[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir THOMAS WHITE:: The member for Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) asked me the other day when the report of the Auditor General would be available for presentation to the House. I have a letter from the Auditor General to this effect:
I am informed by the Superintendent of Printing that Volume II of the annual report of this office will toe ready for presentation on Wednesday and Volume 1 on Friday of this week.



QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysborough) :: What rate of provincial subsidy per head of the population was paid to each of the provinces of Canada respectively in 1918?


William Thomas White: Subsidy payable per head of population under the British North America Act, is eighty cents.


LETTER POSTAGE RATE.
Mr. ERIPP:: 1.	Is the Government aware that the two-cent letter postage rate, and the one-oent [DOT]' drop " letter postage rate, are to be restored in the United Stated on July 1, next?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to adopt similar letter rates for Canada this year?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Announcements respecting taxation are made only in the Budget Speech.


MATAPEDIA AQUEDUCT.
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: 1.	Is the Government aware that the aqueduct from which drinking water is drawn for the village and railwiay station at Matapedia, Quebec, is in a very unsatisfactory condition and that the water is very unsanitary?
2.	Has the Government been asked to see that this state of affairs is investigated and remedied ?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes. Some months ago complaint was made by the agent at Matapedia about water coming from our reservoir. The reservoir was completely drained out and nothing was found to hurt the water. Complaints were still made, and a sample of the water was sent to the Canadian Inspection and Testing Laboratory at Montreal for analysis. The report stated the water was suitable for boiler and drinking purposes. The second complaint was made by John A. Ryap, one of the eight parties forming the Matapedia Water Supply Company, to whom we supply water at the rate of $60 per annum. That company now owe us one year's rental. No further action is being taken in regard to this reservoir.


PROTECTION OF CANADIAN COASTS.
Mr. MAYRAND:: 1.	At any time during the war did the Government of Canada make any requests for the despatch of the Japanese fleet to the west coast of Canada?
2.	At any time during the war did the Government of Canada make any requests for the presence of the Australian fleet on the east coast of Canada?
3.	At any time during the war did the Government of Canada make any requests to Great Britain or the United States for naval vessels to assist in protecting the shores of Canada?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	See reply to inquiry of- the ministry by Mr. Mayrand re assistance in naval defence of Canada by United States.


Mr. MAYRAND:: 
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	The Canadian Government made no request asking the United States Government to assist in the protection of the Canadian coast. A joint conference between Canadian, Imperial and United States naval officers convened by the Commander in Chief, N.A. & W.I. Station on the 22nd April, 1918, recommended that the United States navy should take over the coastal patrol, sea patrol, protection of traffic and offensive action against enemy submarines as far east as the 65th meridian (Lockeport, N.S.) including the outer part of the bay of Fundy. This proposal was approved by the Canadian and other Governments concerned and carried out. This was done with a view to the United States having an outlying base for patrols covering the approaches to their posts in Maine. At the same time it was proposed that the United States navy should lend personnel and machines for the Canadian Naval Air Service until such time as Canada could train men and provide machines. This proposal was also approved by the Governments concerned and adopted.
2.	The Canadian Government did not request the British Government to ask the United States Government to assist in the protection of the Canadian coasts. On 3rd January, 1918, the Admiralty stated that they were approaching the United States naval authorities with a view to their providing six destroyers. This was referred to at the joint conference held in Washington, in April, 1918, when the United States Navy Department informed the British naval officers that destroyers could not be provided, but that two torpedo boats and six submarine chasers would be sent to Halifax.
3.	The United States navy lent two torpedo boats and six submarine chasers for duty with the Canadian naval patrol on the Atlantic coast in 1918. They also lent some sea planes and personnel for the same purpose. Other United States vessels also assisted in the patrol of the seas adjacent to Canada, protecting their own fishing interests, etc.


C. G. S. CANADA.
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Has the Steamer Canada been employed in the work of the Naval Department since the outbreak of the war?

2.	What have the refit repairs to the Canada cost each year since the outbreak of war?
3.	In what condition is the Canada at present as regards efficiency for long steaming periods?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 
CANADIAN TRAWLERS.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	How many Canadian trawlers were in the service of the Canadian Naval Department during the period of the war?
2.	Were any of these trawlers built by the Poison Iron Works of Toronto?
3.	If so, how many?
4.	How much did each trawler cost?
5.	What are their names?
6.	What has been the refit cost of each of these trawlers built by the Poison Iron Works?
7.	Have they at all times been ready for patrol service?
8.	If not, what was the cause of the laying up during the summer of 1918?
9.	Can a copy of the log of each trawler be obtained showing' the number of hours these vessels did at sea?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 
S.S. PRINCE GEORGE.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	Did the Navy Department charter the Steamer Prince George in 1914?
2.	If so, from whom?
3.	What rate per month?

4.	For what purpose was this steamer used?
5.	How long was she in possession of the department?
6.	What was the total cost to the department for charter, refitting, repairs and all other expenses during the time said ship was in the service of the department?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	Yes, August 8, 1914.
2.	Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.
3.	$500 per day.
4.	Hospital ship on Pacific coast.
5.	August 8th to September 23rd, 1914.
6.	Charter, $23,500; refit repairs, $5,467.15: other expenses, $18,602.37. Total, $47,569.52.


SS. LOTTIE RUSSELL.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	On what date was the steamer Lottie Russell chartered from Chas. Brinster & Sons, of Halifax?
2.	How much has been paid for the use of the vessel to date of return to owners?
3.	On what date was she returned to owners?
4.	What service was she employed at?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	July 7th, 1915.
2.	Total hire to 7th February, 1919, $14,800.
3.	February 17th, 1919.
4.	Gate vessel at Halifax.


SS. TUNA.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	On what date was the steamer Tuna acquired by the Government?
2.	What was the purchase price?
3.	What did the refits and repairs cost from the date of her commissioning to the date she was sold?
4.	To whom was she sold?
5.	What was her sale price?
6.	Did the Government own the Tuna at the date of her sale?
7.	If so, on what date did the Government issue a cheque in payment?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1,	2 and 7. The vessel was donated by J. K. L. Ross to the Canadian Government and was taken over by the Naval Service Department on the 24th September, 1914.
3.	$44,885.
4.	C. Brinster & Sons, Ltd.
5.	It was sold as a hulk after machinery and fitting had been removed for $800.
6.	Yes.


NAVAD SERVICE PAY ADJUSTMENTS.
Mr. DUFF:: [DOT] 
1.	Are there any claims for pay or adjustments for pay for officers and men who have served in the Canadian Naval Service before the Navy Department at the present time?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	Is it the intention of the department to settle these claims?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Nineteen.
3.	These cases will be settled as soon as necessary pay documents are received and checked up, and accounts balanced.


H.M.C.S. STADACONA.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Was the H.M.C.S. Stadacona purchased by the Government during the period of the war?
2.	If so, from whom?
3.	Whaitj was was the price paid?
4.	Was the said steamer employed in connection with the Naval Service work?
5.	What have the refit repairs to said steamer cost each year since being purchased by the Government?
Hon. Mr. MACLEAN
1.	Yes.
2.	J. H. Ladew.
3.	$70,000.
4.	Yes.
5.	Refittings	
1915-	16	
1916-	17	
1917-	18	
1918-	19	
H.M.C.S. MILDIRED MeCOLL.


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Was the H.M.C.S. Mildred MaColi purchased by the Government during the period of the war?
2.	If so, from whom?
3.	What was the price paid?
4.	Was the vessel employed in connection with the Naval Service work?
5.	What have the refit repairs to the said vessel cost each year?
6.	What duties did 'this vessel perform during 1917 and 1918?
7.	For what length of time has this vessel been in dockyard' hands since being purchased?


Hon. Mr. MAOLEAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Canadian Sardine Co.
3.	$4,000.
4.	Yes.
5. 1916-17	$762 87
1917-18	721 27
6.	Despatch boat in Halifax Harbour.
7.	Vessel under repairs from September 4th, 1918, to December 14th, 1918. Delayed waiting new parts for engine.
Mr. LOUIS KOHN.


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Has Mr. Louis Kohn of Winnipeg been appointed Secretary of an Economic Commission being sent to Siberia?
2.	If so, what salary is he receiving?
3.	What travelling expenses will be allowed him?
4.	What are hiis qualifications for this Position?
5.	Is the Government aware that Mr. Kohn is a Russian?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$300 a month.
3.	Actual expenses while engaged on Government work.
4.	He is intimately acquainted with conditions in Russia and Canada, speaks and writes English well, is well versed in French, German and various Slav languages, and bears high recommendations for ability and efficiency.
5.	Mr. Kohn is of Russian birth, but has been a naturalized Canadian citizen since 1910.


LT.-COL. ALFRED THOMPSON, M.P.
[Stage Direction]
Air. D'ANJOU:
1.	What remuneration or salary, outside of Sessional indemnity and travelling expenses connected therewith, did Lieutenant-Colonel Alfred Thompson, M.P. for Yukon, receive from the Government for services rendered in connection with the work of the Military Hospital Commission, or in any other capacity, during the fiscal years 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918?
2.	What were the total amounts paid him for expenses during the years 1814, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918 other than his travelling expenses as a member to and from the Yukon?
3.	What were the amounts of money paid him for his travelling expenses as a Member of Parliament to and from the Yukon for the years 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918?
Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	As Medical Superintendent of the Military Hospitals -Commission he was in receipt of pay of rank as LieutenantnColonel, $7.50 per diem from March 27, 1916, the date of his appointment. His duties with the Military Hospitals Commission terminated on March 31, 1918, on which date he was in receipt of pay at the rate of $7.70 per diem, amount of subsistence allowance having been increased as from November, 1917. The total amount paid to this officer by the Military Hospitals Commission was $5,542.70.
2.	For travelling expenses incurred as Medical Superintendent of the Military Hospitals Commission $1,522.06.
3.	1912, $750; 1914, $630; 1915, $420; 1916, $630; 1917, $636; 1918, $675.


NAVAL SERVICE RECRUITING.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D'ANJOU: '	*
1.	At the outbreak of hostilities did the Government receive requests asking permission to recruit ratings for the Canadian Naval Service?
2.	If so, from whom were these requests received?
3.	Did the Department grant the requests?
4.	If not,' why not?

Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	H. C. Wetmore; Wm. iSnnley Riley; A. R. Dable; A. Angstrom.
3.	No.
4.	The department was able to obtain the services of a sufficient number of trained men to man H.M.C. ships then in the Canadian Naval Service without availing itself of the offers of these gentlemen.


