[Stage Direction]
Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 137, to amend the Militia Act.
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE:: Explain.
Major-General MEWBURN: One of the amendments is in connection with section 24, of the Militia Act, which provides that there shall continue to be a permanent force which shall consist of sudh permanently embodied corps, not exceeding 5,000 men, enrolled for continuous service, as are from time to time authorized by the Governor in Council. It is proposed to substitute " 10,000 " for " 5,000," so as to provide that the permanent force shall consist of such permanently embodied corps not exceeding 10,000, as are from time to time authorized by the Governor in Council.
Another amendment is in connection with section 53 and 54. Section 53, subsection 2, provides that the Governor in Council may
from time to time fix the sum to be paid to privates in the permanent corps, having regard to length of service, good conduct and efficiency. It is proposed that the following words be struck out:
but the ordinary pay shall not exceed the amounts following, that is to say;	,
For privates, per diem, 75 cents.
For buglers under 18 years of age. r-er diem,
40 cents.
Section 54 of the Militia Act reads:
When on active service, during the period of annual drill and training, and when otherwise on duty, the pay and allowances of officers and men of the Active Militia, other than the Permanent Force, shall be,
(a)	for officers, warrant officers and noncommissioned officers, such rates as may be prescribed ;
(b)	for privates, at the rate of 50 cents per
diem, which rate may be increased, as prescribed, up to a maximum of one dollar per diem:	*
(c)	an allowance of a dollar per diem, or such other rate as is prescribed, to each officer and man for every horse actually and necessarily used by him.
It is proposed, by striking out subsections (a), (b) and (c) and substituting the words " at such rates as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council " to leave to the Governor in Council the fixing of the pay for active militia that may be called out for active service.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: The minister will be prepared, on the second reading, I assume, to go into details as to the reasons for this legislation?
Major-General MEWBURN: Absolutely.


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

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

Mr. POWER:: 1.	How many Canadian soldiers were tried by court martial as a result of the riot which took place at Kinmel Camp, England?
2.	What were the sentences in each case?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1 and 2. This information is not available in Canada, but a cable has been sent overseas for the same.


QUEBEC TERMINAL FACILITIES.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Has the Government made any arrangements with the Canadian Pacific Railway with reference to the use of the terminal facilities in Quebec?
2.	If so, what are these arrangements?

3.	What amounts were paid by the Government to the C.P.R. for 7ears ending March 31, 1918, and March SI, 1919?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	See copy of agreement attached hereto. (Placed on Clerk's table).
3.	Year ending March ending March 31, 1918, $28,657.47; year ending March 31, 1919, $136,787.07.


APPOINTMENTS TO PURCHASING COMMISSION.
*Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Has the Government promised Mr. Taylor, of the E. B. Eddy Company, one of the com-missionershi.ps on the new Purchasing Commission for-Canada?
2.	If so, by whom was the said Mr. Taylor reeomm ended ?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: There has been no promise of the position in question to any person.


*Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Were any of the present ministers of the Government offered the chairmanship of the new Purchasing Commission?
2.	If so, to whom was it offered?


Robert Laird Borden: There has been no offer of the proposed appointment to any person.


TRENT CANAL - REMUNERATION TO RETURNED SOLDIERS.
Mr. BURNHAM:: Is it a fact that returned soldiers who have been given their old positions on the Trent Canal at Peterborough are nevertheless paid less than others in similar positions alongside them?


Hon. J. D. REID:: No.


COURTS MARTIAL,-OVERSEAS SOLDIERS.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	How many Canadian soldiers are serving terms of imprisonment as a consequence of court martial either in England or in France?
2.	Were any of the Canadian soldiers condemned to imprisonment with hard labour?
3.	Where is tiheir sentence being carried out?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to return these men to Canada to complete their sentences ?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1 and 2. This information is not available in Canada, but a cable has been sent overseas for the same.
3.	Military detention barracks and civil prisons, where accommodation has been arranged for, in England and in France.
4.	This question is receiving consideration in connection with demobilization of the Canadian forces. Report will be made later

to the Government by responsible military authorities.


Mr.   POYVEH@: How many Canadian soldiers are in prisons or jails in England awaiting trial 'by court martial?
Major-General MEWBURN:	This information is not- available in Canada, but a cable has been sent overseas for the same.


S.S. &quot;CANADIAN WARRIOR&quot;
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	When was the steamer "Canadian Warrior" purchased by th* Government?
2.	What price was paid for her?
3.	What was the date of purchase and from whom was she purchased?
4.	Has she made any voyages to or from Ports of the United States? If so, how many?
5.	How many voyages has she made since the date of purchase, estimating each round trip as a voyage?
6.	After charging running expenses, interest on capital investment, insurance and all outlay whatsoever, what is her net earnings from date of purchase to the close of the last voyage in which an adjustment of accounts has been made, and what was the date of such adjustment?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	The contract for the construction of the steamer "Canadian Warrior," under the Canadian Government shipbuilding programme, was signed on May 18, 1918.
. 2. Delivered, $818,975.
3.	(a) Answered in No. 1.
Cb) Messrs. The Collingwood Shipbuilding Company, Limited, Collingwood. Ont.
4.	No.
5.	Vessel is now in West Indies on first voyage.
6.	As vessel has not completed voyage no statement is yet available.
SOURIS FISH DRIER.	[DOT]
Mr. MelSAAC:
1.	Have the warehouses and sheds connected with the fish drier at Souris, P.E.I. been re-let? If so, to whom?
2.	Have tenders been called for in this connection? If not, why?
Hon. Mr: BALLANTYNE:
1.	The fish drier buildings at iSouris were burned, with the exception of a fish house and shed which have been re-let to J. J. Hughes & Co., Ltd.
2.	No, this company secured a lease of the land on which these buildings stand. The two buildings have been rented until November 30, 1919, and arrangements are being made for the sale of these buildings and of the remains of the burnt buildings.


COAL SHIPS ON SYDNEY. ST. LAWRENCE ROUTE.
Mr. WIGMGRE:: 1.	What representations, if any, have been made to the British Government by the Canadian Government respecting the return to the Sydney-St. Lawrence route of the coal ships Rosecastle, Lord Strathcona, Daghild, Wabana and Kamouraska?
2.	What success, if any, has attended these representations ?
3.	Is the Government aware that the Montreal market is now deprived, and has been for the period of the war, of Nova Scotia coal, due to the requisitioning of these ships by the British Government and the inability of the chartering coal company to replace them at rates which allow carriage of coal with profit from Sydney to Montreal?
4.	Has the Government in its possession any information which, directly or indirectly, leads to the conclusion that the return of these ships was the result of the British Chipping Control's desire to favour British ship-owning interests at the expense of, or with detriment to the coal company by whom they were chartered?
5.	Has the Government any information as to the present whereabouts of these ships?
6.	Have any promises been made to the Government by the British Government respecting the date of return of the said ships?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	The High Commissioner for Canada ill London was requested by cable to urge upon the Ministry of Shipping in the strongest possible manner the necessity for the release from requisition of the steamers Rosecastle, Lord Strathcona, Daghild, Wabana and Kamouraska. Additional representations were made through the Secretary of State for the 'Colonies asking for the return of the SS. Kamouraska.
2.	It is understood that none of these vessels have yet been returned.
3.	The Government are aware that during the present season difficulties are being experienced in the delivery of Nova Scotia coal in Montreal owing to lack of tonnage facilities.
[DOT] 4. No. All of the vessels alluded to are registered in the United Kingdom and, consequently are subject to direction and control by His Majesty's Government.
5.	The " Kamouraska " is undergoing repairs at a United Kingdom port. There is no information respecting the present whereabouts of the other vessels.
6.	No.


WHEAT CROP OF 1919.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. T. W. MYERS (Kindersley):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government have taken or propose taking any steps towards the disposal of the wheat crop of 1919? If so, have any financial
credits been arranged, and what arrangements are being made for transportation facilities?


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman was good enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question, but I did not receive it until just before the House met, and naturally there has been no opportunity to make arrangements for summarizing such information as may properly be given. If, therefore, the question is put on the Order Paper, it will be answered in due course.


FREIGHT RATES ON RAW SUGAR.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysborough):: I wish to put a question to the Minister of Railways. It has been represented to me that the Shipping Board of New York have fixed the rate on raw sugar	from the	north side	of	Cuba toNew	York at	38J cents	a	hundredpounds and to Halifax and Saint John at 5S cents a hundred pounds. This is a discrimination of 20 cents a hundred pounds against Halifax and Saint John. Prior to the war, in normal times, the rates from Cuba to Halifax and to New York were	practically	the same.	It	has alsobeen	represented	to me that	the Railway
Department are using Government steamers under contract to carry raw sugar from the north side of Cuba and other points in the West Indies to the port of Montreal at 38| cents a hundred pounds, the New York rate, thus giving the Montreal refiners their raw sugar at 20 cents a hundred pounds less than it can be obtained by the refiners of Halifax and Saint John, who also suffered a handicap in respect to railway rates. This involves two questions. First, is the Government taking any steps to remove the discrimination against Halifax and Saint John made by the Shipping Board of New York? Second, is it the intention to use Government steamers for the benefit of the sugar refiners of Montreal and against the interests of their competitors in Saint John and Halifax?


John Dowsley Reid: This is hardly a question that could be answered without some discussion. However, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to inform me that he intended to put this question to-day, and I tried to get information on the subject. Up to the time of the meeting of the House I was not able to get the information, but I shall have it at a later date.


PEACE CONFERENCE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Samuel Hughes: May I ask the Prime Minister whether any steps have been taken by the Canadian representatives at the Peace Conference to guard against the placing of the Ukrainians, Ruthenians and Galicians, of whom about 450,000 or 500,000 are loyal citizens of Canada, under the domination of Poland in the new order of things in central Eastern Europe?


Robert Laird Borden: All such questions were discussed at the Peace Conference and reports were made by various committees which studied the conditions with regard not only to the Ukrainians, but many other nationalities. I hope when the terms come to be discussed in this House, it will be found that the interests of all have been safeguarded as thoroughly as possible.


Samuel Hughes: The terms are not published yet?


Robert Laird Borden: No, the actual terms of the Treaty of Peace have not yet been made public.


WITLEY CAMP RIOT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve):: I notice by the press of this morning that a very nasty riot has occurred at Witley Camp, England, amongst the Canadian troops. Has the Minister of Militia any information regarding that?
Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia): I have had no official information about the matter at all. All I know is what I saw in the press this morning, and I immediately took steps that information be obtained. Demobilization is going on very speedily, but unfortunately last week we were again held up by another strike in England which delayed three or four ships. During May we brought back some 55,700 men and we hoped to bring back the same number this month. Our first anticipations were that the whole of our troops would/ be demobilized in Canada early in August, and I think we shall do better than that.


BRIQUETTING LIGN1ITE COAL.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. F. REID (Mackenzie):: In view of the fact that $400,000 was voted by this 
House last year to demonstrate the feasibility of briquetting the lignite coal of the coal fields of Saskatchewan, I should like to ask if anything has been done in that direction.


Hon. Mr. BURRELL (Secretary of State):: A good deal of investigation was carried on, but this would not be the proper time to discuss the matter. I shall be glad to give all the information when my Estimates are brought down.


INDUSTRIAL UNREST IN OANADA.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In view of the conflicting reports in the public press about conditions at Winnipeg and other cities in the West, I should like to know if the Prime Minister is able to give us any definite information as to how matters stand at present with reference to the strikes at Winnipeg and other places?


Robert Laird Borden: At the moment I can only say that this morning we received a telegram from Senator Robertson, which sets forth in a summary the steps that have been taken since his arrival in Winnipeg. The telegram indicates that matters are progressing in a fairly satisfactory manner.


TRAWLER T-30.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg):: 1 should like to ask the Minister of Naval Affairs if any steps have been taken to commute the sentences passed on six or seven young men serving on the Trawler T-30, who were sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment and who have been serving their term at Halifax.	.


Mr. SPEAKER:: That is not a question
which should be asked on the Orders of the Day. It does not affect a matter of public policy. It is only a local matter and should be submitted in the ordinary course.


SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: About a
week ago I asked the Prime Minister a question concerning the letter of resignation of Col. McKelvey Bell as Director of Medical Services for the Department of Sol-

diers' Civil Re-Establishment, in which letter he suggested that an inquiry toe made. I wish to renew my question in view of a letter published in the Toronto Star on Friday, June 13, outlining the resignation of Captain J. Grant Cunningham, Deputy Director of Medical Services for the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, who in his letter gave the same reasons for his resignation as those contained in the letter of resignation of Col. McKelvey Bell. In the same paper there is an interview with Col. Frederick W. 'Marlow, president of the Ontario Medical Association, in which interview this paragraph occurs:
One cannot but think that a careful inquiry into the financial aspect of the maintenance of multiple governmental medical services would reveal a great economic waste-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman is not in order in discussing on the Orders of the Day a matter which involves controversy and possibly calls in question the conduct of the Government.


Charles Murphy: May I renew my question based on my question of last week and fortified by this additional material, and ask my right hon. friend if an inquiry will be granted?


Robert Laird Borden: I have already informed the hon. gentleman that I would ask the minister in charge of that department for a statement. I received that statement two or three days ago, but some further information has since been added. The document is now being copied and it will toe laid on the table of the House.


THE PEACE TREATY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rodolphe Lemieux: When does the right hon. gentleman expect the Peace Treaty to be signed, and when it is signed, does he intend to make a statement to the House and the country concerning his presence as representative of Canada at the Peace Conference at Paris?


Robert Laird Borden: I would shrink from making any prophecy as to the precise date at which the Peace Treaty will be signed. To-morrow the press will possibly give some information as to recent proceedings of which I have received confidential advice.
It is certainly my intention to speak in this House at the appropriate time with regard to the terms of the Peace Treaty
and also with regard to the part which the representatives of Canada took in the Peace Conference.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: On that point, perhaps the Prime Minister will make it clear if he intends to make a statement before the end of this session or at another session of Parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: That depends on whether the Peace Treaty is or is not signed before prorogation. If it is so signed, and there is proper time and opportunity, the statement certainly will be made and opportunity given for debate at the present session. If, on the other hand, the proceedings are so delayed that it will be impossible or inadvisable to continue this session in order that that debate may now take place, we should then have to consider some date sufficiently early at which Parliament would be summoned for the purpose of giving consideration to the subject.


RAILWAY ACT CONSOLIDATION.
[Stage Direction]
Consideration of a message from the Senate, further amending toy a consequential amendment an amendment made by the House of Commons and disagreeing to certain amendments made by the House of Commons to Bill No. 19, from the Senate, to consolidate and amend The Railway Act.
Robert Laird Borden: The amendments which have been sent to this House from the Senate relate to a very important Bill, and we all realize how desirable it is that a conclusion should be reached which would permit that Bill to become law at the present session. As to the consequential amendment proposed by the Senate 1 do not see any objection. It is merely a provision that the annual sum of $200,000 which is provided by Parliament for the purpose of ensuring the public safety should be expended subject to the provisions of the Act as amended. The other amendments are more serious, and therefore, I move:
That the consequential amendment made toy the Senate to clause 262 of Bill No. 19 letter A of the .Senate, an Act to amend! and consolidate the Railway Act, be agreed to; and that a message be sent to the Senate respectfully requesting a free conference with their Honours to consider the said Bill and any amendment which at such conference it may be considered desirable to make thereto.


Mr. WILLIAM GARLAND McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: Before that motion is put, may I be permitted to ask the Prime Minister if interested parties will be given an opportunity to attend this conference and be heard before the committee? I am particularly interested in section 325, which

was put through this House, I submit without proper consideration. Personally, I should like to have an opportunity of expressing the views of my constituents as to that amendment. I did not have that opportunity on the third reading, although it had been agreed that I should be enabled to speak on the subject then.


Robert Laird Borden: There was some misunderstanding as to the date at which the third reading of this Bill should be moved. I expected that my hon. friend (Mr. McQuarrie) would have put forward his views on the third reading, but he was under the impression that the Bill was not to be taken up jmtil another day. Of course, I regret the misunderstanding. Indeed, had I known that the hon. member was under a misapprehension, I should have had him notified as to the third reading. A free conference between this House and the Senate is brought about by the appointment of managers by this House and by the Senate, and it is not according to precedent as I understand, that 'the joint conference between the two Houses should listen to arguments by delegations or by members other than the managers themselves. I have had several telegrams from different parts of 'the country desiring that very considerable time should be devoted to the hearing of arguments by various interests concerned in this Bill. I have replied in the sense in which I am now replying to my hon. friend. I do not think it would be possible to carry out a conference in the way in which the constitutional practice dictates if time were occupied in listening to arguments which should properly be made before the Railway Committee, or in the House of Commons or in the Senate. If my hon. friend desires to make any representations to the conference and if he will be good enough to submit them to me I shall endeavour to see that they are received by the conference. But I do not think I can promise him anything more than that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[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 Friday, June 13.)
Mr. WALTER DAVY COWAN (Regina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to vote

against this amendment and, when the time comes, to vote for the motion, I do not believe that any useful purpose can be served by equivocation. In circumstances such as those with which we are faced at the present tame, it behooves us all to be as precise as we can in our views on the questions involved in this debate; for, at all events, our constituents will require from us such an attitude. I do not propose to enter into any academic discussion of the relative merits of free trade and protection, because I think it would be unnecessary and would result in no particular benefit. It would rather help matters in considering the situa-ation that exists to-day, if I were to endeavour to ascertain if possible just where we stand on the great questions that confront us, and also to discuss the reasons which should impel and shape any action we may take in the premises. For my part, I confess frankly that I have no apologies to offer and no excuses to make for any step I may take. I believe that the course I am about to follow is right as being in the interests of the people whom I represent, and in accord with the understanding that exists between us. Convinced of the rightness of my views, I have come to the conclusion which will dictate my course.
Now, a very substantial reduction has been made in the tariff. That, I think, is generally conceded in this House, and the question I ask is: How has it come about that the Government undertook to make a reduction at all? Under the system of government which we have, the responsibility rests with the people, to decide, by the course they take at general elections and through the votes of their representatives in Parliament, what the fiscal policy of the country shall be; and if I remember correctly, the last mandate of the people of Canada was given in the year 1911, when the question of reciprocity with the United States was fought out and determined. At that time the people declared against reciprocity, and the Conservative Government came into power on the outcome of that issue. That was the last instruction from the people on the tariff question, because I care not what any one may say to the contrary, tariff matters did not constitute the principal topic at the last election two years ago Conscription was then the leading issue, and, therefore, I repeat that the people of Canada, in their last mandate to their representatives in Parliament emphatically declared against the reciprocity treaty, which embodied reductions in the tariff. At the same time, I wish

