Minister I beg leave to move, seconded by the Minister of Railways and Canals:
That on Saturday, the fourteenth day of June instant, the House shall meet at three o'clock in the afternoon, the order of precedence being the same as on Friday, and that on and after Monday, the sixteen day of June instant until the end of the present session, the House shall meet at eleven o'clock in the morning of each day except Sundays, and that in addition

to the usual intermission at six o'clock, p.m., there shall he also an intermission every d from one to three o'clock, p.m.
He said: I am not sure whether or not the Prime Minister has spoken to the leader of the Opposition respecting the matter, but as the leader of the Government is not in his seat I have taken the opportunity of presenting the resolution.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE:: I presume that in the absence of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance would not care to give a decision in this matter. I have had no notice of the resolution except that it appears in the Votes and Proceedings, and I hear that many hon. gentlemen, at all events of those sitting on this side, would not be agreeable to commencing Saturday sittings as early as the 14th instant. This is Thursday, and many hon. gentlemen are away. As we are all public men there is no objection to mentioning that in the neighbouring province an election is in progress and quite a few members are absent and taking part in it to whom it will be a convenience to have next Saturday. Possibly the motion might stand until opportunity has been afforded for further consultation with the Prime Minister himself when he is present. I would like to say to the Minister of Finance that the practice has been, I think, that before recourse was had to Saturday and morning sittings the balance of the (Government's legislative programme shall be brought down and disclosed, for the reason that when these sittings commence there is none too much time for deliberation upon any question before the House. I hope, therefore, that before we enter upon these additional sittings that the Prime Minister will disclose what the Government's programme for the remainder of the session will he.


William Thomas White: I had expected that the Prime Minister would have been in his seat at three o'clock this afternoon, but in his momentary absence I would suggest that the resolution stand as a notice of motion. It can he disposed of to-morrow, and in the interval I have no doubt the Prime Minister will speak to the leader of the Opposition with respect to it.
iHfon. Mr. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's): Might I suggest a further consideration: In the present stage of the work of the Committees of the House, I doubt if much progress can be made by having Saturday sittings. There is the greatest difficulty now in getting meetings of com-

mittees, and if we are to meet on Saturday as usual I am afraid it will add to the difficulties of the committee work. I merely offer that as a suggestion for the consideration of the Acting Prime Minister.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The motion stands.



PROPERTIES LEASED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Hon. F. B. CARVELL (Minister of Public Works):: In compliance with a promise made some three weeks ago, when my estimates were under consideration, I beg to lay on the table of the House a statement showing the names of the lessors of all properties leased by the Government, the names of the departments occupying the space, and the length of the lease and the amount of the rental in each case.



CONFERRING OF TITLES.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the honour to communicate to the House a letter from His Excellency the Governor General, signed by his own hand:
Devonshire,
Gentlemen of the House of Commons *
I have received the Address to His Most Excellent Majesty the King which you have voted on the subject of conferring honours etc., upon His Majesty's subjects resident in Canada, and have the honour to inform you that I have transmitted the same to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in order that it may be humbly laid at the foot of the Throne.
Government House, Ottawa,
June 11, 1919.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)
['For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, petitions or other papers or documents on file in the Department of Naval (Service, dated since January 1, 1917, relating to the closing and sale of Lobster Hatcheries on the coast of the Maritime Provinces.\t>']
Mr. EDWARDS:: 



[Stage Direction]
1.	From whom, when and for how long was the Calvin residence in Kingston, Ontario, leased for use as a home for military nurses?
2.	What repairs have been made to said home and at what cost?
3.	What rent is to be paid?
4.	When was the home ready for occupation and how many nurses were housed there at that time and how many were obliged to obtain lodging elsewhere?
5.	How many nurses are at present in the home and how many are lodging elsewhere in Kingston?
Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	(a) The Collingwood Ship Building Company; (b) 1st January, 1919; (c) to let July, 1919.
2.	Fitting up same for nurses, 8500; additional for same, $124.41; total, $624.41.
3.	|50 a month.
4.	The home was ready for occupation on February 14, 1919. Fifteen nurses and four V.A.D.'s were housed at that time. Sixteen nurses were obliged to obtain lodging elsewhere.
5.	At present, seventeen nurses are in the home and three V.A.D.'s. Nine nurses are obliged to obtain lodging elsewhere.


PAYMENTS TO DOCTORS IN AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysbor-ough):: 1.	What has been the remuneration paid to Dr. B. E. Goodwin, Amherst, Nova Scotia, by any department of the Government, during the past four years, respectively?
2.	What amounts have been paid to Dr. C. Bliss, of Amherst, Nova iScotia, ;by any department of the Government, during the past four years, respectively?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: within the hounds of the district or province where the vacancy occurs?


Hon. Mt. ROWELL:: 1.	On -the 30th April, 1919.
2.	Yes.	_
3.	The Vancouver District Office of the Board of Pension Commissioners is one of the Board's most important offices. Mr. Paterson, the present manager, was considered best fittted to fill this vacancy on account of his experience and special knowledge of conditions in British Columbia gained during his managership of the Victoria District Office, which position he successfully occupied from January 1st, 1918, to 20th January, 1919.
4.	It was considered that efficient pension administration could best be obtained in this case by filling the vacancy by transfer rather than appointment. Applications from outside sources were, therefore, not solicited.
5.	Such transfers are determined by the Board of Pensions Commissioners.
6.	No.
7.	No.


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough) :: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, petitions or other papers or documents on file in the Department of Naval (Service, dated since January 1, 1917, relating to the closing and sale of Lobster Hatcheries on the coast of the Maritime Provinces.	>



PRIVILEGE-HON. MR. LEMIEUX.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a
question of privilege. During the course of the debate last night I made allusion to and quoted from a former debate in connection with certain Estimates of the Department of Railways, relative to the Trent Valley canal. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. J. D. Reid) took exception to the words used in [DOT] the	report of	his
speech. I have since found out that the error mentioned by my hon. friend was not made by .the reporter but at the Printing Bureau. I will explain how the error arose. I asked my hon. friend how many ships passed through the canal last year, and this was the answer as it appeared in Hansard.
Mr. J. D. Reid: I have not the record here. I have always been under the impression that the building of the canal was really throwing money away. '

lMy hon. friend explained that he used the word " had " instead of " have." On inquiring at Hansard office I found that the minister was perfectly correct. I therefore beg to declare that I was wrong when I made the assertion to which he took exception, hut I was led into the error by the report. But the fault is not with Hansard; it is with the Printing Bureau. I say .that in fairness and justice to my hon. friend.


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I am very much obliged to
my hon. friend for correcting the error. There was another error in the same Hansard. For instance, it appears as if I had made the statement that there were " 11,099 " men employed on the Trent Valley canal; whereas every one present will remember that I said 1,199.



THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means and the amendment of Mr. McMaster thereto (resumed from Wednesday, June 11).
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in addressing the House on this important subject from the somewhat precarious, but nevertheless very interesting and, latterly, much coveted location (the cross benches), I wish to make a brief reference to the question of political independence which was raised in the debate on The Address by .my hon. friend the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Hon. Mr. Fielding) when there was a slight apparent divergence of opinion between him and me. He seemed to me to plead rather strongly for party government as being necessary for. political accomplishment. I interjected a question as to whether Mr. Gobden was not a proof to the contrary. I still think that I was correct in that, and I am of opinion that a good many more proofs can be adduced that political accomplishment is very often great along the line of .political independence.
We all know what happened in the case of Cobden. He declared again and again in the British House of Commons that he was neither a Whig nor a Tory, but a Free Trader. He converted the greatest administrator-and, some would say, the greatest statesman-of the 19th century to his views, and on the occasion of those views being passed into law the pre-eminence of Cob-den's position in the matter was given the

most generous recognition by Sir Robert Peel himself in these words:
The name which ought to be, and will be, associated with the success of these measures is the name of one who, acting, I believe, from pure and disinterested motives, has with untiring energy made appeals to our reason and has enforced those appeals with an eloquence the more to be admired because it was unaffected and unadorned ; the name which ought to be associated with the success of those measures is the name of Richard Cobden.
' The events of that day led to the creation of a party which was known in England as the party of the Peelites-the most distinguished subsequent member of which was, of course, Mr. Gladstone.
At a later period of English history, at the time when Mr. Gladstone himself endeavoured to pass Home Rule, he was left by a body of the most distinguished parliamentarians, both in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords. The names which occur to one are those of Bright, Chamberlain, and the late Duke of Devonshire. These men, not only outstanding, but by far the most outstanding of his followers, could not see eye to eye with him, and left him, and up to now they have had the better of the argument as between themselves and their great leader, because Home Rule is not yet an accomplished fact.
At a still later period, when the Conservative party of England under the brilliant leadership of Mr. Chamberlain was tempted to go back on free trade principles, which had for a generation or more been held by both parties in Great Britain, again the then Duke of Devonshire led a number of distinguished men to dissent from his party and take an independent line, which at that time had a marked effect in defeating Mr. Chamberlain's proposal to take Great Britain back to protection.
I need not confine myself to the other side of the Atlantic for instances of independence in politics having a marked effect upon the fortunes of a nation. Is it not the case, Sir, that at Confederation itself the very greatest men of both parties suppressed their party convictions for the meantime and joined in one Government for the purpose of carrying through Confederation?
And a still later case, which surely ought to appeal to my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding), is that of the Liberal Unionists of Canada, who left the .most distinguished political leader probably that Canada has ever had because it was their misfortune, from the personal point of view, not to be able to agree with him upon the methods by which the great war was to be carried
to a successful conclusion. That case ought, I say, to appeal most strongly to my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's, because by length of parliamentary experience and by the greatness of his parliamentary ability he was the most distinguished member of these Liberal Unionists.
My hon. friend the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder) said something yesterday about heroism and popularity being the rewards under certain conditions of Liberal independence.
If that be true, in a good many cases they have been the only rewards that have come to the Independents. The road of an Independent in Canada has usually been particularly thorny, because rarely does Canada elect Independents to Parliament. In the case of Sir Robert Peel, the result of the independent lead which he gave the British nation and by which he accomplished the greatest economic reform of the century for his country, and, I believe, the greatest economic reform of the world for all time, was told in graphic language by himself at the end of the speech from which I have already made a quotation. Those of us who remember our English history at all know that Peel broke his party to accomplish his reform, and that he had to retire from public life and from the Premiership of Great Britain as a consequence. In closing his speech he said:
In relinquishing power, I shall leave a name, severely censured I fear toy many who, on public grounds, deeply regret the severance of party ties-deeply regret that severance, not from personal motives, tout from the firm conviction that fidelity to party engagements-the existence and maintenance of a great party, constitutes a powerful instrument of Government. I shall surrender power, severely censured also, toy others who, from no interested motive, adhere to the principle of protection, considering the maintenance of it to be essential to the welfare and interests of the country. I shall leave a name execrated by every monopolist who, from less honourable motives, clamours for protection because it conduces to his own immediate benefit: tout It may toe that I shall leave a name sometimes remembered with expressions of good-will In the abode of those whose lot it is to labour and to earn their daily (bread toy the sweat of their brow, when they shall recruit their exhausted strength with abundant and untaxed food, the sweeter because it is no longer leavened toy a sense of Injustice.
I have ventured thus far on that topic, because I think the House will agree with me that it has some bearing upon the particular events through which we are passing at the present moment in this country.
In looking at the matters of finance and

trade which have been brought to our attention as they are annually in the Budget, I want to say that not only this, but all other matters that come before Parliament and before public men generally for consideration should be viewed in the bright light from the fields of France and Flanders that shines upon our proceedings. It is trite to say to-day that we fought for freedom; that our sons and brothers fought for freedom in Flanders and France; but surely a primary consideration arising from that fact, which we all acknowledge with gratitude in the presence of the victory that we have achieved, is that having fought and won freedom in France and Flanders, we must take good care that it is not surrendered in Canada.
In my opinion we are, on this straight question and on this general principle of government, at the parting of the ways in Canada. We have been told ad nauseam, not only that our sons fought for freedom, but that they fought against autocracy. What is the weapon that autocracy used in Germany? I think I shall be right when I say that it was bureaucracy. Autocracy used bureaucracy as a weapon for the carrying out of its purposes of government. The consequence was that one of the prime causes of trouble in that country was that they had too much government, and as the case is in a number of other countries in Europe, to get rid of this, they had to reduce things to the state where there is very little government at all. We are not without our share of government in Canada. For a country of eight millions population we are a pretty well governed people. We have ten governments, ten prime ministers, ten parliaments, and ten sets of officials. I need not say that I do not intend this year to set up any active propagandism in favour of a change in the British North America Act, but the fact remains that under that Act we have a great deal of government, without establishing under any one of those governments any more bureaucracy than we can prevent. In my judgment, protectionism is, from this point of view, Kaiserism cut down. Protectionism and Kaiserism have a very close relation to one another. That was obviously so in Germany, because the Junkers were the backbone not only of the government, hut of protection and of the militaristic system in that country. Some one has said-and I think with a good deal of truth-that militarism itself is the spear head of protectionism. If that be so, then, as a peace-loving and democratic country, surely we

can get light from recent world events for examining this thing upon its merits from the root upwards. I think it can be demonstrated that there is a close political affinity between Kaiserism and protectionism. What was Kaiserism? It was from one point of view the magnification of the State into everything; it was the embodiment of despotic government. What is protectionism? It is an appeal to the State for assistance in doing one's own business. Protection arises because a certain class of persons come to the State and say: We would like a little help in the conduct of our business.
Well, what is the state, Mr. Speaker? I see the state sitting to your right and to your left to-day. This is all there is to the state. There is this peculiar thing about the state, that, divided as it has been from the time of Confederation up to the present into two halves, one-half of the state never has any confidence in the other half. I think the House will be in agreement with me upon that. As one half of the state never has any confidence in the other half, I may be illogical, but I do not think I am when I say that this should be a good reason for the people of this country being careful how they themselves bestow undue confidence upon the state.
I repeat, protectionists come to the state for assistance in their business, and what is the outgrowth of that? Is it to he supposed, human nature being what it is, that when other ranks of society see protectionists coming to the state and getting help for their business, that they should not think that a little help might be good for them, while it is going? That is exactly what happens, so we saw that in Germany, state socialism came to he the accompaniment of protectionism, and we are threatened in all protectionist countries .today with the same thing. I do not want to elaborate this very far as regards our own country, but it is a fact patent to the observation of every one of us that we are in the Government of Canada to-day absolutely inundated with commissions and boards and committees working under the Cabinet until I think one would be right in saying that we are threatened with a state of affairs in which politics will be the leading business of the country, and to get a Government job the highest ambition of the average ordinary citizen. Against that state of affairs I protest for this reason: Because it increases the cost of .Government by increasing the machinery of government. It increases the taxation of the people, and we are led to have done by Government a

number of things that under freedom people would do better for themselves.
From these general considerations I now pass a little more closely to the Budget. I cannot quite agree with my hon. friend from Marquette (-Mr. iCrerar)-and this is the only disagreement I shall have with him- in describing the Budget as a protectionist Budget. I think a fairer thing would be to define it-and I think history will so define it-as a Budget tending towards free trade. I am particularly grateful for the Budget. There was a time when I was charged with being the only free trade member of this House, but to-day, Sir, I am in the proud position of seeing a Government bring down into this House a Budget which proposes to lower tariffs. I have on my other hand an Opposition which says to the Government:	You are not lowering the
duties enough. I myself still occupy my old position, as between lower tariff on the one hand, and low tariff on the other, in believing in no tariff at all. ][DOT] repeat, I am proud to see that- the HTouse and the country is having its face at any rate turned in my direction. The tariff is coming down and therefore I would not like to use quite as strong language as my hon. friend from Marquette used about the Budget.
There are a good many things that can be said in favour of this Budget, even as compared with the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition. The Budget, has this advantage at least over the amendment: That it can be pointed to by its authors as having done something. It is embodied in resolutions, which, if they pass this House, will become the law of the land, and we must give a great deal of credit to people who- do things in preference to those who

for the moment they cannot do any better on the Opposition benches-only profess them. I do not want to be misunderstood on this point, and I do not want to go into ancient history; the times are too serious to spend much time in party quips and passes-I want to say again that the Opposition cannot do better in the circumstances in which they are placed. They can only profess to believe what is in the amendment, while the Government has the credit of having done what they have done. I think Western Canada will be grateful for so much.
I am perfectly sure that Western Canada will be grateful for another item which is not in the Budget. They will be very grateful that the Minister of Finance resisted very strong pressure which was brought to bear upon him to give certain
bounties in this Budget. The Government resisted what I know was very strong pressure, and they have not only done something in this Budget, but they have left some bad things undone. That may be news for the Opposition, but it is so, I think, and provably so as far as the Budget is concerned.
Then the Government have gone a very long way,-which shows the value of education in fiscal matters,-to embody in the statutes and law of this country the reciprocity agreement which they iwere not quite friendly to eight years ago; the reciprocity agreement is very largely embodied in the Budget proposals.
The Government also has imposed fairly steep direct taxation. Here the Budget has a very great advantage over the amendment offered from the other side, because I do not observe that direct taxation was mentioned in the amendment at all; not by specific proposals anyhow. I think the West will be grateful, not only for all these things, but, also, in a degree fitting the case, for such reduction of the tariff as there is. It is not satisfactory; it is not very abundant; but it is there.
As my hon. friend (Mr. Crerar) pointed out yesterday, under the tariff war taxes the Minister of Finance raised $45,000,000, and he leaves $28,000,000 of that still to be got from the country. He relieves the country of the other $17,000,000. So the reduction of taxes is more apparent than real. We are not having a reduction of the tariff at all in this Budget as compared with the state of the tariff in pre-war times. Bather, we are having kept up in time of peace certain taxes which were impose^! in time of war, and which I think we might reasonably have expected to be relieved from now. If we are to regard this as a war year, as the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder) indicated yesterday, there is something to be said for the point of view that it would have been better to leave the tariff alone this year; that would have been more logical. But, there is one over-powering reason for dealing with the tariff at this time, and that is to be found in the serious condition of the country. And from the point of view of the western organized farmers the tariff is not merely an instrument, but it is a vital and fundamental instrument in dealing with that serious condition of the country.
Now, my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder) touched upon some very tender points yesterday as between himself and my hon. friend the member for