ONTARIO AND QUEBEC COLONIZATION.
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government, during the present period of reconstruction, to promote colonization in those parts of Northern Ontario and Quebec through which the Transcontinental Railway is extended?
2.	In this connection, could not the colonists or settlers be given travelling rates at one cent per mile, or even free transportation in the case of delegates who organize groups of intending settlers from the older districts of Canada?
3.	Could not the Government also arrange to have settlers' effects, farm and forest products transported at such a reasonable rate as would stimulate production and clearance of land?
Hon. iMr. OALDER:
1. The Government will co-operate in every way possible with the Provincial Governments concerned to secure the end referred to.
2 and 3. These questions involve matters of policy worthy of consideration. Any decision reached would have to be made applicable to all parts of Canada. The matter will receive early attention.


TRANSFERS OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
Mr. COPP :: How many officials formerly attached to the Head Office of the Canadian Government Railways at Moncton, N.B., have been transferred to the city of Toronto, the city of Montreal, or elsewhere, for service on the Canadian National Railways ?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1. C. A. Hayes, formerly General Manager Eastern Lines, Canadian Government Railways, Headquarters at Moncton; now promoted to the position of Vice-President in charge of Traffic all Lines, Canadian National Railways, Headquarters at Toronto.
H. H. Melanson, formerly Passenger Traffic Manager, Canadian Government Railways, Headquarters, Moncton; now promoted to the position of Passenger Traffic Manager, all lines, Canadian National Railways, Toronto.
R. F. McLeod, formerly Assistant General Passenger Agent, Canadian Government Railways, Headquarters, Moncton; now promoted to the position of Assistant to Pas-

senger Traffic Manager, Canadian National Railways, in charge of Tariff Bureau, Montreal.
W. L. Crighton, formerly Advertising Agent, Canadian Government Railways, Moncton; now promoted to General Advertising Agent, all lines, Canadian National Railways, Toronto.
G.	E. Smart, formerly Master Car Builder, Canadian Government Railways, Moncton; now promoted to General Master Car Builder, all lines, Canadian National Railways, Toronto.
H.	F. Alward, formerly .General Claims Agent and iSolicitor, Canadian Government Railways, Moncton; now promoted to General Solicitor, Canadian National Railways, Montreal.


THE CANADIAN OFFICIAL RECORD.
[Stage Direction]
* Sir SAM HUGHES:
I.	When was the Canadian Official Record established?
2.	What is the total weekly edition in (a) English and (b) French?
3.	What has been the cost of this publication to date?
4.	Is the Government aware that there have been repeated protests by Canadian newspapers against the issue of the Record as being of no value whatever to the Canadian people?
Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	October 1st, 1918.
2.	(a) English, 20,308; (b) French, 5,424.
3.	$18,747.54.
4.	The Government is aware that there have been certain newspaper criticisms, but these criticisms are small in comparison with the strong endorsation the Canadian Official Record has received from newspapers and other sources.


John Ewen Sinclair: What is the weekly expenditure in connection with the publication known as the Canadian Official Record, including salaries of employees, printing and all other incidental expenses?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: Printing, $810;
salaries, etc., $140.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- MANAGERS.
Mr. COPP:: 1.	Who are the General Managers of the Canadian National Railways, and over what line or lines of railway, or portions thereof, have said managers jurisdiction, respectively?
2.	Whait -salaries are being paid to said managers respectively?
3.	Where do said managers have their headquarters ?
4.	Is Mr. C. A. Hayes employed by the Canadian National Railways? If sol what position does he occupy? What is his salary?
5.	What was his occupation immediately prior to his appointment to present position and what was his salary?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Mr. A. E. Warren and Mr. F. P. Brady. Mr. Warren's jurisdiction extends from O'Brien west on the Transcontinental and all lines Canadian Northern Railway west of Port Arthur. Mr. Brady's jurisdiction extends over all lines of Canadian Northern Railway east of Port Arthur and east of O'Brien on the Transcontinental and over the former Canadian Government Railways.
2.	Mr. Warren's salary is $10,000 per annum and Mr. Brady's is $12,000 per annum.
3.	Mr. Warren's headquarters are at Winnipeg, and Mr. Brady's headquarters are at Montreal.
4.	Mr. C. A. Hayes is employed by Canadian National Railways as Vice-President in charge of traffic; his salary is $12,000 per annum.	.
5.	.Mr. Hayes was General Manager of Canadian Government Railways, Eastern Lines; his salary was $12,000 per annum.


TAXES ON ARTICLES OF LUXURY.
Mr. DESAULNIERS:: 1.	What is the gross amount received by the Government in connection with taxes upon articles of luxury, in the Island of Montreal, at present date?
2.	Wlhat have been the total salary disbursements, commissions, or other expenditures, made by the Government in connection with
the collection of said taxes?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.
Automobiles	$167,408	77Jewellery	
66,065	42Musical rolls and records	
55,483	46Playing cards	
27,489	53Mechanical pianos and organs.. 3,199	33Gramophones and talking machines	
8,219	74Moving pictures films	
14,512	10

2. Information not available as the regular staff of excise officers have supervized the collection of these taxes in addition to their other duties.


MILITARY SERVICE ACT.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What has been the total cost to date for the administration of the Military Service Act?
2.	How much has been paid to military police for wages and expenses?
3.	How many persons have they apprehended?
4.	Were the military police paid so much per day for their services? If so, what amount per day did each policeman receive?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1. To January 31st, 1919, $3,661,417.20.
By the Department of Militia and Defence.
1.	$1,711,675.73.
2.	850 all ranks, at an average pay of $2.25 a day for 12 months; approximately $700,-*
000.
3.	Apprehended under Military Service Act, 27,459.
4.	The Military Police employed in connection with the Military Service Act were paid pay of their ranks plus $1 per diem extra duty pay.


Mr. TOBIN:: How many men of military age were registered under the Military Service Act, 1917, in each of the nine provinces of Canada?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: Draft 1 Default-
Prov- ince.	Class 1.	ers on stn'gth.	Amer- 19 Class, icans. Total.	Alta. .	.. 28,076	550	4,228	8,087	40,941B. C. .	. . 18,169	870	2,630	4,395	26,064Man. .	. . 22,515	1,206	4,544	1,954	30,219N. B. .	.. 16,902	1,020	4,403	258	22,583N. S. .	. . 25,616	1,087	4,702	300	31,705Ont. .	. .124,965	2,781	28,711	6,119	162,576P. E. I.	. 4,501	67	1,095	50	5,713Que. .	. .115,602	1,806	22,656	4,599	144,663Sask. .	. 45,536	657	5,932	6,310	58,435Totals	401,882	10,044	78,901	32,072	522,899


EUCLID HALL, TORONTO.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MoGIBBON (Muskoka):
1.	Is it a fact that paralytic military patients are kept in Euclid Hall, Toronto? If so, how many?
2.	How many patients are above the ground floor?
3.	What facilities, if any, are provided in case of fire for removing these patients who are unable to walk?
Mr. HUGH CLARK (Parliamentary Secretary) :: 1.	Yes. Twenty-one.
2.	Twenty-one on first floor, above the ground floor.
3.	Two double stairways and one elevator, six stretchers, five orderlies and one physician constantly in attendance; eight nurses on duty during the day time and two nurses on duty at night.


SESSIONAL INDEMNITY.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to make advances to the members of the House of Commons on account o'f their indemnity at the rate of $10 per day payable at the end of each month as in former years?
2.	If so, why are the required attendance forms not placed in the parliamentary Post Office as heretofore?


William Thomas White: The Government is not aware of any change in the practice

which has prevailed with regard to the matter referred to in this question.
-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION.


Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Who is in charge of the Department of Public Information?
2.	How much did the said Department cost during the year 1918?
3.	What is the total outlay in connection with the publication of the Official Record to date?
4.	Who is the editor, and what salary does he draw per annum?
5.	With reference to the fact that a speech delivered by the Hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization at Toronto on January 10, 1919, was published in the Canadian Official Record, are the columns of the above named journal open for the publication of a speech by a member of the Opposition?
6.	Is it the intention of the Government to continue the publication of the Canadian Official Record? If so, how long?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	M. E. Nichols, Director; Dr. Geo. H. Locke, Associate Director.
2.	Approximately $79,000
3	To March 1, 1919, $21,980.
4.	The Official Record is under the direction of the Director of Public Information. The News Editor is Mr. Roland Hill, salary $200 per month.
5.	The address of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, as also certain other addresses, were published in the official record in order to give the public information as to the plans and procedure adopted by the Government in carrying out the work of demobilization, repatriation and land settlement. It is not the intention to publish further addresses by members of the Government.
6.	The matter is under the consideration of the Government.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Are the locomotives, material, buildings, stations, sheds for cars, locomotive trucks, workshops, and elevators of the Intercolonial Railway insured against fire?
2.	If so, for what amount, in what companies, and by whom was the said insurance placed?
3.	What is the amount of earnings of traffic, passenger, merchandise, Royal Mail, express, and other earnings?
4.	What are the gross earnings of the Intercolonial Railway?
4.	What are the gross earnings of the Government Railways for the last three years?
6.	What was the cost of exploitation of the Intercolonial Railway traction wagons, keeping the upkeep of the roadbed, station, etc.?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.

3.	Intercolonial Railway for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1918, $18,758,186.41.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	Gross earnings of Government Railways for fiscal year, 1915-16, $18,427,908.66; 1916-17, $23,539,758.61; 1917-18, $27,240,956.87.
6.	Cost of maintenance of equipment, way and structures is as follows, for the fiscal year 1917-18; maintenance of equipment, $3,660,110.34; maintenance of way and structures, $3,996,415.23.


MR. J. K. L. LAFLAMME.
*Mr CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is Mr. J. K. L. Laflamme still private secretary to the Postmaster General, the Honourable P. E. Blond in? If not, why were his services dispensed with?
2.	Does he occupy any position in the Government service at the present time? If so, what position and what is his salary?


Newton Wesley Rowell: '
1.	Not presently. His temporary transfer has been requested by the Department of Public Information as editor of the French edition of the Canadian Official Record.
2.	Chief clerk,1-B, of Post Office Department at $2,800.


CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION PAPERS.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	Are the examination papers for the Civil Service Commission printed in their own offices?
2.	Who is in charge of the printing plant of the Commission?
3.	By whom, and upon whose recommendation was the Commission's confidential printer appointed?
4.	Who was Secretary of State when the appointment was made?
5.	Who previously held the position of confidential printer to the Commission and why was he removed from office?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Yes.	*
2.	John Joseph McCann.
3.	By the Governor in Council under the provisions of Section 21 Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission.
4.	Hon. Charles Murphy.
5.	Mr. Chas. Hudson was sent by the King's Printer to install the printing plant and his services were loaned for the printing of the papers for the examinations held in the months of March and May, 1909. When a permanent appointment became necessary Mr. McCann was selected and appointed to the position.


&quot; TI-NOIR &quot; DESJARDINS.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has the Order of the House issued for the production of a copy of all correspondence

and documents exchanged between the Minister of Justice and his department and their representative in Montreal, in connection with obtaining the release on bail, and arranging bail in security for one Charles, alias Ti-Noir Desjardins, been complied with?
2.	If not, why?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to deposit before the House these documents at an early date this session?


Arthur Meighen: The order referred to in this question was laid on the table of the House a few days ago.


ADMIRAL, SIR JOHN JELLICOE.
Mr. BELAND:: 1.	Has the Canadian Government been informed of the early visit of Admiral Sir John Jellicoe to this country?
2.	If so, ds the visit official?
3.	Whether official or unofficial, will one of the objects be the question of the Naval Defence, Canadian or Imperial?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


SALE OF TRAWLERS.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	Were the seven trawlers reported to have been recently sold in Halifax the property of the Government or of any department thereof?
2.	If so, to whom were they sold?
3.	What was the price obtained?
4.	Were tenders asked for by public advertisement?
5.	Were they sold to the lowest tenderer?
6.	What was the initial cost of these vessels?
7L How much -wate expended in (repairing
these vessels while owned by the department?


William Findlay Maclean: 1 and 2. Seven vessels owned by the Department of the Naval Service and known as P.V. Nos. I to 7 were recently sold to Msesrs. Hayes & Anderton, 50 Broad St., New York, N.Y.
3.	$40,000 each for 6, $30 000 for 1; total $270,000.
4.	Yes.
5.	No. As the offers received were too low they were rejected. By negotiations the department obtained the above quoted prices from the firm indicated who were one of the original tenderers.
6.	$704,955.51.
7.	$134,917.22 for alterations to fit them for service conditions. $64,359.60, repairs.


DEEP BROOK POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	What is the name of the postmaster at Deep Brook, Annapolis County, N.S. ?
2.	What is the name of the assistant postmaster, and if there is more than one assistant, what is the name of each?
3.	Have all the parties acting as assistants been duly appointed, and have they complied with the post office regulations?
4.	Have any of the following parties been sworn as assistants, namely: George Litmars, Miss Adams, Henry Sales, Vera Litmars, Harry Vroom?
5.	If so, what are names of such als have been duly appointed and sworn p


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	James R. Ditmars.
2.	The Post Office Department does not appoint assistant postmasters, except in the case of city post offices, and has, therefore, no record of the names of assistant postmasters in rural post offices, such employees being appointed by the postmasters themselves, and paid by them.
3.	4 and 5. Answered by No. 2.


CHINESE STUDENTS.
Mr. STEVENS:: ,
1.	How many Chinese students have been given free entry to Canada through the ports of the Pacific Coast during the years 1917,19is?
2.	What is the definition of a student under the regulations of the Immigration Act?
3.	Has the Government been advised, or is it aware that large numbers of Chinese are entering Canada as students who are not bona fide students?
4.	Has the Government recently received any requests from representatives of the Chinese Government in Canada or from other Sources to enter into such arrangement with, the Chinese Government as will result in voluntarily restricting Chinese emigation to Canada? *


Hon. Mr. CALDER:: 1.	1917, one; 1918, three.
2.	The definition of "student" under the Chinese Immigration Act is as follows: " Students coming to Canada for the purpose of securing a higher education in any Canadian college or university or other educational institution approved. by the minister."
3.	It has recently come to the notice of the Government that a number of Chinese, who entered Canada within recent months, declaring themselves to be students, are not now attending school. These Chinese were not admitted as exempt from the head tax, but paid the head tax, declaring at the same time that they would attend school in Canada.
4.	No.


HOMESTEAD ENTRIES.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1. What has been the number of homestead entries made each year in Canada since 1890?'


Arthur Meighen: 
NEWSPRINT INQUIRY.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What has been the cost to the Government to date of the paper inquiry conducted by Mr. It. A. Pringle, K.C.?
2.	What has been the result of the said paper inquiry?
3.	What benefit has the country derived therefrom?
4.	What benefit did the publishers derive therefrom ?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	Total amount paid to March 12, $75,945.26.
2.	Regulated supply and price of paper.
3.	The benefit of the continuance of many newspapers which would otherwise have been obliged to suspend publication; the war news service ' rendered by the said newspapers and their aid in sustaining and stimulating the spirit of the people during the war.
4.	Answered by No. 3.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What members of the .Government have had their speeches or addresses printed and published at public cost since 1st August, 1914?
2.	How much has been expended by the Government for the printing, publication and distribution of these speeches and addresses?
[Mr. J. H. Sinclair.^


Mr. VIEN:: 1.	What is the staff and the personnel employed at Quebec, Que., for the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment ?
2.	What are their respective names, domiciles and salaries?
3.	Which of them are returned soldiers, and what service did they perform in the Canadian Expeditionary Force?
4.	How many demands were made by returned
soldiers at Quebec in connection with their civil re-establishment, giving:	(a) Name of
claimant; (b) His place of origin; (c) The nature and date of his demand ; (d) The adjudication in each case, and date?


Mr. PEDLOW:: 1.	What are the duties of the Department of Public Information?
2.	What publication does it issue?
3.	What is the annual cost of the department?
4.	What are the names of the men employed, their former occupations and present salaries?
5.	How many newspaper men are employed by the said department?


Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	What is the total amount of the damages caused by accidents which have occurred on the Intercolonial Railway, between Moncton and LSvis, since the 1st November, 1918, to residents' and Government property, respectively?
2.	Were any lives lost as a result of such accidents? If Bo, how many?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What is the total amount paid by the Canadian Government for the rental of offices and other space, in the Cities of Montreal. Ottawa, and Quebec, as well as in all the different provinces of the Dominion, to put in force the Military Service Act?
2.	What are the names of the proprietors or landlords from whom the said offices or places were Leased s
3.	What are the names of the lawyers who attended to and helped The Honourable Mr. Justice Duff, in Ottawa, in the disposal of the appeals made under the Military Service Act. last year, and how much were they paid?


Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What amount was paid to the Ottawa Journal and Ottawa,Journal-Press for Government printing, advertising and job work from 1896 to 1911, inclusive?
2.	What amounts were paid to the Ottawa Journal and Ottawa Journal-Press for Government printing, advertising and job work in each of the years 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918?


Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What were the total expenses in connection with tfhe Victory Doan campaign of 1918 in Prince Edward County, Ontario.
2.	How many clerks were employed in connection with the said campaign in the said county?	,
3.	What amount was paid to each, and of such amount, how much was for salary and how much for travelling expenses?


Mr. BOYER:: 1. What are the names of the one hundred and thirty-three persons who were prosecuted

during the years 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 and 1919, for haying been found in possession of, or for selling, adulterated maple sugar?
2. What were the amounts of the fines in each case?


Mr. BOYER:: 1.	What are the names of the one hundred and twenty-seven persons who were prosecuted during the years 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 and 1919, for having been found in possession of, or for selling, adulterated maple syrup?
2.	What were the amounts of the fines in each case?



UNOPPOSED MOTION'S FOR PAPERS.

John Ewen Sinclair: For a return giving the name and rank of all military officers receiving pay in Military District No. 6, on December 31, 191S, also setting forth the rate of pay in each case, and the total amount paid during 1918, including allowances of every description, also the number of days leave of absence in each case during the year 1918.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, correspondence, petitions and other documents in any way referring to the appointment of a postmaster at Port Hawke'sbury, during the years 1918 and 1919.


John Ewen Sinclair: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, order papers or other correspondence in any way connected with the discharge of cargoes of the vessels, J. M. Rafuse and W. F. Davidson, in the year 1918, in New York Harbour.



MOTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Notice of Motion.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a copy of the papers and correspondence exchanged between the Governor General of Canada, the Government of Canada or any of its mem!) rs or Departments, with the Officers Commanding the Canadian Militia overseas and the British authorities concerning the war, its conduct. its termination and .also concerning the sending of the Canadian troops overseas within the last four years.


William Thomas White: I hope the hon. member, in whose name this Notice of Motion stands, will be good enough to withdraw it. The Government does not regard it to be in the public interest that the information called for should be brought down.
Notice of Motion dropped.
On the Notice of Motion:


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a return showing the number of commutations of sentences accorded by the Department
of Justice to prisoners condemned to be hanged, where the crimes were committed, and the sentence imposed after commutation, within the last four years, showing in what cases the report of the Judge sitting at the trial was favourable to the accused.


Arthur Meighen: The words of the proposed motion from the word "showing" in the fourth line down to the end, and reading as follows-
Showing in what cases the report of the judge sitting at the trial was favourable to the accused.
-should, in deference to the practice of this House, be omitted. It has never been the practice, nor do I think it is in the public interest, that the confidential reports of judges in capital cases, or, indeed, in any cases, should be brought down. With that amendment I have no objection to the motion passing.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a return showing the number of commutations of sentences accorded by the Depaitment of Justice to prisoners condemned to he hanged, where the crimes were committed, and the sentence imposed after commutation, within the last four years.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
ALIEN	ENEMIES-TREATMENT	OF