to say that the constituency which I represent just as emphatically declared in favour of the reciprocity agreement, and 1 know that particularly because I was the victim on that occasion and was roundly trounced to the extent of over a thousand votes. The reciprocity treaty has now been recognized by the Government in their tariff proposals, and in fact they have gone further, if we take cognizance of the Orders in Council which were passed covering tractors and other farm implements. Speaking for my constituency, therefore, I will say that the Government has now enabled me to satisfy in this respect the desire of the people whom I represent. I asked a moment ago how it came about that the Government had made reductions in the tariff. To answer this question it is necessary that I should mention a few facts. The other day I happened to be on the train and picked up a newspaper which contained a paragraph that struck me as being very significant indeed. It appeared in the Montreal Star of June 6, the day after the Budget speech was delivered, if I remember correctly. The article reads:
Through all the preliminary discussion, however, the particular subject of speculation has been over the Western members. But for them probably no changes would have been madie at all. Throughout the session they have been holding caucuses and urging on the Government to do something " substantial."
I think that is absolutely correct. I believe that the changes which have been made in the tariff have been made entirely because of the agitation which has been carried on by the West. We have had, for the first time, I fancy, in the history of Parliament, a western caucus and in that we have been united. Old time Liberals united with old time Conservatives on the one point that they should try to get substantial reductions in the tariff, because the tariff, as it exists to-day, and as it existed for a number of years, has borne with undue weight on the people of the western provinces. I have enjoyed very much the western caucuses and I have felt that the credit due to the western members in attendance at those caucuses comes to all alike. I do not think that any one of them can be singled out as deserving of any greater credit than any other unless possibly it be the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) who, persistently, but in his own judicious way, has appealed to the judgment and sense of fair play of every one with whom he came in contact with regard to this question. We have founded our claims upon justice. If there
is an injustice being done to any section of the community, I believe that, if we appea' to the people of Canada to remove that injustice, they will do so.
I am one of those who believe that independence within the party is really the most effective kind of independence. For a number of years in Western Canada it has been my privilege to take a more or less active part in politics and on many occasions I have had the pleasure of meeting in debate the premier of Saskatchewan, the Hon. Walter Scott, a recognized leader in the Liberal party, and his view always was that the most effective sort of independence was independence within the party itself. 1 am convinced that independence on the part of western members has secured a larger measure of tariff reduction than has ever before been found possible since Parliament assembled. Such being the case, and believing, as I do, as a Conservative, who has always supported Protection, that the tariff is bearing with undue weight on Western Canada, that we should further continue our efforts and not being entirely satisfied with the reductions which have been made, I consider it my duty to remain here and to continue that independence within the party which has characterized my course in the past, the exercise of which on the part of Western members has largely produced the success that we have had already, and which will bring the additional successes that I am sure are to come.
I do not know that I am altogether satisfied with the strategy that has been employed by some of the leaders of those who are demanding a reduction of the tariff in Western Canada. To me, it would' seem a proper question to ask: Is this a war year? We cannot get away from that argument. The hon. member, for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), the first lieutenant of the leader of the Opposition, concurred in the view that this is still a war year and that we must deal with the questions with which we are confronted on that basis. I think we should have confined ourselves largely to war problems, to have held off till these problems are met, to have' dealt with our returned soldiers first and to have asked the farmers to lay aside their demands for changes until we had solved the problems of the returned soldiers, and to turn in and help us to solve those problems. 1 feel satisfied that the farmers would have done that if they had been asked, because I know, at all events in the constituency

which I have the honour to represent, the farmers have given of their sons as plentifully as any other part of the community. Therefore, they are directly interested in effecting that final settlement for our returned boys which is so necessary. Had that programme been followed, I am satisfied that a large element amongst the returned men would have rallied to the support of the farmers, something we cannot expect now as fully as if we had given them the right of way to which they are entitled.
Substantial reductions have been made in the tariff. What do they amount to? The hon. the Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White) stated that they amounted to $17,000,000. Is that all that is coming to the credit of the Western members? If it be true that the Western members, by their continuous agitation, have succeeded in effecting that reduction, is that all that is to be included in it? I am not a free trader. I have never yet been able to accept in its entirety the reasoning in support of free trade. I have never heard a man yet discussing free trade who would admit that the actual tariff indicated the actual tax levied on the community; that if there is a tariff tax of $17,000,000 that goes into the treasury there is an equal amount that is paid into the pockets of the manufacturers. Since I came down this session I have heard in caucus, in committee rooms and in conversation the statement made especially by those who believe in free trade, that under the tariff double the amount is paid to the manufacturer that actually goes into the treasury of the country. If that tax is levied as the result of the tariff is it not equally true that that amount which does not go into the treasury is also reduced by reason of the reductions which have been made? I am not going to press the argument, but I would like somebody to tell me, if that he true, what becomes of this additional amount when the tariff is reduced?
There is another thing that is lost sight of by those who are inclined to think, or those who are trying to tell us-especially the press-that the reductions are not as great as they should have been. I would like to have seen more and 'I expect to stay here until we see more-make no mistake about that-but if it is true that the Western members have succeeded in effecting this reduction-this saving-of $17,000,000 in taxation, then it is equally true that when we forced that reduction we compelled the Finance Minister to provide in some other way the equivalent of the taxes 
that will no longer be paid into the treasury. The Finance Minister undertook to balance up the accounts by putting .an additional tax upon the wealthier part of the community. That is what the people of this country have long been wanting. By the course that we have pursued we have not only brought about a saving of $17,000,000 in actual taxes, but we have .compelled the Finance Minister to add $17,000,000 to the taxes of those who are well able to pay them. Looking at it in that way, we are entitled to credit for an amelioration of the burdens of the people of the West to the extent of $34,000,000 through the course which we have pursued since we came down here. Is that worth taking credit for? I think it is. The fact that we have succeeded thus far as well as we have indicates to my mind the advisability of continuing in the line that we have been pursuing until we succeed in entirely eliminating the unjust burdens which bear so heavily on the people of Western Canada.
But we have an amendment. To me it is rather strange that it should have been moved by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). I am sorry that the hon member is not in his seat to-day, but that is not my fault. I do not think this amendment looks like the hon. member for Brome at all. I know, Mr. Speaker, that I am not supposed to refer to a former debate which has taken place during the present session, but I can recall another resolution which the hon. gentleman moved not so very long ago. It is a very different resolution from that which is now before us-at least it seemed to me that it was. That resolution was very frank, very candid, and very specific; it stated exactly what the hon. gentleman wanted and what he proposed to do. As for the present amendment, I cannot see that there is anything candid or frank about it, or that there is anything specific or definite in its terms. I do not know where it leads to, and I am satisfied that the mover of the amendment himself does not know either.
The last clause of the amendment states:
Also, the reciprocal offer of trade with the United'.States should be accepted.
As I understand it, the reciprocal arrangement has practically been accepted by the Budget which has been brought down. With the substantial reductions that were previously made, we are now securing more for our section of the country than could have been secured under the reciprocity agreement referred to; and so far as that part of

the amendment is concerned, we do not need to waste very much time upon it.
In another clause of the amendment it is proposed:
To take off or substantially reduce as may be expedient and just to all interested.
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, it is proposed to be expedient first, and to be just afterwards; justice must follow expediency. Evidently that is the idea of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. MoMaster). For my part, I would put it the other way around. At any rate, the hon. gentleman proposes:
To take off, or substantially reduce, as speedily as may be expedient and just to all interested, the duties upon all other necessaries of life.
Now who is included in that? Well, that takes in everybody in the Dominion. Sir Joseph Flavelle could find plenty of room to come in under the terms of that proposition. He and all his herd of-what shall I term them-bacon hogs, could get in under the terms of that proposition without any trouble at all. More than that, Sir, you could take all the implement manufacturers of Canada and bring them within the terms of that clause of the amendment-you cculd find plenty of room there for all of them. I also believe you could bring the real simon-pure unadulterated free-trader in this House, the member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) under that clause of the amendment. He could find a place under it. because it includes everybody, it does not seem to lead anywhere. As 1 understand the matter the grain growers in cur part of the country have always objected to just such amendments as this because they say "the big interests" as they term them of the East do not come into the open, they never discuss anything in the open; they go slyly to the leaders of the Government and they whisper in their ear what they want, and as a result of that they get just about what they are asking for. I am not saying this is done, but there is a very general impression in our part of the country that that is the procedure followed. The amendment uses the phraseology "when it is expedient." May I ask when it will be expedient to take the course proposed? As the member for Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan) said the other night, "expedient" may mean any time. It may be ten years or a hundred years from now-there is no saying when it might be. If it is left to hon. gentlemen opposite to say they could make any arrangement they saw fit with any party they cared to enter into an arrangement with. We have in this House, Sir, a situation something like this: We
have a party which professes, on occasions at least, to be a free-trade party and the leader of that party in this House said not very long ago that he is a protectionist. What, therefore, may we expect? We on this side feel, if we take this amendment as it has been framed, that we will get just what we got in years gone by-promises and nothing but promises; and when it comes down to tariff reductions we will not get any reductions at all. For my part I prefer very much to deal with a body of men such as the present Government-a government which has listened to the voice of the West and has gone as far as they could go for the time being in the matter of the reductions for which we have been asking, following that up with a promise that in a very short time they will have an inquiry made and in due course will make a complete revision of the tariff which will undoubtedly result in the removing of those burdens of which we complain in the West. I want to say that when I find a government dealing honestly with us, as the present Government have done- listening to us, as they have listened, during the whole session, taking the reasons which they have given and applying them to the conditions that exist to-day, and giving us the result which they have given, I must say that they have furnished me with ground upon which I can vote for them in the expectation of getting further action in the same direction. It looks to me at least that they are trying to be sincere and honest with us in our effort to solve these problems which we undoubtedly have before us. Moreover, it seems to me that the Government's method of " balancing up " as between the rich and the poor is the greatest financing that was ever carried out in Canada. They have removed $17,000,000 of taxation from the poorer classes of this country. They have increased the income tax and continued the excess profits tax for another year. As nearly as I can figure it out there will accrue to the Treasury from these, between $40,000,000 and $50,000,000. That, I maintain, is the most substantial " balancing up " as between the rich and the poor in Canada that has ever been carried out by any government in Canada.
Under those circumstances, believing as I do that the farmers and the workingmen of our country should have a chance to live, I think it would be criminal on my part to take the reins of office from the present Government and hand them over to a body of men who will submit such an amendment that I cannot understand and which

apparently is not understood by the mover and the rest of the gentlemen supporting it. Mr. Speaker, it looks to me very much like what happens around my house every fall. When the fly season, gets very bad my good wife places a small quantity of sugar and some vinegar into a saucer with a little bit of strychnine. When the concoction is thoroughly mixed and resorted to, the -strychnine is most effective in its results. But in this case I do not wish to take any chance of anything of that kind.
What can I do in a situation such as this? As I have already said, there are still problems in Western Canada that are unsolved, there are further reductions in the tariff to be made which I intend to shortly specify. Suppose I was not satisfied with the Government's action and made up my mind to change over, what would happen? Could I go over to the Opposition as it is constituted to-day? Would it be possible for me to enter their company, after their actions of this session, and then go back to my part of the country and express satisfaction with what I had done? The actions of hon. gentlemen opposite this session have shown that they are not in any way sympathetic towards the demands of the people of Western Canada. As you know, Mr. Speaker-at least you ought to know because I think you have been following events pretty closely- the people of the West have been, and still are, thoroughly in favour of the nationalization of our railroads-they are practically unanimous on that point. Were the Opposition in favour of that policy when it was submitted to the (House? There is no question at all but that they voted against the public ownership of l-ailroads. Again, when it came to building branch lines in Western Canada, what attitude did they take? You know, as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, they kept us here night after night while they talked in opposition to the plans of the Government, trying to thwart us in our effort to get branch lines constructed out there. Can I associate myself politically with those gentlemen and then go back to that part of the country and explain why I did it? It is utterly impossible. I would like somebody who could explain this amendment, because it is unexplainable to me, to go out with me into the southern part of the province of Saskatchewan, where they have no railroads, where they have no branch lines, and ask them to swallow the amendment and do without the branch railw-ays which they need and for which they have been waiting for twenty

or thirty years. I know which of the two things the people out there would prefer. I know what the people out there, w-hen it comes to the point, are going to take. Th.ey are practical people; they want results. They do not want any such nonsensical resolution, such as this, containing nothing.
But. Sir, if I did not want to go over to the Opposition benches where could I go? I understand they have established some cross benches in this House. Would it be possible for me to find a place on those benches beside my smiling friend, the free trade member for Red Deer? I think we would adorn those benches-although so far as adornment is concerned I am going to give you a little personal incident. I have a daughter and she comes here pretty regularly. I asked her the other night if she thought I should go and sit on the cross benches. She said she did not know. I said that I would like to have a photograph of myself showing what I would look like. She said, "I have a camera all right, but I have looked all over Ottawa and cannot find an owl on a hen roost." Over there I would look wise, but what could I accomplish? What would be the result? There is a little body of men out in our part of the country that would do anything to defeat Union Government, because they want the old patronage system back as quickly as possible. If I went over to the cross benches they would cheer, and I would be a little god in their eyes. I would be a power at home, but absolutely impotent at Ottawa.
In my view these cross benches have no place in our parliamentary system. You can have fifteen third parties if you want to, but at the present juncture you can accomplish nothing from those cross benches. What is the use if you can accomplish nothing, if you are merely impotent? When I come to that stage I want to be taken out of the House. If I cannot accomplish something, let me go home and stay there. I prefer to stay where I am. We Western members have shown that we have succeeded in accomplishing something for the people of Western Canada.
But rwould it be possible for me for another reason to go over to the cross benches? The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has taken his position there. Personally I think he is one of the finest members I ever met. But while I admire him, I do not approve of his deserting his post at a time when duty called him pretty strongly. (I do not intend to desert my post; I purpose to stay until my duty

is performed. But my hon. friend has gone over to the cross benches, and undoubtedly if others follow him a third party might be formed of which he would be the leader. Can I, in view of the situation that is now facing Saskatchewan, consistently follow him? Would it be possible?
Let me draw the attention of the House to this fact, that we have in the province of Saskatchewan what is known as a farmers' Parliament. It is about ten times larger, numerically speaking, than this Parliament. Usually between two and three thousand of their delegates meet every year to discuss questions relating to the farm. Last winteT they came to my own city and they could not find any place big enough for their meetings. The one thing they were absolutely unanimous in regard to was that the Government of Canada should fix the price of wheat, and I entered into an agreement with them that if I came down here I would support that policy, because I believed it to be a good policy. Has it been carried out? Most decidedly not. On Friday night the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) placed the blame for that upon the Finance Minister. I may be wrong, but I cannot for the life of me see how- the Finance Minister could be blamed. If under our system of responsible Government responsibility for matters pertaining to any particular department does not rest upon the minister of that department, then I do not understand responsible government at all. It seems to me that the responsibility for dealing with all matters concerning agriculture rests upon the Minister of Agriculture, and it was up to the Minister of Agriculture to deal with that question. Had the Finance Minister undertaken to interfere, I fancy that the Minister of Agriculture would have had good cause to immediately hand in his resignation.
But what happened? We came down to this House and went into the Agricultural Committee, which is so splendidly presided over by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders). In that committee one day, very much to my surprise, the Minister ol Agriculture announced that it was his personal opinion that the price of wheat should not be fixed. I asked him whether or not the Government had so decided, and he replied that it was his own personal opinion. I advised him to be 4 p.m. very careful because his statement would be spread broadcast throughout Canada the next day. The next day it was known all over' Canada that the Government had decided to refuse to fix
the price of wheat, and that that course was taken by reason of the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture. The farmers' parliament unanimously passed a resolution calling upon the Minister of Agriculture and the Government to fix the price of wheat. Notwithstanding that we find the Minister of Agricuture sticks his knife into the proposal and refuses to be governed by the Farmers' Parliament of Saskatchewan.
As the representative of a Saskatchewan constituency can I unite myself with my hon. friend after he has thrown down the Farmers' Parliament of Saskatchewan? Can I go back to my constituents and say, that notwithstanding that this new leader of ours has stuck his knife right up to the hilt into your proposal, I aon going to ally myself with him? I cannot do it. And I want to point out to the members from Saskatchewan that that is a vital point when they come to deal with the farmers of that particular province. As I have already said, I do hot intend to desert my post of duty after having succeeded as we western members have. Having found it utterly impossible to go anywhere else, I have come to the conclusion that the only thing to do is to stay where I am,-to stay not only with the Government as it is to-day, but- to stay with the western caucus. We may have to eliminate a couple of members-I hope not, I hope they will all come in-but through that western caucus we can accomplish a great deal, as we have already demonstrated, and my advice to hon. members from Saskatchewan is that they stick together like a bunch of western burs, and so succeed in getting in the future even more than we have got in the past.
They can have all the cheers and all the glory and .honour they want, but for my part I would very much prefer to go back to my constituents shortly after this next inquiry is made with another 7i per cent reduction in the tariff, for I think the people out there will be much more satisfied with that; they want results. It seems to me that the inquiry promised by the Government is the proper course to pursue. If we undertook to revise the tariff at the present time, the revision could not help but carry with it a war-time flavour, which would undoubtedly mean that the revision would result in a higher tariff than if made under normal conditions.
If we made a general revision to-day, what would be the result. We would not have another one for probably seven or eight years, and the farmers and working men -would have to carry the burden of the

higher tariff for those seven or eight years. Whereas by accepting the arrangement made now to proceed with an inquiry, we would have a much more satisfactory tariff than we could possibly have at the present time. We might lose a year, but as against that we would gain seven or eight years, and achieve much greater results.
I wish .to say to the Minister of Finance that I for one .propose to hold him closely to the undertaking which he has made immediately to institute an inquiry into conditions affecting the tariff and that a general revision of ithe tariff will be undertaken. I know that he means what he says. I have had a good deal to do with the Minister of Finance since I first became acquainted with him about a year ago, and I must say that I have been very much impressed by his sincerity; he has not made a single promise which he has not carried out. I have no reason, therefore, to doubt that he will carry out the inquiry which he has promised. I wish, however, to give him one or two reasons why the inquiry should be made and to cite one or two instances of the manner in which people of Western Canada have suffered.
Some of our troubles out there are due to the tariff. It is, unfortunately, a habit of some people, to blame everything upon the tariff. That is a bad policy to pursue, because those who do so are not making a proper diagnosis of the case and are certainly not giving proper treatment; and the result is that the ill is not cured at all. Some of the things, I say, that we are suffering from out there are not due to the tariff. Our geographical position is very much against us in Saskatchewan, no matter from where we get our goods. If we bring them from British Columbia, we have a high freight rate, situated as we are in the centre of the country; if we bring them from the East, the same applies. When we bring our goods from the North we are also met with the impossible, and when we go to the South we are met with the tariff. Our people, being surrounded with the impossible, as it were, naturally follow the usual course; they take the line of least resistance, try to secure a removal of the tariff.
Let us take the item of dried fruits. I know that dried fruits are used all over Canada, but I am giving this only as one example; I could cite a dozen-yes, twenty -such cases if time would permit. Dried fruits are much more important to Saskatchewan than they are to any other part of the country. In British Columbia

they have fresh fruits, and they do not have to depend upon the importation of dried fruits; and the same may be said of Ontario and of the Maritime Provinces. But we have to import this commodity, mostly from California. I wish to quote here an extract from a letter from a firm of wholesale grocers in Western Canada, one of the largest firms out there, which will indicate to you what the conditions are in that regard. If we consume more dried fruits than are consumed in other provinces, and if there is a high duty upon them, it stands to reason that we in 'Saskatchewan are paying a larger proportion of the duty than is paid by the other provinces of Canada. That is exactly what the situation is. The letter to which I have referred deals with a number of things; I will quote only that part of it which refers to the question of peaches. It reads:-
We used to buy peaches regularly at 5 and 6 cents per pound, and the price now is 15 and 16 cents per pound.
These people are not big interests at all; they are arguing for a reduction of the tariff in the interests of the common people.
You can see, when you add the heavy duties to this what it does to the price.
The duty upon the dried fruits is on an ad valorem basis. The original selling price in the country from which they are imported has increased since 1914 by 300 per cent. You cannot by any means blame the Canadian tariff for that. A free trader like the member for Bed Deer ('Mr. Michael Clark) might say that the tariff of United States was responsible for that. That may be; I am not going to argue that point. But the fact is that the price of that particular article increased in United States by 300 per cent, before it reached the Canadian boundary line at all; therefore, up to that point the tariff is not concerned. This is not a question of the protection of manufacturers within Canada; it is a question of the price of foodstuffs, and it involves a burden which bears heavily upon us in the West. But what is the result of the increase of 300 per cent in the market value of these goods in the country from which they are imported? Section 40 of the Customs Act reads:-
Whenever any duty ad valorem is imposed on any goods imported into Canada, the value fo-r duty shall he the fair market value thereof, when sold for home consumption, in the principal markets of the country whence and at the time when the same were exported directly to Canada.
This duty is an ad valorem one, and if this statutory provision is carried out-and