Marquette (Mr. Crerar). I do not intend to intervene in that quarrel any more than is necessary to clear up a few points in which I do not think my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration got quite the right view of the (question. He said, I think, that in his opinion the tariff was no issue in the 1917 election. I do not think that is a view that can be supported in its entirety. It is true that no specific proposals were before the country on the tariff from either side of politics. The winning of the war was the one all important issue in that election. But it is equally true that numbers of us from Western Canada could not have won our seats by the majorities we did, if indeed we could have won them at all, had we not asserted to our people, with all the sincerity that we were capable of, that we held the same views upon tariff matters that we had always held. So that it is not correct to say that the views of certain members of the Unionist party on tariff matters were not before the electors in the 1917 election. My hon. friend (Mr. Calder) went on to give us the reasons for his particular view of the duty of members of the Unionist party at this time. He said that there were certain grave problems before the country. Well, Mr. Speaker, we all know that. But what problems are they? They are no longer the problems of war; they are the problems of reconstruction. Every one of us who looked ahead at all knew that the war period would be succeeded by a reconstructive period, and these problems are problems of reconstruction. In 1917, as I have just pointed out, it was foreseen that we should come to this point in our history; and for (better or worse, right or wrong, my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar)-and a good many of us agree with him-believes that in the fiscal policy of the country is an instrument which, if wisely handled, will help us tremendously in dealing with the problems of reconstruction. That is the point where I think my hon. friend (Mr. Calder) was a little wrong in his view in blaming, so far as he did blame, the hon. member for Marquette. I did not apprehend at first that he intended to blame him at all. He laid down a perfectly sound doctrine in this matter when he said that in so serious a matter and at so serious a time every man must stand or fall by his own conscience; and I do not know that it was quite consistent with his having made that utterance that he immediately proceeded to take some rather ugly jabs at the conscience of my hon. friend from Mar-
quette. Now, in this connection, as explaining our position further, may I quote from my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, when he expressed the hope, as he did in his Budget speech, that by next fall, I think ho said, conditions will be so stabilized that ha can really safely begin to look into tariff matters. Well, one would be very sanguine in temperament to anticipate a great deal more stability next winter or the winter after that, even than one sees in the affairs of Canada at the present moment. I hope my hon. friend is right, but I am not going to enter into a competition in prophecy with him. What I am going to say is this: That it is not a government's business only to hope for stability; it. is a government's business to try to bring about conditions which tend to stability. Surely there is no contradicting that position. It is not enough to hope for stabilization. What would be thought of a doctor who was called to a delirious patient and was content with strapping him down in bed? You cannot produce stability alone by increasing the Northwest Mounted Police-that may be necessary; I believe it is necessary. You cannot produce stability alone by any proceedings of that kind. You must accompany your steps for preservation of law and order by measures to relieve public discontent so far as you can do it by financial, taxation, and trade propositions. If a patient is delirious a wise doctor straps him down in bed, but he does not for that reason neglect him in the matter of suitable food and medicine. The two things go together, if there is to be any chance of restoring the patient to health.
Now, what are the duties of reconstruction? We all agree that the first of them is to look after our soldiers. We shall only be able to look after our soldiers if we proceed as rapidly as we can to pay our debts as a nation. It is rather important both for the nation and for the individual that debts should be paid:	very important for the
debtor and very important for the other party himself. To pay our debts and look after our soldiers it is essential to increase the wealth of the nation; and to reconstruct the country it is equally necessary to relieve the burdens on the rank and file of our people. And I should add another principle of reconstruction: that it should be the duty of the Government to inculcate in civilization, thereby enriching it, a spirit of service, of sacrifice, and of hard work, and so give the people the luxury of approach- .* ing in some degree the moral grandeur of the half million of men who crossed the

sea, willing to give everything for the glory and honour of their country and the freedom of civilization and mankind.
Now, I am afraid that I have to say that the Budget falls short of what it should have measured up to along these lines. I have been reminded in private that 1 have said in this House and elsewhere that it took some nineteen years to build up the free trade edifice in Britain, or rather to pull down the tariff edifice. That is quite true. But that statement does not meet my objection that we are not doing enough in this Budget along the lines I have advocated. This will be apparent if the House will permit me to read a few words from a speech which Sir Robert Peel delivered on March 11, 1842, and to tell the House what he did in the way of fiscal proposals in that year, which was four years before the repeal of the Corn Laws. Speaking on that occasion, Sir Robert Peel laid down principles which ought to be a great guide for all time, to finance ministers, in periods of great financial difficulty in any country. He said:
In great financial difficulties the first step towards improvement is to look those difficulties boldly in the face. This is true of individuals ; it is also true of nations.
To look those difficulties boldly in the face-I am not sure that my hon. friend the Finance Minister of this country has done so in the sense of the language of Sir Robert Peel, who went on to make this statement -and the House will notice he expected the unanimous consent of the House of Commons to the proposition:
I apprehend therefore, that with almost universal acquiescence I may abandon the thought of supplying the deficiency by the miserable device of fresh loans.
Mr. Speaker, that is very strong language, and I commend it to the careful attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. What did Sir Robert Peel do in 1842? But here our present Government is on very much stronger ground. What Sir Robert Peel did in 1842 was to introduce direct taxation in the shape of an income tax for the first time. In that connection let me say that there was a great deal of political wisdom in what was suggested to this House in what some regard as the somewhat puzzling speech of the hon. the Minister of Customs (Mr. Sifton). He claimed, and claimed, I think, rightly, for this Government that in the income tax which it has presented to this House it had laid the most solid foundation for either party in this country to pursue fiscal reforms in the future along the proper line -the line of lower tariff. But, Sir Robert Peel did not stop with introducing the income tax. In the first budget that Sir Robert Peel introduced into Great Britain in 1842, he practically put all raw materials on the free list. He left on some duties but he left no duty of more than five per cent on any raw material whatsoever. On partially manufactured articles he left no duty of over 12 per cent and on wholly manufactured goods he left no duty exceeding 20 per cent. Out of 1,200 articles contained in the tariff schedules of Britain before that budget, he reduced or abolished the taxation on 750 and he did it in so far as history records without any tariff commission running all over the country. He was determined upon a great reform, he saw that the country needed it, that no further delay could toe brooked in the matter, and that is the way in which he tackled it.
Having regard to this historical record. I purposed, if the rules of the House had allowed, introducing a sub-amendment which would have gone a little farther than either the proposals of the Government or the proposals of the Opposition as I understand them. Might I be permitted to say, Sir, that a rule that does not allow a subamendment appears to me to be an absurd anomaly and I trust that one of these days, either yourself, or some other Speaker of the House, will see that that rule is abolished. It seems an absurd anomaly that there has never been since Confederation in contemplation the possibility of three groups in this House or the possibility of expressing three different opinions upon the Budget. I purposed if I had been allowed, asking the House to affirm that:
Inasmuch as any scheme of tariff reduction is faulty and illogical which is not calculated to stimulate equally all the industries of our country, so necessary to reconstruction, therefore be it resolved,
1st. That the removal of the duties from all foodstuffs .and from the implements used in their production should be accompanied by the abolition of duties on iron and steel the raw materials of these implements and many other manufactures.
2nd. That the abolition of the duties on boots, shoes and articles of cotton and woollen clothing should be accompanied by the removal of duties on raw materials entering into the production of these articles.
3rd. That all duties should be removed from coal, which is so large a factor in the producing power of our factories and the comfort of our homes.
4th. That debt should be reduced and further borrowing as much as possible avoided by the imposition of increased income tax and

super-tax, a federal succession or inheritance tax and a tax on land values.
I think the House will agree that such an amendment as this would have been a procedure approximating much more closely to the first step taken by Sir Robert Peel along the same line in England and would have done more to meet the western point of view than either the Budget proposals or the proposal contained in the amendment. But as there is a little lack of heroism on the part of both the old parties in -Canada, and as there is, in my view, an imperfection in the rules of the House, one has to look carefully at the proposals of the Government on the one hand, and the amendment before the House on the other hand, to see what course one shall take after he has read his still-born sub-amendment.
My fault with the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) is that it requires a little too much interpretation. It needs to be interpreted. I agree with very much of it; if I am allowed to interpret it and supplement it, I think I should agree with it all, but, of course, it would not be the same amendment. The part of it which calls for free food, I agree with absolutely. Mr. Speaker, there is no excuse in Canada for anybody being short of plenty to eat three times a day. With our sparse population, our abundant territory and great wealth, there is no excuse in Canada for any tax whatsoever upon food. I want to put that idea forward and to state it so emphatically as to carry my profound convictions in the truth of what I am saying to both sides of this House and, through both sides of this House, to the country. I am convinced, furthermore, that in what I am stating I have the support of the large majority of the people of the country, men, women and children.
The cost of living in its relation to food should be at the -minimum in Canada. I know there are opposite views expressed. No less an authority than the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) to whom I always want to pay the utmost attention, expressed a doubt whether the cost of living would be reduced by the removal of duties on food. I have heard the same question put myself in committee, in caucus, and in private conversation. Well, I think it would be reduced and I will tell the House why in a moment. But if it would not be reduced because there is no food to come in, which is the further assertion always made in accordance with this argument, if there is no food to come into the

country; if we could not get any food into the country at the present moment, and for that reason the taking of the tariff off food *would not reduce the cost, then
4 p.m. all I have to say is that reduction is well worth trying anyhow because if the tariff has kept nothing out it is a very unnecessary and useless piece of national equipment. The tariff, if it has kept nothing out, is- not doing any good along that line but it would be worth while trying for a Government that was not altogether heroic just to see what would happen. I contend that there is no scarcity of food in Canada. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister on the occasion to which I refer, said that in the various countries in which he had been travelling the cost of living was as high as it is in Canada. I have no doubt as to the accuracy of his observation in the hotels in which he dined, but some returned soldiers, who observed the buying of bacon by the pound in the old country-I am sure my right hon. friend had not much time to buy bacon by the pound-assert, and assert quite confidently, the exact contrary, and say that you can buy bacon cheaper in England to<lay than you can buy it in Canada by the pound.
If that is so, then it is a serious reflection upon our economic system. It is the more serious when I tell the House that according to figures in the last edition of the Canadian Year Book, for eight millions of people in Canada there are twice as many live pigs to-day as there are in Great Britain amongst forty .millions of people. Now, if there are only half the number of live pigs for forty millions of people in England that there are in Canada for eight millions of people it is something of a miracle that the price of bacon is kept as low in England as it is. How is it kept as low, or brought lower? By the simple fact that Britain brings it in; Britain brings bacon across the seas to her shores freely-she brings food in. The fact of the matter is that the tariff on foodstuffs in this country does little or no good to the producer. It does a great deal of harm to the consumer, and it builds up the fortunes of the middlemen-that is what the tariff does on foodstuffs in this country. I have cited a simple figure in regard to live pork. Now let me give the House the figure in regard to cattle. There are, or were when the figures were collected last for the Canadian Year Book seven and a half million head of cattle in Great Britain with forty millions of people; there were six and a half million head at the same date in Canada with eight millions of

people. Why should food he scarce in Canada? Six and a half millions of cattle as against seven and a half millions in Britain, and eight millions of people as compared with forty millions; and twice as many pigs in Canada for eight millions of people! There is only one answer: The food is being held from the people for exorbitant prices and the building up, beyond the dreams of avarice, of the fortunes of the middlemen.
With the item in the amendment of the Opposition which calls for free food I am in hearty agreement; and coming as I do from the West I need scarcely add that I am in hearty agreement with free implements for the production of that food.
But now I come to the clause in the amendment which needs interpretation. There is a clause in that amendment which calls for " free necessities of life." If it had stopped there it still would have needed interpretation to the extent of defining what you mean by " a necessity of life." Personally, I think coal is a necessity of life in a country where you have eight months of winter and the thermometer going sometimes to sixty degrees below zero. I think a good case can be made out in the argument that coal is a necessity of life. I do not think it would make much difference to a man whether he perishes for want of coal, or starves to death for want of food; I am not sure which I should choose if the dread alternative were offered to me. I think coal is a necessity of life, and I wonder if my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition so interprets the amendment. Perhaps it is not fair to aSk him to interpret the amendment of 'the hon. member for Bromer (Mr. McMaster). Whether he will interpret it or not, I am pretty sure it required an older head than the member for Brome to draw the amendment in that 'beautifully vague fashion; I rather suspect that vague clause in the amendment was drawn by the leader of the Opposition. Well, I gather from his attitude now that he disavows the paternity of it, but he won't interpret it to me. Then he will have to try and prove to me when he speaks at a later stage, and he certainly will have to try 'and prove to this country when he comes into power, that coal is not a necessity of life, because he is pledged by this amendment to free " the necessities of life," and I contend, not being a lawyer, that a good case can be made out for calling coal " a necessity of life." In any case, I believe in free coal, and I think there is a splendid argument
to be advanced not only for abundant food for people who live in a hard and trying climate like Canada, not only for free food, but also for free fuel-free fuel for homes, and free fuel to enable our manufacturers to contend in the tremendous competition of the coming years in the industries of the country.
Then I believe in boots and shoes, and woollen and cotton clothing being necessities of life. Apart altogether from the decencies of life, the climate demands that we wear clothes in Canada for a great part of the year. They are necessities of life; so are boots and shoes; and I have yet to meet a Canadian who can give me a good reason why, at this moment, boots and shoes are absolutely free on the tariff of the United States, and have been carrying a duty of thirty and thirty-five per cent in this country. There is nothing in the price of hides to account for it at the present moment, because the western farmer at the present time is practically giving his hides away. Being of benevolent disposition, I do not suppose he would mind that very much if the consumers got the benefit; but he is very decidedly up in arms when he sees the tremendous price that goes on to the hide between the time it leaves him, for little or nothing, and reaches the wearer of the boots.
While interpreting it in this way, the amendment does not begin to look so bad, always including the free coal and the free boots and shoes. Now I get on to more difficult ground when I read into the clause about the necessities of life, free iron and steel. Iron and steel are articles very much used in the making of railways. In a country of the size of Canada we talk half our time in Parliament about the building of railroads, and we have a tremendous agitation to get railroads built in this country. It is frequently argued that protection is more necessary in a young country than in an old country from the point of view of iron and steel. Mr. Speaker, I think that protection is a much greater curse in a young country than in an old one, because an old country, especially of small size, is always gridironed with railways; but where you are building railroads by the thousands of miles, as you are in Canada, at first sight it would not seem to expedite the business to make iron and steel dear. But that is one of the wonderful contradictions of protection, that a good way to build railroads is to have dear iron and steel. I submit the opposite to that contention, and I hold that would



BBVISBD EDITION

[Stage Direction]
be at least worth thinking over even by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. Cheap iron and steel would help not only the building of railroads but the easier production of mining, of agricultural and otheT classes of machinery, which are used in the productive industries which constitute so much of the industries of a young people like the people of Canada. Indeed, these are the very .basic needs of a young country. If I wanted to argue this question further I should isay that in Nova Scotia, where there is a large iron and steel industry, it will be safe to prophesy that if you had free trade to-morrow, Nova Scotia would benefit more in the development of her coal and iron industries by the amount of shipping that would ply to and from her shores than by being engaged in the production and selling of the iron and steel, and killing her shipping.
I should like to put again on Hansard some figures that I think I quoted some years ago, to show that the idea that protection is needed to build up the industries of a country finds very little support in the history of the greatest commercial nation for all time, at least for her size. In the year 1800 the value of the exports of British produce, which of course were manufactured products, was thirty-nine and a half millions sterling. In the year 1830, after the first thirty years of the nineteenth century, when protection was in full sway in Great Britain, the figure of thirty-nine and a half millions of exported produce actually fell to thirty-seven millions- -£37,000,000 as against £39,500,000 as a result of the first thirty years of the 19th century manufacturing under protection. In the year 1842, after twelve more years, the figure had grown by £10,000,000 a year to £50,000,000. But railroads began to be built in Great Britain at that time and accounted amply for the rise to £50,000,000. The bald fact, however, is this, that between 1800 and 1842 the manufactured exports of Great Britain under the last forty-two years of protection rose from £39,500.000 to only £50,000,000. In the year 1878, when thirty-six	more years	had passed
over the history of Great [Britain, under a free trade policy her exported manufactured goods had risen from £50,000,000 to £218,000,000 per year; in the last twelve years of protection it showed only a £10,000,000 advance. It rose during thirty-six years of free trade to £218,000,000, and by the year 1910 that figure had risen to £344,000,000, which constituted a record export for all nations and all tariffs-a record

export held and made under free trade. I do not think if one were to read figures from now until bed-time that it would be possible to controvert the obvious inference to be drawn from these figures, that Great Britain until she had free trade never really had manufactures worth speaking of.
I not only want to interpret the amendment, but I want to be allowed to supplement it. And the point at which it needs supplementing is one that puts considerable suspicion in one's mind as to certain things that do not appear in the amendment at all. I have already said that I think the Budget has a great advantage over the amendment of the Opposition in that it imposes very substantial direct taxation. So far as the amendment of the Opposition goes, it is blank upon this subject. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. iMcMaster) indeed told the Minister of Finance that he should stop borrowing. IBut how can he stop borrowing and at the same time lower the tariff if he is not shown some other method of raising the revenue? I want to say quite candidly that I associate myself fully with my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) in his opinion that the direct taxation proposed by the Budget, though a tremendous advance on anything that Canada has ever dreamed of before, is not sufficient for the times we are passing through, and is not sufficient to carry out that principle that I laid down when I said that it is the duty of the Finance Minister by taxation to teach that economy which he preaches, and to teach the far more valuable lesson that this war will have been lost in moral value upon our civilian population unless they are taught to approach somewhat to the sacrifices that were made by those who for four years bled and suffered and died for us.
I think my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) mentioned yesterday comparative figures as between Canada and Great Britain in regard to income tax. I now quote only figures of two incomes. And I approach this subject with considerable diffidence because I came from the Old Country and I have no right to set standards for Canadians, ibut I would fain have them set standards for themselves, because Canada's sons suffered just as Great Britain's sons suffered, Canada's sons fought just as Great Britain's sons fought, and I do not believe that the fathers and the mothers of Canada are one whit less willing to suffer in their pockets than are the fathers and mothers df Great Britain. In Great Britain a $10,000 income to-day pays an income tax of $2,775, and in Canada it