Mr. H. S. CLEMENTS (Comox-Alberni) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the policy of the Government in relation to the internment of alien enemies, deportation of undesirable persons and the treatment of soldiers he clearly defined.
He said:	Did I not consider this resolution to be of very great importance to the Dominion at large, I would not take up the time of the House in discussing it. I consider the resolution of such importance that I feel that this Government ought to take immediate and no uncertain action in the matter Before discussing the alien situation, I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am not referring to any man of alien birth who is naturalized, so long as he remains true to the institutions and laws of this country. So far as interned aliens in this Dominion are concerned, I am not in a position to state just what the policy of the Government will be, but I say unhesitatingly that every alien enemy who was interned during the war is to-day just as much an enemy as he was during the war, and I demand of this Government that each and every interned alien in this Dominion should be deported at the earliest opportunity. It is not necessary to wait for palatial ships in order that these aliens may be



deported. Cattle ships are good enough for them, and I believe there are enough of such ships to deport the alien enemies at the earliest moment possible.
We have, in this Dominion, another class of aliens, and' I regret to say that that class, pro rata according to our population, is probably more numerous in the fair province of British Columbia from which I come than in any other province. We have in this country naturalized aliens who were naturalized for a purpose, naturalized not to become true Canadian citizens and to respect Che laws and institutions of this country, but for their own personal profit and to obtain, under that naturalization, advantages which belong first to the returned soldiers and secondly to true Canadian citizens. I shall have much more to say along that line in a moment or two.
The Immigration Department, in the past, especially during the regime of our friends opposite, from the time they came into power until 1911, seemed to have the desire to populate this country with classes of people from whose presence we in Canada are suffering to-day. Immigrants from the Balkan States-the riff-raff of Europe-were paid and assisted to come to this country. Such a class of immigrants should never have been brought into Canada. Our great trouble in the Dominion to-day is not with the true Canadian citizens; it is with the alien who is probably, as I mentioned before, naturalized for a purpose. He is in this country as an agitator, to stir up strife. He has no regard for true liberty, nor has he any regard for Canada. The 'trouble in the province from which I come is with men of the I.W.W. and the Bolshevisk type.
Instead of working for the splendid wages they could receive and becoming decent citizens, they are causing trouble and dissension and promoting strikes throughout the province of British Columbia, and in this connection I must censure the Immigration Department for its administration during the past two years. Every hon. gentleman knows that the bars have been let down against skilled and unskilled labour coming into the province of British Columbia. We had at one time all the labour we thought we needed in the province, but when war broke out practically every man in the province who was physically fit went to the front and did his duty. It was not necessary to conscript a single man, because they all went without a murmur to fight for you and me. The result was that labour became scarce in the province. At the same time, labour was urgently needed to get out the spruce timber
[Mr. Clements.!
which was required in the construction of aeroplanes for winning this war. British Columbia produces more spruce than possibly any other part of this Dominion, and there was consequently an urgent call for labour. The bars were let down, and there followed an influx of labour of the undesirable type I have mentioned. Most of these people are within the borders of the province of British Columbia to-day, to the regret of every citizen of that province, and I hope, of every citizen of this Dominion. Drastic action is required and I trust that in future the officials of the Immigration Department will closely scrutinize every individual allowed to enter this country, in order to determine as far as they can whether he will make a good type of citizen. Rather than have undesirables such as I have mentioned coming into this country, we can all afford to live the balance of our lives in Canada without allowing the entrance of another immigrant.
There is another matter I wish to mention. I commend the Government for passing an Order in Council recently compelling every person naturalized in this country to affix his photograph to his naturalization papers; but the Government did not go far enough. I strongly urge the Government to make the Order in Council retroactive, so that every foreigner throughout this Dominion shall be obliged to have his photograph attached to his naturalization papers. We in the province of British Columbia know that many of these foreigners look alike, and it is hard to distinguish one from another, and some such step as I have suggested is necessary for the protection of true Canadian citizens. Why do I say that? Well, it does not take one of these foreigners very long to accumulate a little stock of money sufficient to keep him in comfort in his native land, and many men who were naturalized before this recent order with regard to photographs go back home and hand their naturalization papers to some pal, who takes his name and comes out to Canada. The privileges of Canadian citizenship are being usurped very often in that way, and I sincerely trust that the minister will favourably consider my suggestion, which I feel it would be in the interests of this Dominion, and especially of the province of British Columbia, to adopt.
As a Canadian, I wish to offer a few suggestions-and I care not what others may say, except that I hope they may agree with me

with regard to the Franchise Act. The present Act must be amended to a very considerable degree, and amended, first,

i
along educational lines. I say that every one of the thousands of people of the sort I have mentioned who were naturalized for a specific purpose, and were just- as disloyal during the war as the ivaiser himself, ought not to be allowed to vote. They ought not to be allowed even civil rights in this country. Hon. members who come from the large centres such as Vancouver or Winnipeg or Toronto may not agree with me, but the situation in those centres is very different. Those cities are properly policed, and this undesirable element of our population is not allowed to preach its seditious doctrines, but in the rural disricts, and for hundreds of miles along the coast of British Columbia, sedition is openly preached: I am sure none of my fellow-members from that province will deny that, and I say it is a disgrace to this country. It is impossible to police these sections of the country, and I think now is an opportune time for taking a census of these undesirables. I care not how it is done. The true Canadian citizen, regardless of his political faith, past or present, would be able to give information as to the number of these undesirables in his own little district, and the census could be taken at a very small cost to the country. It is a disgrace that these people should be allowed to exercise the franchise in this country and usurp the privileges of Canadian citizens.
I come to the returned soldiers' problem for a moment. I am well aware that there are many honourable gentlemen in this House who have been to the front and have acquitted themselves with credit and glory to Canada and who are more capable of discussing this subject than possibly I am, but as I see the situation, the^ problem is not by any means as serious as many in the country regard it. I think, however, that it deserves the greatest possible attention from every government, whether federal or provincial. The returned soldier is entitled to everything that can be done to make his position comfortable, and I sincerely hope that the Government of Canada, as well as that of every province, will do everything in their power on behalf of these brave men. I fully appreciate what this Government is endeavouring to do for the returned soldiers, and in respect to the legislation which has been enacted, and which will be enacted, this Government deserves a great deal of credit. Undoubtedly there will be individual cases that will not have received the attention they merit, and I trust that such cases will be very carefully considered. In discussing this ques-
48i
tion with hundreds of returned soldiers from the district which I have the honour to represent, I have discovered that the great majority of them will be perfectly reasonable and sane in their demands. They will not expect this Government to keep them and father them for all time, but what they do expect is a square deal. When patronage was within the scope of the individual member, and when my recommendation might have counted for something, from the outbreak of the war and prior to the abolition of patronage I never recommended any man but a returned soldier, and so long as I live I shall maintain the same attitude towards those who have returned from the front, always having, of course, efficiency and proper service in view. Now, this Dominion brought into the country some 300,000 to 375,000 immigrants per year prior to the outbreak of the war. If the Federal Government and the provincial governments do their duty by the soldiers in placing them in positions, they can absorb 'a very great portion of the returned men. But as I view the situation, it rests a great deal with the employers of the country. I think that every employer in Canada, whether he employs two thousand men or ten, ought to be patriotic enough to engage a certain pro rata number returned men and I feel the matter has only to be brought to their attention to be favourably considered. There are many large plants, especially in the territory I represent^min-ing and paper plants-which employ a vast amount of labour. There is a certain percentage of these plants which at present could hardly be manned by true Canadian citizens because foreign labour is essential to their operation. Now, I want to give credit to the aliens who were working in these plants. They realized their position, did their work well, and caused no trouble whatever. But there are thousands upon thousands of other aliens, naturalized in many cases, who are employed throughout the Dominion, and who ought not to receive consideration at the hands of any employer. I could mention plants in which there are employed anywhere from 200 to 500 men, and I venture to say that not 10 per cent of these men can speak English. Would you, Mr. Speaker, ask the returned men to accept employment in such places where sedition is rife? That is a condition of affairs that must receive attention, and I hope that this Government will realize that the alien problem is one of the most serious questions that confront the public of Canada to -day, and if it is not grappled with

a strong hand I see trouble ahead. There are many other problems concerning the returned soldier that I feel are not receiving the consideration they ought to receive. I notice the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) and others have resolutions on the Order Paper which will introduce a discussion of some of the questions that I would like very much to see discussed.
One question that ought to be dealt with and dealt with immediately, is the technical education of the men who enlisted from the ages of sixteen and upwards who have returned to this country, and who had not the opportunity of completing their education before leaving for the war. Many of them were studying for various professions, and the continuation of their studies I regard as a serious question which the Government should take into consideration with promptitude. I entirely concur in the resolution which was adopted by the War Veterans of Vancouver recently. I do not think it is necessary to read the resolution, which I feel to be in the interests of the Dominion and of returned soldiers. However, I fully endorse the views expressed in that resolution.


Mr. McKENZIE:: What is it? It will be interesting to know what the resolution contains.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: It reads:
Declaring that the Oriental was a detriment to Canada, members of the G.W.V.A. last night passed a resolution asking the Government to prevent further immigration of this class for a period of two years. Strong protests were lodged against immigration of Chinese as students. The meeting further went on record with a resolution that foreigners who served with the Canadian Expeditionary Forces overseas be given full citizenship in the Dominion.
Now I come to a question the responsibility of which I feel myself, and I urge honestly, in so far as I am personally concerned, that every individual in this Dominion, fnan, woman or child, is entitled to the privileges under which he was born. I recall what was done by the Fathers of Confederation. Although the bargain that was made at that time was for the purpose of promoting the best interests of thi3 Dominion, I claimed that some of the arrangements in connection with that bargain are not working to the best advantage of the whole country. What I desire and what I hope every individual member of this House desires, is not only unison of thought but unity amongst the people of the different provinces. I claim that the spread is getting greater and greater since this Confederation pact was consummated. That spread is becoming wider and wider

each day. I hope I am not tramping on the corns of any individual member of this House in the observations which I am making in regard to this question. There is not an atom of bigotry within my soul. Every man is entitled to his privileges whether they have to do with his church or otherwise. Whether the people of the eastern provinces agree with me or not, I say that the individual who cannot foresee what the western provinces desire and demand is not very far seeing. What I advocate from my own personal point of view, as being necessary to bring about unison among the people of this country is a non-sectarian national school system . from one end of this Dominion to the other.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, the resolution moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Clements) reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the policy of the Government in relation to the internment of alien enemies, deportation of undesirable persons and the treatment of soldiers be clearly defined.
The subject covered by the resolution is wider than can possibly be answered properly by the minister of any single le-partment because it refers to internment on the one hand and the deportation of undesirables whether interned or not, apparently, and in the second place, and lastly, to the subject of the treatment of soldiers in general, presumably meaning returned soldiers.
The very interesting address which the hon. gentleman has delivered covers even a wider range than that of the resolution and indeed, in the main has a bearing upon the general question of immigration into this country and the revision of our immigration laws. I shall make no reference in the few remarks I shall offer to that phase of the subject inasmuch as immigration has not been under the Department of the Interior since I took charge. But while referring to the first subject raised by the resolution I shall say a very few words in regard to the last.
The policy of the Government in regard to internment of course dates back to the opening of the war. At that time the internment took place on a very considerable scale of persons of alien enemy origin who were interned, not in every case because they were showing evidence of hostility or were in any sense undesirable or misbehaving themselves at that time, but because under r,he conditions that obtained when war was precipitated, they were out

of work and in that state were a menace to the community. There were a number of course who were interned by reason of hostility shown.
As the years progressed the conditions of unemployment that obtained at the opening of the war were very much mitigated and indeed the pendulum swung to the other extreme until there became a need in Canada for more labour and for a larger source of labour supply than the country under these conditions afforded. That bSing the case, a very considerable pressure was brought to bear to provide for the release of aliens who were interned on account of their being out of work and who had shown during internment no evidence whatever of hostility to the country and no reason to lead us to believe that they would not behave themselves as good citizens if they were released from internment or restraint. A careful examination was carried on as to all those who were the subjects of our internment operations and the great. est care was exercised that none of those interned were allowed to take work except where work was already provided, where labour could not otherwise be obtained and where the men to be released had shown evidence that there would be no cause to regret their being given freedom from internment and restraint. On the 19th December last I asked for a report from Sir William Otter, who had charge of internment work, as to the number in the various camps in Canada, their nationalities, the properties held by them, in so far as we could tell, and also as to certain other particulars covered by the request. The report made by Sir William Otter at that time showed that there were under internment altogether 2,222 men.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the minister tell the date of the report?