I fancy it is, because the customs authorities do not let many people escape-then the duty upon that class of goods has been increased by 300 per cent., which means that we are to-day collecting on that particular article a far higher rate of duty and a much higher tax than was intended when the tariff was levied. It may be that in another year or two the price will come back to 5 or 6 cents a .pound, in which case the duty also would fall; but in the meantime, we are faced with this severe tax upon one of our important articles of food. You can see, therefore, why, under such circumstances, there is a great deal of discontent in that country.
I could give many instances of this kind, but I shall not refer to them at length. 1 wish, however,, to direct the attention of the Finance Minister to one or two cases in order to show that it is not only the workingmen and the farmers who suffer from the conditions which I have described, and to emphasize my contention that the inquiry proposed by the minister should be carried out as speedily as conditions will permit and a revision of the tariff made with a view to overcoming these difficulties.
Some four or five years ago a large company built a plant in Regina at a cost of 13,000,000. They imported their fabricated steel from United States, paying a duty upon it of 30 per cent. That was all right; they made no complaint about that. The plant is in operation now. Another American company, finding that the company which had been previously established was taking the Canadian trade away from them, came to the conclusion that it was necessary that they also should establish a plant in Regina in order to hold their business. So they secured a property in Regina and have started to put up a plant. But in the meantime the fabricated steel which they also must import, has increased in value by one hundred per cent, and under the Customs regulations which I have read, the duty is just so much increased over that paid by theii competitors four years ago. In other words, the company established four years ago paid a duty of thirty per cent on their fabricated steel, while the new company must pay a duty of sixty per cent. That is unfair, and prevents competition. It means that this new company must have a much higher capitalization than it would otherwise have, and as it must pay interest on that capitalization it is not in a position to engage in competition that it otherwise would engage
in. The principle is the same as that which was applied by hon. gentlemen opposite in 1907 when they undertook to reduce the tariff on certain agricultural implements and then increased the valuation for duty purposes, upon which they collected that tariff. The only difference is that to-day the principle is worked out not through an action of the Government, but because of war conditions. I hope that, by reason of these illustrations, the minister will understand as strongly as I do th&t this inquiry should be proceeded with and completed as quickly as possible, and a revision made at the earliest day so that the inequalities to which I have referred may be removed.
I now come to another phase of this subject. The firm of wholesale grocers whose letter I read, have been giving me a good deal of information in another line. I shall not blame the Government for the case to which I am about to refer; I blame the Senate, because they did something recently which I do not think they had any good reason for doing. Last session the House of Commons passed an Act which the Senate rejected; I understand that the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce is trying to put that legislation through again this session. I refer to the measure with respect to canned goods, goods in packages, etc. I quote from a letter which I-hold in my hand:
I am taking- jam as a typical instance of the present situation, it is supposed to be sold in a four-pound tin, some manufacturers put it up four pounds gross, and others four pounds net so that there is a difference between four to six ounces in the actual net weight of the jam
between different manufacturers	In
the first place the consumer would be certain that when he bought four pound pails of jam that he was getting four pounds of jam and not three three-quarters pounds or less.
When I got this, I knew what conditions were in the West, but I made up my mind that I was going to find out if we in Western Canada suffered from this exclusively. I accordingly visited a couple of grocery stores on Elgin street, and I found that you are suffering here from exactly the same conditions that we have to endure in Western Canada, because the manufacturers are not playing the game honestly with the consumers in Canada. A free trader might say that 'the manufacturers are taking advantage of their privileges under the high tariff. It is not necessary that they should be permitted to do this. It is quite evident that in the United States there were exactly the same kind of manufacturers as we have in Canada, and until quite recently those



American manufacturers were taking advantage of the consumers by selling them a much smaller quantity than the cans and packages were supposed to contain. As a consequence, the United States Government took vigorous steps which resulted in the enactment of the Pure Food and other laws compelling the manufacturers of that country to be honest. I am sorry to say that we in Canada have reached that point where, if we are to have honest trading, we shall have to compel our'manufacturers to do the right thing. I believe we have some honest manufacturers in Canada, but wn have some who are certainly not honest. In those grocery stores on Elgin street I bought two cans which I weighed. One of them weighed four pounds, one ounce, and the other one exactly four pounds. When I opened them up I found that the contents did not nearly come up to the top, and the net weight was short five * or; six ounces in each case, and wholesalers who deal in these things say that condition prevails throughout Western Canada. What is the result? Our Cana; dian manufacturers ought to waken up to the situation. The people of Western Canada are sensible people; they understand what they are doing; they are not a lot of ninnies-let the manufacturers make no mistake about that. They get two classes of goods, whatever article you may take, one of Canadian manufacture and the other of American manufacture. One is not under any law and is put up in any old way, being short five or six ounces, and the other, of American manufacture, the people know by experience will contain the quantity and the quality in accordance with the standard. What are they-going to do? Just what they have been doing for the last number of years.. They are going to buy the American goods, and the Canadian manufacturer will have to do without their market. That is largely why the Canadian manufacturers have not, in Western Canada, the market which they ought to have. I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce will this session press that Bill which he brought in a short time ago and which was rejected by the Senate, at the last session, because in that way we may compel those manufacturers to deal justly with the Canadian consumer. There is only one thing I should like the minister to do, and that is to give me the privilege of writing the penalty clause. If my request is acceded to, I can assure the House that those Canadian manufacturers will not the second time engage in such practices.

'Canadian manufacturers have not shown good business judgment in their dealings with the western market, because, if they had, the condition which undoubtedly does, prevail in the West would not exist. If a man goes to Regina which, I believe, is the largest distributing centre of agricultural implements in the world-if not the largest it is very nearly the largest-he will find a most peculiar condition. He will find that, from now on for the rest of the season, warehouses will start filling up with machinery of all kinds which will overflow into the yards and will eventually cover acres upon acres of ground outside. Trainload after trainload of agricultural machinery is brought in, binders, tractors and everything else, and if you inspect them, you will find that they are almost all of American manufacture. I am fully convinced that Canadian machinery is equally as good as American and that being the case, how is it that American goods command the market as they undoubtedly do to-day, and why is it that Canadian manufacturers are not succeeding in the West? Canadian manufacturers should look into their methods, because American manufacturers have them beaten. Canadian manufacturers have undoubtedly indulged in very small and petty practices. If you go into a store and receive courteous treatment, you want to go back; but if you find that indefinable something or other that is repulsive, you do not return. Canadian manufacturers have not dealt generously and in a businesslike way with the people of Western Canada, and that is causing our people to deal with American manufacturers. It is just as well to recognize the truth. The facts are plain to anybody who goes to the West and sees the conditions or who studies the returns. I do not want to see that state of things continue, and I say to the Canadian manufacturers :	You must do more than fire a
whole lot of sarcastic references at long range at the western farmer.
That market must be regained, and sarcastic references to the people of Western Canada will not help to regain it. There must be no further indulgence in sarcasm of any sort and you must get down to a proper business basis, adequately paying your employees in Western Canada to look after your business instead of half paying them as is now the case. Dealers in agricultural implements in Canada working for Canadian firms are getting just above one-half of what is being paid by American business firms to dealers out there. I will give an illustration or two in regard to the methods that are being pursued. Not long

ago my wife gave me a list of goods she wanted ordered. I went into a store and asked for a certain article. The clerk informed me that it was not in stock, and when I reminded him that it used to be kept he admitted that it was but said they had a substitute that was just as good. It was American made, and I naturally wanted to know why the other, which was Canadian, was not sold. He said: "They advertised that all over the town the other day at ten cents and the price is fifteen cents." I asked him, then, if he would not sell more of that article at ten cents. He said, "Yes, but we get six cents profit on this article whereas on the other we get only one cent." Now, that was a strange situation, but it is the fact. American manufacturers largely have the western market to-day because they are giving to the Western Canadian dealers a much larger percentage of commission for handling their goods than the Canadians give, with the result that the dealers press American goods wherever they can. I shall now mention a case that is not by any means recent, in order to show that this condition has existed for quite a long while. When I landed in Regina thirty years ago from the city of Guelph, which was my ow*n home town, I wanted to buy a sewing machine. I picked out a "Raymond" which happened to be manufactured in my own city, and of which fact I ivas naturally proud. The dealer told me that they had a "Raymond" at $35, but he showed me another machine which he declared to he much better and the price of which was $65. One was American and- the other Canadian. He talked me into buying the $65 American machine, and about two months afterwards, on our meeting on the street, he inquired as to how the machine had worked. I said it was all right, but that my wife was emphatic in the opinion that it was no better than the other machine. He said: It may not be better to you, but it is worth $30 more to me. [DOT]I asked him what he meant, and he replied that there was just that much more profit to him in urging the sale of the American machine. Could you expect anything else than that he would endeavour to the best of his ability to sell that machine? These are the business methods that obtain all over Western Canada. Canadians are being done out of their own market by reason of the fact that the manufacturers of Eastern Canada have not studied conditions and have made no serious attempt to retain that trade. I make 2214
that statement without any hesitation because there is no question about the truth of it.


Mr. W. H. WHITE (Victoria, Alta.):: Before the hon. member leaves that point will he tell us what commission Americans pay and what commission Canadian manufacturers pay their agents?


Walter Davy Cowan: It depends on the goods. Does the hon. gentlemen mean agricultural implements?


William Henry White: Yes. The hon. member says the Americans pay a much higher commission to their agents than do the Canadians.


Walter Davy Cowan: I shall come to that in a few moments and answer the hon. member absolutely. I have a letter from a manufacturer's agent in Nebraska who says that implement dealers in the United States are paid 20 per cent by American implement firms.
'Mr. W. H. WHITE: And what about Canadian dealers?


Walter Davy Cowan: I shall answer that presently. There are a few matters to which I wish to refer and before I am through I shall answer the hon. member's question. I have here the result of an inquiry conducted by the Retail Merchants' Association of Western Canada, a body that is not at all prejudiced. I take it that the association is anxious to get down to a solid business basis, and I shall read a part of the findings of the investigation. I cannot read the whole of it, although I would be glad if I could have it all on Hansard. However, any hon. member who cares to do so may see the document at any time:
If implement prices are high, the fault cannot he laid at the door of the retail dealer in Western Canada, as the attached analyses of prices and costs will show.
The cost of operating a retail implement tousi-ness averages approximately IS per cent of the sales turnover. This figure will be conceded as not excessive; as a matter of fact, it .is the result of striking the average of a number of implement businesses of varying size and character in varied localities in the West. It is further confirmed by researches made by implement journals in various middle and western States of the Union where conditions are somewhat similar to our own, This figure of 18 per cent does not include freight paid to bring goods to salesroom; this freight is considered a part of the cost of the goods.
Let us take another example, and this will answer the question of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. White):

Take the case of a 3J x 3 wagon, 28" box Y & T. Prices at Oct. 1st. dating both ways, *figured on basis of factory and Regina prices,
'Cost factory	 $ 85.00
Freight & Ctge	 13.25
Laid down	 98.25
Sale price	 116.00
Margin	 17.75
Percentage of sale price	 15.30%
The sale price in 1914 was $116 and in 1918 $152 or an increased cost to the consumer of $36, freight increases being only $4.25. It will be seen that while the price of agricultural implements went up, the amount of money received by the retail dealer in Western 'Canada decreased on that article from $17.75 to $11.50, and the total increase in cost was $36, of which only $4.25 was freight. The question I want to ask is, what is the reason for this increase? The percentage on the sale price in 1914 was 15.30 per cent; in 1915, 13.81 per cent; in 1916,
1914.
Cost Regina	 $73.
Freight & Ctge	 3.
Laid down	 76.
Sale price	 88.
Margin	 12.
Percentage	 13.63%
Now, this seems to me to prove that the people of Western Canada have a real grievance. We do not want to be ugly, but we find that we are suffering and our suffering is reacting on Canadian business to its injury. We want to have this condition of things remedied as speedily as possible, because, as we are all Canadians, it is desirable that we should arrive at some understanding satisfactory to both the manufacturers and the dealers, and we see no reason why this should not be done.
We do not want to coerce these manufacturers at all, but I want to know why this extraordinary increase has taken place east of the Great Lakes, while there has been -a reduction in working expenses and cost west of the Great Lakes. I am mighty glad that the Finance Minister has decided to give us that inquiry. I would urge that he make that inquiry as quickly as he possibly can.
I have far exceeded my time, but I am going to deal with just one other subject altogether different from this. There is a great deal of discontent in Western Canada with the conditions at present prevailing. I do not wonder at it. I am going to tell you
.
freight being figured on average haul for local points in Regina zone.
1915.	1916.	1917.	1918.$ 85.00 13.25	$ 83.00 13.25	$ 98.00 13.25	$123.50 17.5098.25 114.00	96.25 112.00	111.25 122.00	141.00 152.00lp.75 13.81%	15.75 14.60%	10.75 8.81%	11.50 7.0'0%
14.60 per cent; in 1917, 8.81 per cent, and in 1918, 7 per cent. That is to say, while Americans are paying 20 per cent to their retail dealers, Canadian manufacturers are paying only 7 per cent to their dealers and expect them to sell their goods under such circumstances. These dealers, as soon as they find out this condition, immediately seek positions with American firms and take with them all the experience they gained while handling Canadian business. Let us take another example, a gang plough:
1915.	1916.	1917.	1918.$75.50 3.	$78.50 3.	$94.50 3.	$136.50 4.78.50 88.	81.50 98.	97.50 104.50'	140.50 150.509.50 10.79%	16.50 16.83%	7. 6.73%	9.50 6.33%right here, plump and plain, that the cause of it. largely lies at the door of hon. gentle-	
men opposite. We are said to have provincial autonomy in Western Canada. We have not got anything of the kind. In 1905-


William Henry White: The hon. gentleman says that we have not got provincial autonomy. Have we federal autonomy?


Walter Davy Cowan: I suppose the hon. gentleman thinks that because we have passed some Orders in Council we have no federal autonomy. Is that what the hon. gentleman means ?


William Henry White: Yes.	.


Walter Davy Cowan: As lie belongs to a party that passed four or five thousand Orders in Council each year it was in .power he can answer the question just as well as I can. It is only a question of numbers, not of principle. There is nobody in this House who objects to Orders in Council more than I do, but as long as there is a war on, if it is necessary to adopt an Order in Council to carry this country through, then I say let us have the Order in Council.

Mr. W. H. WHITE.: How long does the hon. gentleman expect the war to' continue?


Walter Davy Cowan: We have not got provincial autonomy at all. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about provincial rights. They did almost everything to strangle provincial rights. In 1905 what did they do? They said: We will set up the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. They took the three territories and made two provinces out of them, but they took good care that they did not give us what they said they were going to give us. They did not give us our own domain. What is our position today? The hon. gentleman (Mr. W. H. White) knows, as well as I do, that the Federal Government handled these mines exclusively and that they take thousands and thousands each year out of these mines under the leases which they grant. The Federal Government contlols almost entirely the water courses of these two provinces.


William Henry White: Why does the right hon. the Prime Minister of this country not keep his pledge and give us what he said we should have got?


Walter Davy Cowan: My dear friend, I am coming to that if you will just wait a minute.
I am going to read some of the pledges that the right hon. the Prime Minister made and I am going to ask him to implement these pledges; that is what I came here for. I do not propose that because the Government in 1905 stuck its knife into the province of Saskatchewan and because there has been a change of. Government, or successive governments, it is going to stay there. The blame for sticking the knife in belongs to hon. gentlemen opposite and they cannot get away from it. The hon. gentleman (Mr. W. H. White) agrees with me in that and I am glad to know that he does. If we get down to a basis of honesty in this country we will soon get this question settled. Everybody knows that in 1905 we were deprived by an iniquitous measure of the control of our public domain and it has been kept from us ever since. Let^the blame be put where it ought to be. The initial blame rests with hon. gentlemen opposite even although they want to escape the blame for that particular aot. First of all, however, I am going to read a motion that was passed by the Legislative, Assembly of the province of Saskatchewan last session. It is as follows:
That in the opinion of this Assembly the Government of Saskatchewan should continue to urge upon the Government of Canada the
necessity of arranging for the transfer to the province of the public domain within its limit without further delay.
That is exactly what I am going to do. This is a resolution for which the Saskatchewan Legislature should be given full credit.. It deals with a matter that is within its jurisdiction and right. I sometimes think that the Legislature trespasses quite unnecessarily on the federal domain in dealing with the tariff and similar questions and under those circumstances I pay no attention to it but when it comes down to a matter like this, which is really one that it should deal with, I feel that I should support it regardless of the fact that Premier Martin licked me badly once in an election and that he always has been a 'rood Liberal while I have always been a good Tory. He has a right to get my support in a case such as this. The right hon. the Prime Minister made certain statements and I am going to read them because I am going to ask him, now that the war is over, to implement those statements. I would not think of pressing the Government, during the period of the war when there were so many other things that they should deal with, but now that the war is over to all intents and purposes I am going to urge upon the Prime Minister to do what he said he would do and I intend to continue to do so because it is necessary and in the interests of the people of Western Canada, that they should get control of these resources. We have it within our power to build up enormous industries in the West. If. we had had the right to deal with the oil of the north, I think it would have been dealt with by this time. I am quite satisfied that within a short time the province of Alberta will be one of the big industrial centres of Canada. If they, had control of their mines, forests, watercourses, oil, gas and other resources, they might do something towards their development, but provincial initiative has been strangled, they cannot do anything and under these conditions, do you wonder that there is discontent in Western Canada? In the province of Saskatchewan, our resources are not quite as varied as those of Alberta, but we have plenty of mines, forests and like resources that are as yet not even quite known to us. What are they to us? - We have no control over them. They are under the control of the Federal Government. We have to come down and get the consent of the Federal Government before we- can do anything. Would you expect the people to have an inlerest in thesa