pays $590. There is a great disparity between those two figures, Mr. Speaker. A $20,000 income in "Canada pays $1,990, while in Great Britain it pays $5,775. As I say,
I have' no right to enforce this point any more than the figures do, but I should like to ask both sides of this House whether it is not our hounden duty as a Parliament to give our people a chance of coming a little nearer to the British standards in this matter.
We are asked: How are you going to raise revenue if you abolish tariffs? In the sub-amendment which I would have moved if the rules of the House would have allowed . me I intended to ask the Minister of Finance to impose a federal succession duty; and in this connection I do not compare this country with Great Britain, where they have very large duties, but with Australia, who also suffered with us in the battlefields. It is estimated by our chief statistician that the total wealth of Aus-ralia is $8,000,000,000; Canada's wealth is $19,000,000,000-a startling difference. It almost appears to me sometimes. Sir, as if this country were the happy hunting ground of capital, and I believe we have been taught such a lesson by this war that our people are getting to know too much to allow that to go on. Australia raised last year by a federal succession duty $5,000,000; we raised nothing. By provincial succession duties Australia raised $4,500,000, and we raised about the same. That is to say, if we had taxed ourselves by way of succession duty as heavily as Australia is doing, instead of $4,500,000 of provincial succession duties only we should have been taxed under this head for federal and provincial purposes $25,000,000. And I point this out to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance with every desire to help him towards his next Budget as a line along $20,000,000 that is going abegging.
In the debate of 1915-because in every year of the war before the formation of Union Government in 1917 we actually had no land tax,-I laid down the doctrine which I am trying to inculcate to-day in my humble manner; in 1915 I pointed out that the year before Australia had raised $13,500,000 by land tax; in 1915 we had not raised a cent. We have much better land and more of it than in Australia, and we have a larger population, have large amounts of land, as my hon. friend for Marquette so well pointed out yesterday, held in Western Canada by speculators, having its value augmented tremendously by the efforts of those who hold land
215}
in the neighbourhood and live on it. And that ought, in the strenuous and terrible times succeeding this war, to be made the source of Federal revenue for the purposes of looking after our soldiers, clearing our debt, and relieving our people of the tremendous burden they are bearing in the matter of the common necessities of life.
But we are told: You will frighten capital away from the country; you will not be able to borrow any more money. In my opinion that would not be a bad job for Canada. I agree absolutely with the hon. member for Brome (Mr; McMaster) when he says: Stop borrowing. It is well at this point to remember what we do economically when we borrow. When we borrow money, either from the United States or from the old country, what we do is to give an enormous and immediate stimulus to the industries of the country from which we borrow, because I need not tell this intelligent House that what we borrow comes in, not in the shape of money, but in the shape of goods. When we borrow from another country, we get simply a cheque which is changed into exchange notes and becomes a purchasing agent for the goods of the country from which we borrow. And one of the reasons why I doubt very much the wisdom of those economists who tell us that we must be a borrowing country in Canada, is that when we borrow, like it or not like it, the economic truth is that we stimulate not, in the first instance, our own industries, but those of the country from which we borrow.
I have heard a great deal of extravagant praise given to the Victory Loans, and I understand we are to have another domestic loan floated. It is as well for us to understand economically what a domestic loan is, how it operates. These loans are bought and owned, necessarily, mostly by the wealthy people of the country, because you do not get them unless you have the money to pay for them. They are owned free of taxation; they are bought by the wealthy who have made millions in the war; and the interest upon them will, we have been assured by the Minister of Finance, be extended over a large number of future years upon the devoted heads of the rank and file of the people of this country, if you continue to raise your revenue by a tariff. Therefore, the loans being owned by the wealthy, the interest will be	paid,	first by	every returned
soldier and his wife and family upon the clothes which he wears and the boots and
[Stage Direction]
socks which his family wear; second, by the ranks of labour; third, by the farmers; and fourth, by the general consuming public of the country. Under those conditions, I have no hesitation in saying that I am not a five and-a-half per cent patriot myself. There is no patriotism in those loans, and while that is a very strong statement to make, many that have bought them say: We do not profess to be patriots in buying upon the credit of the Dominion of Canada at five and-a-half per cent; you could not get a better financial investment upon the surface of the world. That is how I view these loans, and that is why I emphatically endorse the advice of the hon. member for Brome when he says: Stop borrowing. Nineteen billions of dollars of a total wealth is Canada's wealth as compared with eight billions of dollars in Australia, and I am to be asked: Where shall be get the revenue ? When we floated our last loan, the people of Canada subscribed $600,000,000 in three weeks. If we had taxed that wealth properly we would have taken $300,000,000 of that somehow or another, and we would never had to pay interest or pay back capital, and things would have been squared with the profiteers if we had done that. That is where we should get the money. But, a finance minister who cannot get money to carry on the business of a small country with a small population like this, with nineteen billion dollars of wealth rolling around, wants some assistance in the running of his business. I emphasize this point, because I remember well that in the last election-and this I want to put strongly to the Government-the phrase was used upon every platform: We are behind the boys in France and Flanders to the last man and the last dollar. I have given the Government all the support in my power and all the credit that is coming to them, because they put sufficient emphasis on the man. Now I want the emphasis on the money. I am logical; I am patriotic, and I believe the people of Canada will demand that that shall be done, because I am certain that the people of Canada in their innermost natures are as great-hearted and as good people as are to be found anywhere on the face of this earth. We were told at the last election, as we have been told on innumerable platforms since the beginning of the war, that after the war things were not to be the same; that nothing was to be the sartie-nothing excepting tariffs and the millions of the profiteers. That is surely not our doctrine.
I think the minister should have gone further along this line of taxation. 
The supreme condemnation of tariff lies in this, that while it draws most of the taxes of the country from the poor, it at the same time, imposes upon the poor the heaviest burden of living, while it builds up the fortunes of the rich and fails to tax the rich even as much as the poor in the numerous cases where the poor have larger families than the rich.
We have been talking and are hearing a great deal about the unrest and the discontent there are in the country. It is these conditions that the Government has the power to relieve that I want to impress upon them. It is these considerations that are burning themselves into the hearts and minds of our people, that are stirring up the discontent. Society was stirred to its foundations by this war, and it is to-day stirred to its foundations by the consideration that the cost of living is bringing the actual pinch to make ends meet into 75 to 80 per cent of our homes, while the other 20 per cent are living in luxury, which Is flaunted everywhere. Society has been compared to a stream with two banks, and I try to visualise it as such to-day. On the one bank there are few inhabitants, comparatively, walking amidst flowers, riding in automobiles, dressed in the finest, occupying boxes at the theatres, having joy rides at home and pleasure trips abroad, lavishing in plenty beyond the description of words-on the other bank there is the great mass of the returned soldiers, the labouring people and the farmers getting up at early dawn and working until bedtime, and between the two banks there floats this sullen stream of discontent. On both banks every individual can say with the utmost truth: "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither." It is a terrible thing that in a country where there should be plenty there should be such disparity of fortune, and every right thinking man, whether he be in private life or in a public position, will reflect with greatest pleasure when he comes, as we have been reminded by recent events we shall all too soon come, to the end of life, on any efforts he has made, whether as an individual or as a legislator, to bridge that stream of discontent by bringing about, so far as law can do so, a greater equality of fortune amongst all the masses of our people.
We have been told more than once in this debate that free trade versus protection is an old controversy. Well, there are older controversies than that in the world-that of original sin, for instance. That is much

older, and I do not know that anybody wants to put up with sin for all that; we want to get rid of it. The tariff is old enough. It is so old that it is losing caste to-day among people who formerly thought a great deal of it. A very genial and good friend of mine among the members of this House was good enough to put a letter in my box the other day expressing the hope that I would define free trade. I am very glad to oblige him, if the House will permit me. Free trade is the assertion of the right of every man and every nation to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market without the law intervening to help any given set of producers. That looks a very sensible and decent thing. It is a right we all assert for ourselves when the Government leaves us alone. We all like to buy in the cheapest and to sell in the dearest market.
I have already submitted in the course of my remarks this afternoon a definition, or an illustration, of protection. Why, the very word protection is beginning to smell, especially in the light of the events of this war. What grown man should want protection anyhow? We have discarded the need of it on our western farms; we do not ask for it. We are all British through and through out there, and all we ask is a fair field and no favour, which is an old British proverb. Our sons and brothers in the trenches did not want protection; it was the fellows they went up against that needed protection. And yet, hon. gentlemen in this House for whom I have very great respect stand up and ask for protection, but I am glad they do so apologetically. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition the other day grieved me when he said: "I am a protectionist." But then he apologized. "Not a very large one," he said. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) said that he also was a protectionist, but not a very large one. The leader of the Opposition is in favour of protection, just a little bit in Nova Scotia for iron and steel and coal. I do not know what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries wants protected. My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) closed his speech last night by saying "I a*m a protectionist." Hie has to be at the present moment, because he has just had a little piece shaved off, and I should not wonder if he became one of my chief apostles now for shaving the other fellow. That is the way it is bound to work, and no one knows it better than the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert
Ames). In the reciprocity debate eight years ago, in a speech I very well remember, he described wheat as the keystone of the protectionist arch, and he said if wheat was taken away the whole arch would fall. I hope he was a good prophet, and I hope I shall be there to see the arch tumble.
Protection needs to be apologized for today. It was beaten in argument long ago, and on this continent. May I give to the House a brief exposure of protection, and a splendid motto for re-construction, from that great literary philosopher, Ralph Waldo Emerson. They have not all been protectionists in America. The best prose writer that country ever produced had this to say:
The way to mend the had world is to create the right world, Here is a low political economy plotting to cut the throat of foreign competition and establish our own; excluding others, by force, or making wtar on them-
He knew the connection between protection and militarism.
-or by cunning tariffs giving preference to worse wares of ours. But the real and lasting victories are those of peace and not of war. The way to conquer the foreign artisan is, not to kill him, but to beat his work.
There is a fine moral tonic both for men and for Governments facing reconstruction, and here I would even be so venturesome as to try and improve upon the mottp which the Minister of Finance has thrown out to this nation. He said: " Produce and save." I would say, " Work and trade." If you work hard enough you will not spend too much, and if you trade hard enough you have to produce stuff to trade with. Trade is before production. No one is going to produce things unless he can dispose of them. " Work and trade" would be the motto I would recommend to this country during reconstruction.
The argument for free trade was won long ago by words, but in this war, Mr. Speaker, I claim that it has been won to a world demonstration by events. How have fiscal policies stood the test of the greatest war the world ever saw? Great Britain raised seven million men to fight by sea and land But for her navy not an American soldier could have landed in Europe. We have the high testimony of a man who does not waste words, General Foch, who says that in the last grim conflict it was the hammer blows of the British army that brought about the German debacle. Having done all that on land and sea in the early stages of the war, she financed herself, financed the Allies, and the outlying portions of the
[Stage Direction]
Empire, and to-day she is the only belligerent country in Europe that is solvent. I hate to say anything that seems to reflect upon France, but facts must be stated, and it is a fact that France's notes would not run in the United States at this moment if they were not backed by the little free trade island of Great Britain. That is the record of how free trade stood the strain of the greatest war in history. We did our share in that war.
I have paid my tribute before to the men composing this Government who carried our part in the war to a successful conclusion, and I want to pay my tribute now onoe more to the Prime Minister of this country who shares with General Botha the proud distinction of being the only two Prime Ministers who have occupied that position from the beginning to the end of the war. That credit is coming to the Prime Minister of Canada. Credit is also coming to him for the very great patience and effort by which he formed Union Government, without which one questions whether the war would have been carried on as we, on this side of the House at least, wished it to be carried on.
Might I appeal to the party with whom I have been associated for two years to keep an open mind upon this question of freedom? We fought for freedom. Let us have freedom in Canada. I wish to end on this point as I began-I am not wedded to any special method of fiscal reform, but a great service will be done for the freedom of the world, a tremendous service will be done for the building up of this Empire, and for the development of Canada to greater glories along the financial and economic line than she has ever dreamt of, when the policy of British preference first enunciated by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) is extended further until we have absolute free trade between the Mother Country and this great Dominion. Why should we not have it? Will Canada lose anything by being linked up to the greatest commercial entity of all times? Lose! She will gain infinitely,. Great Britain is not only a tremendous market for the commodities which we have to sell, but she is the emporium for the world's commerce. Why should we not be linked up to her absolutely freely commercially.
When that intrepid man from Australia, Hawker, with his equally intrepid companion attempted his transatlantic flight amid the breathless excitement and expectation and hopes and sympathies of a world

looking on, he could not do it from his own home in the southern seas. He had to come not far off from the shores of Canada to attempt his flight. Was there not in that an inspiration for us? Was there not a lesson for us in the fact? It is from the shores of Canada that this linking up process must be effected-a condition which will be one of the greatest compensations of the war. From these shores must come this linking up of all who speak the English language and understand and appreciate British institutions. It is from Canada, I reiterate, that all the linking up must originate. The little islands in the North sea held their hands out to us at the beginning of the war and they were readily and tightly clasped and held until together we carried the war to a successful conclusion. They are held out to us now again. We have a free market there for our goods. Five short days compass the journey between the two countries, and Canada's future greatness would receive a most tremendous impetus from this course. Our blood was mixed forever in union on the battlefields of Europe. We are united politically, and a rich blessing of material good, and the future peace and glory not only of the Empire but of the world, await the party or the man who will unite us to Britain commercially.
Mr. FRANK BAINARD STACEY (Fraser Valley):: bring my mind to believe that the actual day of conflict is over. One thing I am sure of, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the day of trouble and of difficulty is not over. One thing I am fully satisfied of is that apart from the single question of the loss of life which, I hope, will not be continued, as great troubles, as great difficulties and as serious problems confront us as confronted us during the last four years. During the period of the war this country as a whole-as a whole, I say-was united. We were agreed as a whole upon the great issue before us. Can anybody to-day, in his sane moments, assert that 5 p.m. this country is united on almost any single question that could be presented before a public audience? It is not simply a difference of opinion on minor or superficial matters, but the people are at variance on questions which, in my. judgment, are as vital to the well-lbeing of Canada and as essential to the prosperity and suoeess of this nation as were the issues before this country during the war. We are in just as serious a situation to-day as we were four years ago. I have recently crossed this continent and I know something of the spirit which prevails in the western provinces. The hon. gentleman from Red Deer made ia very earnest and eloquent plea for the perpetuation of liberty in this country and in this House. Does my hon. friend not know that on this very day and for the last three or four weeks, there have been thousands and thousands of men and women in the four western provinces who have been fighting for liberty just as seriously and just as earnestly as they ever did during the four years of the war? We are not at peace. Were I the rankest free trader west of Winnipeg-were I the rankest free trader in Canada; moreover, were I a member of this Cabinet-I would think hard and long before I would take any step that even- appeared to strike a blow at the Government of Canada. Hon. members on the other side of the House may smile at that.
Let me say that it is not simply striking a blow at Union Government. Men in this House do not know the facte. I have read in- history that while Rome was burning, Nero fiddled. There is almost -a counterpart of that situation at this day. It is not simply striking a blow at the Union Government; the situation to-day in the western country means -striking a blow at government. Make no mistake about th-at. Let no one be so blinded by partisanship as not to realize that it is not any one Government

that is assailed to-day. It is not Union Government and a Conservative Government is not now in the province of Manitoba. The aim is to strike a blow at government-all governments-and, therefore, I say with all -modesty and seriousness that it is a terribly serious thing for any minister of the Crown at this stage of the game to even appear to strike a blow at, or to embarrass, the Government of Canada.
What is the situation? I am no alarmist. I am accustomed to be somewhat moderate and calm but a man must open his eyes to-day to the facts and acknowledge the truth. I said a moment ago that there were men and women in- the provinces of the West who were literally and actually sacrificing and fighting to-day for liberty. Let me make that statement stronger. Let me tell the hon. member for Marquette and the hon. member for Red Deer and every other man in this House who regards the tariff as the supreme question that they are mistaken. West of the Great Lakes the one great thought running through the minds of men and women is this: Shall the Union Jack float over our cities or the red rag of revolution?
References have been made, Sir, by the eloquent gentlemen who have spoken-references are frequently made-to the labour men, and to the returned soldier. That reference -has a popular ring; it is a fine appeal to the gallery. It is a splendid slogan to use, this appeal to the labour men and to our returned soldiers, as though Parliament were opposed in any way to the rights of the former and were not desirous of doing justice to the latter. Does this House not know-it surely must know -that this is not a labour strike? If any hon. gentleman does not know it, I take the responsibility of telling him-this is not, strictly -speaking, a labour strike. I grant you it has the appearance of it, and I do not propose at the present moment to enter into any lengthened discussion of the labour situation-this is not the time for it. But I want to give the House two or three reasons for the assertion I have made. The materialistic philosophy of the nineteenth century gave birth to two great heresies: one of them, Sir, was. the heresy of the superman, and the other was the heresy of the under man. The heresy ol the superman had its culmination in Prussian militarism, and was overthrown upon the battlefields of Europe; the heresy of the under man has not yet been overthrown. Let no one think for a moment, as -has been intimated, that the Bolsheviki terror is an aftermath of the war. It is

nothing of the kind. It was born long before the war. It was what I have termed the heresy of the under man. It was known in France first by the name of Syndicalism. It was known in Russia by the name of Bolshevism. It was known in the United States first by the name ol I.W.W-ism. It is known in Australia, in Great Britain, and in Canada, by the name of "One Big Unionism." It is the same thing, gentlemen; it is the same thing in different forms. It has flourished in England during the war. It bids fair to enter upon a career that can scarcely be outlined. You know its dominancy to-day in Australia. It has had one fight already on this continent, m the city of Seattle, and was vanquished. The second conflict on the continent of America is in progress to-day in the city of Winnipeg. Do not be misled by the assertion that this is a labour strike.
That brings me, Sir, to another point. "One Big Unionism" has been seeking for a long time to secure the co-operation not only of labour but also of the returned soldier. Shall I pause a moment and repeat that "One Big Unionism" has been moving heaven and earth to secure the sympathy and the co-operation of our returned soldiers. To some extent, in some cases, I grant you they have succeeded. A few have yielded to the courtship and have given their sympathy and support to it, perhaps not knowing fully what they were doing -yet they have done so. But let me say that the great majority of the returned men of the Canadian West are true to the principles for which my eloquent friend (Mr. Michael Clark) made such a powerful plea -the principles of liberty. They will not be dominated in Canada by the underman, as they refused to be dominated in Europe by the superman. That is -where the great struggle of this country is to-day concentrated : as to who shall obtain control of the great forces known as the labour element.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are other things I would like to say, but shall not proceed further than to admit that we are to blame, a great deal to blame, for the labour unrest in Canada to-day. That is owing in part to two things. Let me say to you that the labouring men of this country have a very strong and pronounced objection to what are known in Canada as our land policies, both Dominion and provincial. We have made some great blunders in the past with regard to our public lands. The records placed on the table of the House the other day show that nearly thirty-two million.
acres of public lands have been given to corporations, and let .me say in passing that nearly twenty-nine million acres of those were given between the years 1890 and 1911. In the parting with those lands is to be found one cause of unrest. Another cause lies in the fact that the great employers of labour in Canada have not dealt justly with the labouring men. I do not hesitate to say that because I believe it to be true. They have a feeling that until they used the weapon of compulsion they were exploited. They believed, rightly or wrongly, that they have not received a square deal in the operation of the great industries of the country. I shall not go further into that question except to say that from my own observation and study of this question there is only one solution. There is, I believe, one solution, but it is not along the lines suggested by my horn, friend (Mr. Cockshutt) last night, nor along the lines suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Michael Clark) this afternoon. You could build a tariff fence around this Dominion eight rails high, with a rider on top of that again, and it would not solve the existing industrial problem. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) could tear down that tariff fence, level it to the ground and burn every rail, and still the difficulty and the unrest would remain. That would not help the situation. -It might satisfy him for a while, but it would not satisfy the great labour element of the country. What is the solution? It is simply this: A practical, sympathetic, and actual business co-operation with the employee. That, gentlemen, is the solution, in the judgment of many men to-day, of the great labour unrest which prevails in Canada. We have that industrial problem before us. The strike is not, I believe, in the last analysis, a real labour trouble; it is the subtle attempt to exercise influence and power, with the design of destroying government-all governments, any government. It is that power which is seeking to-day the co-operation of the labour forces of this country, and which, to some extent, appears to be succeeding.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if that be so, let us seriously consider whether or not it is our business to discuss hour after hour superficial questions, or whether we should not seriously and assiduously set ourselves to the task of really attempting to solve the great issue and the great difficulty which is confronting this country to-day. You read your papers morning after morning, and you note what is going on in that western country, and I want to say to this House

that this is no time for the discussion ot questions which are not involved distinctly in the programme of Union Government as it was settled by the country in December, 1917.
Reference was made last night by the hon. gentleman from Maisonneuve to a visit to this House by Mr. Samuel Gompers. I thought he rather attempted to make light of that visit, to ridicule it. Perhaps not so, but that was the impression upon my mind. For my part, I am delighted that we had the opportunity of hearing and recognizing such a champion of labour as Mr. Samuel Gompers. If there is one man on this North American continent, especially in the United States, that the I.W.W. and other revolutionaries are attacking from every angle it is Samuel Gompers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is mistaken. I never alluded to the visit of Mr. Gompers. I was here and welcomed him and was proud to have him the guest of Canada. I alluded to the telegram sent by the Minister of Labour to Mr. Gompers.