Arthur Meighen: The 19th December. It must be remembered in this connection that the activities of the department in relation to alien enemies were not confined really to those interned. The department took a register, in so far as it could be taken throughout the Dominion, which register increased in completeness as time went on until we believed we had practically a record of all * the alien enemies in the country. A close watch was kept, and is kept, of their occupations, and activities, and they are all pretty well followed. But, as to internment alone, the report shows a total of 2,222 distributed as follows:
Camp.	No.
Munson	  63
Vernon	 38S
Kapuskasing	 1007
Amherst	 764
2,222
Of these 1,700 were Germans, thus emphasizing the fact that the great majority of those interned merely because they were a menace from the fact that they were unemployed, were of the Austrian labour class. There were 1,700 Germans unreleased on that date, 489 Austrians, 11 Turks, 7 Bulgarians, and 15 of miscellaneous origin.
Of the 1,700 Germans, however, 800 were sent here from the West Indies, and were held by us subject to the final disposition of the British Government.


Sir SAM HUGHES :: They would be
classed as prisoners of war I presume?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think there
is any different designation applicable to them than would be applicable to the other 900 of them. They were interned and were in that sense prisoners of war, and in that sense only. Of these 900 there was reason to believe that about 80 per cent of them could be classed as hostile or otherwise dangerous or undesirable. That is to say, in so far as the closest observation of the internment officers could possibly bring them to a conclusion, and that observation of course was assisted by reports, voluntary and otherwise, obtained with regard to these- men from various sources in the Dominion.
As to Austrians, there was certain of them, but very few, as to whom there was reason to believe that they were of the dangerous or undesirable class, and this remark would apply to a larger proportion of the very small number who belonged to other nationalities. So summing the situation up, the reports of the officers of the Department seem to lead to this conclusion:	that the great body, virtually all,
of the Germans interned at that time could be classed as hostile, dangerous, or for one reason or other undesirable (54 of them were insane), and a.s to the Austrians a much smaller proportion could be so classed.
The question, however, in immediate issue is as to what should be done, and what the policy of the Government has been and is with regard to those men. At the time that report was received I submitted a recommendation to Council, which recommendation was accepted, and I think 1 cannot do better, in order to give a specific and defi-

nite answer to the resolution of the hon. ^member, than to read it:
'"The undersigned has the honour to submit a "copy of a report of the 19th ultimo from the Director of Internment Operations giving particulars with regard to interned prisoners of war, from which it would appear 4 p.m. that there are at the various camp^ throughout Canada in all 2,222, of whom 1,700 are Germans, the remaining 522 being of Austrian and other enemy nationalities, practically all of the labouring class. It appearing moreover that the 1,700 Germans, 800 were transferred from the West Indies, and are held at the request of His Majesty's Government."
I would draw the attention of the House in a special manner to that report, because we kept constantly in touch with the British authorities in order to ascertain to what extent we could secure the deportation of these undesirable alien enemies to their native land.
By Colonial Office despatch of 14 th ultimo it is stated that repatriation by way of Great Britain is now possible to a number not exceeding one hundred adult male enemy aliens from the Dominion, and that in the case of each person full particulars should be telegraphed to ensure proper arrangements as soon as possible.
The undersigned considers it desirable that all enemy interned prisoners who may be regarded as dangerous, hostile or undesirable should be repatriated with the least possible delay, and he therefore recommends that it be provided under the authority of the War Measures Act, 1914, that the Minister of Justice shall be authorized to direct the immediate expulsion, removal or deportation from Canada for the purposes of-their repatriation of all such interned aliens of enemy nationality as he may consider dangerous, hostile or undesirable persons to reside in Canada, and that a direction by the Minister of Justice under his hand shall be sufficient authority for the purpose aforesaid.
Moreover the undersigned recommends that inquiry be made of His Majesty's Government for the purpose of obtaining directions as to what disposition is to be made of the 800 who were transferred from the West Indies.
As to the property of interned prisoners in Canada, the undersigned recommends that this shall remain subject to the regulations and powers conferred as heretofore, the restitution or ultimate disposition thereof depending upon the conclusion and stipulations of peace, but that in cases where there is money of the prisoners in the hands of the Director of Internment Operations he be authorized to pay thereout to each of such prisoners upon deportation a sum not exceeding $75 as a provision for travelling expenses.
That is to say, their expenses to be covered from their own money.
That was a statement of policy in direct response to the resolution as passed at mat date following the report from Sir William Otter, Director of Internment Operations. I may say in this connection that the question of admission of alien enemies to enemy

countries, as well indeed to a lesser degree the .question of transportation from Canada to Europe, and from European ports to the enemy countries is a subject necessarily under the deliberations of and subject to the disposition of the Peace Conference. The conference, by a press despatch (which I think is correct) of the 22nd of February last, gave answer to the request of the German Embassy that they would not consider at that time its request to permit the return of any of the enemy prisoners of war, the intention being that until peace * is finally settled, and possibly longer, the Entente Powers will not take the risk of in any way whatever adding to the manpower of the Central Powers. Consequently, the question of the admission into the enemy countries of interned aliens is necessarily subject wholly for the time being to the decision of the Peace Conference itself, and that being ithe case the Government of this country can only act when the decision of the Peace Conference is communicated to it. That answer applies wholly and most directly to the resolution that is now before the House. But subject to tnat overpowering and commanding factor in the situation, our policy is to deport with the least possible delay all alien enemies who have . shown themselves undesirable, uan-gerous or hostile.
The question of transportation comes in as well with relation to alien enemies; and that is the subject of the resolution. The resolution, mark you, bears not at all on aliens, however undesirable, from countries other than enemy countries. But the question of transportation with regard to alien enemies is necessarily a secondary question to the question of repatriation itself, which latter question is under the jurisdiction for the time being of the Entente Powers as collectively represented at me Peace Conference. But in so lar as transportation goes, our communications from the British authorities are to this effect: that such is the condition of railway transport in Central and Eastern Europe that even were alien enemies now to be admitted to repatriation to the Central Powers, their transportation could not be secured under present conditions. The Dutch Government has taken the ground that any who land at their ports must be such that they can be transported thence within three days or their landing will not be permitted.
That being the case, the British Government take the ground that they cannot admit into England at this time any substantial number of aliens for repatriation into

7S9
Europe. Of course, they could admit only a limited number,-as, indeed, they have advised us in the despatch referred to-of enemies for repatriation in Austria and Germany. As intimated in the recommendation which I re^d, they advised us a short time ago that they had made arrangements whereby one hundred could be transported via Great Britain to the land of their birth. Immediately that number was secured of the most undesirable, as we deemed them, and they were sent over for repatriation.
Steps have been taken with some success to secure the transportation and admission to their home land of a number of aliens, not alien enemies. At the same time, the number is very limited, and can only be secured, I believe, through the ports of the United States. But as regards alien enemies, the primary factors in the problem-indeed, the controlling factors-have been clearly stated to the House, and I know that every member will understand that the policy of the Government can be carried out only in so far as permitted by those two controlling factors.
The resolution then goes on to deal with the question of the deportation of undesirables generally.


Mr. EDWARDS:: What is the attitude of the British Government and of the Government of the United States in regard to interned alien enemies?


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman mean as to deportation?


John Wesley Edwards: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The policy of those two countries is just the same as ours. Of course, the rights of interned alien enemies are subject to our obligations under international law. We give them such rights as international law provides for them; we do not go beyond that.
The question of the deportation of undesirables generally, aside from the matter of internment, is, of course, one that should be dealt with by the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, as well, indeed, as the general subject of immigration dealt with in the speech of the member for Comox-Alberni. As to the treatment of soldiers, that subject is necessarily under the administrative control of several departments of government. The department over which I preside has to do with the treatment of soldiers only to the extent of the provisions of land settlement privileges for them. I do not think the hon. gentleman or the House would expect me to deal at this time with the policy of the administration
in the matter of land settlement. A soldier land settlement Bill will be introduced at the earliest possible moment, and ample opportunity will be given for discussion. The review which I shall be able to give at that time will show that in providing land settlement opportunities for soldiers Canada is in advance of all the Allied countries, not only in the extent of the individual provision made, but also in the extent to which the actual administration of that provision has been worked out. I believe we are further ahead to-day than any of the belligerent powers that were embraced within the entente in making this provision. We have not, generally speaking, gone beyond provision for land settlement and vocational training in the way of offering remuneration-subject, of course, to the war gratuity-to our soldiers overseas. The same can be said of every country in the world. But in providing civil advantages for the returned men, I think that in each of the three activites to which I refer-vocational training, land settlement and war gratuity-we are in advance of other countries and it is the policy of the Government to maintain any lead we may have in that regard. If Canada differs from any other nation in her methods of providing for the returned men, she differs by being more generous than any other nation in this respect. The subject is so wide, and must necessarily be dealt with by the House as the several topics come before it for discussion later, that I would not be justified in detaining the House longer at this time. I think that the policy of the Administration with regard to the treatment of interned aliens and their deportation is now fairly well known. As to the passing of this resolution, I have no opinion to offer; I suppose it does not alter the situation whether it passes or whether it does not. It is only right, however, as suggested by the member for Comox-Alberni in his resolution, that the policy of the Government should be fully disclosed to the House.