resources under such conditions? Would you expect the people to be content to do anything else than what they are doing- that is to cause as much trouble as they possibly can until these conditions are righted? Hon. gentlemen opposite must carry the blame up to the time that they relinquished office for the establishment of the conditions that exist there and the present right hon. Prime Minister must carry the blame for the continuance of those conditions for the time since he came into office. The only way in which he can excuse himself is to say that during the past four or five years he has been so engrossed in the war that be had no time to deal with this matter. But, he is not going to escape hereafter if I can help it. Speaking at Regina on June 22, 1911, the right hon. the Prime Minister said:
Speaking in 1907 at Halifax, laying down what was afterwards called the Halifax platform, I said the policy of the Conservative party would be to grant to these three provinces the control and ownership of their public domain and natural resources. Last autumn again at the commencement of the session I renewed that pledge. 1 renew it again to-night, and I say I believe the signs of the times are not wholly misleading. I believe the time is not far distant when a Conservative Government at Ottawa will give to Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba that right and that ownership of their public domain which has been so absolutely and so long and unjustly denied to them.
Again, speaking at Battleford, he said:
If it should be the will of the people of Canada to impose upon me the great response biliity of being; called upon to form a Government in Canada and after that Government is formed, the policy I have outlined will be carried out by the Government as I have stated, or one man of the Government will go out of public life.
The hon. gentleman for Victoria, Alberta (Mr. White) has asked why he has not carried out this pledge. I have given one reason. There is one other reason that is sometimes advanced by the other side and which I have refused to accept. That is that when he went to the country on that platform the people of Saskatchewan returned nine opponents and one supporter. Therefore, it was argued that the people did not themselves want to have control of their own domain. But I want to point out to hon. gentlemen and to the Government that in the election of 1911 this was not the dominating issue by reason of the fact that public attention was cohcentrated upon the reciprocity agreement.
The reciprocity agreement became a dominant issue in that election, which was fought out upon it, obscuring the other
[Mr. Cowan. 1
matter entirely. I say now, and I say.it unhesitatingly, that the wish of the people of Saskatchewan in regard to this question, is thoroughly reflected through their representatives sitting in their Parliament and voicing the resolution which I have just read, and I must, therefore, take this to be their desire. Let me emphasize it: We need that policy in order to settle the prevailing unrest. I have reason to believe that recently a conference was held of the premiers of the provinces and this matter came up for discussion there. I am not speaking authoritatively now, but I have reason to believe this version is correct, because I got my information from a very reliable source; I am told that our view would have been agreed to were it not that certain provinces opposed granting provincial autonomy to Saskatchewan and Alberta until certain arrangements were made with respect to their own terms and their own relations with the Federal Government. Let me say to the premiers of the provinces in question, and in as emphatic a manner as I can, that they have got to keep their hands off the throat of Saskatchewan. As for the province of Alberta, the representatives from that province can speak for themselves. We in Saskatchewan do not propose to be strangled any longer. If the premiers of these other provinces have any just grievances against the Dominion, if the existing arrangements are not satisfactory to them, or if they have any claim to advance, 1 think the people of Canada are sufficiently just to recognize that claim if they would come forward and state it and let it rest upon its merits. If there is any foundation for the claim, or any merit in it, I think the people of Canada, those of the province o'f Saskatchewan included, will be quite willing to remedy any wrong that exists; but I must say to them that they are not going any longer to strangle us in Saskatchewan in order to gain their own ends.
Mr. Speaker, I will not address you any further; I feel that I have already occupied too much time. Let me summarize my views: I am going to support the Government in their proposals, because they have given us what I unhesitatingly call a very substantial reduction in duty, and because they have intimated to us, and I have every reason to believe they are sincere in the intimation, further means by which we can continue in the way of getting what wa need in the West and of obtaining the redress of all our wrongs. That being so, I am going to support the Government, but I again urge upon them that they take

into consideration the conditions existing in the West and adopt as early as they possibly can further action which will tend to ameliorate those conditions.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of earnestness and attention to the very eloquent speech of my good friend from Regina (Mr. Cowan). It is not necessary for the hon. gentleman to offer, in his own behalf, any explanation why he is supporting the Government. I am sure those of us who have been in touch with the hon. member since he entered the House, who have known of him before he came here, and are acquainted with his confession of faith, know very well how his heart-strings are tied to the Tory party, and that in order to live at all he had to support the Government.
It was, therefore, entirely unnecessary for the hon. gentleman to spend any time in giving any reason for his political beliefs. The reason I have given explains first, last, and all the time his political course.
The hon. gentleman has reminded me of something that was said in this House somewhat earlier in the session when, I think, the member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) was professing great faith in the Government. On that occasion the member for Queen's and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding) reminded us of the old scriptural phrase that "he had not seen so great faith, no not in Israel." But that faith is continuing down from the hon. member for Macdonald to the hon. member for Regina. The latter has still great faith in the Government. When he wonders what the Government is going to do in the matter of the revision of the tariff, I would like to remind him that on the 29th of November, 1911, this question was asked in the House by the then member for Humboldt(Mr. Neely):
Will the Government appoint a permanent Tariff Commission? If so, will the labour and the farming interests be allowed to nominate a majority of the representatives of such Commission?
The Prime Minister then answered:
Authority from Parliament will be necessary, and a measure will be introduced accordingly.
I would like to remind my good friend from Regina that this promise was made on the 29th of November, 1911. Days and years, I won't say ages, have passed since then, and a good deal of water has flowed under the bridge, but the commission referred to has not been appointed, and the tariff inquiry did not take place. Therefore.
I would remind my hon. friend that when another promise on the same subject was made this year that it is only gentlemen like himself, possessing the simple faith of children, who will not question anything that the Government says. The Government knows that when it does make a promise their supporters like the hon, gentleman will accept it in their simplicity, regardless of time or any intention to carry it out. My hon. friend will therefore not be disappointed when he discovers that the same old story and the same old practice will be repeated in the future as in the past.
The hon. gentleman has clinched somewhat of an idea that we had on this side of the House in reference to the Minister of Finance-and I am sure nobody would protest against it more vehemently than the hon. member for Regina-that the Minister of Finance was subject to some persuasion, that some influence would sway him, and that some interests would have a hearing with him sometimes when perhaps they should not. But to-day we have it flat-footedly, so to speak, from the hon. gentleman, that he compelled the Minister of Finance to make a change of something like $27,000,000 in the tariff.


Walter Davy Cowan: "Induced."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No, "compelled" was
the word the hon. gentleman used. I could hardly believe my ears when I heard it first. I listened and it came the second and third time-that the hon. gentleman and his followers from the West compelled the minister to do so and so. I am sorry to believe that the distinguished gentle man who holds the portfolio of Finance and who has so ably led the House for the major part of the present session should be subject to compulsion of that kind. I rather think it is unfortunate that he should be compelled to swallow his convictions, be dragged around in that manner against his own will, and forced to do a thing that possibly -would be against the interest of the country because the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan) would only support him on a condition of that kind. I think we on this side would be willing to come to the assistance of the Finance Minister if he had appealed to us stating that he was in such dire distress by reason of the sort of support he gets from hon. gentlemen on his own side of the House. However, the compulsion has been exercised and we have the result. We have the truth now-and the Minister of Finance, who is sitting in

the House, did not think it worth while to contradict the statement-that compulsion of this kind was practised upon him by the hon. member for Regina, and other members of the same class and party.
The hon. gentleman also told us that he was not coming over to this side of the House. That is another statement which is no surprise to us. I must tell the hon. gentleman that no fatted calf is being killed on this side for him, and that no place is being prepared for him here. We do not expect him. We respect him very much where he is, and I can assure him that if he has any notion of carrying his compulsion propensities with him we do not want him, and if he expects to practise them as the supporter of a Government or a leader, he had bettev exercise them in a more favourable field than over here.
He has made reference to another funny incident. He says there are hens sitting on the cross benches and there are owls sitting behind the Government, and that the owls will not take seats on the cross benches. The owl is a harmless creature and I have no occasion to reproach it; the hen is a most useful domestic bird. But I must remind my good friend that I did not know they had such a surplus of owls as sat on the cross benches the other day. At least twenty-five of them sat there. In fact, they crowded off the hens. Of course, they scampered back later to a more congenial location. I rather think my good friend from Regina was among the owls on the cross benches the other day. However, he will remember the beautiful flock that lined up for the not very worthy purpose of crowding the hon. gentleman who was but recently a member of the Government, because they thought it would be a clever thing to leave no room for him on the cross benches. I do not think my hon. friend would do that, I have every reason to think 'better of him. I respect him for being just what he is-a hard and fast Tory, with all that that means. And it would be well for the people of Regina to know that and to make no mistake about it. That is no reflection on the hon. member; 'he is all right. I am sure if we had more straightforward party men supporting the Government we should all appreciate the fact, and the sooner we get such a class of men as my good friend,-who is not mistaken about where he is, and who is attempting no camouflage, saying he is one thing and doing another,-the better 
government we shall have in this country and the more stable it will be.
But before I leave the hon. member's speech, let me say to him that he must not depend very much upon the promises of the Government to reduce the tariff, nor must he remember anything of its promise to give to the province of Saskatchewan her natural resources. And he must not blame this Opposition,-which was the Government in 1905 and 1906, for anything done in the formation of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, because the precedent was established by the Tories in 1870 in the days of Sir John Macdonald when the province of Manitoba was organized. But when the Government of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier created the new provinces and granted them certain rights and privileges under, their autonomy, they got far better conditions than were granted to the province of Manitoba. The Act creating the province of Manitoba was passed by the Imperial Parliament, and this Parliament could not change it. Therefore, when my hon. friend throws the blame across the floor, he forgets the conditions when the first province was carved out of the Northwest Territories by the Tory Government which he so dearly loves to support and adore.
So far as the natural resources of the western provinces are concerned, I rather agree with him that the provinces should have them. Those natural resources were discussed in this House on sev-
5 p.m. eral occasions. They were discussed, I think, in 1912 in the early part of the session, when the boundaries of the province of Manitoba were extended and new arrangements were made with that province. It was then thought by the present Prime Minister that the time had not arrived to finally deal with the natural resources of the western provinces. If my good friend cares to look up the speech made by the right hon. gentleman on that occasion he will see why a final settlement was not then made. So far as the Liberal party in this House is concerned, I think they are fully of opinion that the provinces should have their natural resources, consistent with certain arrangements that .must necessarily be made, and which were always put forward when this subject was under discussion.
The hon. gentleman will understand very well why those natural resources were not given to the provinces, particularly the land. None of the western provinces cared to undertake the expenses attached to the

machinery of bringing immigrants into this country and settling them on the land. For that reason it was thought when the question of the autonomy of Saskatchewan and Alberta was being dealt with that as the Dominion had the machinery for placing immigrants on the land, it was better that the land should remain in the Dominion and be handled in that way. It was for that reason and not because, as I understand it, of any particular profit that was going to accrue to the Dominion Government. I heard the discussions in 1905 and 1912, and I can assure my hon. friend that they were along those lines, particularly the discussions when the provinces were formed in 1905. But this is the first time this session that I have heard any Conservative members from Saskatchewan say anything about the subject.
The hon. member has to-day read the promise of the Prime Minister that those natural resources would be returned to the provinces; tout nothing has been done to implement it. I do not understand why the fact that the war was on should in any way have interfered with implementing that promise, made as early as 1907 and reiterated several times in 1911. I am not going to press that point too far, Mr. Speaker, because there may be reasons I am not aware of, but looking at the matter as I see it now, I cannot discover any serious reason why even under war conditions that promise should not be redeemed. We had from 1911 to 1914 at least three sessions of this Parliament before the
war,	and if the Prime Minister was in a great hurry to implement his promise he could have done what the hon. member now wants him to do, but nothing was done then, and there is nothing in sight now. However, it is much in line with other promises made by the members of the Administration when in Opposition-once they came into power they forget or refused to carry them out.
Interesting as my hon. friend's speech
was,	I shall follow his remarks no further than to make reference to one statement that he made to which I take exception. It is not fair for the hon. gentleman to say that the Liberal party are opposed to the building of railways in the West. That is far from the truth. If there is anything big, grand, promising, or comprehensive in the West to-day it is traceable to Liberal administration. My good friend will remember that in 1869 this country acquired the Northwest by purchase; through the agency of Her Majesty the Queen the lands of that
Western country became ours. Hon. members know the conditions which prevailed from that day until 1896; they know how painfully slow the growth of that country was. Immigrants were coming into Canada by hundreds of thousands, but the conditions in the West were such that when the census officer went around to look for them he found that they had left the country- and why? Because the conditions were so poor. So little attention was paid to these people by the Government that they took the first opportunity of leaving Canada and settling in the United States. That was the-condition so far as immigration was concerned before the era of Liberalism which commenced in 1896. The whole country knows that the sun which set in darkness on the last day of Tory rule in 1896 rose in brightness and splendour under the administration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. We know how this country went on in advancement and prosperity from one stage to another under the policies laid down by the Liberal Administration of that day. In 1911 we went honourably out of power, fighting the battles of the West and the battles of the whole country; and the country at that time, the West included, was in such a condition that our good friends on the opposite side, including the Prime Minister himself,, caused the cry to be raised from one end of the country to the other: "Leave well enough alone." That, Sir, is an indication of what the Liberal party has done for the West. That was their policy then, and what was their policy then is their policy now- the advancement, prosperity and well-being of the country. In 1903, when it was thought that better railway facilities should be given to the West, we fought for the building of those railways and were opposed by gentlemen, like my hon. friend, of the Tory party. We fought in 1904 on the question whether a railway should be built in the West. My good friend' says that we opposed the building of railways in the West -nothing of the kind. We built main lines and trunk lines, and we are willing that more be built. My hon. friend tries to make Tory political capital out of this matter. When the Bill in connection with which he takes opportunity of making this reflection on the Liberal party was before the House, I said then that we were not opposed to the building of railways in the West; that we were in favour of the building of railways in the West, but that we did not want any foolery about it; that we did not want any deceiving of the people, or the promulgation of any scheme that was

impracticable or not in the best interests of the country. That is what we said, and that is what we say now. If my good friend is anxious to tell the story of the railways in the West, let him tell the' whole story. The railways that he speaks of were in a solvent and first-class condition when they left our hands in 1911, but in the very short time that has since elapsed they have become absolutely bankrupt and have a debt of $370,000,000 as a millstone about their necks. That is the position in which these railways are to-day as the result of Tory rule. If my hon. friend will tell the whole story of railways in the West from Genesis to Revelation, and tell it correctly, I shall have no fault to find; but I do not think I would be doing justice to myself or to my party if I allowed him to get away with the statement that we were opposed to the building of railways in the West. We were particularly jealous of development in the West; we practically staked our all on the West in 1911, and we are as hopeful now as we have been that the great expectations of the people as to the future of the West will be realized. But those expectations cannot see fulfilment unless the West receives the governmental assistance that is necessary to its proper development. The hon. member may accept this as my answer to his assertion that the Liberal party is opposed to the building of railways in the western country.
Before I deal particularly with the Budget, I wish to refer to the prospective amendment of the member for Red Deer ('Mr. Michael Clark). I do not know that I should call it a " prospective amendment," but I know that it was his intention had the rules of the House permitted his doing so, to bring forward a certain amendment. I suppose that one of the reasons for that amendment was to get me into a very close place;-to get me into a corner, so to speak, on the question of coal and coal duties, iron and steel, and their production in this country. Let me tell my hon. friend, as well as hon. gentlemen opposite and my own followers, that I do not propose to get into any corners for anybody; it is not in line with my ideas of public life that any man should allow himself to get into corners. We had an example to-day of some of the conditions to which a public man may be subjected. The member for Regina told us that he virtually held a whip over the head of the Finance Minister and compelled him to do certain things, to make certain changes. I do not think that is a desirable thing in the life of public men in Canada.

As for my part, I am getting up in years, but I have never been compelled to do anything so far as public life is concerned, and I do not propose to get into any comers now; nor do I propose that there shall be any misconception about my position.
I am a Canadian first, last and all the time; I am in favour of doing what is in the best interest of this country so far as I can see that interest. I have been following the development of this country very closely in Parliament for the last twenty years, of which five years have been in my local Legislature and fifteen years in this House, and I have never, so far as I recall, been obliged to take back anything that I have said. I have had my share of speaking in this House, and in the local House of Assembly in dear old Halifax, and I have no recollection of making any apology to anybody, nor do I remember any particular angle into which I was forced by anybody on the other side of the House, either here or there.
While I admit that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) and those who are of the same mind with him have a perfect right to move any amendment or resolution they think proper, I must explain my position as regards coal, iron and steel, and, in my opinion, any nation must develop its natural resources. There are certain things that must exist and be possessed by a country before one can live. One cannot housekeep unless one has the utensils of housekeeping. One cannot live unless one has fuel and food, heat and warmth in one s house and the nation is merely a development of the smaller unit of the family. While there are things that we may possibly get from outside, there are certain things which a nation must have for itself and which it cannot do without. There is such a thing as creating unduly stilted or unnatural industries in a country, but when you have in a country coal, iron ore and lime and all that goes to the making of iron and steel, in order that you may have an independent country, those basic industries must be developed. That has been found to be the case in Great Britain and, indeed, in every part of the world where those resources have been present.
A great deal has been made of a statement uttered by me in this House some time ago when discussing the building of ships and the erection of a plate mill in the city of Sydney. Everybody who was in this House in 1906 or thereabouts knows that a bounty was granted to the Sydney company in connection with their produc-

tion of steel, and to another company near the Soo in Ontario. I was thinking about the bounty that was granted to the works at Sydney, and I used the word "protection" when I should have used the word "bounty," because no protection worth talking about was ever given to the steel industry at Sydney. The company was, however, given a bounty, and on that occasion I said I was not to lose sight of the fact that protection did much good for this particular industry. I should have said that they got a " bounty," as they really did, and that bounty was a help to them. The newspapers and our Tory friends throughout the country jumped on this statement and said that the leader of the Opposition was a hide-bound Tory and a protectionist. If any specific industry such as coal which is absolutely necessary for the existence of a country requires any specific assistance for that particular purpose, I am in favour of the Government's taking that matter in hand and, consistently with the general interest of the country, giving it whatever assistance is thought fair and proper. If the production of iron and steel which is absolutely essential to the national existence of this country requires at its beginning some encouragement either by bounty or otherwise, I would be remiss in my duty to my country and to myself if I said: .No, while we may have iron and steel in the raw state in this country, there may be others who can pour their products into this country and keep us forever from having any industry of that kind for our own. If I were to say that and to allow the natural resources of this country to remain forever in a dormant state, I do not consider that I would be doing what would be in the best interest of my country or in the general advancement of the people. If to take some specific object of that kind and provide for it in the way in which .1 think it should be provided for is Toryism, or protectionism, or unreasonable, as regards the genera, trade of the country, I must plead guilty.