Frank Bainard Stacey: I am glad to have that explanation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am a great admirer of Mr. Gompers.


Frank Bainard Stacey: I am glad to know that my hon. friend did not exactly mean what he appeared to say.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman
ought to accept my explanation. If he was not here last night be might read Hansard.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman clearly accepted the statement of the member for Maisonneuve.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, Mr. Speaker, he
qualified his acceptance.


Mr. TRAHAN:: He did not understand what was said.


Frank Bainard Stacey: I shall make another attempt, Sir. The hon. gentleman made reference to a man whom he termed the leader of this movement in the city of Winnipeg, and wanted to know who he was. Is that right? Now, I shall tell him. Until a couple of years ago the gentleman was the pastor of a church of one of the larger Protestant denominations in the province of Manitoba. That relation was severed. Since then he has been nominally the spiritual guide of the revolutionary party, and of the labour party also, in the city of Winnipeg. And I have one other item of information to give the hon. member which may not be so com-

forting-this same gentleman was the recognized leader of the anti-conseriptionist party in the city of Winnipeg during the last election.
Now I come, Sir, to what I may call personal reasons why I intend to vote against the amendment. The hon. gentleman from Marquette told us yesterday that he was going to vote against the Government because of principle. I do not claim to have principles any better than those of my hon. friend. But I am an older man, and perhaps my convictions are a bit deeper in consequence. The war has come to him, I presume, as to many another man as a citizen of Canada. But, Sir, the iron has pierced my soul-time can never heal the wound. What I have said with regard to myself can be said with regard to many a man in this iHtause. To many of us, as to thousands more in this Dominion, home and the family circle is but a memory. We gave our best without regret, and there are homes in this country that will never again see the light that once shone around the fireside. But it will be a long and dark political night before the sun will rise upon the day that will see me again ally myself with that party which, when the fate of the nation was in the balance and the perils of war seemed about to overwhelm the Empire, refused to support the fullest measure of help that it lay within the power of the Dominion of Canada to give.
Mr. Speaker, I propose to vote against the amendment and with the Government.


Arthur Trahan: Mr. Speaker, although the vitality of a nation must not be circumscribed in financial matters, yet these questions are daily taking a greater place in the life of humanity. Figures and numbers do not govern the world, but they are very useful to teach us how a nation is governed. The financial problems confronting our Dominion as a consequence of the war are of paramount importance, and during many years they will dominate our political life.
Canada's prosperity will mainly depend upon the solution given to those problems. It is then our duty to examine them in all their complexity, and to study very carefully the relations existing between the public finances, the private credit and the general economic organization of the country. When you consider, Sir, that our national net debt has increased fr6m $336,000,000 to $1,584,000,000 on March 31, 1919, and that it will amount to $1,950,000,000 in 1920, .which means an increase from $43,69 to

$220 per capita, and that the carrying charges on this debt have advanced from $1.96 per capita in 1913-14, to an estimated $15.33 per capita for the next fiscal year; when you find that every man, woman and child in the Dominion paid last year approximately $18.45 in customs taxes, the Government having collected $147,000,000 of customs duties and our population being approximately 8,000,000 people; when you ascertain that the cost of living has more than doubled, its increase being 115 per cent, and that the purchasing power of the dollar is gradually decreasing; when finally you have a deficit of $402,000,000 for the last fiscal year, and when you are told that for the next fiscal year there will be another enormous deficit; when you know that Canada will continue to live upon borrowings, you are amazed at the seriousness of our financial and economic situation, and as was said by a friend of the Government, you "cannot see where we are going to land unless it be in repudiation or bankruptcy," and if I rightly understood the hon. member (Mr. Stacey), I may add, in revolution.
What policy has the Government adopted to prevent such a calamity? Have the ministers been clearsighted? Have they spoken plainly, openly? Did they expedite matters with boldness and courage? No, Sir, on the contrary, they sheltered themselves and their responsibility behind commissions of which the weak point is to delay, more than is reasonable, useful solutions. We have the Commission on Labour and Industrial Unrest; and, Sir, the strikes are going on with all their troubles and disastrous consequences. We have the parliamentary Committee on the Cost of Living, appointed only at the end of this session. Finally, the Minister of Finance, in his Budget speech, tells us that we shall have a tariff inquiry, not now, but probably next fall. And yet all classes of society are anxious to have this question speedily settled.
It is time to clarify such a vitiated atmosphere, to reform these unfair practices if we wish to restore vitality and efficiency to our national organism. The people of ' Canada are sick and tired of commissions, inquries and reports, which, always ending only in speeches and gestures, indicate on the part of the Government their incapacity to conclude, move, and do something. The masses know that, in ordinary life, mediocre solutions coming in due time are preferable to perfect but tardy solutions. They feel that a firm and steady decision is more beneficial, chiefly in financial matters, than hesitation and contradiction. The Government should not forget that there is responsibility in inaction as well as in action. Moreover, responsibility in inaction is heavier, because inaction, under present circumstances, is synonymous with cowardice on the part of Government and engenders, in the masses discontent and Bolshevism.
The*most absorbing problem in our economic life is to determine how our Dominion will be able to create new capital and how we can extinguish first the currency inflation and then the fiscal inflation, so that we may come back as soon as possible to a lower cost of living. Reductions in the cost of living would involve a lowering of the cost of labour and of manufactured products, and then would favour an increase in internal consumption and the development of external trade. Speaking on the Budget, last year, I said:
The Government should cease to finance this country on paper. I warn them against the evils of such a policy. It will create further depreciation and economic tension. If they continue to increase this fiduciary circulation without adopting proper means to redeem it, they will make the trouble worse instead of better.
Unfortunately, the Government did not take these remarks into account, for our gold reserve, which was in August, 1914, 86 per cent of the total issue of $112,000,000, and 47 per cent in March, 1918, has been, according to the statements made by the Minister of Finance, reduced to 38.92 per cent in March, 1919, thus showing a decrease of 47.08 per cent since the outbreak of war. We are obliged to admit that our paper currency, particularly our Dominion currency, is in a state of inflation; that it is more and more watering, that our Dominion dollar is shrinking and that its purchasing power is lowering to a dangerous extent. The sole test of the dollar is what it will buy, and it rises and falls by that standard.
As stated by a correspondent of the Gazette, on March 10 last, "When- paper issues increase beyond the maximum requirements of circulation for domestic business purposes, prices of commodities increase in approximately the same degree; and the more irredeemable .paper issued, the greater the demand for currency to purchase commodities at the higher prices."
The same opinion was truly expressed by Mr. G. H. Cahan, in a letter published in the Financial Times on April 19 last. After having demonstrated that the basic circulating medium of the Government, which stood at $114,000,000 on June 30, 1914, has been diluted by the issue of an additional

issue of over $98,000,000 of irredeemable fiat currency, he adds:
It is a recognized economic law that such dilutions of the basic currency of a country inevitably decrease the purchasing power of money, or, in other words, increase the price of commodities; and this has undoubtedly occurred in Canada to some extent.
We think that a dollar is worth what it was when the war began in 1914. But it is not. The purchasing power of our dollar has decreased to 40 cents, as compared with pre-war prices, for the cost of living, according to statistics published by the Department of Labour, has increased by 115 per cent. The value of the purchasing power of our dollar, which is 40 cents, corresponds almost exactly with the amount of the gold guarantee that we have for each dollar and which is now 38.92 cents.
The Minister of Finance, who proudly says that the bank deposits in Canada almost doubled in the six years period from 1913 to 1919, should have added that this increase cannot be construed as evidence of an increase of wealth, and that it is more the result of currency inflation than of the people's savings. In reality, you have, it is true, $1,604,649,034 deposited in the hanks, but the purchasing power of this money being cut down to 40 per cent per dollar, as compared with pre-war prices, you can buy on that basis only $641,859,613 of goods, services or commodities; that is to say, $347,333,754 less than in 1913, since at that time we had bank deposits amounting to $988,191,367, and our dollar was not cut down to 40 cents hut had a full hundred cents purchasing power. Consequently -we can safely affirm that the national savings are more apparent than real; indeed, if you apply to them the test of purchasing power, they have fallen more than three hundred and forty millions of dollars since 1913. This is not to the credit of the 'Government, who, by their improvident policy of issuing irredeemable currency contrary to the law, have hypothecated the future of the country to an alarming extent, forgetting that monetary inflation, caused 'by the enormous development of governmental credit and emission of fiat currency, is not the proper means to obtain more goods and services, but constitutes, in reality, a deb t which must be liquidated sooner or later.
I entirely agiid! with the Minister of Finance when llm ! ays that " the policy will be to gradually instore our note issue to the statutory condition, which requires us to hold in gold tiyenty-five per cent up to [Mr. Trahan. 1
fifty million dollars of note issue, and dollar for dollar for any further issue." Further, I say that this should he done in the very near future. Great Britain has appointed a committee on currency and foreign exchanges after the war, to consider the various problems which will arise in connection with the currency and the foreign exchanges during the period of reconstruction, and report upon the steps required to bring about the restoration of normal conditions in due course. In Canada this work should he immediately done by the Treasury Board.
It is more than ever time for us to get back to sanity in matters of currency, because there is nothing more dangerous to the well-being of the people than inflation of money.
One of the most evident revolutionary ferments is the cost of living, the rise in price of all commodities necessary to life. It is also evident that the unlimited issue of currency notes has largely helped to modify the level of prices, and consequently, to aggravate the unrest.
According to a financier of world repute, Lord d'Abernon, " 80 per cent of the present industrial troubles and of Bolshevism " in England are due to the " enormous displacement in the value of the money;" he makes the further statement that " changes in the value of currency in which wages, salaries and other forms of remuneration are paid are the real cause of tl.e prevailing unrest."
We have the same conditions in our country; when the cost of living goes up more rapidly than salaries, we must not be surprised if the wage-earners are always asking for higher wages and go on strike in order to obtain a living wage.
We have two evils to combat: insufficiency of producers and the crowding of all kinds of middlemen beyond regular t;ade. The Government, instead of encouraging the former and of restraining the greed of the latter, has adopted as its panacea for solving all our war-problems the emiier course of manufacturing money; this policy was an inducement to profiteers to inciease their prices and has been the source of nearly all our labour unrest; and the Government must be held responsible for ihese monetary and fiscal inflations which have accentuated the hardships of th*i consumer by maintaining and keeping up the high cost of living. They deserve absolutely the criticism which the Economist of London applied to the British Government, on November 2 last, in the following terms:

" Thus the huge increase in paper money and bank credits, which has helped to push up prices, has swollen the cost of the war, and has caused an atmosphere of suspicion and unrest of which we may not yet have felt the full effects, is shown clearly to be due to the failure of our war Governments to get money in the right way, and their short-sighted abuses of their power of manufacturing money with the reluctant help of our bankers. If our Government had had the courage to take the money needed by taxation or forced loans instead of making new money and so depreciating the whole currency of the country, we should have been spared many an evil legacy which will complicate the after-war position."
I repeat, Sir, that we must come back to sanity in matters of currency if we sincerely desire to relieve the people by reducing the cost of living, and to prevent further labour unrest and troubles. It is our imperative duty, if we wish to attain these ends, to promote the deflation of our currency, even if such deflation were to be temporarily grievous, because it is better for our country to endure transitory difficulties than to enjoy a fictitious prosperity which will be the source of a permanent [DOT] crisis and may be the cause of repudiation, bankruptcy, or revolution.
What are the remedies for out present calamitous financial, economic and social situation. And does the Government intend to apply these remedies?
It is a recognized fact that the state expenditures are one of the main causes of inflation; hence, it is absolutely necessary that they should be minutely controlled in order to reduce them. The hon. member for Neepawa the other day recommended the establishment of a parliamentary national expenditure committee, such as there is in England, and I heartily approve of the suggestion. As stated by the London Economist, quoting the report of the British Committee on Currency: "Money needed for reconstruction purposes should not be provided by the creation of new credit, and, in so far as such expenditure is undertaken at all, it should be undertaken with great
caution	The shortage of real
capital must be made good by genuine savings. It cannot be met by the creation of fresh purchasing power in the form of bank advances to the Government, or to manufacturers under Government guarantee, or otherwise, and any resort to such expedients can only aggravate the evil and retard, possibly for generations, the recovery of the
country from the losses sustained during the war. A timely recognition of these homely truths would enable many wellmeaning gentlemen, who propose to cure all our post-war ills by multiplying money and credit instead of goods, to take a well-earned holiday, most beneficial to themselves and to the public."
Well, Sir, when you consider the enormous amount of expenditure for the present fiscal year you naturally try to find the reasons why these expenditures are progressively growing so rapidly and so unwisely. The answer is that the ministers have so great a love for big private interests that they lose sight of general and national interest. Instead of resolutely cutting down every expenditure which is not absolutely necessary, and of abandoning the policy followed in this country for many years, they adopt a policy of reckless extravagance, not in accordance with the financial and economic possibilities of Canada. Yet, the re-establishment of the equilibrium between revenue and expenditure with surpluses is necessary and more important than the execution of all philanthropic and financial schemes conceived by men saturated with the idea of governmental paternalism.
It is quite evident that the revenue necessary to meet the $438,000,000 required by the Government to provide for the expenditures mentioned in the Estimates, not including the amount required for demobilization, will not come from income or earnings, and that we will be obliged to cover the deficit by the creation of new credit, either by the issue of new currency, or by way of loans.
With the Weekly Sun, I am of the opinion that, under present circumstances, to borrow money to give employment at war wages upon unproductive public works such as highways, Welland canals, public buildings and railways, is not justifiable in the general interest. It merely defers for a short time an inevitable crisis in the relations between urban labour and capital, and tends to aggravate that crisis.
Nations are like individuals; when they have not sufficient financial resources to make improvements, they must delay them, especially if the country suffers from currency and fiscal inflation, which increase the cost of living and cause labour unrest.
If the Government was anxious to find a remedy for the abnormal situation actually confronting us, they should adopt a policy of curtailment of expenditures and set the example of economy. But, they prefer to

favour their good friends, the profiteers, to the detriment of the people, by accumulating deficits and increasing, for unproductive works, the national debt.
Government borrowings should 'cease at the earliest possible moment, if we wish to get rid of all these inflations, to reduce the cost of living, and to prevent more industrial unrest. The first way to realize these purposes is to proportion our expenditure to our revenue and to reduce the deficits. The Government has chosen another course, they are wasting money, they want to borrow again and again, and I charge them with being the direct cause of the unrest prevailing in the country, and which is largely due to the high cost of living resulting from currency, credit and fiscal inflations.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Trahan: When the
House rose at six o'clock I was saying that if the Government was anxious to remedy the grave evils confronting our Dominion, and consisting in the high cost of living and labour unrest, its duty was to stop borrowing, make the expenditure correspond to the revenue, permit the deflation of currency, and take all proper measures to lessen the'fiscal inflation.
Another remedy to cure the existing evils would be to increase our production and our export trade,

which brings me to the tariff question.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Stacey) stated this afternoon that in view of the fact that there existed in Canada the menace of revolution and general unrest all over the Dominion, it was no time to discuss the tariff question, and for that reason he would vote against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brome and in support of the Government. May I be permitted to tell the hon. gentleman that as the Government, by its policy of inaction, is directly responsible for the existing general labour unrest, he would have good ground for voting against it, because he himself says that that unrest is a bad thing for Canada.
As a Liberal I am theoretically a free trader because, as Cobden said, "Free trade is the best factor for peace." Sir, respect for liberty, property, peace and harmony will only exist when men rise to that level of international morality evidenced by eco-

nomic co-operation, and which consists in the free exchange of the commodities necessary to life. Otherwise, humanity is greatly exposed to fiscal tyranny and to the injustice which characterizes its operation. I may add with Mr. George Evan Putman, president of the American Free Trade League, that "if we repudiate Prussianism we must also repudiate its brother, Protectionism:" But, Sir, taking into consideration the new conditions created by the war, the enormous debt and the annual charges which confront us, we must all admit that it is altogether impossible to have, for the present, absolute free trade in Canada. It would be also more dangerous to continue the practice of adequate protection in our commercial relations with other countries. It is sufficient to quote the maxim of free trade:	Laissez faire,
laissez passer,"-"Let do, let pass," and to bear in mind the imperative "Produce and export," which must be the programme of this Dominion, to understand that in the future the mere application of either protection or free trade in its entirety would become more and more difficult. A judicious, practical, and patriotic opportunism must, above all during the new era of reconstruction, actuate and direct every true Canadian in the most noble enterprises for the economic renovation of this Dominion. We must of necessity have sufficient revenue to pay the interest on our war loans, the pensions to our soldiers, and the ordinary expenditure, without being obliged to resort to new borrowings.
Consequently we may without any protectionist views, but only for fiscal purposes, provide a part of the necessary revenue by way of fiscal duties, but it cannot be a question of protective or prohibitive duties. There is antagonism between fiscal and protective duties. The former, which exist in 'England, the classical land of commercial freedom, have for their sole object the providing of revenue for the treasury; they are not intended to prohibit the entrance of certain products, or to raise the prices of certain national products. On the contrary, the protective duties are naturally prohibitive. President McKinley said that they are not designed to increase the national revenue, but by prohibiting the importation of the protected products to reduce, or to even suppress revenue.
We have now adequate protection, and the Budget proposals do not alter our protective duties. Bearing in mind that after having first of all provided generously for the home consumption of natural products,