Hon. J. A. CALDER (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to add only a few words to what has been said by the Acting Minister of Just tice (Mr. Meighen), because I feel that my doing so at this time will have a tendency to shorten the debate.
In my judgment, the criticism that has been levelled against the immigration policy pursued in this courftry during the last fifty years is well founded. Canada is to-day paying the penalty which she deserves to pay for what has taken place in


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I have no desire to bring this matter to a vote, but for the benefit of the House and the country, I desire to amend the statement I made as to the Dominion taking care of 375,000 immigrants each year, the riff-raff of the earth. It was my intention to say that a small proportion of this immigration was the riff-raff to which I referred.
The only other observation I desire to make is to commend the Government upon the policy which I understand they are about to pursue, namely, of distributing the Royal Northwest Mounted Police throughout the province of British Columbia. That is one of the best things the Government could possibly do. The presence of those men is very much needed in British Columbia. It is needless for me to say anything about them, except that they are the finest body of military police to be found in the world. Those men should not be placed in the centres of population. I trust the policy of the Government will be to distribute those red coats throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia, in the fishing centres and so on. If that is done, I feel sure that we shall have no trouble from agitators and others.
Motion withdrawn.



GARDEN VILLAGES FOR SOLDIERS.

Mr.  H. M. MO WAT@Parkdale: That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to assist disabled and other soldiers to meet the future with confidence, and with that end, that the Dominion should erect a village in the neighbourhood of a city, in each province, to afford them residences and workshops, where they may engage in the production of goods not hitherto made in Canada, as well as objects of art and literature, so as to afford a permanent source of income in addition to their pensions, and that such communities shall be self-supporting after the initial outlay and consist of homes, not barracks or hospitals; that the occupants shall have an option to purchase; that all buildings shall be architecturally sanitary and beautified, and supplied with electric power; and these homes be
also available for widows and orphans of soldiers commensurate with their pensions and means.
He said, Mr. Speaker, this motion brings to the attention of the House the very interesting and, one may fairly say, fascinating subject of the garden city or industrial centre, and the importance of Canada's not being behind the Mother Country or Australia or the United States in the advance that is being made in this great project.
I first became interested in the question of garden cities or industrial areas at the time of the visit to Canada in 1910 of Mr. Henry Vivian, then a member of the British Parliament, and I dare say many other hon. members who met him could not have failed to take an immediate interest in the work in which he was then engaged and which has become so fruitful in theMother Country. As yet, in Canada this project has not been approached from a governmental standpoint. There are, however, large industries which have erected, or are erecting, settlements for the comfort of their men. In Australia, .near Sydney, there is the village of Daseyville, of 336 acres; in England, the village of Bourneville (Cadbury Bros.), and Port Sunlight (Lever Bros.), both of these latter being industrial sites. Then there is Letchworth, which has now 30,000 inhabitants; Hampstead; WTell Hall near Woolwich; Eastriggs; and Gretna, which since its decline as a marriage centre has risen to be a very important place. In the United States, the Government has voted $110,000,000 for assisting in the erection of industrial towns, and* these are in the course of development at Yorksliip and Bethlehem in New Jersey, and at Norfolk and Bridgeport in Connecticut. In Canada, at Hawkesbury, not far from here, and at Kipawa at the foot of Lake Timiskaming, the Riordans are laying out village settlements for their workmen, to which we look forward with great hope and confidence that they will improve conditions at those places; because, if there is one thing more than another which has impressed itself upon large employers of labour, it is that the contentment of the men and their efficiency depend very much upon good housing accommodation. At Brantford, there have also been erected within the last year a great many houses in connection with a housing scheme there.
There is this to he said about industrial villages erected by large manufacturing concerns: Some Labour union men object to them on the ground that they anchor men to a certain place and diminish their . freedom to strike should a strike he deemed

necessary. They claim that it puts the men under a certain amount of obligation to the employer. Whether that is so or not, has scarcely been determined in actual practice; we hope, however, that it is not so, but in any case it is no part of the idea which I am discussing. This scheme of erecting villages in each of the provinces as a beginning, whether they are a success or not, has very little to do with the housing scheme mentioned, in the speech from the Throne and which will shortly be before the House, because the Government's housing scheme does not contemplate the erection of new villages in certain communities, but rather the improvement of certain parts of our towns. Consequently, it has not the features which I think should be approved of and put into practice by this House, for instead of reconstructing an anomaly of a settlement, clumsily erected in the beginning and grown without any regard to design or moral considerations, we should try what we can do in virgin soil to improve the condition of the people. In America this distinction was pointed out very recently at a meeting of the American National Housing Association by a prominent New York architect, who said:
"We are not here to prepare the plans and specifications for repairing our ill-begotten cities and our sordid industrial areas, nor to frame compromises, nor to perpetuate fallacies. We are here for the purpose of formulating a statement embodying no less than an ideal with respect to the physical conditions under which men live, to indicate the nature of the problem confronting us in attempting to realize that ideal, and to discuss in broad outlines that policy which will make it possible for every man, woman and child of the nation to live in an environment which will neither stifle nor crush their spirit and make them impotent to render national service in times of war or in times of peace."
So the idea underlying this motion is not to improve or reconstruct, but to start out on a new project untrammelled by former mistakes. Since this motion has been on the Order (Paper I have had dozens of letters from the provinces approving of the idea, for there are many in this country who, although we do not hear much of them because they do not like to get into public print, keep themselves informed of current ideas throughout the world, and it is only when a motion like this comes up that they are heard from. In addition to receiving many communications from private individuals, on the whole approving the idea most heartily, I have also received an expression of opinion from that important body of men, the IGreat War Veterans' 
Association, who favour the idea. I do not know of any particular resolution-I have not invited any-but the president of one of the principal branches of that association wrote to me enclosing a copy of a resolution passed by the executive of the Great War Veterans' Association for the city of Toronto, which I think it would perhaps be well to read:
Whereas, the housing situation in Toronto and the large cities is such that satisfactory accommodation at a reasonable cost is nearly impossible to obtain, and that the returned soldiers are feeling the effect of this most severely in their efforts to adjust themselves to civilian life.
And whereas, the housing situation after the war will be rendered still more acute by the return of large numbers of our soldiers and also a large influx of ex-imperial soldiers.
And whereas, those returning from England have seen the great and obvious advantages derived from citizen's gardening the allotments, almost universally allotted to tenants, where they can produce a large proportion of their vegetables.
And whereas, many returned soldiers (a large number disabled), are eager for an opportunity to produce part of their own supplies and to benefit by the work in the open.
And whereas, considerable time is required for the provision of housing accommodation and arranging for garden allotments and supplying transportation facilities.
Therefore, be it resolved, that in the opinion of the York County Executive of the Great War Veterans' Association, the Dominion, Provincial and Municipal Governments should at once seriously consider how the housing problem for returned soldiers can be solved.
As a rider to this resolution, a statement was made that at that meeting that the Veterans did not approve of these communi-' ties being confined to returned soldiers only. I myself do not think that they should be. It is true that the motion on the Order Paper does mention them as the persons chiefly to be held in mind, but apparently there is a difference of opinion among the soldiers on this matter. There are soldiers who, by reason of their disablement, have a certain degree of shyness and indisposition to enter society, and who prefer to meet with those who have been afflicted as they themselves have been. But these matters can easily be adjusted in different places. T simply mention the fact -to show that I would not argue here that these communities should be confined to returned soldiers. I think it is very well for those who are able to pay the prices of these houses, and who are of like mind, that is, who enter with the intention of making a new 'Community and of being themselves part of a new movement for the betterment of the people. I think these people, and even civilians, should very well

have a chance to obtain their settlements. Now, if, generally speaking, my idea was to do something for the benefit of the returned man, it was because last session we voted some $3,000,000 for the obtaining of land for farm settlement, and as the allotment of money for this purpose has now been considerably increased, I have no doubt the vote this year will be very much larger, and while it is of great importance that we should encourage in every way the settlement of soldiers upon the land that they may produce and make Canada the great agricultural country she is bound to be, yet there are others of the soldiers who are not minded to go upon the farms. It is for the purpose of doing something for these that I introduce this motion for the consideration of the House. Many men who have returned and who are expert in mechanics of one sort or another, or in trades, have been partially injured, not only in limb, but in spirit. Many of them have never been on farms and would not face the dangers and rigours of farm life. In fact, some of them would shrink, and their wives and families too would shrink, from moving out of the environment in which they have always lived, to remote distances, not knowing what the future would be. It is for such men as these that I now plead; so that we will be only dealing fairly with all classes of returned men when we help the mechanic and tradesman, as the motion says, to " look forward to the future' with confidence," because that is one of the greatest things before his mind which will induce him to become a well man in the future. It- is the lack of confidence and the nervousness as to what his future is to be that is retarding the recovery of many a man to-day. Therefore, these communities should be erected not far away from cities, so that they would be suburbs in a way-not too near to make it too expensive to acquire the land, nor afterwards to keep up the town, nor on the other hand too far away to take the men and their families away from the pleasures of the city, the lecture, concert, or moving picture, or any other purpose. for which they may wish to come into the city, one of the great objects being that they may not feel lonely or isolated in the places that may be chosen. It is only by keeping that idea in mind at the very initiation of this plan that you will probably make it entirely popular; though I think that once it is adopted it will be popular from the start. The villages should be near radial lines of railway, so that the time taken in getting
to the city should not be great, and so that the men who are injured in limb would not have any difficulty in going back and forth. The land, say, six, seven, eight or ten miles from a city, or from most cities, is agricultural land and can be acquired at agricultural prices. I know a farm near the city of Toronto of 300 acres which can be acquired at $75 an acre. I have not gone any further in my investigation, but I imagine that a whole farm of about 500 acres in a beautiful situation near a river, undulating and of good soil could be got at $100 an acre. Well, that is not a forbidding proposal in the way of an establishment. Then if that can be done in Toronto,
I suppose it can be done in eight other cities in the Dominion.
I omitted to mention the fact, which is appajent to me anyway, that there is a strong desire on the part of returned men for domesticity. The returned man has been through four years of hell, of misery, and he has been away from his people all that time. If he is not married he wants to become married at once. He wants to become domestic, to bring up a family, and not to be subject to the anxieties which would beset him in a city like Toronto at any rate, as mentioned in the resolution of the Great War Veterans, where he has nothing to look forward to but a few rooms in an apartment house. That strong feeling of domesticity that is pervading the ranks of returned men should, I think, be satisfied by a generous Government, so that the men would know soon how they could he housed, and not only housed for the time being, but given a permanent and a definite home. Then what is to be the life of the man and his family in the industrial suburb? My idea would be that at least 150 houses, or say 200 houses, should be erected in each community, to start with; and if those were taken up, as I am sure they would be very readily, and'if there were a family of five on an average in each house, you would have a village community of 1,000 people. Most of these men would be in receipt of a pension, of a greater or less amount; but if they knew that they could supplement that pension by engaging in trades which could be properly conducted in their own homes, or in their own localities, think what an incentive it would be to these men to adopt and try to carry out such a scheme as this! In the old days there were very few factories, or establishments, or works, the reason being that -all power was hand power. But now, when power is concen-