Mr. BUTTS:: Come over.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But those are specific
matters and, as I said a moment ago, I am a Canadian, first, last, and all the time, but I am no more a Canadian than a Liberal; I am just as staunchly a Liberal as I am a Canadian. That being the case, the fiscal and trade policy of the Liberal party is well known to the people of this country, and I do not wish to be counted as one of those men who say they are Liberals while, at the same time, their conduct is absolutely opposed to the principles of that great party. The platform of the Liberal party including its trade policy was clearly defined by its great leader whom it lost a short time ago. I purpose, and I think I am safe in saying that hon. gentlemen on this side purpose, following in the footsteps of that distinguished gentleman as regards trade and other questions. I do not know that any hon. member suggests that we should not gather a tariff revenue upon things coming into this country. There is a tariff in England, and although I never understood it very well, money is collected through the customs houses upon certain classes of goods coming into that country, whether by a tariff or a specific arrangement. Collection of revenue by a tariff has been established as the policy of this country ever since we have been a country, and long before Confederation, the provinces collected revenue by way of customs duty, and we have continued that into the fabric of the Dominion administration. If you admit that coal, like everything else, should be subject to a revenue tariff, you will find that the revenue tariff on coal is to-day extremely low. Bituminous coal pays a duty of 53 cents a ton; anthracite coal comes in absolutely free and slack-ooal pays only fourteen cents a ton. Bituminous coal brought in from the United States costs, laid down in Montreal $9 a ton and if you apply the duty to $9 a ton, it is only about 51 per cent. That is the tariff revenue we are collecting on bituminous coal, and I am sure that nobody would say that a revenue tariff of 5i or 51 per cent, or at all events, under 6 per cent is a protective tariff. These are the conditions that exist to-day, and if that rule is applied all round and the tariff is reduced to 5 or to 6 per cent I am sure no one in this House, not even my good friend from Bed Deer (Mr. Clark), would find fault.


Mr. HABOLD:: Does the hon. member not know that the rate of duty is always applied on goods from the point of shipment and that to get the percentage duty you would have to refer to the price of coal at the mine in Pennsylvania?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The coal is sold to the Montreal man anywhere in the United States at $5.50 and before it is laid down in Montreal it reaches, by reason of freight, etc., $9. So that if you take the tariff on $5.50 it is a mere trifle and is no protection at all. These figures were given me by the Labour Department and I believe they are absolutely correct. I got them

compulsion, he did very well, indeed. I trust that the day shall come when he may have a free hand to prepare a Budget without compulsion and that it will be entirely satisfactory to the people.
Coming now to the question of the high cost of living, which is a very live question in this country, I think that under the circumstances, as we have had them during the last four or five years, certain elements that enter into the business fabric of the country should be under the control of the Government. In my judgment, transportation, whether there is a war on or not, should be under the control of the Government in order to make sure that freight rates shall not be unreasonable. The grain elevators should be under the control of the Government so that nothing can happen such as, I am told, did happen within the last year or two; that is, that our own elevators are stocked up with grain from the United States to the great disadvantage of our own people and the general trade of the country. I submit that these very important matters should be under the control of the Government. The cold storage system should be absolutely under the control of the Government under circumstances such as have been prevailing the last few years. The Government should be enabled to see that the stuff that goes into the cold storage was obtained at the best possible prices, that it is sold again at reasonable prices to the people, and that only such profit is made as is necessary for the handling of it. I am rather in favour of private ownership and management, believing these to be necessary to get the best results out of anything. That is really my private opinion, but under the circumstances which have existed fox the last four or five years one's private opinion must be set aside and the circumstances of the case dealt with in such a way as to get the best results for the people. I remember that for some time after the wai began we in this House used to insist upon the Government doing something to relieve the situation and to keep prices under control. For a long time they turned a deaf ear to us and would not listen to us. At last the Department of Labour softened a little and they began to appoint commissioners. But this was only putting the evil day farther off and nothing was being done.
The appointed Mr. O'Connor a commissioner, and when he brought in a report which required immediate action another man named Henderson was appointed to look into the matter. He also submitted a report but nothing was done with it.

Another royal commission was appointed in Winnipeg, but at the moment I cannot recall the name of the commissioner. However he was appointed to investigate the storage of large quantities of chickens in that city, and handed in a very damaging report, but again nothing was done with respect to it. The Food Board was also-appointed, and I presume they have been making some reports, and in addition we have the Fuel Controller, and we have outstanding the reports of the Mathers Commission and the Nicholson Committee, and probably a whole lot of others, and still nothing is done. Why? Because evidently the Government does not believe there is any necessity to do anything at all, they are still unconvinced, they are still doubtful as to the necessity of taking any action, because one commission after another has been appointed. The amount of evidence that these gentlemen require before they move is appalling. Let me say that the somewhat maligned doubting Thomas was merely a credulous imbecile compared with the Pharoah-like impenetrability of hon. gentlemen opposite. They will not believe anything. We have had commission after commission appointed, and report after report presented, and still nothing has been done. I should not say that altogether, because it is said that by means of one of these commissions " a peace offering" was granted to the newspapers of this country. The Government brought to their knees some gentlemen who: iar-e manufacturing pulp and paper, in order to produce a cheap newspaper, with no doubt a contract on the side that that newspaper would be used for the glorification of the Government. It must be admitted therefore that the Government have brought into effect that cheap paper, and then there was something else. After a great deal of negotiation action in certain directions was taken by the Department of Labour. On the I3th December, 1916, there went forth from that department "a letter to three cobblers in the town of Uhatham, in the province of Ontario. It was disclosed to the Department of Labour and to the Government by special messenger that three cobblers in that city had put their heads together, and that they were going to raise the price-of half soles and heels from 65 cents to 75 cents. Immediately the Government took action and the following letter was written by the Department ocf Labour:
I am advised that a few days ago yourself and several others entered into an agreement to raise the price of shoe-repairing in the city of Chatham from the 8th instant. I am en-

closing you copy of an Order in Council recently passed, whereby you will see that if any such agreement was made you have laid yourself liable to prosecution under that Order. It prohibits the entry into any such agreement.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have standing to the credit of the Government as far as regards the cutting down of prices, and keeping down the cost of food in this country, those two things: a peace offering to the newspapers, and this letter threatening the three cobblers that unlesss they came right back to their former price of 65 cents for shoe repairing worse would follow and that an evil day was fast approaching for them. These things, Sir, it must be admitted the Government has done, and I wish to give them every possible credit for it.
The President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) the other night rather suggested that although the Government have a Department of Justice, a Department of Trade and Commerce, a Department of Labour, and quite a number of other departments, that one would suppose we are dealing with matters which enter into the necessities of the people who are suffering and. depressed in Canada, there was really nothing they could do. He was on that occasion delivering one of his clever speeches, and giving particular attention to that sinful man, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) who, according to hon. gentlemen opposite, has fallen from grace. The President of the Privy Council was pointing out what a great man he was himself and what a sinner the ex-tMinister of Agriculture was. Sitting opposite to him while he was talking it occurred to me I had seen something in 'literature that reminded me of the attitude of the hon. gentleman, bearing in mind his opinion of his own high state of excellence, and the miserable sinful state of the rest of us on this side of the House. I think what I really had in mind was what my immortal friend Burns was pleased to call " Holy Willie's Prayer," I did not take the whole of the verses because all of them would not apply to my hon. friend. If he reads the poem in its entirety he will see that I have expurgated matters that were not appropriate, and would not apply to him, but the following verses I think are just in their application:
Holy Willie's Prayer.
I bless and praise thy matchless might,
Whan thousands thou hast left in night,
That I am here, afore thy sight.
For gifts and grace,
A burnin' and a shinin' light
To a' this place.
What was I, or my generation,
That I should get sic exaltation?
I, wha deserve sic just damnation For broken laws,
Five thousand years 'fore my creation Through Adam's cause.
Yet I am here a chosen sample,
To show thy grace is great and ample;
I am here a pillar in thy temple.
Strong as a rock,
A guide, a buckler, and example,
To a' thy flock.
O Lord, thou kens what zeal I bear,
When drinkers drink, and swearers swear,
And singing there, and dancing here,
Wi' great and sma';
For I am keepit by thy fear,
Free frae them a'.
But yet, O Lord! confess I must,
At times I'm fash'd wi' fleshly lust;
And sometimes, too, wi' wardly trust,
Vile self gets in;
But thou remembers we are dust.
Defiled in sin. '
Maybe thou lets this fleshly thorn Beset thy servant e'en and morn,
Lest he owre proud and high should turn, 'Cause he sae gifted ;
If sae, thy han' maun e'en be borne Until thou lift it.
Lord, bless thy chosen in this place.
For here thou hast a chosen race:
But God confound their stubborn face,
And blast their name,
Wha bring thy elders to disgrace And public shame.
Lord, hear my earnest cry and prayer Against the presbyt'ry of Ayr ;
Thy strong right hand, Lord, mak' it bare Upo' their heads,
Lord, weigh it down, and dinna spare,
For their misdeeds.
But, Lord, remember me and mine,
Wi' mercies temp'ral and divine,
That I for gear and grace may shine Bxcell'd by nane,
And a' the glory shall be thine,
Amen, Amen.
To me, Sir, the foregoing verses represent the excellence of my good friend and the high altitude in which he finds himself as compared with other hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. I am not going to say exactly what the great Robert- Burns may have thought of his friend, Willie, but I am sure that we on this side give credit, and a good deal of credit, to my hon. friend for the many excellent abilities which he possesses. We rather regret, however, that he finds himself in a Government that is so slow to be moved, and that despite the evidence of the necessity of something needing to be done for the general advancement of the country, and despite the urgency oi the situation which is striking so strongly at their doors from day to day, he finds it congenial to his interests to remain in that Government.
He also told us in his speech some things that make one believe he is the most satisfied child that ever entered a nursery. He

will be perfectly happy if nothing is done to the Budget; he -"will be perfectly happy if the Budget is changed. 1 am sure that that is the kind of man the Minister ot Finance wants to have beside him, and not my friend from Regina holding a whip over his head to compel him to do things. This getting up early in the morning and doing things is distinctly averse to the general principles of the Government.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The IHlouse resumed at eight o'clock.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: At six
o'clock I was pointing out that, having regard to the conditions which have prevailed during a number of years, certain large concerns and avenues of trade in this country should -be brought under the control of the Government. I was saying that this should be done because the Government is supposed to have only one object and one purpose in view, the general advantage and the general benefit otf the * people; and if such control as I have suggested was exercised over such things as transportation, grain elevators, and cold storage plants, the Government would be able to prevent profiteering and undue exactions from the people. Had the Government kept under their hand the cold storage plants particularly, profiteering in foodstuffs would not have taken place to the extent that it did and would not have got beyond the control of the Gvernment,
I was pointing out also that several warnings had been given to the Government in this regard, but that the Government had declined to take any action of material advantage to the people. The conditions to which I have referred still prevail; very high prices are charged for the necessities of life. It is to -be hoped that even at this late day the Government will take action by carrying out the recommendations o-f the report, which we hope will be received in a -few days, from the commission presided over by Judge Mathers. Although we have no knowledge of what that report, will be, we have been observing the nature of the evidence that has been presented to the commission, and if the report is based upon the evidence as we see it, it should recommend that some steps be taken by the -Government in the general interests of the country and with a view to relieving the burdens of the poor people who find it extremely difficult at

this time to provide the necessary sustenance for their families.
The watchword of the Minister of Finance is, "produce and -save." That advice is, o-f course, very proper for all times. It is a tenet of religion that everything should be done decently and in order, and that nothing should be wasted. In the days of the miracle of the loaves and fishes, the Master him-self instructed the people to pick up the cru-mbs that were left over and to see that nothing -was lost; so that in asking us to produce and to save, the Minister of Finance is following a very excellent precedent. But it is a rather sad fact that the Government themselves are not setting a very good example in the way of saving and husbanding the moneys of the people.
At this stage I should remind the Government of something that appears very much to the outsider as a leakage in connection with the Department of the Overseas Military Forces. It was reported in the newspapers, and asserted in this House, that in one branch of that department an investigation had revealed a shortage of $10,000,000. That is a large amount of money, and if the loss really took place, if there was a defalcation, or whatever it might be called, to that extent in connection with the management of that department, a full explanation should be given. A question with regard to the matter was submitted to the Minister of Militia (Major-General Mew-burn) some time during this session, and his answer was, as I recollect it, that the matter did. not come under his department, but that when the Minister of Overseas Military Forces (Sir Edward Kemp) returned to Canada he would make a statement and these matters would be explained. The Minister of the Overseas Military Forces returned and made a very full statement indeed covering the activities of his department. We listened with interest to see whether he was going to explain this reported leakage or loss of $10,000,000, but he sat down without saying anything at all about it. The member for Maisonneuve, (Mr. Lemieux) who had previously made reference to the matter, asked the Minister of the Overseas Military Forces if he had any explanation to make regarding this Jenkins' report, as it was called, but I do not think that the minister gave any information on the subject; my recollection is that he said nothing about it. Questions were asked about it in the House, and a return to an Order of the House was brought down the other day which was supposed to

be an answer to the inquiries which have been made. I have read that return, Sir, and I find nothing in it which is an explanation about the Jenkins' report or which gives any information concerning this $10,000,000 which is said to have been lost. I submit that when $100 is supposed'to be lost, the fullest explanation should be given to the people; much more should the fullest possible explanation be given when such a large sum as $10,000,000 is supposed to have been lost in connection with one branch of the public service. This is only one thing that happened to come to the surface. We heard about it: we read about it and we tried to get information that would be satisfactory to the people, but so far we have obtained none. I bring the matter again to the notice of the Government. I do not say whether or not the report is true; all I say is that it appeared in the newspapers and that questions were put concerning it to the minister, who made no explanation. The return which was brought down and which was supposed to explain the whole matter away does not at all explain it, and things stand as they were. 1 suggest that the Government, which, through the Minister of Finance, gives us the very sage, the very wise and proper advice, "produce and save," take a little more care in the saving end of it so far as the money of the people is concerned.
As to production in this country, the Government, of course, is not called upon to produce, it is the business of the people in the various callings and walks of life to produce. Whatever profession or calling a man chooses in life he owes a duty to that profession or to that calling. If a man is a doctor, he ought to make the most of his profession; he ought to be an ornament to it -and the same is true of all the professions. If a man chooses to be a farmer, it is his duty to devote all his talent and ability to the high and honourable calling which he has chosen and to be successful in it if he can. It is the duty of the Government to encourage the different walks and callings of life, the different professions and industries, the different sources of production, whatever they may be, and, as far as it is possible to do so, to put means within the reach of the people so that the proper kind of men and women will have equal opportunities in a free country like ours. That is the doctrine which I would preach to the Government when they ask us to produce and to save.
It is just as important to cultivate the fisheries of the country as it is to cultivate the farms.
We have on the Atlantic and the Pacific immense fishery resources, and it is within the power of the Government to do a great deal for the development of our fisheries. We speak often and properly of building railways through the wheat fields in the West, and it is right and fitting that the wheat fields and granaries of the West should be traversed and touched by our railway lines and every other suitable means of transportation. But it is equally fitting that the fishery grounds and the fishing villages, towns and centres of this Dominion should also be put in touch with lines of railway. In parts of British Cblum-bit, which have no railway facilities, we have magnificent fisheries, and it is highly desirable that they should have railways for the proper development of that industry. In my province of Nova Scotia, and in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, we have magnificent fishing centres, but they are far away from railway lines, and it is impossible to carry on the industry with the advantage to the country that would be possible if better means of land transportation were available. There is no good reason why that magnificent fish food which we have in abundance in Nova Scotia should not be placed on the table of the man in Toronto, or Quebec, or Montreal, or any other great city, in the same shape as it leaves the water, if suitable facilities by way of cold storage and refrigerator cars were provided. Those are encouragements which the Government can give, and by giving them for the benefit of the fisheries and other industries, the Government will be doing something that will encourage our workers, whether fishermen, fanners or lumbermen to put energy into the businesses in which they are engaged. Those are the things which the Government should bear in mind when they are giving us advice in Canada to "produce and to save." There was never a time in the history of this great country of ours when it was so necessary and desirable as it is now to produce and to save.
There is another thing that must be done if we are to have the best results from the citizenship of this country. A man must be a free citizen in this country; he must be taught to love his country. He must be given to understand that he is in a country of equal opportunities of equal advantages, and that once he places his feet upon the soil of Canada and behaves himself as he ought to, observing our laws, he is entitled



to the heritage which has been handed down to us by generations of development and to the fullest of civilization in this country. That is another of the great facts which ought to be brought home to the minds and hearts of the people who are to develop this country and to produce ana to save, if this country is to be what it should be. I have in mind people in this country who are British subjects and who are not getting the benefits which are supposed to flow from that great legacy. We have on our Statute Book a law, namely, chapter 77 of the Revised Statutes of Canada of 1906, section 24 of which says:
An alien to whom a certificate of naturalization is granted shall, within Canada, be entitled to all political and, other rights, powers and privileges, and be subject to all obligations, to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject within Canada, with this qualification, that he shall not, when within the limits of the foreign state of which he was a subject previously to his obtaining his certificate of naturalization, be deemed to be a British subject, unless he has ceased to be a subject of that state in pursuance of the laws thereof, or in pursuance of a treaty or convention to that effect.
That is the promise of this Parliament, put in the shape of a solemn statute, passed by the House of Commons and the Senate, assented to by the Crown and spread broadcast throughout the world, inviting immigrants to come to this country. They came to this country; they qualified for the taking of the oath which they must take before they are naturalized, and when they are naturalized, they come within the purview of this law. I am sorry to say that, notwithstanding that law which is on our statute-book to-day, and has been on our statute-book for many years past, we have refused the right of citizenship to hundreds of thousands of people within this country within the last three or four years. I hope the Government will realize that the time has come when that blot caused by what is familiarly known as the War-time Elections Act, by which thousands of people who had this promise in their hand and who had earned this right were deprived of that privilege, should no longer remain upon the escutcheon of the Canadian people or the Canadian Government, and that we should once more go back to the time when we regarded ourselves as bound by our laws and recognized that our promises were absolutely and finally binding upon us, that the promise of a minister should not be doubted, much less the promise of the country and that no statute should be disregarded by any Government or individual. There is nothing that I stand by more

firmly than constitutional government, and I assure the Prime Minister and the Government that if there is anything necessary from this side of the House to assist them in maintaining law and order and constitutional usages in this country, they shall find .the most devoted and loyal support from hon-. gentlemen on this side. But lei me remind hon. gentlemen that when we have instances of this kind, when we have governments and officials of governments shying round statutes and doing things which should not be done, they must not be surprised if, in particular, strangers coming into this country should rather hesitate and not have the same regard for our laws, institutions and conduct generally in matters of government that they would otherwise have. If we are going to assimilate the hundreds of thousands of people who are coming into 'Canada; if we are going to make them proper Canadians it is absolutely essential that we should show them an example. They should see in us a peace-loving, God-fearing, law-abiding, honest people, and should understand that the people who come into this country are expected to measure up to our standards. But if they find after they come here that notwithstanding this heritage of ours we do not live up to the high ideals that it sets before us, then we must not he surprised if these people are not the excellent citizens that we should expect them to be.
I desire to say a word or two in regard to the present labour difficulties in this country. I do not purpose to go extensively into that question just now, for I believe that it is possibly not the best time to discuss it. One may say something that may be misunderstood, hut I would say to the Government, for all that, that I rather think that its attitude and that of the ministers who went to the great centre of labour at Winnipeg to deal with the difficulties there was rather of an unkind and unsympathetic nature, and that, in my judgment at all events, they have not exercised the very scrupulous care and excellent judgment necessary in dealing with such a question as confronted them there. I fear, whether reasonably or not, that the labour people or those who are in trouble out there, regard the ministers as being entirely on one side of the question and out of sympathy with those out on strike. I suppose it is impossible for the Government to bring about very satisfactory results if those on one side of the dispute have reached the conclusion that the Government are unfriendly to ithem and are not disposed to give them a fair