we are bound to increase our own export trade if we want to accumulate national wealth and to have a better rate of exchange-as is well known, the present rate of exchange against Canada is 3 per centr- considering that the development of our export trade is in direct proportion to the Liberalism of our tariff, and that in matters of external trade the rule "Do ut des"- "give in order to receive"-is rigorous and strict, that industrial progress to be satisfactory should not strangle agriculture- which is intrinsically essential to this country and must be developed to the utmost in order to have a prosperous Canada-I enthusiastically support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brome, which embodies the policy of the Liberal party and the claims of the farmers of this country, as regards reduction of the customs tariff, free food, free agricultural implements, and the revival of the reciprocity agreement. This amendment constitutes a step forward in the right direction, and every one admits that in this matter we must proceed gradually but surely.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Car-vell) and many other members have asked this House, where we are going to get the extra revenue which we shall require to meet the state expenditure. They speak of an estimated annual deficit of $100,000, 000. Would it not be more proper, Sir, to look carefully into the Estimates, to examine seriously the various proposals made by the Government, in order to ascertain if it is not possible to economize and practice the thrift so eloquently preached by the ministers on the treasury benches? What we should do in the future is to refrain from extravagant and wasteful expenditure. I venture to say, Sir, that the Government could have saved this year the estimated deficit of $100,000,000 by putting off the shipbuilding programme, $30,000,000; the housing scheme, $25,000,000; the highways vote, $25,000,000; by not granting to the soldiers so generous a bonus, which, according to one of their best friends is " absolutely absurd and ill-considered," and will cost millions and millions of dollars; by not assuming the deficits of the Canadian Northern railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific railway; by making reductions in the number of civil servants; by abolishing the information bureau and the Canadian Official Record. If the Government followed this policy of retrenchment we would not have to face deficits and we would not be obliged to borrow to the detriment of this country.
As to the income tax, Sir, I may say that it should be the incumbent and necessary correction of the fiscal duties. But I regret that it is much lessened by the fact that the Victory bonds are exempt from taxation, and I may ask, with the Financial Times, " What is the good of an income tax if the incomes on $1,250,000,000 to $1,500,000,000 is not to be taxed?" For my part I say: Away with tax exemption. And I sternly blame the Government, as I did last year, for .having exempted such bonds from taxation. This is an unjust policy, and to illustrate that I wish to put in Hansard two extracts which, to my mind, prove conclusively how great has been the mistake of the Government in adopting such a course. The first extract is taken from the Labour World of August last year.
This paper is the organ of labour in the city of Montreal, and the article that I quote is entitled:
The Income Tax, a toon for the rich. A legislation which enables profiteers to accumulate therir gains instead of forcing them to bear their share of the burden imposed by the war.
The article reads:
The law, as it stands now, provides for the taxation of excess profits and surplus of revenue over a certain definite amount, but provides also for the exemption of all money invested in war bonds or war charities. And of course, every practical financier will invest in war bonds bearing a fair rate pf interest all the money that otherwise the government would seize for war purposes. The excess profits, instead of being confiscated, as it was intended by the Income Tax Act, is being borrowed by the Government, and the mass of the people will have to pay the interest on same later. Thus instead of relieving the poor it adds to their burden.
By the tax exemption on investment in war issues, these bonds are as good to a man with a $6,000 yearly income as would any other investment at 5.7S per cent. To a man having an income of $12,000 per year these bonds are as good as another investment yielding 6.10 per cent. To a $80,000' a year income, they are worth 7.47 per cent. To a $500;000 income, they are worth 11.61 per cent and to a $1,000,000 income these bonds are worth 20.2>9 per cent.
I may say that these calculations were made under the old law. If they were made) on the new rates proposed in the Budget, the rates of interest on these bonds would be higher:
Moreover every one agrees that our income taxes are most likely to increase in which case the above figures will be more discriminating.
As these bonds are only worth 55 per cent to the man whose income is less than $2,000' a year, it is obvious that tax exemption in that case as in any other case, becomes class favouritism. Well, class favouritism is the very thing that this war is intended to abolish and which we all strive to strike out. Class favouritism does not exist at the front, why should it be main-

tain&d at the rear? The poor' have readily given their lives for the defence of the country and civilization; they have contributed to a large extent to the various patriotic enterprises and war relief funds. The rich are still evading their duty, though they appear to be very generous. They want compulsion for all except for themselves, and when investing their profits in war bonds they are being credited with patriotic instincts, although it is a means of escaping taxation.
It may be said that this extract comes from a radical source. I have thought proper to quote another extract coming from another source, from a financial paper, the Financial Times, of Montreal, the organ of many financiers in that city, in an article published on August 3, last, said:
Great Britain and' the United States tried the tax-exempt bonds, but found that the exemption was not necessary. Patriotism in those countries apparently was not to be measured by interest bonus or tax exemption. Those countries did not underestimate the spirit of their people.
As the present Government has done by adopting the policy it has adopted regarding these bonds.
The future danger of present tax-exempt bonds is the danger of permanently high rates of interest. General interest rates always pivot around the prevailing rate of Government bonds. Government bonds provide the yield basis upon which all moneys for social (municipal service and Industrial development are borrowed. Whatever a government bond yields, the graded securities must regulate their interest yield accordingly. Money borrowed for purposes of the pulp mill, the steel works, the street railway or the school hoard, must be borrowed' at a rate which will appear attractive in comparison with government bonds.
Therefore, a load' of tax-exempted bonds will have some very serious possibilities: it relieves the rich man of a definite duty towards the State; it places the onus of taxation upon the poor man (by indirect taxation on necessities) ; it raises the rates on money for industrial enteiprise, the effect of which would be to make money so expensive that further development would he checked; and it puts a price and a prize on patriotism when no price or prize is asked.
If we all are equally to share the burden of the cost of freeing the world from the Prussian influence, we cannot do it by exempting from taxation a billion dollars or more of the money spent in the fulfilment of that purpose. The word exemption should be taboo. It does not fit this democracy.
I hope the bearers of these bonds will follow the advice given to them by the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder), when addressing the West-mount Canadian Club, he said:
Many people made money during the war and tucked it away in Viotory Bonds. Unless some one is ready to loosen a little of that money in order to tide over the situation, that

is to say, to provide employment-well, just think about it.
I hope also that the Government will adopt a better method in negotiating our next domestic loan.
There seems to be a consensus of opinion that the income tax must be collected on a graduated scale. It is necessary to guard strictly against false declarations by the taxpayers, otherwise the income tax may be a tax on honesty, the honest taxpayer paying while the clever hypocrite evades the tax, and owing to an important political situation the latter is assured the benevolence of the Administration. The income tax must more and more admit of a system of wide publicity. Public opinion has the right to exercise an efficient control over the participation of every citizen in the national taxation. I therefore respectfully suggest that an annual report should be made to Parliament in the first ten days of the session, giving the name and residence of the taxpayer, the class in which his income falls, the amount of income tax paid, and the amount exempted. Some may object that secrecy or privacy is necessary in business. But these objectors are the first to go to mercantile or information agencies and make inquiries on the financial standing of the industries, contemplate dealing. After all, we must recognize that the actual situation of everyone in his relation to the public treasury should be known by the public; not in full detail, but that we may know the class in which he should be placed according to his own declaration. In my humble opinion this would be an excellent method of preventing false and fraudulent declarations.
Another class of people who often try to evade the income tax are the holders of shares, bonds, debentures, and other personal or moveable property. To prevent these evasions I would urge the Government to establish a system of registration so that each owner of bonds, shares or other personal property would be obliged to register against his name the amount of his personal property, and in case of sale the transfer would be noted under the name of the new owner. A penalty should be imposed for non-compliance with the law, and in case of recidivism, such moveable property, that is to say, shares, bonds, debentures, etc., should be confiscated. I believe this method would to a certain degree settle the action of moveable capital, limit its power, prevent evasions of the Income Tax Act, and facilitate the work of the tax collector. Moreover, every person should be compelled to make a return show-

ing whether or not he is liable under the Income Tax Act, and the names of those making fraudulent declarations should be published. We should also adopt the distinction made in England between earned and unearned income.
I sincerely believe that if these suggestions were adopted and put into practice the income tax, which yielded only ten million dollars last year, would produce a much greater revenue. One word more on this question. The Minister of Finance was right when he said that " carried beyond a reasonable point," the income tax " can only defeat its purpose, with consequences detrimental to capital, labour, and the community as a whole." Why? Because it would then become a cause of rack for the ratepayer, a device to an arbitrary distribution of wealth, and at length a great factor of impoverishment. I notice that the tax on the smaller incomes has been increased by one hundred per cent, and I would ask the Government to reduce the tax for this class.
In conclusion, let me say that the Budget proposals are not satisfactory. They do not attempt in the slightest degree to solve for the benefit of the masses the problems of the cost of living and industrial unrest. On the contrary, by the inflation of national expenditures, by adding further to our currency inflation, by increasing the cost of living, they will aggravate existing evils and cause greater labour unrest. The Government, instead of practising financial wisdom, that is to say, moderation in expenditure, prudence in taxation, and a stubborn struggle against the increasing of the national debt, lavishly spends public money, accumulates deficits and borrowings, manufactures new money and credits to encourage profiteers, and dislocates our national finances. In matters of fiscal policy they always " wait and see," forgetting that if they desire to avoid new and greater catas-trophies and disasters their duty now is first to be clear-sighted, then to speak plainly and openly, if they have ideas, and finally to be courageous enough to act quickly. But they prefer to postpone solutions and to continue, on this tariff question, to bilk ideas and facts with words.
Well Sir, we on this side of the House strongly condemn this sluggish and suspicious attitude of the Government. We emphatically declare that at the present juncture there is not a more imperative and solemn duty than the accumulation of national wealth in 'Canada. It is a sacred duty in the interests of the families who have contributed their best manhood to the



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
cause of the Allies and have shed bloody tears during the past years of trial. There is no more sacred duty than the careful preparation for the future of our country and the ensuring of its permanent prosperity. There is no more sacred duty before us than to provide employment for the returned soldiers as soon as they are reestablished in civil life. There is no more sacred duty to our beloved Canada than to enable her at the earliest possible moment to pay the heavy debts that she has incurred in order to assure the triumph of liberty and right. It is a sacred duty, if moral and social order will prevail in our country, to make an earnest appeal to every true and faithful Canadian to join in a patriotic movement to the end that we may promote the welfare of Canada and realize in the result national strength and national unity.
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELiL (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I shall not attempt to refer at any length to the remarks of my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Trahan). He has criticised the financial administration of this country during the war, and as I followed his observations, two of the main points of his criticism appeared to be, first, the inflation of the country's currency, and secondly, the extent and character of our borrowings. Just a word in reference to this in passing. My hon. friend, who appears to have made some study of this question, must recognize the fact that inflation of currency is, to some extent at least, inseparably associated with a war such as that we have just passed through. But I believe that the records will show that Canada has less inflation of her currency than any other country that entered the war at the time we did. I desire to pay my tribute to the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) for the splendid manner in whibh the finances of Canada have been managed during this war. I think that when you compare 'Canada's financial record in the war with the record of any other country, it will be conceded that no Government can show a better record of judicious handling of the country's finances, and that in no other country have the people responded more readily to the appeals of the Government for financial support in carrying on the war.
Just one word with reference to the borrowings of the country. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) touched on this point, and he suggested that the Victory bonds had got into the hands of a few

[Stage Direction]
capitalists and were exempt from taxation. That was the substance of a portion at least of the complaint he had to make. I think my hon. friend, in speaking as he did, could not have had in mind the actual facts of the situation. In the Victory Loan of 1917 there were no fewer than 820,035 subscribers, and in the loan of 1918 no feweT than 1,067,879 subscribers. Now, Mr. Speaker, when we recognize the fact that many of these subscribers were heads of families, it is apparent that the number of subscribers represents a very much larger percentage of the population of Canada than the actual number of names, and I venture to think that if we could trace out the number of families represented, we would find somewhere from a quarter to a half of the entire population of Canada directly interested in the Victory bonds subscribed for in the last loan. I am not going to enter into a discussion to-night of the question as to whether or not bonds should be exempt from taxation, but I wish to point . out that these bonds are in possession not of the rich alone. The rich have some, but these bonds are owned by all classes of people throughout the entire country.
Mr. DUFF:: Is it not a fact that a large number of these bonds have since changed hands and gone into possession of large investors?


Mr. ROWELL:: My information is that
comparatively few have changed hands. The people do not wish to sell them. The credit of the country is so good that the people are glad to have the bonds. But whether they have changed hands or not, the fact is: The terms upon which a loan is put on the market govern the price at which it will be taken and the extent of the subscription which will be made to it. And in putting this loan upon the market, the Finance Minister, having regard to the condition of the market and the demands which had been made upon the Canadian people, considered that the terms were fair to the subscribers, fair to the people as a whole and were such as would ensure that the Government would get the money necessary to carry on the war, and maintain our forces at the front. So far as the work of the Minister of Finance is concerned, I have had an intimate knowledge of it only during the' past eighteen months, but I have generally observed it during the three and a half years preceding, and I want to say that I do not know of any finance minister of any country at war who has handled the finances of the

country better and has achieved finer results than has the present Minister of Finance. These are the only observations I intend to make with reference to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Trahan).
With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) I would like to make two or three observations which I am sure the hon. gentleman will not take amiss. I have always listened to him with the greatest interest and have always been able to gather valuable information from his addresses. But I must confess that to-day I did not think that either in the substance or in the manner of his deliverance he was equal to his best efforts in this House and elsewhere, and I felt it was due to the fact that he was not on wholly sound ground in a portion of his address.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: He was trying to say a good word for you.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The hon. member always has a good word to say for the Union Government because he recognizes its merits. My hon. friend's criticisms of the Government's fiscal policy as I recall them, laid special emphasis on two points, apart from the general discussion of protection and free trade, into which I do not intend to enter. First, he criticised the duties on food, and discussed at considerable length and with great force the importance of food supply and also the high cost of living. In connection with that argument he made two points. First, his argument was that the duty should have been wholly removed from foodstuffs; and second that the high prices of food in Canada were not due to any shortage of food in this country. He held that we had an abundance of food in Canada, and attributed the high prices to the hoarding of food and excessive profits made by the profiteers. Let me say in passing, that if the food is in the country and if the scarcity of it and the high prices are due to the two causes mentioned, 1 confess that personally I cannot see how the removal of the duty would have stopped hoarding or affected prices. I deeply regret for many reasons, but to-night particularly for the reason I am about to mention, that my hon. friend the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has retired from the Government. It is a matter of deep regret to all his colleagues, and especially to me, because our relations have been the most cordial and sympathetic from the day we entered the Government together. But 1 wish my hon. friend had been in my place here to-night to defend his adminis-

tration in relation to the prices o! food and the work of the Canada Food Board. I am sure the hon. member for Red Deer did not realize that this afternoon he was delivering a strong criticism of the administration of my hon. friend the former Minister of Agriculture.
He was in charge of the food board and of all -these regulations during the past fifteen months. The food board under the administration of my hon. friend the exMinister of Agriculture, did take steps to. deal with hoarding; they did take steps to cut down excessive profits; they did take steps to protect the public. I believe that my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Agriculture took such steps as he believed to be effective and as he believed to be in the public interest. My hon. friend the exMinister of Agriculture will agree that he never submitted any proposals to the Government, he never made any proposition to his colleagues, to regulate the price of food and to prevent hoarding or to limit profits, that his colleagues did no1! most cordially support. He had the backing of his colleagues in connection with every effort he put forth in this direction.
If there was any friend of the food profiteers in the Government, i't must necessarily have been my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Agriculture and I think it is only necessary to state the proposition to convince the House and the country of the absurdity of the suggestion no matter from what quarter it may emanate.


Michael Clark: I do not want to pry into Cabinet secrets, but I would like to know if my hon. friend (Mr. Crerar) ever suggested taking the tariff off foodstuffs?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I know that my hon.
friend (Mr. Michael Clark) is very able and very clever but I was dealing with the proposition which my hon. friend put forth when he said that the high cost of food in this country was due to hoarding and excessive profits.


An hon. MEMBER:: Answer the question.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Let us keep to the
point under discussion and I will deal with the other question when the time comes. Confining ourselves to this question, what I am saying to the House, to the . country and to my hon. friend is: My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Agriculture had charge of that branch of the public service. He administered it
with great efficiency. If there was any failure it was failure on his part to recommend to his colleagues what further steps . should be taken, but.I do not believe that there was any failure on his part. He did his duty as he saw it with the results that we see in the country to-day.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are not very complimentary to your former colleague.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the hon. gentleman
desires to address the House he should do the House the courtesy of rising and addressing the Chair.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, we were asked a question from the other side of the House.
I said it would be more complimentary to the former colleague of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Rowell) not to discuss Cabinet secrets before the hon. ex-Minister of Agriculture resigned.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am not discussing secrets;
I am stating facts. Then, let me refer to' some of the measures taken to deal with this matter. I only touch upon them because I know that my hon. friend from Red Deer wishes to be fair and does not wish to misrepresent the position of the Government one iota. Take the question of the profits of the big packers and cold storage men which has been so much discussed in this House. What was done under the administration of by hon. friend the ex-Minister of Agriculture? Regulations were imposed which, in the first place, limited the profits on the turnover of the leading cold storage men and packers. They were required under regulations, which were administered by the Government, and under license issued by the Department of Agriculture, or the Food Board-I forget which-to so carry on their business that their profits should not exceed two per cent on their turnover. Notwithstanding that, if they earned a profit on the capital invested in the business of over 7 per cent, and up to 15 per cent, one-half over 7 per cent went to the Gov-9 p.in. eminent as revenue, and the other half went to the packer. [DOT] All over 15 per cent went to the Government. The result was that no packer could earn more than 11 per cent on his total actual capital invested in the business, and he was subject to the business war profits tax as well. The packers very strongly resisted these regulations and protested against them. We are sometimes asked the question:	"Why
has not the Government done as the American Government has done in regulating the packers and controlling food prices?" The

Government under the administration of the ex-Minister of Agriculture has gone farther than the American Government in regulating and controlling profits and prices. Our regulations have been far more drastic and far-reaching than those of the American Government. What has been the position of the American Government in dealing with this same matter? They allowed packers whose turnover was less than $100,000,000, which would include all our packers, a profit of 2i per cent on their turnover, with no limitation whatever upon the profit on actual capital invested in the business. Those whose turnover exceeded $100,000,000 were allowed a certain percentage on the capital invested in the business. The limitation varied according to the character of the particular branch of the business carried on but by a coincidence it figured out that the profits of the four big packing houses of the United States were limited to 11 per cent on the capital. Under the American regulations capital included borrowed money, so that the American packers were able to earn eleven per cent not only on the capital invested in the business but on money borrowed, as well. The Canadian packers protested against our regulations. They said, in the first place, you are imposing a greater limitation on the annual turnover than is imposed upon the packers in a similar position in the United States, and then you are adding to that limitation a further serious restriction upon the actual earnings of the packers, a restriction even stricter than that imposed in the United States upon the four big packers. In other words, this Government combined the limitations and regulations which the American Government imposed on both classes of packers upon our packers, and made them far more stringent. It is under this system that the packers of this country have carried on their business since January, 1918. In no country at war have such stringent regulations been imposed upon the packers and cold storage people as have been imposed by the Government on the packers of this country.
When my hon. friends talk of this Government being the friend of food profiteers-I am not speaking of my hon. friend from Red Deer, but of some hon. gentlemen opposite-they are speaking either without a knowledge of the facts or for political effect; they are misrepresenting the situation, and I say that at this time any hon. member who falsely charges the Government with standing in with the food profiteers, when there is such

a feeling of unrest throughout the country, is only contributing and adding to that unrest which may shake the foundations of government in Canada.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Did this Government take any means, either on their own behalf, or on behalf of the British Government, to recover from certain packing houses in this country the value of the post-cured bacon-salt water pumped into the bacon uselessly and for which the British taxpayer had to pay?