trated and is electric or steam, labour must of course concentrate in one place, and that is the reason for the great works that exist. But that calls for the labour of man and the irksome journey from his home to the works, sometimes several miles on a trolley car, and that in the end will seriously interfere with the partially disabled man in keeping his job. Now, there is at present a strong feeling of gratitude to the men, a strong feeling of loyalty to them, and also the fear that if they are discriminated against, such discrimination will be unpopular. But is it certain that this feeling will always prevail? Industry is a hard taskmistress and certain profits must be made. I have a fear that in a few years the man who has only one arm or one leg, while he is taken on at the factory noiv, will gradually be looked upon askance by the foreman who is expected to produce certain results and in the end some means will be found for letting him out when the war idea and the war gratitude are over. I wish to avoid that. I -want to settle men in positions where they can make a good living for themselves personally without fear in the future of harshness or unreasonableness from the shop foreman.
Now that electrical energy is so widely diffused, there is no reason why men should not have at their own homes electrical power for lathes and other machinery for doing the work which they are accustomed to or which they have been taught by the Soldiers' Civil Be-establishment Department, There are many of these things which could be done that would supplement a man's income to such an extent that he would have no fear for the future. I am told, although- I have no personal knowledge upon the subject, that some of the best and most costly articles in Europe are made in the homes of people. I know there are some who dispute that fact and say that they are not equal to factory made goods but I am told otherwise 'and that owing to individual and personal care in the production of certain articles a value is imparted to them over and above that of any manufactured article. However that may be, I look to it that they will have the advantage of electrical energy from the city or the power works and that under these circumstances a worker will be placed hereafter in an absolutely independent position. I am convinced that this will so content him and his family that they will enter so into the .idea that in the long run it will be greatly to the advantage of the country, and that the experiment will be speedily imitated by commercial concerns 
and co-operative societies that do not require the assistance of the Government.
The trouble is that the returned man has no capital. We have recognized that in regard to farm employment. The man, I say, has no capital and there is no demand that he should be given capital in money. But, if you endow him with a house, well constructed, where he can do his daily work and manufacture the thing which comes best to his hand, you will be doing him a service of immense value. There are many things that can be done in the home and which do not require part work upon them. I have thought, in drawing this resolution, that it would be best to confine the idea to the manufacture of things that had formerly not been manufactured in Canada. I had in mind stationery, pencils, erasers, and a lot of things like that which are used in writing, which are sold in stationery shops, and which, before the war, we got from Austria. All this kind of work could be done by our men. There is also the industry of toy-making. I am told that this has become an immense industry in the United States and Canada. This industry, which was formerly monopolized by Germany , has been taken up by the people of these two countries and there is no mechanical toy or contrivance attractive to children which cannot be turned out in Canada. These things can be done in the home as well as in the factory and a man could get the help of his family in connection with certain parts of the manufacture. All this , will tend to make the man a happy, contented man. I am fold that there is a great variety of things that can also be made in the homes, as they are in Germany, namely:
Mechanical toys, fans, poperknives, glasscutting-, diamond cutters, enamel jewellery, art metal work, brush and broom making, poultry, gardening, harness, bookbinding, lens grinding, novelty making, sewing machine work, pottery, basket (wicker), furniture, upholstering for motor cars, surgical shoemaking bench carpentry, strawberry culture.
The idea of market gardens, especially to us who live in Toronto is a very important one on account of the extraordinary profits that have been made by those market gardeners who live near the city and who have added at least ten times to the value of their property. Twenty years ago you could get a market garden of ten acres for between $1,000 and $2,000, which at the present time you cannot buy for $100,000, the profit from market gardening is so great.
The town should be laid out so that the man could do his market garden writh every facility. My idea would be not to have the

market gardens near the particular house Tout that they should be in allotment at the other end of the settlement. I would advocate the erection of four houses of good construction, sanitary, architecturally beautiful, not put up like shacks, but well put up by competent architects and built to last, with good wookwork, and located every fifty or one hundred yards. If you had four of these to the acre that would give one-quarter of an acre, to each house. One-quarter of an acre outside of the ground occupied by the house would give an ordinary garden plot for a flower garden and perhaps a small quantity of vegetables: Of course, that is not the market garden, but there is no reason why a man should not bave sufficient ground in his own back yard for a strawberry patch and a poultry run. A great deal of money is to be got out of the poultry business if a man thoroughly understands the business; if he does not he is in a bad way.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: What would be the value of the house to be occupied by each man?


Mr.  H. M. MO WAT@Parkdale: To put up a house of that kind should cost $3,000 at the present time. If prices were to drop it would be less. You cannot build a six-roomed house for less than $3,000 to give a living room, dining room, kitchen, or kitchenette downstairs, and three bedrooms, one for the husband and wife, one for the male and one for the female children together with a small bathroom upstairs. That is the limit of a six-roomed house with the accommodations I have mentioned, at the present time, according to what I am told by competent builders and architects. . If a man wishes to have his workshop in connection with his home, there is no reason why he should not build against his house an addition so that it might be heated properly by a central stove in winter and thus enable him to carry on his work. This might be done without destroying the architectural beauty of the house and I am told that this addition could be made to-day for $500.
Then if the Government did not feel like financing the scheme at the present time- and I quite see difficulties in the way-I think it should be looked forward to as a thing bound to come in the near future. I am convinced that if bonds -were issued covering a proposition of this character, the patriotism of the citizens would easily provide for the necessary money.
Therefore we have undoubtedly got to face an expenditure on, say, 200 houses at $3,000 apiece, or $600,000 odd; add to that the
cost of the land $50,000, and add another $50,000 for the construction of 'sewers and of two or three trunk roadways upon the site. That represents an expenditure of at least $700,000 to be provided for each city; not much, one would say, in view of the expenditure which we have made on other things. This would all be paid back to the Government by instalments or - by the amortization plan. The direction of this scheme, it seems to me, will require some consideration. I would say that from the very beginning this must not be considered as a philanthrophic movement at all. If it is philanthrophy, if it is something doled out to a man, no self-respecting man is going to take it. He is only going to enter into it as a businesss proposition, and the only obligation he will be under to anybody will be to repay in time the cost of the house, or such sufficient rent as will reimburse the Government for its expenditure.
Therefore there must be no paternalism about the management of the community; nobody need be under the direction of any other person; but at the same time there must be precaution taken in the construction, and then to an extent in tlie management, in order to preserve the community life of the village, because women of different kinds will form these communities. Women vary in their housekeeping; some women will keep their houses in good shape and their porches and grounds will always be neat looking, while other women unfortunately, perhaps through indifferent health or other reasons,- will become slatternly. That means if there are too many of the latter class the community will not be as popular as it should be, and there must be some guiding direction to 5 p.m. see that the people are kept up to their manifest community
duty.
At the same time the municipal government of the town should be left to the men themselves, so that we would have returned soldiers occupying positions in the council of each town. We would have the councillors elected by popular vote of the people themselves, and if there was anything in the management of the town which was not approved of, then the remedy would be in the hands of the people themselves. They could put those men out at the next election and put in men who were more amenable to public opinion.
I think the directors should be about five in order to make it a convenient and workable body. Two of them should be first-class architects, two should be returned soldiers-who by preference should be business men-and the fifth member should be

Mr. Thomas Adams, the Town-improvement Advisor to the Commission of Conservation. In Mr. Adams we have a valuable asset to Canada. He was the secretary, I think, of the town-now the city of Letchwonth in England-built on these lines, to enable the suburbanite to reach London, his industrial centre, within a few minutes. This "town increased to such an extent that while it cost in the neighbourhood of $1,200 -000 to build, in the course of only foul years there was an increment of $800,000 in the value of the properties by reason of the demand for those comfortable houses built amid such pleasant surroundings.
Now, if there is to be that increment in the value of the villages which we propose to erect in Canada-at least, I hope we will erect them-it seems to me that all that increment should go to the men them-seleves who take upon themselves the chance at the beginning, either by way of reduced rentals or reduced purchase money, and that those who come later and enjoy the enterprise of the pioneers should help pay for that enterprise. The responsibility of running each village must be left to the inhabitants themselves. I think that responsibility is going to be accepted by the returned soldiers. The men who captured town after town in France and Belgium are not going to be behindhand in running towns of their own when they come back to Canada. We will find just as much municipal ability, just as much foresight, and just as much thrift among the returned soldiers who may be the inhabitants of these villages as we will find anywhere else in the Dominion.
Will these communities be permanent, or is this only a fancy idea that we have, and will it be worth while trying? In my opinion it will be worth while trying and these communities will be permanent, because the domestic motive behind the scheme will keep the men attached to the homes which they are going to establish, especially as they will not be the ordinary hum-drum homes of the conventional city or town, but they will be something entirely new, something which will appeal to the aesthetic side of a man's nature and make him proud of his home and loath to leave the community, because it is going to be his own handiwork.
In addition to what I have said as to building, we are going to, make the women so well satisfied with this kind of community that they are going to be an anchorage there. As it is now in cities the women are in a constant state of anxiety about the motor car menace to their children. There are no yards or gardens for the children to