show. We were dealing with this question of labour a few days ago. I said then, and I say now, as a friend of labour and as a man who has been brought up among labourers and who in this House represents a very large body of labouring men, that I was, and am still, anxious that some easy, proper and lasting way should be found by which troubles of this kind in this country should be dealt with in a satisfactory constitutional way, in order that they may be prevented as far as possible. I submit, Sir, that it is impossible (to obtain efficiency in dealing with labour problems or in adjusting labour difficulties by means of temporary boards. You have a board to-day to deal with a case, say, in the city of Quebec. You have three of the very best men you can get and perhaps they will settle the question. Probably they may never have sat on a board before, and may not sit on such a board again for twenty years, if ever. They are absolutely new men, untrained, and in all probability know nothing about the business in hand. Every time you form a board you have raw-recruits who are unacquainted with the conditions that have to be considered, who are absolutely untrained, and may be somewhat indifferent about their responsibilities -regarding their work as a small job and not attaching to it the importance which it deserves. They feel that once they have disposed of the question before them there is an end of their labours. What sort of administration of justice would we have in this country if the Supreme Court of Canada, for example, were constituted of three or four men whom you might pick up on the street to sit for a few days and try cases and who, when that was over, would never meet again? Apply the same rule to the different courts. (Suppose you had untrained men without an adequate knowledge of the law, and not properly equipped, to deal with the cases that might come before them from time to time, and what would be the state of the administration of our law? That, however, is not the case. On our benches in the different provinces, and in the Supreme Court of Canada, there are trained jurists who have given their lives to the study of law and evidence and are well versed in the proper application of the rules of evidence. As a result we have careful trials and, as a rule, proper and equitable decisions. Now, Sir, my view is that if it is necessary in dealing with problems in every day life that we should have trained men who understand the business of law and who have made its study their life 222i
work, it is equally proper and necessary, when we come to deal with the great questions involved in the relation that exists between millions of men engaged in labour and hundreds of thousands of capitalists, that we should have some method by which men adequately qualified for the work should be able to deal with all matters that come before them, in the difficulties that arise from time to time in a systematic way that would be satisfactory to all concerned.
I made this statement the other day in this House, and some newspapers and individuals jumped to the conclusion that I was unfriendly to labour and wanted to constitute	a	court	that would
force men to accept its findings. I was accused of being altogether one-sided. I am nothing of the kind and to-night, after due consideration of what I said before, I say that not many years will pass by before hon. gentlemen sitting in this House and public men in the country will have reached the conclusion that it was surprising that we did not long ago take some proper step along this line. I submit to you, Sir, as I submitted the other night, that possibly it would not be a good thing to make a court of this kind compulsory at the outset. But if such a court were constituted and for some years at least it were left to the option of interested parties to go to it or not as they chose, I am sure that those who resorted to it would find it so satisfactory and so far superior to strikes as a means of settling labour questions that it would not be far in the future when everybody would take his difficulties to it.. In Nova Scotia there is a body known as the Utilities Board, and perhaps there is such a board in every other province. When difficulties arise in Nova Scotia they are taken to this board. Any difficulty between the consumers of electric light, for instance, and the company is not permitted to be settled by a strike. The aggrieved side express their difficulties in writing and the document is handed in to the chairman or the secretary of the Utilities Board. A copy of the petition is served to the other side, and within ten or twenty days they send their answer. If they cannot agree a day is fixed for hearing the case, and the whole matter is thrashed out, and an order is made by the board binding on all parties concerned. If a similar system-I do not say the same system -were adopted in connection with strikes, I am sure the result would be satisfactory.
I am in favour of unions and I think that all labour in the country should be well

united under proper leadership. But, while I favour labour unions and their proper administration, I must say that I have no use whatever for the agitator or the fire-eater who makes a business of stirring up strife and trouble. However, when all labour is properly organized I can see no difficulty in the way of any body of united labour putting their complaints in writing and filing them with a proper tribunal which could submit them to the employer and obtain his answer. If the answer were deemed unsatisfactory the tribunal could appoint a time for both parties to appear and discuss the matter in dispute with a view to settlement. I think that is what is coming in the future. We may not see it to-day or to-morrow, but the day will *come "when disputes in this country, whether of labour or otherwise, will not be left to the haphazard arbitration of strikes. I am sure that no men desire to go on strike if they can get their difficulties satisfactorily settled otherwise, and as it is to-day we are not offering to the people -anything that will settle their difficulties. Let this Government take the view I present and adopt such a court as I have suggested. They could leave lit, for some .years at all events, to the judgment of the people whether they would have their difficulties solved by the tribunal, but 'the court would be there to settle disputes that might be taken to it.
This, Sir, is the view which I submitted before and which I present now. I do not want to introduce any personal matter but I wish to bring to the notice of the right lion, the Prime Minister that, since I made that statement before, one of the commissioners on Judge Mathers' commission busied himself as a street corner politician in the city of Sydney trying to arouse feeling against me because I made the statement in this House a few days ago. If this is the class of men that they send around the country to promote peace, order and good government, they are making a mistake. It does not concern me very much, but I am sure that that is neither the wish nor the will of the Government and that they would not desire any person who goes around the country, paid by the Government and supposed to be acting for the people, to convert himself into a political machine and try to stir up trouble against me or any member of this House in any section of the country.
I do not know why there should be any misunderstanding, or any lack of confi-klence, between, any body of people in this

country and the Government of the day. If there is such, the sooner the Government take steps to remove it, and give everybody, whether employer or employed, to understand that it is the function of governments in this country to deal fairly and squarely with all interests whether of the capitalist or of the man whose only capital is his brain and the strength of his arm, the better it will be.
Along the lines of assisting labour and helping production in this country, I would remind the Government, once more that the coal industry in Nova Scotia depends largely upon shipping. On account of the war, the shipping oil which we depend was shut off. We do not complain of that; nor do we complain of anything else necessary to advance the interests of the country in the war. But the war was over on the 11th November, and three or four ships which were taken away from the Dominion Coal Company are not yet returned. It was thought by the owners of these ships, who are in the Old Country, that they were not obliged to return them because, as they alleged, the war cancelled their contract. The matter was tried out in the English courts and the judges held that the war did not cancel the contract and that the moment the war was over the ships were obliged to return to their old charters. But what has happened is that these shipowners, through some influence, and wishing to keep their ships in the service of the Government as long as possible, sent the ships off to Australia. From Australia they were sent to the Mediterranean, and kept a-way from their proper contracts possibly until now. I do not know whether this Government could have intervened to compel-possibly not compel, but advise-the Home Government to send these ships back to their proper charters. What happened was that we in Nova Scotia lost the use of these ships, and as they were chartered before the war, the rates were reasonably low. If we had these ships it would enable us to place coal in Montreal and other places on the St. Lawrence at a reasonable price. As it is now, coal is selling high, and the people of Nova Scotia have not the facilities that these ships would afford them. The impression is that the Government have not done what they should and could have done in this matter. I am not saying whether or not that is true, but that is the impression, and possibly some day we shall find out what the full facts are. If it is true that the Government could have obtained these vessels for the company and sent them back for the

proper discharge of their contract under the charters, they should have done so. The reason why the owners of the ships continued them in the service of the Government was that they were getting very much larger freight rates and making a great deal more money out of their war-time charters than they would have made if they had carried out the old agreement with the coal company. However, the courts have decided that they were obliged to come back. It is a pity that they were allowed to remain away to the great detriment of the people in Nova Scotia who were depending upon them.
Much has been said about parties and party government in this House and elsewhere. I do not intend to close my remarks without making some observation along these lines. I do not mention party with the intention of casting the slightest possible reflection upon any person, whether he belongs to the Liberal party or the Conservative party. Parties are institutions in this country. We here have been governed for the last one hundred years, as they have for a longer period in the Old Country, along party lines and under the party system. Whatever development we have made in this country, whatever development they have made in England or the United States, or in any civilized country, has been made under party government. Therefore, party government, to my mind is an institution that should not hastily, or without due consideration, be set aside. Party lines and party government develop likes and dislikes; the likes are the things that we particularly prefer. Party creates traditions, love of men and love of country along lines which, in so far as I know, cannot otherwise be developed. It is not usually easy for one to cut himself away from the ties of party and party government. Particularly is that the case where we find properly conducted party government. I am sure, Sir, that the Conservatives of Canada-the old-line and the new-line Conservatives-would be sorry indeed to be deprived of the lustre, honour and glory that they have derived, or which they take to themselves, by being connected with a party with which are associated such names as those of the Right Hon. 'Sir John Macdonald, the Right Hon. Sir Charles Tupper, and the Right Hon. Sir John Thompson. My hon. friends opposite, 1 am sure, will be. pleased to remember that . they were friends, supporters and partisans of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Robert Borden), who leads the House to-day. On
this side of the House, I know we shall always be proud of such names as George Brown, Sir Oliver Mowat, Alexander Mackenzie, and, last, but not least, the great . and distinguished gentleman who led us until yesterday-I might say-the Right -Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. These are names and traditions which are worthy of being perpetuated. Whatever may have happened during the war-I am not saying a word about that just now-I think that the growth and development of this country should be along party lines.
J am not, of course, saying anything new when I say that. It. has been already stated in this House in a very eloquent and interesting speech by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). The hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) has also made a similar statement,
I say now, as I have said 'before, though not with the idea of making the slightest reflection against any hon. gentleman whether he sits on this side or on the opposite side of the House, that following along party lines offers the best system of government that has yet been discovered in this country. People who think they are very smart in uttering clever things may talk about severing that, this and the other thing from politics. It is impossible in Canada to sever things from polities-that is, politics in the proper sense. There is a sense in which politics are spoken of sneeringly, and in connection with the lowest things that can happen in this country, but it is for men such as the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government to lift polities, government, and political parties above such sneers, and to place them on the high plane on which they ought to be. Men would respect him and: others if they would take that high stand and continue it. '
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal further, and shortly, with the attitude of the Liberal, party as far as regards trade and the trade questions of this country. That is nothing new, it is well known, but in view of something that I mentioned this afternoon and some use that was made of my own. name throughout the country, some reference to it on my part becomes necessary. If I. were merely a private member, I would not for a moment bother about noticing it at aUf. but occupying the position that I now do there is perhaps exaggerated attention paid' to anything I say. Whatever may happen to me personally, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that while I occupy this position I am particularly anxious that no word, or act of

mine should in the slightest way whatever reflect on the party to which I belong, or interfere in the slightest way with the confidence with which that party is regarded by the people of the Dominion. For that reason, Sir, I wish to make perfectly clear my own attitude with regard to the trade issue. But I might first revert for a moment to the question of production to which I made reference a few minutes ago. Production is not a local question. The production of flour, or the production of wheat, although it takes place on a great scale in the West is not a western question. It is one in which everybody in Canada is concerned because wheat and flour constitute the food of the people, and when the food of the people is the matter a't issue that of course is a national question. When we are asked to do anything that will help the farmer in the West, if the giving to him of free implements is going to help him, that is not for himself alone, it is for the industry in which he is concerned, it is in the national interest, because it is hoped that greater production will follow, and that the results will find their way through the channels of industry to the consumer. Therefore, when we are called upon to help the farmers in the West in getting implements for them to plant their grain and harvest it, when we are called upon to help the lumberman in his production of lumber, or to help the miner and the fisherman in their respective callings so that they may produce more, we are not doing that exclusively in their interest-we are doing it for them of course, but in the greater cause of the general interest of the country. That, Sir, is the position we take on this side of the House, and always take when we announce ourselves in favour of making conditions easy either for the people in the West or for producers all over the country. The taunt always thrown across the floor of the House is that we on this side have not lived up to the position which we took in 1893 when the great Liberal convention was held in this city-that .Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his followers did not adhere to the promise that they gave at that time. The assertion has been made thousands of times all over the country that Sir Wilfrid Laurier on that occasion said we were going to have free trade as it was in England. Sir Wilfrid Laurier never said anything of the kind. I will quote his actual remarks at Ottawa in 1893 when the resolution referring to that matter was before the convention :
[Hr. McKenzie.]
I say the policy should he the policy of free trade such as they have in England.
I am sorry to say that the circumstances of the country cannot admit at present of that policy in its entirety, but I speak to you from this day forward that it should be the goal to which we aspire. I propose to you from this day forward, although we cannot adopt the policy itself, to adopt the principle which regulates it . That is to say, that though it should be your misfortune for many years to come to have to raise the revenue by customs duties, those duties should be levied only so far as is necessary to carry on the business of the government. Nothing is more difficult,-that is one of the evils of protection-than to wipe away protection because under it interests have been established which every man who has at heart the interest of all classes must take into consideration. It is always easy to increase the *tariff because by doing so you increase the private fortunes of certain individuals, but whenever you decrease the tariff it has always to be done with careful consideration, and I am sure that when the Liberals are in power they will not be indifferent to this primary consideration.
That, Sir, is all that the late Eight Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, and that was the principle enunciated by him at that time and which he always followed. It will therefore appear to you, Sir, how unfair it was and how unfair it is to-day, that Sir Wilfrid Laurier should be charged with saying we were going to have free trade as it was in England, and that he never carried out his promise. I submit, Sir, that what I have given is the text and the guide of the Liberal party to-day, following along the lines as laid down by the great chieftain at that time. Although he is gone, his memory and his principles and what he has done for this country, will not easily depart from the recollections of those who had the great honour of being close to him during- his lifetime, and particularly during his public career.
I have said here before, and I repeat it, that speaking for myself I have always supported the resolutions that were passed, or proposed, in this House, looking to the forwarding of this principle as laid down by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. On the 28th of January, 1914, the then member for Humboldt, Mr. Neely, moved this resolution:
That the House regrets that, in the gracious Speech with which Your Royal Highness has met Parliament, the said Speech gives no indication of any intention on the part of your Advisers to take any steps to secure free access to the markets of the United States for the wheat and wheat products of Canada by removing the duty on wheat and wheat products coming into Canada from the United States.
That resolution was put to a vote in this House and myself and others- on this side voted for it. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House voted against it.

On the 23rd of April, 1914, the late right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved this resolution :
That this House is of the opinion that in view of the prevailing economic conditions of the country it is1 advisable to place wheat, *wheat products', and agricultural implements on the free list; and that without doing injustice to any class, steps should toe taken to alleviate the high cost of living toy considerate removal of taxation.
On that occasion every Liberal in the House voted for the resolution, and our Conservative friends to a man voted against it.
On the 16th of March, 1916, the late right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved this resolution :
That this House is ready to provide for the exigencies of the present situation, and to vote all necessary ways and means to that end, but it regrets Chat in the measure under consideration duties are imposed which may toe oppressive on the people, whilst yielding little or no revenue; and that the said measure is particularly objectionable in the fact that instead of favouring, it is placing extra barriers against Great Britain's trade with Canada, at a moment when the Mother Country is under a war strain unparalleled in history.
That resolution was voted for by every Liberal member, and voted against by hon. gentlemen supporting the Government and by the Government themselves.
On the 23rd of February, 1916, the then member for Assiniboia, now Hon. Senator Turriff, moved this resolution:	*
That in, the opinion of this House, in order to secure the farmers and people of Canada the advantages of the American market for wheat products and potatoes, steps should toe taken at once to put these articles on the free list in the Canadian tariff.
For that resolution hon. gentlemen on this side of the House voted, and hon. gentlemen supporting the Government and the Government themselves voted against it.
On the 23rd of May, 1917, the then member for Edmonton, Hon. Frank Oliver, moved this resolution:
That in the opinion of this' House it would be in the public interest if the Customs Tariff Act were so amended as to provide;
1. That wheat, wheat flour and all other products of wheat be placed upon the free list;
2- That farm implements and machinery, farm tractors, mining, flour, and sawmill machinery, and repairs for same, rough and partly dressed lumber, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oil, cement and fertilizers, be added to the free list;
3.	That staple goods and food (products (other than wheat flour), domestic animals and food therefor be admitted into Canada free of duty when coming from and being the product of any country admitting like Canadian articles into such country free of duty;
4.	That substantial reductions be made in the general tariff on all articles imported into Canada, excepting luxuries;
5.	That the British preference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff.
For that resolution all the Liberal members voted, and hon. gentlemen supporting, the Government and the Government themselves voted against it.
On the 25th of March, 1919, the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) moved a resolution. I do not know if 9 p.m. there is any objection to my reading it. It is not*from Hansard, it is a copy I possess. If there is no particular objection I would like to put it on Hansard. That resolution reads as follows:
Whereas in order to meet the great expenditure necessitated by our national obligation it is imperative that the labour and capital of this country should be directed to the obtaining of the greatest economic return, and that the energies of our people should be freed in order that the most be made of our natural resources and the strength and intelligence of our people be utilized to the fullest extent; and
Whereas it is advisable in the public interest that taxation should be borne by those most capable of sustaining the burden, and that the proceeds of taxation should reach the national exchequer, and should not be diverted into the hands of the privileged classes of the community ; and
Whereas the reciprocal trade agreement negotiated with the Government of the United States in January, 1'9H1, has been accepted by that Government, and legislation providing for its coming into force upon its acceptance by the Canadian Government has been passed by the said Government of the United States; and
Whereas the said agreement, providing as it does for the free interchange of the products of the farm, the sea, the mine and the forest, and for the freer exchange of many articles of prime necessity and universal use, offers to the producers and consumers of this country an opportunity which wisdom and patriotism demand should be availed of:
Therefore be it resolved that it is the opinion of this House :-
(a)	That the increases of duties of 7J per cent and 5 per cent enacted by the statute 5 George V. Chap. 3 should be repealed;
(b)	That the offer of reciprocity contained in the reciprocal trade agreement now upon the statute books of the United States of America should be immediately accepted in its entirety, and that legislation for that purpose should be introduced forthwith ;
(c)	That without derogation from the provisions of paragraph (b) hereof, all staple food and food products not now free (with the exception of luxuries), and domestic animals and foods therefor should be admitted into Canada free of duty when coming from and being the product of any country admitting like Canadian articles into such country free of duty ;
(d)	That without derogation from the provisions of paragraph Ob) hereof, all farm and garden implements, machinery and tools, including farm tractors; all mining, flour and sawmill machinery and repair parts therefor, as well as the raw material entering into the same; lumber, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils,