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend's remark is about as relevant as his remarks usually are to the subject under discussion. The Government took whatever action the British Government required in all matters that related to the administration of British affairs in this country.
Coming to the situation in Great Britain, my hon. friend mentioned that the price of bacon was lower in Great Britain than it was here. I do not know, that may be the case; but there is this fact which the House and the country should keep in view. The British Government adopted a policy, which this Government has not adopted. Men may differ on it, some may think that this Government should have adopted it, but personally I do not think that the situation in this country called for its [DOT] adoption. The British Government undertook to look after the feeding of the British people, and the British Government purchased the food. All purchases were made on behalf of the British Government. It all came in through the Government, the Government distributed it throughout the country, sold much of it to the people of Britain at less than cost and charged up the difference as part of the war expenditure.
That is one reason why certain classes of food can be sold cheaper in Great Britain than they can in Canada-the British people are paying for it as part of war expenditure, I doubt very much if the people of Canada would sustain the Government in paying to the farmers and producers of the Dominion a price in excess of the regular price, and selling it at a substantially lower figure. But what I say is this: If that is a wise policy it was not recommended by my hon. friend. He is a pretty good judge on these mattters, and I would depend on his judgment. Notwithstanding the fact that the British Government is to-day buying this food, and has been for the past two years; notwithstanding that the British Government is selling it to the people of Britain at less than cost, paying the difference out of the exchequer; notwithstanding

that Great Britain is a free trade country, and has been during all the period my hon. friend has mentioned, the cost of living in free trade Great Britain, with food partially paid for by the Government, is higher today to the average man than it is in the Dominion of Canada. Now that is no argument against free trade.


Michael Clark: It is a perfectly general statement as to which my friend has no proof.


Newton Wesley Rowell: All I can say In proof of the statement is this: I have discussed the matter with those who have been over in Great Britain looking after our trade interests, as well as with the Prime Minister of Canada (Sir Robert Borden). They have had special occasion to look into the question with a view of developing Canadian trade; they had to consider the price at which goods were being sold in Great Britain-foodstuffs of all kinds and manufactured articles-with a view of seeing how far Canada could compete in the British markets; and the one testimony they have all brought back -is that at the present time the cost of living is higher in Great Britain than in Canada and that we can sell our goods in the British market at a profit. That is the basis for my observation. -
Now, let me turn to another matter which my hon. friend mentioned. One of the important points discussed in his address, was the question of what should be the policy of the Government with reference to the iron and steel and the coal industries. If I rightly understood my hon. friend he took the logical and consistent position, from his standpoint, that all duties, all protection, should be removed from these industries, and that if -they could not live under those conditions they did not deserve to exist. If I have in any way misapprehended my hon. friend in that respect I would be very glad if he would correct me. I understand him to admit that I have correctly stated his position, and such being the case, there are two or three facts I should like to bring to his attention which appear to me to have a very important bearing on this matter. My hon. friend will recollect that one of the most important and most valuable industries in Canada during the war was that of the manufacture of munitions. The British Government expended in Canada something like $1,000,000,000 first through the Shell Committee, and then through the Imperial Munitions Board, for the purchase of shells and other munitions. Mr. Speaker, the people of
this country do not realize how large a factor the pouring of those millions into all channels of trade in Canada was in our industrial operations, and how it has contributed to Canada's ability to bear the burden of this war. If we had not had that immense expenditure of public money, Canada at this time would have been in a very serious position financially. I am not going to argue on the merits or demerits of protection and free trade; I am simply dealing with the facts. That munitions industry could not have been carried on in this country if we had not had iron and steel and coal industries here. This is not a theory we are dealing with, it is an actual condition. You may agree, or disagree, with the theory of protection and free trade, but I repeat that we could not have carried on the munitions industry without our iron and steel and coal industries in Canada.
Then I want to go a step further. When the United States entered the war we found it practically impossible to get the necessary steel, the necessary raw materials in certain lines, to provide the amount required for our domestic uses. We faced this situation at one time during the war-the public did not know it, because it could not be disclosed to them-the railway companies of Canada claimed that their tracks were in such a condition that they were a menace to the travelling public, and yet they could not better their position for the reason that they could not get the rails necessary to relay the tracks. Why could they not get rails? Because to get them we would have had to stop the manufacture of steel for munitions, and it was a choice between continuing the supply of shells for overseas or making the rails to renew railroad tracks in [DOT] this country. Every pressure was used to increase the output of steel. As a matter of fact, under the pressure of necessity, the output of steel in Canada was doubled during the war. A colleague sitting beside me states that it was more than doubled and I will accept his statement. Notwithstanding that there was this pressure I have mentioned, it was only after the utmost efforts that some relief was secured, by buying rails which had been sold to Russia, but which she had failed to take. We also, after great effort, secured certain rails in the Unitea States. Then, by the most persistent pressure through the War Trade Board here, and through the War Trade Mission in Washington, headed by Mr. Lloyd Harris, we got some further relief to supplement the steel required to carry on our industrial

operations. Every iron and steel plant, every plant depending on iron and steel in Canada, was living from hand to mouth for weeks at a time, and I wish to say now that, so far as I am concerned, it is not a question of protection and free trade, it is a question of national safety and national defence. I am going to stand for a policy that will make Canada self-contained, so far as possible, in connection with the iron and steel industry. So long as I am a member of this House I am not prepared * to see Canada again in the position she was during the war because we did not have this basic industry adequately developed. I believe that what is true of iron and steel is equally true of coal. We know about the coal shortage, and we know all that it involved. In respect of iron and steel and coal, so far as is practicable, Canada should ibe self-contained. But I add to that declaration, Mr. Speaker, that if the iron and steel industry needs to be further developed in order that we may be self-contained, it should be accompanied by such regulations as would prevent men making an excessive profit out of it. 60 far as I am concerned that is the policy I intend to stand for. I believe we require it in the interests of the nation for the protection of our national life. But we will see to it that the industry shall be carried on under such conditions that excessive profits will not be made by those engaged in it.
Now, if my hon. friend will permit me, I will turn from his address and touch on some other matters which have been discussed in this debate. From the very nature of the issues in this war, from the forces engaged on either side, from the weapons of destruction used, and having regard to the period over which the war extended, certain results have inevitably followed. But the same results have inevitably followed in every other country that was at war; they are not peculiar to Canada, they are worldwide. Let me mention three or four. First, a heavy public debt, an inevitable result of the war; second, high cost of living, an inevitable result of the war; third, industrial unrest, an inevitable result of the war. Fourth, as a result of the strain and stress of the war almost the whole nation is suffering from neurasthenia.
Let us look at these inevitable results of the war for a few minutes. First, the national debt; what is it? The Finance Minister has pointed out that by the end of next year Canada will have a national debt of not

less than $1,950,000,000. An enormous debt for a country like Canada, and yet less, having regard to our ability to pay, than that of any country at war except the United States. And having regard to the character and ability of our people and of our great national resources, I am sure that with unity and courage we can face that task and accomplish it without serious difficulty.
But what is entailed by that public debt? This year it is estimated that the interest on it will be $102,000,000. The cost of pensions1 will be $30,000,000. We have already voted for soldiers' re-establishment, to assist in the retraining of our soldiers and the care of those disabled, $22,763,000. Those three sums represent a total this year on current account of $154,000,000, and there may have to be something added in the Supplementary Estimates. Now, I ask the House-and this must be viewed in the light of actual conditions-to compare that with the ordinary expenditure of Canada before the war. Our highest expenditure for the year 1913-14 was $127,384,000. We face this year on current account an actual expenditure for those three items of $25,000,000 more than the total expenditure on current account in the year preceding the war.
Then take not only the current expenditure this year, but the expenditure on war account. The estimated expenditure on war account this year is $300,000,000. Our total expenditure on war account for the year 1915-16 was $166,197,755; for 1914-15 it was only $60,000,000. But suppose I take 1915-16, because that has been referred to as the year this war tariff was put on. Our expenditure on war account this year is practically double our expenditure on war account in the year when this additional tariff was put on for war purposes.
Now, why have I referred to these items? For the reason that the Finance Ministei was within the judgment of this House and of the country when he said that so far as finance is concerned this is a war year. This is vastly more a war year than the year when the duty was put on. Both our capital and our current expenditure on account of the war are vastly greater than they weTe during the year that duty was put on. Therefore, if it ever could be justified-I am not now saying it can; I am not now discussing it-as a measure to raise revenue in aid of the war, it could be absolutely justified during the present year.
I want to say to the House that I entirely share the view of the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization, that

when this House met, the Finance Minister might have said: This is a war year, and the finance this year must be war finance. The question of a revision, of the tariff must stand over until this war year is over. The Union Government was not formed for the purpose of dealing with that issue. He might have stated that to the House and the country, and I would have stood side by side with my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization in support of that position. And I am dealing perfectly fairly with all my friends and colleagues when I say that there would have been no dissent from that proposition by any member of the Government. The Finance Minister could have come down to this House with that policy and a united Government would have faced the House and the country in support of it.
When the House met, our friends from Western Canada, including my hon. friend from Red Deer, pressed most strongly that the Government should not pursue that course, and they urged that there should be at least some reductions in the tariff.
I am sure that every member of the House recognized that it was not possible to have a thorough revision this year, no matter how anxious the Government might have been to undertake it. If any hon. member questions that statement let me call to the attention of the House one or two facts in the situation. What was the position when it was known publicly that the armistice was likely to be signed? The Prime Minister was called overseas to attend the Peace Conference. He went, because all his colleagues thought that that was where he should be. I was glad that my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) last night frankly stated that that is where the Prime Minister should have been, and that if he had not been there my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) would have demanded that he should have been there to represent Canada. But I say to the IHlouse and to the country, if the Prime Minister had not gone overseas to represent Canada at the Peace Conference, how this Government would have been denounced for neglecting Canada's interests in the greatest conference ever held among the nations. And the House will learn, when the time comes for the Prime Minister to make his statement, how greatly Canada has benefited by his presence at the Conference, and how seriously Canada might have suffered in many proposals that came before the Conference if she had not been represented by
her Prime Minister, with authority to speak for the whole [DOT] nation and to insist that Canada's rights and interests should be protected.
The Prime Minister was overseas necessarily attending the Peace Conference, he was where duty called him and the country demanded he should be, and the ministers at home were as busily engaged as they could possibly be in dealing with problems here at home-I ask how was it possible for any Government in the absence of the Prime Minister, with the conditions under which we were working, to make such an investigation of the tariff as would make possible a thorough revision this year? There is not a thoughtful member of this House-and 1 put it up to the conscience of the members, and particularly of those on this side of the House-who would say that it is humanly possible for the Government, since the armistice was signed and with the Prime Minister overseas, to radically change the fiscal policy of the country and thoroughly revise the tariff, and at the same time bring down new and radical taxation proposals to make up the revenue. It could not be done. If, therefore, it was not possible for the Government to make a thorough revision of the tariff this session-and hon. members will concede that it was not-how can hon. members who are supporters of the Government vote against it because it has not achieved the impossible. When our hon. friends came down from the West-and some from the East, too-they urged that something should be done this session-that, at least, the tariff war tax of 7i per cent and 5 per cent should be taken off. I do not hesitate to say that I urged my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to endeavour to meet this view. Every man must exercise his own judgment on an important issue like this, and I have the greatest respect for the judgment and sincerity of my hon. friend the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar; but I say to the House and to the country that if I was prepared, as all my colleagues were, to support the Finance Minister in coming down to this 'House during this war year without any revision of the tariff, I do not believe that I am absolved from supporting him when he has revised the tariff in a measure according to the lines that I desire. I feel there is a double obligation upon myself to stand by the Minister of Finance and my other colleagues who have made a partial revision in the tariff along lines which I believe to be just and right in the .public interest.

I am particularly pleased with certain aspects of the Government's tariff proposals. I want to join with the hon. member for Red Deer (iMr. M. Clark) in expressing appreciation of the Government's tariff proposal to the extent to which it increases the British preference. From the standpoint, not only of our national position, but of the economic position of Canada, one of the wisest features of the Budget of 1897, the Fielding tariff of 1897, was the provision for the British preference. I thought so then; I have always thought so since, and I am glad that this Budget carries us a little further along the line of British preference. I do not know what the investigation next autumn will show when it is undertaken, but I earnesly hope it will show that it may be possible to increase that preference without seriously interfering with established industries in Canada.
I am glad of the provision that does go a certain distance towards removing the duty on foodstuffs. When the revision takes place, I hope it may be possible to go further, I am sure the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and the hon. member for Red Deer will both agree that it is difficult to draw conclusions from general statements unless one knows all the facts. Let me mention the case which the hon. member for Marquette mentioned yesterday about the Dominion Textile Company and the large profits they had earned. Yesterday, by a strange coincidence, Sir Charles Gordon, president of that company, happened to be in my office, before my hon. friend had spoken. Some question came up about this announcement in the paper showing their large profits, and Sir Charles told me that more than 50 per cent of the profit was made owing to the increase in value of raw cotton and other raw material they had on hand during the year. In other words, they had bought at a fortunate time; they had exercised good judgment in buying; the price of raw materials had gone up, and that resulted in more than one-half of the total profits they made. I am not mentioning that except for this point, namely, that if we are to adjust the tariff, having regard to preserving so far as is feasible, consistently with the public interest, existing manufacturing institutions, we must carefully look into the facts before we reach conclusions. That is my sole reason for mentioning this matter. If it is suggested that they earned these large profits because there was a tariff on those goods, I point out to my hon. friends that in to-day's Montreal Gazette, by another coincidence, is a list

of the dividends paid by the British cotton companies during this past year, and it shows that the majority of the cotton companies in Free Trade England made on their capital stock a much larger profit than did the Dominion Textile Company in Canada. It is not necessary for me to trouble the House with the details which I have here, but the profits made on the capital stock run up to 90 per cent. That is no argument against free trade. It only shows that owing to war conditions


Mr. PEDLOW:: Did the gentleman connected with the Dominion Textile Company inform the President of the Council how much watered stock was provided for in declaring the dividend of 31 per cent?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, I did not discuss that with him; I was discussing only this point. But even that again would show the importance of investigation in order to find out the facts.
In the third place, I am glad to support this Budget because, as the hon. member for Red Deer has so well pointed out-probably some of my colleagues on this side of the House may not agree with me-it embodies and puts in permanent form those items in the reciprocity agreement of 1911 which I deemed of most importance and in respect of which I most strongly supported that agreement in the country, that is, free wheat and flour and reduced duties on agricultural implements. I have here a comparison-I am not going to trouble the House with putting it upon the record-of the duties on agricultural implements under the reciprocity agreement and under this new proposal. So far as there is any change, this gives a greater reduction, taking them altogether, than did the reciprocity agreement, and under those conditions I am glad to support the Budget. In view of the fact that these reductions are very important considerations amongst the agricultural community, I am quite sure no hon. member representing an agricultural constituency would like to vote against this Budget, containing as it does these important proposals which he so cordially endorses.
With reference to the investigation promised next fall, I am sure every thoughtful member of the House will agree that it is absolutely necessary preceding a thorough revision of the tariff. In respect of that I have little to add to what the Minister of Immigration and Colonization so well said yesterday. I stand in respect of it exactly where my hon. friend does, but I want to emphasize one point in connection with it.

The Minister of Finance, in announcing it, said that the investigation would be conducted in such a way as to give the consumer, the producer and the workingman all an opportunity to be heard and their representations made in order that the Government might have their views. I believe that in every revision of the tariff that position is sound. The consumer's interest should be considered; the producer's interest should be considered; both should have the careful consideration of the Government. As regards men engaged in manufacturing, I believe in the past some have made great profits, no doubt contributed to by a protective tariff. I do not believe any man whose business is carried on under the protection of a tariff which enables him to increase his profits has any right to question that the legislation should be so framed and carried out as to protect both the workingman employed in his factory, and the consumer, of the goods produced. These are very important features of the proposals of the Minister of Finance.
In passing, let me say just a word on the other two matters I have mentioned as inevitable results of the war. My hon. friend opposite (Mr. Trahan) charged the Government with being responsible for the high cost of living. Who is responsible for the high cost of living in England? The Government, I suppose. Who is responsible for the high cost of living in France? My hon. friend, I am afraid, would not say the French Government, but if he is logical, he would have to do so. Who is responsible for the high cost of living in the United States? The President, no doubt. Thfe high cost of living and the increase in the cost of living were just as inevitable as casualties upon the fields of Flanders, and it is no more within the power of a government at this time to bring the cost of living back to pre-war days than it is for the Government to raise the 60,000 dead in Flanders fields. No government can make up for the diminished production or the awful war wastage of the past five years. Let us frankly face the issue. It is not possible, it cannot be done. We are paying the price of war; we are paying the price of victory. Let us whine less about paying the price when our gallant men overseas have so nobly paid it on the fields of Flanders.
You cannot wage a war like this and not pay the penalty for years after it, and I hope that the realization of the price we have to pay for the part Canada has taken
in this war will enable us to appreciate the hope, at least, that comes from the League of Nations, which we earnestly trust will be established to avoid forever a repetition of this horrible war. While the Government cannot get us back to the pre-war cost of living-no government can- I agree that everything a government can possibly do to prevent excessive profits and exorbitant prices should be done by a government. I believe that my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) did everything which he believed-and he is a wise man on the subject-could properly be done by the Government in that direction. The Department of Labour has also been dealing with certain important aspects of the question and a Committee of the House is now investigating the whole problem.
I pass now to the third, the question of industrial unrest. Hon. members have said that the industrial unrest is due to the excessive cost of living. The excessive cost of living is not the cause of the industrial unrest; it aggravates it undoubtedly, but it is not the cause. It is very superficial thinking to say that the cost of living is the cause of the industrial unrest, and I am afraid the majority of the people of this country and even some of the members of this House are not aware of the deep and vital currents of social and economic thought that are moving the masses of the workingmen in all countries to-day. The movement had started long before the war, but the war has given it a tremendous impetus. The workingman in all lands is determined that so far as he is concerned he is going to have a better deal in the days to come than he had in the days before the war. A reduction in the cost of living will not solve the problem of industrial unrest. The worker demands vastly more. There are two currents of thought among the workers on this matter, and may I just suggest what they are. One believes in co-operation between labour and capital, and that by such co-operation the best interests of both can be secured. The other believes that there is inevitable and irreconcilable conflict between the two, and that there can be no peace until Capitalism is destroyed and a dictatorship of the proletariat established. They preach a class war. One believes in the right of private property regulated and controlled by the State, so that the workingman and citizen may own his own home, the farmer his own land; the other believes

that private ownership of property must he completely and forever destroyed. One 'believes in democracy and in the right of every citizen to an equal voice in the government of his country; the other repudiates democracy and demands the dictatorship of the proletariat. One believes in using constitutional methods for the redress of grievances and the improvement of the position of labour. The other repudiates constitutional methods and demands direct action and the use of force. One bases its claim for a change in social and economic conditions on the justice and righteousness of its cause; the other on the force at its command.
The one stands for law and order under constituted authority, the other for the overthrow of the existing form of government and the substitution therefor of the Soviet, under the dictatorship of the workers, as in Russia. One is Anglo-Saxon in its origin, democratic in its outlook, the result of the development of the labour movement under Anglo-Saxon and democratic institutions. The other is German in its origin and in its spirit. Its leaders are the disciples of Carl Marx, and proclaim economic and social theories developed under the blighting influence of German autocracy. Lenine and other disciples of Carl Marx proclaim the gospel of force and that might means right just as unblushingly as either the Kaiser or Bernhardi. It may surprise many people to be told that there are hundreds in Canada to-day, as there are in Great Britain, the United 'States and in all other democratic countries who hold the extreme views I have mentioned and are openly and assiduously advocating them. There is no occasion to doubt their sincerity. They advocate their views with all the energy and enthusiasm of the disciples of a militant faith. The industrial question is the most difficult and the most important problem facing the people of Canada to-day.
We have had the tariff for the past forty years discussed pro and con. No action you may take to loweT it, as between low tariff and high, will have half so great an effect on the future of Canada as will the solution of the industrial problem which we are now facing. What is true of Canada is equally true of the neighbouring republic, the United States. I have not time to read to the House the address of President Wilson at the opening of the present Congress, but he proclaims to the people of the United States that the great outstanding problem facing the people of that country is the labour problem. There is exactly the same

situation in Great Britain, exactly the same situation in France. We must face it, and how are we to solve the problem? So far as I am concerned, and I believe it is the view of the members of this House and the people of this country, having regard to the situation which exists in Canada, and the magnificent part the workers of Canada took in the war, I believe that in the days that lie before us labour should have larger recognition than it has had in the past.
They are asking certain specific things. They ask for an eight-hour day; they ask for a living wage or a larger share in the joint product of labour and capital; they ask for a larger voice in the control of industry; they ask for more adequate provision against unemployment. At the Peace Conference all these questions were fully and seriously considered, and all the statesmen of the world there assembled came to the conclusion that these demands were in spirit just, and that all nations should take steps to meet them; and I believe that in the wise dealing with this problem, in real sympathy with labour, in endeavouring to establish not a class war between labour and capital but the most hearty cooperation between the two, lies the hope of Canada for the future, and that upon that rests the peace, progress and prosperity of our country. Towards that this Government, this House, and the people of this country, employers and employees, must direct their attention.
What should we do under these conditions? There is this extreme element in Canada actively propagating the views I have mentioned. I know it. I have the responsibility of administering the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, and for months I have had weekly and sometimes daily reports on the conditions. We know what these men are saying in secret. It is not necessary to 'tell you what they say in secret; it is only necessary to tell you what they say in public. At the Calgary conference to organize the One Big Union, what did that conference decide? I have the resolutions here, and I wish I had time to read them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read them.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I shall just read a few. These resolutions are copied from an infallible authority, the Winnipeg Tribune, which published a verbatim report of the conference. Let us take the first resolution submitted by Mr. W. A. Pritchard, of the Vancouver Trades and Labour Council. I

think it sets forth a little more clearly than the resolution actually adopted, the object of the mover. This is the resolution as it was submitted:
Whereas great and drastic changes have taken place in the industrial world;
And whereas in the past the policy of the organized centres of this country in sending their provincial and Dominion executives to the legislative assemblies pleading for the passage of legislation which is rarely passed and which would be futile if it were, is now obsolete:
Therefore, be it resolved that this conference of western workers lay down as its policy the building up of organizations of workers on industrial lines for the purpose of enforcing, by virtue of their industrial strength, such demands as such organizations may at any time consider necessary for their continued maintenance and well being, and shall not be as heretofore the sending of executive officers to plead before legislatures for the passing of legal palliatives which do not palliate.
There is a direct statement by the mover of that resolution that for legal action and for constituted authority they will substitute an organization by means of which they shall secure their rights -by the use of force or organized strength. Now let us read the resolution actually adopted:
Whereas great and far-reaching changes have taken place during the last year in the realms of industry;
And whereas we have discovered through painful experiences the utter futility of separate action on the part of the workers, organized merely along craft lines, such action tending to strengthen the relative position of the master class;
Therefore be it resolved that this Western Labour conference place itself on record as favouring the immediate reorganization of the workers along industrial lines, so that by virtue of their industrial strength, the workers may be better prepared to enforce any demands they consider essential to their maintenance and well being.
That was moderated somewhat, no doubt to meet the views of moderate elements in the assembly, for I do not for a moment suggest that all the men in that conference shared the views of the mover of the first resolution. But you have the same idea in this resolution as in the original, viz., that in lieu of legal and constitutional parliamentary action they intend to substitute their own direct action. Just listen to this resolution:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the hon. minisetr say that both these resolutions which he has read were read and passed?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, the first one appears in the official report of the convention as being proposed, while the second one appears as having been passed. Take the next one:	-
Whereas holding tile belief in the ultimate supremacy of the working class in matters economic and political and that the light of modern developments have proved that the legitimate aspirations of the labor movement are repeatedly obstructed by the existing political forms, clearly showing the capitalistic nature of the parliamentary machinery.
This convention expresses its open conviction that the system of industrial soviet control by selection of representatives from industries is more efficient and of greater political value than the present system of government by selection from district.
This convention declares its full acceptance of the principle of "Proletarian Dictatorship" as being absolute and efficient for the transformation of capitalist private property to communal wealth.
The convention sends fraternal greetings to the Russian Soviet government, the Spartacans in Germany and all definite working class movements in Europe and the world recognizing they have won first place in the history of the class struggle.
Let me quote an extract from another one:
That the interests of all members of the international working class being identical that this body of workers recognize no alien but
the capitalist	Our alien, in so far as we
are concerned, that is the master clas3. that is the reason for this resolution.
Here is another one, No. 7:
Therefore be it resolved that this conference places itself on record as being in full accord and sympathy with the aims and purposes of the Russian Bolshevik and Spartacan revolutions ; and be it further resolved that this conference is in favour of calling a general strike should the Allies persist in their attempt to overthrow the Soviet administration in Russia or Germany or in any country in which it is or may be established.


Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON:: Was that
passed ?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It was also adopted at the conference to organize the One Big Union movement in Western Canada, held at Calgary some few weeks ago. What I want to point out to the House and the country is that we must clearly appreciate the seriousness of the situation on the one hand, and on the other, the importance of discriminating between men seeking to overthrow constituted authority, and sober, serious leaders of the movement. A certain group of western men came to the Trades and Labour Council's annual meeting held, I think, in the city of Quebec last September or October, and sought to press these radical views upon the body of labour there, and the sober, serious leaders of labour at that conference fought the resolutions and defeated them. I do not mean, of course, these particular resolutions, but the radical resolutions that were then submitted. What did the men of the West who presented

these radical resolutions do? They went West and organized this One Big Union movement to cut adrift from the sober leaders of the East and from men like Samuel Gompers and other great leaders of organized labour in the United States Why did they cut adrift? Because they knew that under the serious and judicious leadership of the men who made the labour movement what it is in Canada and the United States they could not advocate the overthrow of constituted authority without incurring the hostility of these men. The quesion is asked: Why do you not take action? Well, I believe that the only way in which you oan successfully defeat error is by teaching the truth; the only way in which you can combat false ideas is by promulgating true ones. And I think it is of the utmost importance that the people of this country who do believe in organized government, who do believe in democratic government, and who are' not prepared that the Russian Soviet system, with all that it implies, shall be introduced into Canada, should make clear their views on these issues and le.t the public know and understand what is involved in them. The same convention that stood by the Soviet form of government demanded free speech and liberty of action in Canada.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:: Are you opposed to that?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Am I opposed to it ? The fact that these men moved these resolutions and carried them unmolested is the best evidence of the absolute freedom of speech in Canada. Now, in Russia there is no freedom of speech. In Russia there is no freedom of the press. In Russia there is no freedom of assembly. In Russia there is no right to vote except by the workers who support the Soviet Bolshevik movement.
Mr. CANNON. The same as here?


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend has the right to vote. Does he say he is a supporter of the Russian Bolshevik movement? There they only permit men to vote who work with their hands. The man who works with his brain has no right to vote over there. My hon. friend will be able to say in which class he belongs under that classification. They have no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press and no right of assembly. No man except those who will absolutely support the Bolshevik movement has a right to vote. They dis-

solved the constitutional assembly because it did not support the minority. They stand for a dictatorship of a limited class. They stand for the dictatorship of a limited class, a fraction of the population of Russia, who exercise their power in as despotic a manner as the Government of the Czar. Do the people want anything like that in Canada? That is the result in Russia. There is no question about it. These people cannot triumph in Canada. The sober, serious-thinking people of this country will stand by constituted authority. The people who own their own property will not stand for confiscation. In Russia they take the furniture of a man in the city, the live stock and agricultural implements of the farmer, and they make them the property of the community. The people of this country will not stand for those theories and practices. The man who within this House or this country delivers inflammatory speeches charging the Government with profiteering and being friends of the profiteers is playing into the hands of these very Bolsheviks, and it would only be a certain measure of justice if the first property confiscated were his and he were put to do the manual labour that is required in Russia. These people say they want freedom. I gathered from the remarks of my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe)that he had rather a liking and sympathy for his friends of the Soviet government.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: Oh, no; not at all, but I want freedom of speech.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am afraid my hon. friend will not get what he wants, because there is no freedom of speech in Russia and they entorce compulsory military service there.


Ernest Lapointe: It is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Rowell) who is in sympathy with that part of their programme.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am certainly a believer in compulsory military service in time of war, and that it is the duty of every man to defend 'his country in the hours of his country's need. We must combat ideas with ideas. There is another thing we must do. It is the first duty of every Government in Canada, municipal, provincial and federal, to see that law and order are preserved and that life and property are protected. There has been a great popular misconception-I do not know what is the explanation of it-that the federal Government is the only Government that has power to act. One would think from the way some people talk

in this House and outside of it, and from the way that some newspapers write, that we had a legislative union, instead of a federal union in Canada, that this Government has all the authority, that the provinces and municipalities have none, and that if any trouble arises the only thing to do is to send to this Government and ask them to right it. Then, if this Government does not immediately right it, it is damned and said to be no good. To illustrate: They had trouble out in a small community in British Columbia. They had a strike. There were some aliens misconducting themselves. The Acting Prime Minister got a telegram from the chairman of the committee of the town asking the Federal Government to intervene and to preserve life and property in that town. What answer did he send back? He said: Have you applied to the Provincial Government for protection? If you have applied to the Provincial Government and they say they need Federal assistance, the Federal Government will' immediately come to your aid. That is the Federal constitution. The provinces are extremely jealous of their rights at times, they are very jealous of their autonomy at times; but when it comes to dealing with disagreeable tasks, they are prepared to shift their responsibility to the Federal Government and throw their sins upon us. It cannot be too clearly stated that the responsibility for maintaining law and order rests in the first instance upon the municipal government. If they are able to maintain law and order the responsibility rests upon them. If they are unable to preserve law and order, the law contains provisions whereby they may call to their assistance other forces. Next to the municipal government the responsibility rests upon the Provincial Government. They are responsible for the administration of justice and for the prosecution of offenders against the law. If there is any failure
10 p.m. to prosecute any man for any offence under the law the responsibility rests upon the Provincial Government. It does not rest with this Government. The policy of this Government is this: If municipalities find that they are unequal to the task, or if the provinces find themselves unequal to the task, of preserving law and order, this Government is prepared to back them up to the full limit of its power.
I appeal to the members of this House; if you hear criticisms of the Government in connection with these matters, find out first what the municipal or provincial authorities have done. First, have they done their
duty? It is not until they have called upon the Federal Government for assistance that we have the right or the duty to intervene.
One word further as to what we should do. I think we must meet this labour situation fairly and squarely. We must do justice, and more than justice to the legitimate demands of labour. We must put the honest, patriotic, public-spirited labour leaders into a position to successfully combat the extremists in their own ranks by showing that the Government and people of this country have dealt fairly and squarely with them.	We have to deal fairly
and squarely with labour and we have to maintain law and order.
I know of no other panacea. As I view the situation-.and I believe it is true in every democratic country in the world- important as may be the tariff, the great issue facing the governments to-day is the problem of labour and the industrial issue. On the wise and patriotic solution of this problem depends the hope for the peace, progress and prosperity of the countries involved.
May I close by referring again to the tariff. I believe that, for Canada, more important that any particular scale of tariff duties is a good understanding between East and West and all sections of Canada. No section can 'have its own way absolutely, and unity and strength be our portion. Confederation was brought about by the public-spirited leaders in those days recognizing that something must be surrendered in order to obtain the greater end, the greater goodwill, and to bring about a united Canada. I say to the manufacturers in the East and to the farmers in the West, and in every other section of the country Canada can only be strong and prosperous, she can only prove worthy of the gallant sons who have died for the right if we try to get together, not press our prejudices or even our convictions to the issue, but unite whole-heartedly as a public-spirited Canadian people in enacting legislation which we can all co-operate in working out and which will make for the unity and strength of this great and growing nation.


Mr. LUCIEN CANNON (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, the papers of this country have been printing rumours as to a probable election. I was very much in doubt as to whether the Government would decide to go to the country or not till I heard the speech delivered by the hon. the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) who evidently is training for the stump. I can only say that if he repeats on the hustings the

speech that he has made to-night, he may achieve an oratorical success, but the people after pondering upon it may say: " It was a beautiful shell, hut a very empty one indeed."
A few weeks ago during a debate here I mentioned my fear that a revolution was threatening in Canada. As a result 1 have read in the papers that as usual I was an extremist,, that as usual I had spoiled my speech by making a statement which had no foundation in fact. To-night I heard the President of the Privy Council make a far more serious statement, and one which he supports with all the responsibility of a Cabinet position. The President of the Privy Council has declared to the House and to the country that not only are we threatened with a revolution but that the revolution is an actuality. Mr. Speaker, I am very much afraid that the revolution might not be as actual as the minister has depicted it, but the war in Europe being over he feels it is necessary to have a small local war so as to permit him to repeat his familiar arguments.
The minister was very severe in his account of the situation in Russia. He described the programme of the Bolshevik party in full detail. I am curious to know where the minister got his information? Is it perchance from newspapers that are prohibited?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I got the information
from official documents issued by the British Government, a copy of which was laid on the table of the House a short time ago.