cement and fertilizers be added to the free lists-it being understood that the tariff benefit proposed to be conferred upon raw material entering into the manufacturing of the articles above set forth may be granted by way of rebate or drawback; it always being provided that in the event of any difference o.f duty existing under the provisions of different parts of this resolution, the lower duty or freedom from duty prevail;
(e)	That having regard always to the requirements of the public revenue and the necessity of affording reasonable opportunities for adjustment to those affected by the proposed changes, substantial reduction should toe made in the tariff with tho object of reducing the burden upon th<f consumer in respect of the prime necessities of life, and with the object of delivering the consumer from the bondage now imposed upon him by the exactions of monopolies, trusts, and combines.
That resolution was supported by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House and voted against solidly by hon. gentlemen opposite, supporters of the Union Government.	_
There has been a great deal of talk that we on this side of the House moved that resolution because we were after the Unionists from the West, that we wanted to get them into trouble by forcing them to vote against that resolution. Nothing was further from the mind of any member of the Opposition. During the first session there was plenty o.f opportunity for us to move resolutions if we wanted to get our friends on the other side into difficulty, hut we simply left them alone. This year our friends everywhere were taunting us that we had not the courage to bring down any resolution at all.
Our only alternative, therefore, was to maintain our stand, to bring down that resolution and to ask hon. gentlemen to vote for or against it as they thought proper. But I protest against the suggestion that we supported this resolution because we wanted to get our western friends on the other side into trouble; because we wanted to get them " in wrong," so to speak, with their friends in the West. Nothing was further from our minds. It is being suggested now that we should have introduced a resolution similar to the first resolution introduced by the member for Brome, word for word. The rules of the House would not permit us to do that; we had to keep as far away from the first resolution as we could. If we did not propose the McMaster resolution word for word, it was simply because the rules of the House would not permit our doing so. Taking the responsibility of the position which I occupy for the moment, I say that the principles enunciated in the resolution submitted by the member for IBrome on 'March 25, are bind-
[ Mr. McKenzie. ]
ing upon us, and that we stand by every line, every word, every syllable and every thought in that resolution. It is the resolution which we would have submitted, if we could have done so, as an amendment to the motion made by the Minister of Finance. But let no one say that we are taking shelter under any subterfuge or trying to. get away from the iMcMaster resolution- nothing of the kind. Accordingly, I put myself on record as supporting the McMaster resolution of to-day and as coupling with it, as far as I can, the resolution which he moved and which we on this side voted for on March 25 last-a resolution which contains the views on trade and tariff questions which were entertained by the great chief himself, Sir Wilfrid OLaurier. Let me read the amendment now before the House, as moved by the member for Brome:
That all the words after the word "that" be left out, and the following inserted instead thereof:-
The proposals of the Finance Minister are unsatisfactory. They offer no curto against extravagance. They utterly fail to take any adequate steps to relieve the present high cost of living. They give no definite promise of tariff revision downwards.
That to relieve the present situation, the tariff should toe so framed as to free the food of the people and the machinery used1 in the development of the natural resources of Canada, together with the raw material entering into the manufacture thereof;
To take off or substantially reduce, as speedily as may be expedient and just to all interested, the duties upon all other necessaries of life;
Also, the reciprocal offer of trade with the United States should be accepted, and a general downward revision of the tariff undertaken forthwith in conformity with the principle herein enunciated.
That resolution, Sir, contains in concrete form the principles which we hold respecting matters of trade and tariff reform in this country. Nothing is further from the minds of the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House than to do what is vulgarly called "play the hull in the china shop" in regard to any of the industries of this country. We realize that we have to deal with principles, with institutions, with vested rights, and we assure the country at large that as the Liberal party has been capable in the past of dealing with questions of trade and of tariff and with matters affecting the general interests of the country, it is not now without the talent, the ability and the energy to do the same thing whenever the people of the country call upon it.
Now that the war is over, I hope that we, in common with other countries, shall profit by the lessons o'f the war. Let us hope that the great sacrifices offered on

the plains of France and Flanders shall not have been in vain; that the graves and crosses which mark these sad and sorrowful fields shall cause us to realize that as we have fought in other lands for freedom of thought, freedom of action, brotherly love, and brotherly conduct, so should we in our own country, carry out these principles and ideals. Let us hope that the possession of the name "Canadian," and of the qualities and attributes of a true Canadian, may entitle one to anything that is in the gift of the country. It would be a sad commentary upon the civilization of this country if a man who possessed the necessary qualifications for any high and important office should be debarred from obtaining it because of the church to which he belongs, because of the altar or shrine at which he worships his God. Let it not be said that any man is shut out or cut off from any high position for which God and nature intended him, simply because, forsooth, he happens to belong to this or that church. If the war shall have been instrumental in causing us to have that high spirit; if it causes us to uphold the principle that a man should stand upon his merits, that people should be judged by their worth, by what they are capable of doing for their home and their country, then all our sacrifices of blood and treasure shall not have been in vain.
Let me read to the House a very touching bit of composition that I saw in the Ottawa Journal of June 10:
Owen Wister, the American novelist a net author of that flaming- book "The Pentecost of Calamity," was in Westminster Abbey at the funeral service of Edith Cavel], and he sends to the Times these thoughts on that great ceremony :-
"In the hour of Edith Cavell's funeral service, as her body approached Westminster Abbey, but before it had quite reached the entrance, the waiting people thought it was come and rose in silent respect. During that silence, very faintly from above us as we stood, the clock struck noon.
"As I counted the strokes, these were my American thoughts :
"This woman, who died for her country, died for .more than that. The shots by which she fell killed what was left of the chance we should stay out of the fight. They tore away whatever was left of the veil that hid German savagery from our eyes.
"After that, it was merely a question of time when our bodies and our spirits should be equipped to join in defeating Germany.
"This Edith Cavell did; and now to-day, here conies her body, and we all, of many nations, but mostly of British race, rise to meet its approach.
"Presently the singing began, and my thoughts went on :-
"These words from the Bible that I am hearing, these prayers, this hymn, 'Abide with me,'
are the corner-stone of both my faith and my speech.
"This roof, where these words I have known by heart all my life are being uttered, is the shrine of my history. It belongs to me.
"It cannot he possible for any American, however untravelled hitherto, to enter here and linger awhile and learn what it holds, not to be stirred to his depths. The place speaks to him of himself, his meaning, his past, the great race to which he belongs.
"May the striking of that noon hour and the coming here of Edith Cavell's body mark the end of the era of misunderstanding and the beginning of the era of understanding between Great Britain and America."
That beautiful thought was put forward by that great writer, and I felt it would be well that I should bring it to the notice of this House and particularly to the notice of the Canadian people. If sacrifices like that of Edith Cavell struck this gentleman in such a way as to make him think it was a reason why all differences between Great Britain and the United States should forever disappear, should not the sacrifices of those united groups of English, Scotch, Irish and French, who, side by side on the fields of France and Flanders, having offered their hearts' blood for freedom, are united in death, and, we hope, united in heaven, be the cause of bringing about conditions of amity and understanding between those .different races and peoples in this country of ours? Let nobody he so small and narrow in thought and mind as in the future to look upon anybody, whether he be French, or Irish, or English, or Scotch, or whatever else he may be, as anything but a Canadian entitled to the mantle of love, charity and protection which we are prepared to throw over him if he is a worthy citizen under the Canadian flag.


John Harold: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address a few remarks to the House upon the Budget, I feel it is my first duty and privilege to extend congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) upon the able manner in which he has dealt with the fiscal questions that face us to-day. I realize thait every member of the House will not be in accord with those congratulations, but with the next remark I feel that a generous House will be in agreement, and that is to pay tribute to the Minister of Finance for the very able and untiring manner in which he has devoted his services to his country during the past few years that have been the most trying in our history. In dealing with the fiscal questions of ithe country he has, in my opinion, had his eye upon the main issues with which we are confronted.

portunities for succeeding in farming there in the shape of free lands and other advantages that are offered. The argument is often put forward that many of our farmers have such a difficult time to get along that they are forced out of the farming occupation. It is true that a certain percentage do not make a success of farming, but I can present statistics to show that that condition does not pertain to farming alone. According to the returns made to Edward N. Hurley, ex-vice chairman of the Federal Trade Commission of the United States, out of 250,000 trading and manufacturing concerns in the United States, over 100,000 earned no net returns whatever; in addition, 90,000 made less than $5,000 a year. However, when a business man fails, the fact is not brought to out attention as conspicuously as when a farmer abandons his farm. I would also like to point out that the furniture manufacturers of Ontario a few months ago issued a questionnaire and secured reports from fifty of the leading manufacturers in the province. These returns, which were correctly analyzed by a well known Toronto firm of chartered accountants, indicate that on an investment of nearly $12,0000,000 the return in 1917 was just over $300,000, or about two and-a-half per cent. The returns since 1917 have been somewhat better, but no one can rightly claim that the profits in this industry have been excessive, and the same can be said of many other groups of Canadian manufacturers.
Every real grievance should be removed from the farming or any other industry, and it is my desire to refute some of the extreme ideas that appear to prevail with regard to that one industry. The Minister of Finance has his sympathies in the right place; he has every desire, and rightly so, to see the agricultural industry put upon the soundest footing possible, because it is of prime importance to this country that it should be placed in that position.
May the attention of the hon. leader of the Opposition be called to an apparent error which he made when he referred to the resolution brought forward last March by the member for Brome? He stated that all the members on his side had voted for it. As a matter of fact two members spoke and voted against it, and some others refused to record their votes as they were not in harmony with it.
I listened to the remarks of the hon. leader of the Opposition with a great deal of interest and also with a great deal of sympathy, because I felt he was dealing with a very delicate question. Entire har-
[.Mr. Harold.]
mony upon this question does not dwell with our friends on your left, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) does not feel quite as free to deal with the facts and circumstances as he would if he were an independent member. When he referred to the ship which should be guided according to the various winds-which sounds logical enough-I could not help thinking that he had steered his own ship rather across the path of that of the hon. member for Brome, and had taken the wind out of his sails. But may this appeal be made to the hon. leader of the Opposition: That he recognize the facts and circumstances in connection with the implement industry and not register his vote in favour of the amendment? Because I believe that as good a case has been made out for this industry as1 he put forward for his coal and steel. He mentioned that no person could start up housekeeping without having the customary utensils, and those are necessities to the farmers and to the workingmen just as much as are farm implements; and as those utensils are granted a good measure of protection, it is incomprehensible to me how it can be reasoned that the same principle should not apply to other things. In fact, the attitude of some hon. members is influenced too much by the political propaganda carried on in the country.
There is another point to be mentioned- the " land taxation " scheme of the Council of Agriculture. Before the session closes may some one who can speak with authority explain just what is meant by that phrase. At a public meeting not long ago the Vicepresident of the United Farmers of Ontario put a different interpretation upon it than that of our friends from the West. They call for a direct tax on unimproved land, including all natural resources. If that means practically unoccupied land it will result in confiscation and very little revenue; but if it means the assessment of all land on an unimproved basis then we have something of an entirely different nature. Some figures have been given me dealing with the value of land in the various provinces, totalling $4,260,000,000. In some instances it has been impossible to separate the land from the buildings, and this figure is undoubtedly high. But if we were to take one-half of that as unimproved value it would be necessary to assess it at 6 per cent to get a revenue of $127,800,000. A farm valued at $8,000, and reduced to $4,000 on the basis of unimproved value, at 6 per. cent would return a tax of $240, or at 3 per cent $120. Every effort has been made to get

some definite statement with regard to this taxation, and in putting forth these figures I do so without being arbitrary, but simply to try and draw out some specific statement with regard to the question.


Mr. MAHARG:: In arriving at that total valuation, did the hon. gentleman include all land, or only agricultural land?


John Harold: These are assessed lands.
Mr. MAHARlG: That is, agricultural land?


John Harold: All assessed land, city and agricultural-the total assessment. I do not wish to put myself on record as being opposed to a scheme of land taxation that will bring back to the state a proportion of unearned increment, but one will readily, see that with the different ideas prevailing in regard to this question it will not only take some time to arrive at a basis of taxation, but it will take a greater time to arrange a system of assessment and collection. Time is required, and as this Budget is only for one year, it does seem to me most reasonable to ask that that proposition be laid aside as impracticable until it is put forward in a more concrete form.
The general question of free trade and protection has. been debated for many hours. The debate has been a brilliant one and has not been a loss of time. The
10 p.m. general attitude towards it has been one looking to the national interest. We have different viewpoints, which is to be expected. I wish to place very briefly before the House my views on the general fiscal policy of the country. In the first place, we must recognize the principle that unity is absolutely necessary. In framing the next tariff stability should be one of the first things considered also. For many years to come the revenue will have to be derived in a very substantial way from 'the tariff. Another thing that should be considered is the desirability of developing the national wealth; and in that respect I am in full agreement with the leader of the Opposition, that there is not any heresy in our producing goods at home when we can do so on a basis that is fair and just to the different classes in .the community. Last, but not least, we have to consider the national spirit. Our provinces stretching from the Atlantic to tne Pacific are joined up by our great railways, and the national sentiment after the great war should be more in harmony with the ideals of this country than it could possibly have been before.
As our soldiers come home they leave the ranks of their various battalions, and some
go to the East and some to the West. It should be the desire of this country to adopt a policy that will unite these men and be fair and just to all.
A narrow or partisan feeling as against our great neighbour to the south is improper, but we must recognize the fact that she has made no departure from the fiscal policy which she has followed in the past, a policy which has been one of considering herself first. We must recognize that she is a great and powerful country, and that at the present time we are heavily indebted to her. We should try to put ourselves in such a position that we shall be able to ease up that burden. The right way to do that is to make ourselves self-contained, so far as that is possible. We should have a policy that will encourage home industry in all its various branches, and enable our own people to produce our own requirements, so far as we can do so equitably Under no circumstances would I subscribe myself as a high protectionist. I would not be any higher in that regard than our good friend the leader of the Opposition, although I would stand on his first position to-night rather than on the position which he took in the latter part of his speech.
With a view to bringing about unity, stability and good feeling, producing a revenue and upbuilding the country in a national way, the tariff should be so framed that we should have no extortion, no profiteering, no combinations. To arrive at that point, it is necessary that the tariff be not so high that the price prevailing outside this country for commodities would not regulate the prices for similar commodities in this country-this without departing from the principle that it is desirable to encourage the production of our home needs.
It was with regret that ll noticed that the member for Humboldt (Mr. Lang) in his most excellent address made the statement. that some of the people in the West were buying foreign goods in order that a revenue might thereby go direct to the Government, If hon. gentlemen would look at this question from a broader standpoint they would see that a very .large revenue does go to the Government in the amount represented by the duties which the makers pay, and that there is great benefit to this country in the freights to the West on our own Government railways and in the proportion of taxation whidh, in various forms, companies and their employees pay. They should also recognize the justice of

giving the home article the preference over the foreign article. Surely there is no heresy in that.
Our good friend the ex-iMinister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) cited the cream separator industry as an example of an industry flourishing in this country under free trade. I would like him to make an investigation of that' industry and of the patents and licenses which are controlled by it, which are a much greater source of protection than any tariff wall could be. We know some of these companies; their names are household words, and need not be mentioned. Some widely advertised cream separators are manufactured in this country by different concerns which are controlled by outside parent companies who will not allow their territory to be infringed upon. The illustration given by the Minister of Agriculture does not stand upon all fours with the general agricultural implement business.
The questions already dealt with are not all the.most important questions which confront the country at the present time. One of the most important issues that we have to face now is that of the maintenance of law in this country. It would be most regrettable if this House should show any uncertainty or any hesitation in maintaining our institutions or demonstrate any lack of faith in them at this time. Moreover, it is out of place that we should at this stage of the peace negotiations show any lack of confidence in those who represent us in these important negotiations. What would we think if Premier Clemenceau of France was turned out of power by the House of Deputies upon a tariff question at this time? It seems to me that if we should do anything of this kind we would cast a cloud upon all the war efforts and achievement of this country during the past five years.
In closing, this appeal is made to some of our friends who are thinking of leaving us at this time. May each of them place themselves in the position of sole judge of the Government and ask himself-indeed they cannot evade the question-whether he is willing at this time to take the responsibility of turning the Government out of power upon an issue of minor importance.
A short time ago the Prime Minister returned to this country from the scene of the peace negotiations and was welcomed by this House in a way which showed that he had the confidence of the House and especially of his followers. His burdens have been very great; he has fulfilled his responsibilities conscientiously and to the

very best of his ability. Does it seem right that at this stage the Cabinet should be appealed to, as they are leading our victorious army out of the fray, to capitulate, or its supporters in this House be asked to strike down their leaders?


Mr. WILLIAM COSTELLO KENNEDY (Essex, North):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to analyze in detail the speech of the Hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White); that has been done by the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) in a manner which met with, the approval of members on this side of the House and, in my opinion, with the approval of the great majority of the people. In three or four matters mentioned by the minister, however, I was particularly interested, and to these I win refer.
The minister purposes increasing the income tax, and I believe this is a step in the right direction. Hon. members will recall that in the discussion that took place in this House last year on the Budget- the Minister of Finance was not here then -hon. members on this side urged that the income tax be increased to where it is being placed to-day. We are again urging that there be a further increase, and I am perfectly satisfied that if it be not brought down before this debate closes, the minister, in view of the financial condition of the country, will recognize, when he comes before the House with his Budget next year, the necessity for a further increase.
There is also a proposal to eliminate the double income tax. This is reciprocal legislation, perfectly fair and just, and it eliminates the possibility of residents in Canada having to pay two taxes. Many of our people living along the border had to bear this burden last year; this proposal will relieve them. The same may be said of the legislation enacted last year with reference to reciprocal tax exemption with the United States as regards smaller wage earners. This has worked out very satisfactorily, and the minister and his department did much with the United States Government at Washington to have them carry out as speedily and as promptly as they could what was intended to be done under the Act of 1918.
The minister in the course of his address dealing with the financial affairs of the country, stated that the national debt was approximately $2,000,000,000. He told us that of this sum $1,510,000,000 was held in the Dominion, and also that the last Victory Loan which was placed before the people last October amounted to approximately $700,000,000. As these bonds were issued free of income tax, it means

with that amount outstanding approximately $80,000,000 of income escapes taxation. We have heard the minister defend this feature of his loan, but I am free to confess his defense does not appeal to me. In my opinion, the terms were entirely unwarranted and uncalled for, and the bonds were handled most extravagantly and expensively. Long before this issue pi $700,000,000 was placed on the market, men of financial standing in the country and, indeed, the press, pointed out to the minister that what has happened would happen, namely, that the bonds would pass from the hands of the small holders into the hands of the large holders and these very men who have made their money out of the war, the war profiteers if you will, would be relieved by the purchase of these bonds from their just share of taxation. The minister stated that a bond free of income tax gave a better result than a taxable bond, advancing the reason that if the bonds were not tax free, the Government would have to pay a higher rate upon them and the amount of that interest would be much more than the amount we would receive by way of income tax. I am sure the minister will not tell this House that there was any occasion under any circumstances to pay a higher rate of interest for money than 5i per cent. Surely the minister will not say that Canadians do not think as much of their securities as they do of the securities of Greece or Roumania, and it was only the other day we had a statement in this House, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), that the rate of interest charged to Greece and Roumania was 5i per cent. To arrive at the amount of income we would receive from an income tax bond in this country, would necessitate in every case a calculation-we should have to know who held the bond, what the amount of the holdings were and -what his income tax and surtax would be, before we could arrive at any definite conclusion as to the amount we would receive-and I am sure the minister will not tell me or anybody else that .such a calculation has been made. I attended many of the meetings at which. these bonds were offered for sale, and the questions of tax free bonds or rates of interest were never discussed. The appeal was made to the people to buy the bonds, because our men were overseas and the Government needed money to finance them as regards food, clothing and munitions of war, and money to bring them home when opportunity offered. Nobody talked about income tax 223
bonds or rates of interest. It may be, and undoubtedly is, true that some of the larger dealers bought these bonds simply as a financial proposition. When they got to that point, the minister should have dealt with them strictly on a business basis, and the amount of bonds these men were permitted to take should have been restricted and two classes of bonds should have been issued, one income tax free, the other taxable and the taxable bond should have borne a higher rate of interest than the tax free bond, and, the Government should have had the privilege of retiring these tax-free bonds at will before maturity. This year the United States' Government issued a four-year loan with the privilege to the Government of retiring it in three years. They had two classes of bonds, one taxable bearing a rate of interest of 4j per cent and the other tax-exempt, bearing interest at the rate of 3| per cent. The Secretary of the Treasury at Washington made the calculation that oil a three-year bond the difference of the rate of interest between one that was tax free and one that was taxable, was one per cent. This Government, however, issues bonds at the maximum rate of interest of 6i per cent and for five, ten or fifteen years, without retiring privileges and yet we speak about how much credit is due to us for our financing.
I would call the attention of the House to the references made by the minister to the fact that our bonds have been readily selling during a time of stress and trouble and that to-day they are being sold at a premium. The reason for intimating this is that the people of this country have confidence in its securities.
While he did not say so, we gathered the impression from his remarks there was just a little credit due the Government for their method of financing. I do not agree with the hon. gentleman that they	are	entitled	to any	credit
for the issue of those Victory Loans on the terms on which they were issued. As a matter of fact, those bonds are selling at a premium to-day, not on account of the security but because the Government issued them under the market rate, and it did not take long for business men and the moneyed interests of the country to realize the fact. That is the reason they are selling at a premium. The millions of dollars that are going into the pockets of speculators today and that are being placed in the strong boxes of big financiers very properly belong to the treasury of the Dominion, and they are being placed in those strong boxes be-