Lucien Cannon: I see, the minister gets
his knowledge from the first cousin to his own Information Bureau. Let me say to him that if the situation in Russia is so serious, if the programme of the Bolsheviki is such as has'been described by him, how is it that this Government has withdrawn the 'Canadian troops sent to Siberia? Those troops were, or were not, sent for a purpose. If they were sent for no purpose the Government has committed a blunder and has made a mistake. If the troops were sent to put down the Bolshevik movement, and if it was necessary to suppress that movement, why has the Government recalled those troops?
Mr. Speaker, I had always read of the minister as being the leader of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario up to the year 1917 when he joined the Union Government. Listening to his speech tonight, I have noticed that the former Liberal provincial leader has become a great Canadian Tory. He has a good word for the

profiteer, and for the manufacturer, but a bad word for the aspirations of labour-in short, he has spoken as very few Tories would dare to speak in this country. As a Liberal who still remains what he was two years ago; as a Liberal who has not forgotten Liberal principles, I believe there will be very little regret over his departure from our ranks. The rest of his speech was a very eloquent exposition of what I have already read in the Canadian Official Record. I am not surprised that the President of the Privy Council approves of the Budget. If he did not so approve he would not be where he is, and most probably that approval is due to his desire to retain his present position. Neither am I surprised that the minister disapproves of the stand taken by the hon. member from Marquette (Mr. Crerar). That - hon. gentleman has left the Cabinet, a thing the President of the Privy Council will never do, I am quite sure.
* Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Marquette stated his position on the tariff, and the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) gave him the answer from the Government benches. This reminded me of an incident in the history of France when Marshal Ney-that hero, " the bravest of the brave," who had faced the enemies of his country on many battlefields of Europe, from the sunny plains of Portugal to the frozen banks of the Beresina, was brought to trial, the then King of France, Louis XVIII, moved no doubt by an extreme feeling of Bourbonic malice, called upon the fellow marshals of this great soldier to preside at his trial and to send him to his doom. The Premier of this country, moved by a spirit worthy of Machiavelli, yesterday called on a brother member from the West, an intimate political friend of the member for Marquette, to criticise the latter's conduct and to cast suspicion upon his motives. The Minister of Immigration and Colonization went through the ordeal very successfully. His personal friendship, and his political intimacy, gave way before an ardent desire to show his complete and entire subservience to his master. Such achievements, Mr. Speaker, are only natural to men of a certain class. In 1917, many Liberals in Canada left the banners of Sir Wilfrid Laurier from motives of real patriotism, although I think they were misguided. Others left the Old Chieftain because of lower motives. Time-servers they were by instinct, politicians they were by nature, and it is here that I come back to the Minister of Colonization and Immigration.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I think the hon. gentleman is entirely exceeding his privileges in attributing unworthy motives to an hon. member of this House. It is scarcely in conformity with the dignity of the House that he should do so.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I bow to
your decision and say that others were moved by motives of less high order. The Minister of Immigration and Colonization in a speech which he delivered yesterday said that he was moved by only one consideration, and that consideration was the dictates of his conscience.
Mr. -Speaker, evidently the conscience of a man is beyond the judgment and the criticism of his neighbour. It is impossible to gauge the inner recesses of a man's conscience-I will not attempt to do it. But, on the other hand, we can always judge a man's motives by his acts. The Minister of Immigration and Colonization said that he was moved by his conscience. Was he moved by his conscience when, in the spring of 1917, Mr. Speaker, he was organizing throughout the Western Provinces a system to turn out of power the Government presided over by his actual chief? What were the dictates of the hon. gentleman's conscience when he was sending to the Liberal organization ways and means of putting out a government that he considered corrupt and absolutely unworthy of directing the affairs of this country? Conscience, the minister said, Mr. Speaker. Had the dictates of his conscience altered, when, at the convention at Winnipeg, he was drafting resolutions to the effect that the right hon. gentleman who is at the head of this Government was unworthy of being Prime Minister of this country? Conscience, the minister said, Mr. Speaker. Were the motives and the dictates of the hon. gentleman's conscience the same as they are today when he sent to the Prime Minister a message saying that no. Union Government *was to be considered with the right hon. gentleman at its head. Conscience, the hon. gentleman said, Mr. Speaker. When the War-time Elections Act was passed, when it was obvious to any observer that the Liberal party had no more chance in the Prairie Provinces, the hon. gentleman jumped on the first train and rushed to Ottawa, and on his knees he crept into the gilded hole wherein he has remained since -always with his conscience, Mr. Speaker. Conscience ! Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. gentleman to explain to this House how the dictates of his conscience would permit him, whilst he was a member of this
Union Cabinet, to come down to the city of Quebec, and to other cities within our province, to try to make new readjustments and rearrangements to put out of power the Government to which he belongs. Conscience ! Mr. Speaker. Did hisi conscience dictate the correspondence which he sent to the various political leaders of this country in order to organize a movement which would put this Government from power? Mr. Speaker, I leave the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization to his conscience, but I must say, before concluding, that up to now the uncrowned king of the western renegades was Clifford Sifton; I think that his crewn and his kingship are now in danger.
Julius Caesar had no press agent-or rather, Julius Caesar was his own press agent. The hon. leader of this Government, although no less a man, is more fortunate a ruler, for he has a whole galaxy of sycophants who describe to the astounded universe his exceptionally high achievements. The hon. President of the Privy Council, who has just taken his seat, with his well-fed helpmates, Mr. Dafoe and his very faithful scribblers, have described, so as to enthuse the native Canadians and arouse their patriotic fervour, the Peace Conference as a world stage where our Prime Minister, surrounded by the dazzling and witty Mr. Doherty, the fascinating Mr. Foster, and the idealistic Mr. Sifton, has dictated in a stern tone of voice the terms of everlasting peace to prostrate Germany; coaching Wilson; advising Lloyd George; counselling Clemenceau; helping along Orlando. Even that did not satisfy the boundless energies of our Prime Minister. His omnipotent influence spread to the war-torn Balkan states. To Russia he went, and on the remote shores of Prinkipo island he stood, the bearer of a message of conciliation to the sturdy sons of Gengis Khan and the blood-stained followers of Lenine. But, Mr. Speaker, enough of this ridiculous camouflage, enough of this grotesque business. The Prime Minister of our country had as much to do with the readjustment of European affairs as the hon. member for Digby and Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) has to do with lowering of the cost of living.
What has been the result of this Peace Conference, Mr. Speaker, as far as Canada is concerned? What have we gained? Every country whose representatives sat around the Peace Table has obtained something. England will have Egypt, she will have new territories in Asia, and she will have

part of the German colonies. Every other part of the British Empire has secured some advantage. South Africa will have some of the German colonies; Australia will have some islands, and New Zealand will also acquire new territory. And what will we get? If we get anything, Mr. Speaker, it will he a chunk of icy Greenland.
Not only has every country acquired territorial advantages, but huge indemnities are to be paid. How much will we receive? Since his return the Prime Minister has made but one statement in this House; it was in connection with the Winnipeg strike. The matter was important, I will admit, Mr. Speaker; but there is a more important matter before this country, the matter of whether we are to get something from the war, whether we are to secure some advantage from the Peace Conference. As to that the Prime Minister has remained' silent, and I have no doubt, will continue to remain silent. Why should we not have a part of this indemnity? Have we not spent enough money, have we not made enough sacrific? The sacred remains of our dead over in France, Mr. Speaker, the mangled limbs of our wounded, the victories of our battalions, the abnegation of our civil population, give us a valid claim to obtain fair and proportionate compensation for our important and vast outlay.
But in connection with this matter, as in connection with many others, we read beautiful articles in the press, we were told that our Prime Minister had attained the very highest heights of Imperial statesmanship-but he comes back empty handed, with nothing to offer to the people of this country.
As a Canadian who loves fair play, and as an Irishman who cherishes the memory of O'Connell and Parnell, I wish to protest against the indifference shown by our peace delegates to the cause of Irish freedom. The Government cannot unfetter the Poles, the Government cannot unshackle the Slovaks, the Government cannot deliver the Czechs, and at the one and same time trample under foot the national aspirations of a loyal and generous nation. Love of liberty is a gift given to man by God, and no human power, no matter how strong it may be, can wring from the heart of an Irishman the desire he has to see his country free like every other country in the world. Providence has moulded for the sons of St. Patrick a noble future, and the laws of Providence and also the laws of outraged humanity insist and imperatively demand that fair play should prevail. I

regret that at this Peace Conference the man who is supposed to represent the Irish population of Canada in this .Cabinet, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), has forgotten to that extent his duty towards Ireland and his compatriots as not to utter one word to help our glorious cause, not to utter one sentence to promote a sacred cause, that of Irish freedom.
At this late hour, I do not wish to detain the House very long, but I should like to say a few words in connection with the financial situation of Canada, as described by the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). I admired the minister for his frankness. He told the people where we were, how deeply we were in debt and how enormous were our liabilities. For his frankness and his sincerity I thank and congratulate him, but I wish to touch on one subject in connection with our finances. How is it that our situation is so poor? How is it that our debt is so high? How is it, in a word, that Canada is in such a mess? The first reason is- our past extravagance. From 1911 to 1914, before the war, and from 1914 to 1917, since the outbreak of war, the Government of this country has run things in a most extravagant way. I regret that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) is not in his seat. I should' like to have his facility of speech and his eloquence to denounce the scandals of government extravagance in the way he did in connection, for instance, with the Allison scandal. I should like to have his information and parliamentary experience to show to the members of this House and to the people of this country at large how extravagant, how careless, this Government has been. Past extravagance is one of the causes of our bad financial situation, and when I see the Minister of Public Works in this Cabinet, I can say to him what the Bishop of Paris said to the chief of a barbarian army: "Convert yourself to Christianity, and if you wish to give evidence of your sincerity and of your good faith, burn what you have worshipped; worship what you have burned." The sooner the Minister of Public Works burns what he has been worshipping for the past two years, the better for himself, the better for this country and the batter foT everybody concerned. But I may add that if the minister does not wish to burn what he has been worshipping for the last two years, we shall leave him alone in his gilded temple of paganism where he now is, muttering insincere prayers to an

irresponsive divinity and offering to the Golden Calf the shattered remains of his former principles.
Past extravagance has been the cause of our bad financial situation. Future extravagance will aggravate our financial liabilities and will heighten, if possible, the huge pile of our national obligations. What does this Government propose? The Government proposes a new shipbuilding policy. I do not wish to criticise, the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne), but I wish to criticise the enormous amounts which are being spent at the present time in shipbuilding. We ought to wait; we ought to curtail our expenditure. If there is one good feature about my hon. friend's policy it is this, that he wishes to have Canadian shipbuilding and a Canadian navy. Whenever this Government does anything good, that good it borrows from the programme of our late lamented leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and when the Minister of Naval Affairs propounded his programme of a naval policy, it was to the grave of our late leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that he went and plucked the seed of Canada's future naval greatness.
Let me take, as another example of extravagance, the policy of the Government as regards railways. We are unloading on to the people of this country the enormous debts of the Canadian Northern railway and of Mackenzie & Mann, and we have the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid), who is now going to be the president or the head or the inspiring spirit of a new huge railway combination-and I am quite sure, judging by the speeches the minister has made in this House, judging by the ability and cleverness he has shown before the members of this assembly, that Shaughnessy will pale into insignificance and Beatty vanish into nothingness.
The unrest which exists everywhere throughout Canada to-day has been discussed by hon. members who have preceded me in this debate, and I do not wish to dwell at great length on that subject. Briefly, the first class of people in this country who are dissatisfied, are the farmers. The farmers want a low tariff; they want better trade conditions; they want to be helped by this Government, but the Government refuses to help them. The farmers from the West, the farmers from Ontario, and the farmers from the East, have united in one demand for a lower tariff on food stuffs and agricultural implements. I admit that the Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance makes certain reductions, but it does not meet the legitimate demands of the farmers. As long as this Government is more concerned with the interest of the manufacturer and of the industrial concerns than with the interests of the farming class, unrest among the farmers will continue to exist, and it will not disappear or abate until justice is done to them.
The second class of people in this country who are dissatisfied are the returned soldiers. And why? They fought on the other side and won a glorious victory. When they come back here what do they receive? Beautiful speeches of welcome, magnificent addresses, eloquent orations. Words, Mr. Speaker, words again, and always words; never, or very seldom, deeds.
I am not the only one to condemn the attitude of the Government towards the returned soldier. Sitting upon your right is an hon. member who has always been a supporter of this Government, who resigned from his position as Parliamentary Secretary for the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment because the Government would not do anything for the returned soldier, because it was neglecting the most elementary and essential function of the Government in this vital and fundamental matter. More than that, a few days ago Lieutenant-Colonel McKelvey Bell resigned from the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment. These are the things that show us that the returned soldiers have real grievances, and that these grievances will not be removed by this Government unless its policy is changed, and changed completely.
The third class of people in this country who are dissatisfied are the workingmen. I heard the President of the Privy Council reading to-night resolutions moved by extremists at labour conferences throughout Canada. I am not concerned with what the extremists among the workingmen of this country want, but I am concerned with what the ordinary workingman of this country demands. What does he demand ? Only one thing; he demands fair play and equal justice. The workingmen of this country contributed the greater portion of the military contingents that we sent to Europe. When the workingman was in the trenches of France or Flanders he was equal to the manufacturer, the rich man, and the millionaire. To-day he comes back to Canada and he wants the equality to be preserved. He wants no more class privileges in this country, and no more class legislation. He wants his rights to he acknowledged and

.1418

recognized just as the rights and privileges of the capitalists have been acknowledged and recognized for years. I read in the papers to-day that riots took place in the city of Winnipeg yesterday and that numerous people were wounded, among them a soldier who had won high distinction in France and returned to this country decorated with the Victoria Cross. Unfortunately, his wound is .probably mortal! Why is this strike in Winnipeg not settled? What does the labouring man in Winnipeg demand? He demands a very simple thing. The metal workers of Winnipeg want their union recognized. Why should it not be recognized? At the Peace Conference in Paris the Premier of this country subscribed to the covenant regarding labour legislation for the future, and one of the fundamental proposals agreed upon was that the rights of labour to organize into unions should be recognized throughout the world. Why should this be denied in the city of Winnipeg when it is proclaimed in Paris, and has received the signature of the Prime Minister of this country as representing the Canadian people? The President of the Privy Council said this evening that the people of Canada believed that the provinces have no more rights. Certainly the people of Canada believe that, and why? Because this Government, during a period of four years, has deprived the provinces of every right given to them under the constitution. Orders in Council have been passed, and legislation has been enacted, and every particle of privilege and right has been taken away from the provinces. Is it then extraordinary to-day that the people of this country, after such a reign of autocracy by the Federal Government, should doubt whether the provinces had any rights? The President of the Privy Council says that the provinces are to settle these labour troubles. I take issue with him there. I say that the Federal Government at Ottawa, under the British North America Act, has the right to legislate in everything that concerns public order in this country. Labour unrest is against public order, and to remedy the condition of affairs that exists throughout Canada to-day the Federal Government should take advantage of that provision in the British North America Act and bring down legislation that will bring rest where there is unrest to-day.
But what can we expect from this Government? We have been sitting here for six months-I should have said four months, but it seemed to me like six-and what

legislation has been brought down? The Government thought of themselves at first, and the main legislation they brought down was the Bankruptcy Bill. We were told during the debate on the Address that we had to reconstruct this country, that questions of the greatest importance had to be solved. But no legislation was brought down. Then we were told that we had to await the return of the Prime Minister from France. The right hon. gentleman has returned, and what legislation has been brought down since? To-day we are told that next week we shall have three sittings a day so that we can get hqme as soon as possible.	[DOT]
No wonder the people are not satisfied. Who would be satisfied? It is useless discussing the. high cost of living; it is useless discussing profiteering; and it is useless discussing various other reasons for the unrest that prevails. The main reason for the dissatisfaction of the people is the fact that we have still at the head of our affairs m Canada the Government that has bungled through eight years of administration. The moment this Government disappears 75 per cent of the discontent in this country will disappear with it.
The fourth class of people who are dissatisfied jn this country are the consumers. The President of the Privy Council asserted quite solemnly that the cost of living could not be reduced. The Hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) was in his seat when that statement was made; several other members of the Cabinet were also in their places. None of them protested; therefore, the President of the Privy Council when he uttered those words expressed the opinion of the Cabinet. Now the Government considers that nothing can be done to lower the cost of living. This is the consoling message -which the President.of the Privy Council has to offer the people of Canada. Starving women in our cities, suffering men and suffering children who have been looking for comfort and a remedy to this deplorable condition of things, have received from the President of the Privy Council the reassuring information that nothing can be done! Mr. Speaker, if the President of the Privy Council and the Government are convinced that nothing, can be done to effect a reduction in the cost of living in Canada, how is it, may I ask, that last week it was decided to appoint a committee of the House to consider the subject with a view to discovering some means of lowering the cost of living? Is the Government merely trying to deceive the

[DOT]3419
people? What is this committee doing? The committee is investigating conditions in fcanada and will probably present a report; but the Government beforehand declares to the country that nothing can be done in the matter. Are they serious? I have very little experience in Parliament, but I must say that never have I seen in any parliament or read in any book on parliamentary events the case of a- government appointing a committee to investigate conditions in a country, and after having appointed that committee, and while the committee was at work, a member of the Cabinet declaring on behalf of the Government that it was useless to attempt to remedy such a condition of things as that which now exists in Canada. But we knew beforehand that the President of the Privy Council would take no steps to lower the cost of living in this country. The President of the Council is too generous and warm-hearted to cause any pain to his bosom friend, Sir Joseph Flavelle. They adore God in the same church; they offer to Heaven prayers in common. They modestly bow their heads before Divinity and in all humility kiss the dust of earth and say: How small we are when we are in church, but how big when we are outside. I am not surprised that the Government will do nothing to decrease the profits of the profiteers. The profiteers have put this Government into power; they have subscribed the money to put them where they are. Every member of the Government represents a body which is indebted to the profiteers of this country, and human nature is such that the attitude of men to heavy creditors is at the least that of extreme politeness.
The Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder), following in the footsteps of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Sif-ton)-our idealistic Peace delegate, as I said, while the minister was away-said that, although he did not approve of the principle of protection he would support the Budget and remain in the Cabinet. I appeal to your parliamentary experience, Sir, and to your knowledge of constitutional usage. Has there ever been heard in any British parliament or in any parliament where British constitutional procedure is 'followed a member of the Governement making such a declaration? If you will permit me, for the benefit of the hon. Minister of Immigration, I will give a very short history of the constitution so far as this question is concerned. A ministry never existed in England before William III, and if you will read the splendid essay by Sir
217i
William Temple you will see laid down the first principles of a ministry and also of a cabinet. The Whigs came into power under William III, and for the first time there was a ministry in England. Further development brought on a cabinet. Under the Georges this cabinet was more or less regular and complete. But under William IV and under Queen Victoria the cabinet assumed the form in which it is at present in England and in every other British country. What is the cabinet? The cabinet is the union of a small number of men, sitting either in the Lower or in the Upper House, who advise the King direct or through the Governor General on questions of policy and who agree together and necessarily must agree together. Not only are the members of the Cabinet bound to agree on every question submitted to Parliament but every member of that Cabinet is responsible for the acts of his colleagues. That is, there must not only be ministerial responsibility, but there must be a responsible solidarity. How, in this country, can a minister declare in Parliament that he is not in favour of a policy of the Government, but nevertheless will approve of the Government and remain in the Cabinet? Mr. Speaker, these are elementary principles. The Government during the war cast aside every precedent we knew in this country; but now, to suit their purpose, ministers make speeches of a nature to remove the corner stone of responsible government. I do not think that the people of the country will tolerate such an attitude. Ministers must approve a policy of the Government in principle and in its entirety. If they do not they must leave the cabinet. Instances are numerous in support of this doctrine. Just consider, Eir, what happened in England. Probably in England the people are more careful in the matter of constitutional precedent than is the hon. Minister of Customs. At the opening of the war, members on principle left the Government led by the Hon. Mr. Asquith because they did not see eye to eye with the Prime 'Minister. As they did not see eye to eye with the Premier they were bound, according to constitutional precedent, to leave the Cabinet. John Burns, a poor man, gave up his portfolio and the emoluments of office to save his principles. Morley did the same thing, and more recently Lord Robert Cecil dropped from the Lloyd George Cabinet because he did not approve in principle of the policy laid down by the Government. These are actions held up to the admiration of people

who like British institutions. I will ask the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, when they have any leisure time, to study these precedents. If they do ithey may, revise their views.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude. Charles V, King of Spain, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, after having lighted the fires of religious warfare throughout Europe, abdicated his tottering throne and withdrew into a convent, where he used to meditate on the vanity of all things human. Rumour has it that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister of this country (Sir Robert Borden) will soon abdicate his uncertain and shaky sceptre and withdraw to the ambassadorial splendours of Washington, where he will be in a position to contemplate the disorder which he has created in his own country. May he very soon convene his faithful to the parting scene. The people of this country will fervently pray that he may take along, as members of his ambassadorial staff, his tools of evil and mates of incompetency.
On the motion of Sir Thomas White the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Friday, June 13, 1919.