cause the bonds-the best security of this country-were thrown absolutely upon the bargain counter. I am sure that when my hon. friend looks at the morning paper and sees 5i per cent bonds income tax free which were sold approximately six months ago, bonds that we paid brokers a commission for selling, bonds that we paid bankers a commission for handling, bonds that we paid newspapers thousands of dollars for advertising, and, in addition to that, gave 15 days interest as a bonus-when he sees these bonds selling at 106, he must ask himself, what does it mean? What rate of interest is the man receiving on his money who made that investment six months ago? He is receiving at the rate of 171 per cent per annum. Surely it must be apparent that we placed these bonds on the market under market value and that millions of the people's money have been given away through financial prodigality.
In reference to the principle of tax-free bonds, it has been argued from one end of the country to the other, and it has been discussed to more than some hon. gentlemen's liking, that it is undemocratic. Tax free bonds relieve the man who can best afford to pay his share of taxation and place the burden upon the man who can least stand it-the toiler, the wage-eainer or the small business man. That is one objection that the people have to tax-free bonds, and it is an objection which the hon. minister should take into considerat on.
These 51 per cent bonds really mean an investment of 7, 8 or 10 per cent for the men who have large incomes, if their income and surtax is taken into account, and the taxation they are relieved of must be borne by the rest of the people of the Dominion. I am sorry that the hon. minister said in answer to an inquiry the other day that he had not yet arrived at a definite conclusion as to the terms of the next proposed issue. Well, let me say to my hon. friend that the people of this country have reached a conclusion. No more tax-free bonds will be successfully issued if they have not back of them the good-will of the public. So far as 'I am personally concerned I say to the minister frankly that I cannot support any issue that makes no distinction in the rates of interest on bonds that are tax free and those that are not. In. the event of an issue similar in terms to the last, I shall certainly oppose it in my county. It may be that it does not matter very much how much we raise in the county of Essex, hut I can assure the hon. minister that when 
we get through the people will know what they are buying, and just who are escaping the burden of taxation and who are carrying it. I say that in all fairness, because it is an important matter and I am just as anxious as the hon. gentleman that any loan we put out shall be a success. But in order to be successful it must be based on fairness and equity and must appeal to the taxpayers of the country. It may occur to some hon. gentlemen opposite that there are plenty of big men in the country to take all the bonds even if the little fellows do not take them. If the issue is right the big men will take them; but my experience has been-as indeed has been that of most men of business-that the only man who is more afraid of losing his money than the million dollar man is the two million dollar man. The saying is trite but true, and I am not so sure that the big men will be quite ready to take the bonds if they realize that a strong and vigorous campaign will be inaugurated to eliminate by retroactive legislation any tax-free privileges granted subsequent to the armistice. I think, therefore, that it would be well for the minister to give this matter serious consideration.
Last year in the course of the debate on the Budget I suggested to the then Acting Minister of Finance that we should emulate if possible the example of the United States in the handling of these bonds. I pointed out that in the United States neither the bankers nor the brokers received compensation for their services, and I felt that we Canadians were just as patriotic and loyal as were the people in that country, and that under proper government leadership our people would respond, and the work could he done here on the same basis. It would appear to me, from the figures I have in my hand in connection with the loan that was placed last October, that this Government are still of the opinion that when it comes to money matters patriotic motives do not influence our people and that there must always be a commission and a rake-off. I have a statement here which shows that in connection with the 1918 Victory Loan we paid: Banks, ' $],356.000; advertising, $275,596.88; printing, $219,257.23; remuneration to brokers and bond firms-this is divided this year Into two classes, one called remuneration to brokers, and bond firms, $709,468.18, and the other, canvassers' commission, $2,250,000, making a total of $4,810,314.29. So that it cost us approximately $5,000,000 to sell our $700,000,000 worth of bonds, while the United States Government placed a loan

that realized over $6,000,000,000, the cost of which did not exceed one-tenth of one per cent, or less than $6,000,000. In the list of brokers who received compensation in connection with this loan it is interesting to observe names which somehow or other seem to have been much in evidence since the advent of Union Government. I see here our friends the Dominion Securities Corporation, with Mr. E. R. Wood as president, received for their services $48,995; I find our friends Messrs. Wood, Gundy & Company were paid $51,060, and A. E. Ames and Company $47,339. These gentlemen were said to be "commandeered" in this country. Well, let me point out to my hon. friend how such men are commandeered on the other side and what they do in Detroit, Michigan. I have here a letter from Mr. Norton, secretary of the Detroit Patriotic Fund, in which he gives me the facts as follows:
The total subscription to the fourth Liberty loan for Detroit and Wayne county was $80,-250;400. The total expense of the campaign was $ 2iS,3 lo. 7 4. The banks handled the bonds without charge and no commission was paid to the brokers.
In other words, in Michigan it cost 35 cents per thousand, while it costs us $7; or for every dollar they spent we spent $20. These are the facts in so far as that particular loan is concerned.	*
Might I be permitted to bring to the attention of the House something which comes a little more closely home, something that occurred on this side of the river. We have in Essex county five municipalities, which, in matters of this kind, always work in unison-Ojibway, Sandwich, Ford, Walker-ville and Windsor. When this matter came up we had a meeting to discuss it. A gentleman came from Toronto to represent the Toronto brokers. He told us what they proposed doing and on what basis they proposed to do it. He said that all subscriptions of $10,000 and over would go to what was called the special committee and that all under $10,000 were to be credited to the local committees and that upon this amount so collected a commission of one-half of one per cent would be paid. Our men at the meeting told him that in so far as we were concerned, we were quite willing to help the loan all we could, and that there could be no question of personal remuneration. We were willing to give all of our time without any personal remuneration. We organized, we were given our quota of $4,000,000, and we raised in these five municipalities over $7,500,000. The local teams were credited with $3,700,000 and the teams which were
223i
under the direction of the private brokers were credited with $4,000,000. In so far as the Toronto brokers are concerned, I do not know what remuneration, if any, they had in connection with this loan, but what 1 do know is that they had not anything more to do with it than the Montreal brokers or anybody else, because all they did was to have a man in our office in Windsor telephone to Toronto nightly the names of the " special " subscribers and the amounts subscribed. When this transaction was closed up we were sent a cheque by the Toronto brokers, I assume for our share of the commission, and that cheque amounted to $18,549. We deducted from that cheque all the expenses in connection with the campaign and in the expenses we included an item of $1,800 for advertising. The total expenses of our organization amounted to $5,400. We had $13,000 left and this we divided between the local G.W.V.A. and the Sportsman's Patriotic Society. That is just what a few of us did. If in a few municipalities like ours there could be a saving of $13,000 on subscriptions amounting approximately to $7,500,000, it is simple mathematical calculation to ascertain what could have been saved throughout Canada if a proper appeal had been made to the people along that line.
I have already said that we paid to the banks the sum of $1,356,000 for their services in handling the bonds, and I have quoted in contrast the facts with regard to Detroit. I say that it is to the eternal discredit of the banks of this country that they should have exacted that sum from the people of Canada. When one considers the prosperity of the banks during the period since the war began, when one realizes that their profits have been so great from year to year that, in fact, within the last year there has, to use the parlance of the street, been some "melon cutting" amongst them, and that they have issued new stock at 30, 40 and 60 points under the market, one can see how little justification the banks had for the course which they pursued in connection with the Victory Loan. Surely the banks should have been willing to do what the banks on the other side, great and small, have been doing; that is, give their services to the country without being compensated for every single thing they did. The Minister of Finance has been paying 51 per cent for his money and we are told that money is dear and that it is going to be dearer. In fact, everything has gone up. Everybody is complaining about the

high cost of living. But we do not hear any one saying anything about the rate of interest allowed to depositors going up; it is just the same as it	was-three
per cent. That is a matter that the Government might investigate, particularly when it finds the hankers exacting from the people the last dollar. If the bankers insist upon having their pound of flesh, they should be made to pay the people a reasonable rate of interest on the money of the people that they are handling.
I want to say to my hon. friend in connection with this new loan that it is a most important thing, in my opinion, that the Government should have the support and good will of every person in this country, if.it is to get the best results. The Government have spent millions of dollars, but now they are up against the court of final appeal. They have to go to the people for money. When they do that they had better satisfy the people that they are going to give them a square deal, and the people are not satisfied that they are getting that in connection with the income tax free bond.
There is another matter that I should like to take up, a question that has been dealt with before in this House. I refer to bank amalgamations. The matter was pretty fairly discussed here some weeks ago and it seemed to be the consensus of opinion amongst hon. members that we have had enough bank amalgamations for some time in Canada. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) told us that while ten years ago there were thirty banks in Canada, to-day there are sixteen. I think he likewise told us that at that time there were deposits of $800,000,000 while to-day there are deposits of $1,600,000,000 or one-half as many banks and twice as much money on deposit. The result of these amalgamations is to place in the hands of a few men the control of the financial resources of the country. It works out to the detriment of the small communities. It is making money centres out of one or two of the principal cities, which is not a good thing for the country. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance in dealing with bank amalgamations the other night,-and I was very much impressed with his remarks-said that there were four parties to be considered in connection with a bank amalgamation. First there are the depositors, second the shareholders, third the borrowers, and then the general public. Well, Sir, I have yet to learn in any bank amalgamation that has

taken place in this country where the depositors have been consulted. They have nothing whatever to say. The amalgamations go into effect and the money of the depositors follows, as a matter of course. Now, it would not be a bad idea if the bankers of this country realized that, after all, their holdings, in comparison with the moneys of the depositors, are rather small in the chartered banks of this country; they are simply the trustees of the people and not the absolute owners of the money that is there on deposit. To-day there is in paid-up capital in the banks of Canada, and likewise in the reserve funds-because we want to give the shareholders credit for everything *-approximately $230,000,000, whereas the deposits amount to $1,600,000,000. What does that mean? It means that for every dollar the shareholders have invested in the banks the public have seven. And yet the latter are not consulted in connection with amalgamations. So far as the depositors are concerned, they get the same old three per cent interest, whereas the shareholders get fat dividends and run the bank to suit themselves. Now the time has come in the interests of the Canadian public when, in dealing with the banks, more consideration should he given to the building up of the country by the Government. Our banks have much to recommend them, but in so far as the depositors and the small business men are concerned, in my opinion they are an expensive luxury. I would say, , in this connection, that it would be a good thing if the Government would investigate and take into consideration the advisability of opening a number of smaller banks, somewdiat on the line of the State banks in the country to the south. I have in my hand the report of the Bank Commissioner of the State of Massachusetts for the year 1917. It shows that they have in the state of Massachusetts 195 small savings banks with deposits to the amount of $1,250,000,000, which is within $350,000,000 of what we have in the banks of the whole of Canada. What do we find further? There they have no shareholders in the banks. The depositors are the shareholders, under Government supervision. They get credit for the interest earned on the money, and they are charged with the expense of handling it.
I have already said that in Canada the depositors obtain three per cent on their money, whereas the banks, and I think I am not doing them any injustice when I say so, obtain an average rate of interest on that money of six per cent, or a spread equal to the rate of interest paid. Now what do we find in the case of the banks iri Mas-

saehusetts? I have the reports and they show that for the year mentioned the banks charge for the use of money to customers interest at 4.88 per cent, and the average rate of interest they allow to the depositor for his money is 4.05 per cent, a spread of less than	one-third of one
per cent.	That	is the	reason
I say that our system is too expensive, and the Government should seriously consider, in the interests of small banks and of depositors, the advisability of introducing some changes in the system in order that more of a parity should be maintained and there should not be such a spread between the cost of handling money and the expense of borrowing it.
There is another matter I would touch upon for a minute, which concerns the people of this country, and that is bank premises. We all know that from Halifax to Vancouver the Canadian banks ordinarily have very ornate, handsome, and expensive premises. I think we are safe in estimating that one-half of the paid-up capital of the banks in this country is invested in office buildings. I believe there should he some government supervision and some restriction on the amount the banks can invest in office buildings not only in this country but abroad. I saw in a New York paper not very long ago where one of the Canadian banks had paid over $1,000,000 for office buildings in New York city. That money is locked up when it is needed to develop the industrial and the agricultural life of the country. In my opinion the Government should see that the bankers are kept under some restriction in that regard. There is no reason why the Government should not give serious attention to this and other subjects, and endeavour to ascertain if we cannot do something more than we are doing for the people of this country.
It is rather late in the day to my mind, but a committee has been appointed to investigate the high cost of living. I have the greatest respect for the members of that Committee, and I do hope that they will accomplish something, but I have my doubts. Personally, I believe the matter is largely in the hands of the Government. They must expect that where there has been the lavish issue of paper money and bonds that has taken place in this country-where issues have been made by the hale-the cost of living is going to be high. That is the history of every country under similar conditions. In addition to that, I would like to point out a reason that appeals to me as being one why the cost of living increases
and continues to soar, and that is in connection with the advances recently made for credits to countries across the seas. There is not a wholesaler or a retailer in Canada whose shelves are filled, they are all practically empty, and yet we have the Government of the day going out and borrowing the money of the people to finance manufacturers to sell abroad necessaries at war prices. They ask our people on the one hand to finance these undertakings for them and on the other hand they ask them to go and purchase for home consumption these very same goods at the prices so established. Is it any wonder that prices continue to soar? It is unreasonable to expect them to remain where they are. My own thought is that if the Government would simply stop this financial merry-go-round and permit trade and commerce to take its natural channel without being artificially supported by Government credits, we would get back to normal conditions and down to a reasonable basis of living. As I see it, Mr. Speaker, what we have to do in this country is to look the situation clearly in the face. There is no use in putting off the evil day. We are a country of but eight imillions of people, we owe $2,900,000,000, and it is going to take $300,000,000 to carry us over this year. These are the conditions and the facts that have to be faced. But with it all we have a country of wonderful natural resources, we have a people who are courageous and have confidence in themselves and in their country, and if this Government will only give us sane financial legislation then I believe we will work out our salvation.
Mr. JAMES Me IS A A.C (King's, P.E.I.): Mr. Speaker-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In view of the lateness of the hour, will the hon. gentleman move the adjournment of the debate?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I think the hon. gentleman had better proceed.


Mr. JAMES McISAAC (King's, P.E.I.):: Mr. Speaker, this debate is the most important that comes before Parliament at any time, and at no time, we may take it for granted, has the importance of the Budget been as great as on the present occasion, for the reason that it is a war Budget. We are yet at war. It is true that the fighting has ceased-for the time being at least-but the terms of peace have not been signed, peace has not been officially proclaimed.' And more than that, our troops have not all been demobilized. The conse-

quence is that a very large amount of money will be required for demobilization and other matters in connection with the war. Having this in view, it is our business to seriously take into account how best the necessary money can be obtained, and this brings up at once the question of our fiscal policy.
In this connection it would be a waste of time to discuss theoretical policies-free trade, protection, moderate protection, lower tariff, and so on. These would be simply shibboleths. The all-important question is the policy which is best adapted to the conditions of our country at this particular time, and which will afford, according to our traditions, the easiest and surest way of raising the money necessary to carry on the affairs of the nation.
In the first place, Sir, if we take into account, as has been more than once brought before the House during this debate, our position relative to the protective countries of the world, and especially our position with regard to our neighbour to the south- a highly protected country which has brought its fiscal policy to such a degree of perfection that its industries have been brought to their highest state of development-we see that were Canada to depart from her protective policy she would be at the mercy of this great and powerful neighbour, and it appears to me that it would be very difficult for us to retain even tfiose industries which we have succeeded in bringing to a certain degree of development, and, in some cases, to the very highest perfection.


Mr. PROULX:: The hon. member speaks of protection. Is he in favour of protected potatoes or free potatoes for Prince n*dward Island?


James McIsaac: Potatoes are free. Mr. Speaker, not only is this, to which I have referred, the best fiscal policy for this country, but it is the fiscal policy under which we have carried on our public business for forty years-during almost the whole history of this confedterated Dominion the fiscal policy has been that of protection. And in the change of government, notwithstanding the professions that were made prior to 1896 by our friends opposite that protection should be pulled out root and branch, and the maledictions they hurled against this fiscal policy, as I frequently heard myself, yet when they assumed power and during all the years that they remained in power they
11 p.m. carried on the business of the country under practically the

same fiscal policy as that which was inaugurated by Sir John A. Macdonald when he initiated the National Policy. It is true, there have been some minor changes here and there in the way of readjustments, but they were infinitesimal. And that is the same policy that has prevailed from that time down to the present session,-the policy prevailing under the (Laurier tariff of 1907. So that when we are told by our friends on t'he Opposition side that a new era must now be brought about,. and that protection must not be any longer the policy of this country, surely they can have not the slightest hope that they will be able to persuade the members of this House or the people of this country to take them seriously.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in view of these facts it is our duty to stand by that which will afford the Government the best and surest means of securing the money necessary to meet our great obligations. We have been told by the Finance Minister of the amount of our national debt, of the various expenditures for this year, of the interest on the public debt, and of the pensions- all which involve immense sums of money; then the revenue is summed up, and we find there will be quite a difference between the revenue and the expenditure. We shall have, according to the figures presented to us by the Finance Minister, a total revenue of $280,000,000, the ordinary expenditure will be $270,000,000, the capital expenditure, $50,000,000, and in addition there will be an estimated expenditure for war purposes of $300,000,000. That is quite a formidable array of figures. The Government has to grapple with this problem and find some means of meeting these obligations. But is this the time for us to depart from the fiscal policy followed by Governments of this country for forty years? Is this an opportune time for us to lop off that portion of the revenue which is derived from the customs tariff- $145,000,000 estimated for the present fiscal year -and make a plunge into unknown and hitherto untried methods of raising money to meet the public expenditure? Is this the time to adopt unproven and uncertain methods which are likely to prove ruinous to the country? Is this the time to make such a departure?
There are a number of other matters to which I should like to refer, Mr. Speaker, but I hardly feel equal to the occasion tonight. I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

On the motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 11.07 p.m.
Tuesday, June 17, 1919.