play in and naturally they go and play on the streets. In the city of Toronto I venture to say that once a week there is a poor little tot of four or five years of age run down by a motor car, no matter how careful the driver may be. The consequence is that woman are in a constant state of anxiety while their children are out. But here we can construct all these homes facing on public squares where the children can go and play free from any vehicular menace, for there will be no necessity for roads at all through these villages. In every plan I have seen there is a landscape arrangement by which there are only one or two, or at most three, public highways, which need not be used at all by the people for foot travel, but are confined to vehicles. The consequence of this arrangement is that the motor car menace is abolished and the contentment of the mothers is assured.
This subject has interested me for some years and I have read a good many books relating to it, and if any hon. member wishes to have a reference to these in order to go into it more fully, I would recommend him to read the books of Mr. Sennitt, an English author, who is ,a principal writer on the subject, and Professor H. W. Maw-son's work entitled " An Imperial Obligation;" that is, the duty of the State to partially disabled soldiers. The book was published last year and the preface to it is well worth reading, because it is by Sir Douglas Haig, and he says: Sir Douglas Haig, right in the middle of the war, had time to write this preface:
The amelioration of the lot of those of our countrymen on whom the war has placed the dreadful hurdlen of life-long disablement is not only the most worthy to which it is possible to bend our energies, but one which should receive our immediate attention if we are to be ready for the emergency before it becomes overwhelming.
Professor Mawson, in furthering the idea which I have tried to set forth in a sketchy way, says this on page 22:
There should be a central collecting and distributing and buying and selling centre where materials can be procured wholesale and the finished goods marketed under expert management.
To some of the suggested industries and activities which he mentioned ,he would add agriculture and shop-keeping, marketgardening and flower culture, clock repairing, job printing, shoe repairing, tailoring, telephone operating, typing, model dairy, laundry, village square, post office, bank, insurance office, amusement and public hall, moving picture house, community house for

bachelors, baseball and lacrosse ground, park, churches, poultry runs. It is, of course, of vast importance that those who are not versed in the intricacies of commercial life should have some one to advise them with regard to their purchases of raw material and the marketing of their goods. If a man has to sell his own goods he is taken away from his work and into a sphere of activity with which he is not familiar, while an expert in the rise and fall of prices and in the marketing of goods would be able to tell him where he could sell his products to the best advantage.
There is also Thomas Adams' own book on the subject, and " The Housing Problem in War and Peace," of the American Institute of Architects (1918), Ebenezer Howard's " Garden City of the Future," and " Proceedings of the Garden Cities and Town Planning Association."
I think that until the community is well on its feet, the committee of direction would not be an expensive one. I know from conversations with them, that the architects who would act would charge moderate prices, and I am sure that the two returned soldiers on the committee would not exact a large remuneration. We have Mr. Thomas Adams already with us, so that the expenditure for some years to come need not be terrifying to any Cabinet minister.
So that if we establish these model towns, one in each province, to begin with, near some large city, we shall be doing something distinctly to the advantage of the country arM definitely beneficial to the returned man. I am told-perhaps other hon. gentlemen in the 'House can discuss this better than I can-that a man suffering from shell shock-which, I understand, is simply a collapse of nerves, due more to the genera] life at the front than to any particular shell shock-can best recover his normal health by being in such a community as this, living on the land, engaging in light labour, having no worries. Through the establishment of such a community we could restore to good health many men who have been injured in mind, though not in limb.
In the carrying out of this idea I can see a picture of a clean and well constructed town. I can see a creation of beautiful small homes and holdings, modern in its architectural and sanitary features, beautiful in its lines, wholesome in its life and happy in its amusements. I can see communities where none will be for the party but all for the state, whose inhabitants will give a noticeable example to less favoured regions and cause them to set up of their own accord similar municipalities aspiring to similar achievements. I can see communities which will be under no obligation but that of the liquidation of a temporary loan extended by a generous and thankful country-whose gratitude can never be shown by money alone-with a view to assisting to some extent out of their resources those who saved them from disaster.
Hon. J. A. CALD'HR (Minister of Immigration and 'Colonization): Air. Speaker, I am sure the House will agree that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Mowat) has brought to our attention an exceedingly interesting subject. I understand that he does not intend to press the resolution to a vote; that he desires merely to have a general discussion of the subjects he has introduced. I do not intend to follow him in all his arguments. He has undoubtedly given the matter considerable thought and study; personally, I have gained a good deal of information from his address. I wish merely to touch on a few of the points to which he has referred.
In _ my opinion the whole question of town'planning in this country has received too little attention; as a matter of fact, it has received no attention at all. Our towns and villages and cities have sprung up in any old way; we have some very sorry examples of towns and cities throughout the Dominion. If something along this line had been started fifty or a hundred years ago, Canada would be very much better off. The problem is one that should receive the attention of all governments in Canada, federal, provincial and municipal, that may be interested in it.
The hon. gentleman referred to Mr. Adams, who came here from the Old Country. I have known of him and have met him occasionally. I am quite certain that if his services could be utilized in connection with our town planning and even with the extension of our municipalities, they would be very valuable indeed. Just in passing, it occurs to me that the work of town planning is a matter in which our provinces, rather than the federal authorities, should take a more particular interest. If I am not mistaken, it comes completely within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
The hon. gentleman referred to the desirability of establishing model villages for our returned men. In dealing with that question >we must first consider the chief aim in solving the problem of repatriation. We have had considerable discussion in the House with regard to that problem, and, judging from the opinions expressed here.

I think the idea prevails that the very best- thing we can do for the returned man is to place him in a position at the earliest possible, time in which he will be selfreliant. In the discussions that we have had, time and again expressions like these have been used:	"Leave the returned
soldier alone and he will take care of himself;" "the returned soldier does not require any coddling;" "all the returned soldier wants is to get back into civil life." Expressions of that kind were used by many, members of the House, and I am inclined to think that is the prevailing opinion among the returned men themselves. What they want is an opportunity to secure employment. They wish to have an opportunity to get back into their ordinary place in the civil life of the community. If that be true, then we must do everything that lies in our power to see that that end is secured with the least possible delay and trouble.
The resolution suggests that one village of a particular class, of which the details are given-and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Mowat) has this afternoon amplified his suggestion-should be established in every province. Let me ask if the House thinks, even if we decided upon a policy of establishing villages, that would meet the situation in a practical way. That is, if the Federal Government is going to provide homes, workshops, employment, under certain conditions, is there not just a possibility that every one of those men would say that if you do this for him, or if you do it for one, every other one is entitled to it? Would there not be a tendency upon the part of all to lean upon the State for this purpose? I am merely mentioning that in order that the House may take it into consideration. We have rather adopted the other line of action, that is, of endeavouring in every possible way to make the man self-reliant at the earliest possible date. The question of expenditure naturally comes in. What it would amount to, I do not know. The chances are that if we ever embarked upon a policy of this kind, we would never be able to confine it to a village; it would spread until we would be forced to provide for a very large number of villages of this class.
Just a word with regard to the community idea. I think the hon. gentleman has given voice to the opinion that a good many of the returned men are opposed to a close community composed only of themselves. I think that is true. I have discussed the problem with a great manv, par-

ticularly in connection with farming, and I am pretty certain that the consensus of . opinion amongst those in Canada who have made a close study of the question as to whether communities of this nature composed entirely of returned men would be desirable, seems to be that communities of that nature should not be established, particularly in connection with farms. The hon. gentleman seems to be of the opinion that if villages of this class were established, they should not be confined to returned men alone, but that others should be permitted to live in them. That, however, is a question that might very well be considered by the House.
As regards market gardening, the Soldiers' Settlement Board have that now under consideration. They are making a study in Ontario, Quebec, the lower provinces, and British Columbia, with a view to ascertaining the extent to which a policy of that kind can be adopted, and they have made considerable progress. That would appeal to all returned men who desire to go in for that class of work, but more particularly,
I think, to the disabled man, the man who is not in a position to carry on his ordinary avocation. I understand it is expected that -a final report will be received at an early date from those who are making that study, and it- is possible that the Minister of Interior (Mr. Meighen) may soon have some observations to make to the House.
We must all recognize that while the great body of men who are. coming back again will, in a very short time, be absorbed into the civil life of the community, and while the Department of Soldiers' Civil Be-Establishment is taking care of and providing employment for disabled men-and I understand some 2,000 of them have already been placed back into the civil life of the community-there is certain to be a number of men who will require special care and treatment. Just what that number will be cannot, at the present time, be predicted. I refer to men who, on account of their condition, either physical or mental, will not be able to follow their usual employment, or who, after being retrained for employment, will not be able to continue in that employment. Some provision will have to be made for them, and an enquiry is at present under way to ascertain the extent of that problem and the manner in which it will have to be taken care of by the Government. We all remember that after the Civil War in the United States, there were a great many men who had to be taken care of perman-

ently by the State, not in institutions, but in homes which were provided for them. It is likely that we shall have, in the near future, to do something of that nature in Canada. I desire to assure the House that the whole subject is a't present under consideration, and undoubtedly before very long some provision will have to be made for that class.
The subject introduced to the House by the hon. member (Mr. Mowat) is an exceedingly interesting one. I am sure he realizes that it is a matter that should not be pressed at the present time. The Government should have the fullest opportunity to consider -the matter in its various details, and I am sure hon. members will desire very full light on this question before committing themselves to it.


Mr.  H. M. MO WAT@Parkdale: The minister says that the Government will give this subject full consideration; and as I have no doubt that when the House is in Supply on the Estimates of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, the matter can be discussed again, I have no objection to the motion being withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.	.



PROPOSED PROHIBITION ON IMMIGRATION.

Henry Herbert Stevens: That, in the opinion of this House, the Immigration laws of Canada shall he so amended as to absolutely prohibit, for a period of 20 years, entry into Canada of all persons of enemy origin who, during the period of the war (-a) have been interned in Canada; (b) have .been interned in any country being one of the allies of Canada; (c) left Canada shortly before or after the outbreak of war ; or (d) have been guilty of conduct, whether in Canada or any other place, which has in any way jeopardized the peace, safety or well-being of Canada or of the British Empire or of her allies.
He said, Mr. Speaker, as this resolution speaks pretty well for itself, I do not intend to discuss it at any great length. There are, however, a few points which I wish to emphasize in connection with it. In the first place, we have heard demands from all over Canada, in great number and great variety, as to the treatment of alien enemies within our boundaries. I therefore realize that any comprehensive resolution on this subject would involve a great deal of discussion, and perhaps justifiable opposition on the part of some. In drafting this resolution I have therefore limited it to certain classes of aliens. First,I have limited it to aliens who have been interned in Canada. It is assumed that a person
interned has been interned for cause; that it was desirable during the period of the war that he should be restrained in the interest of the safety and the well-being of Canada. That being the case, if such a person is deported or leaves Canada at the conclusion of the war I contend that he should be kept out of this country for a substantial period. In my resolution I have set a period of twenty years, but that might be changed; in any ease, they should be restrained from re-entering this country for a certain length of time.
In the second place, the resolution deals with those who have been interned in any country being one of the allies of Canada.
I wish particularly to draw the attention of the House to this, and it would be well for the Government and for the Minister of Immigration to take particular notice of this condition-there have been interned in the United States during the war a large number of troublesome, dangerous Huns. The propaganda they have carried on and their violent outbreaks, destroying millions of dollars' worth of property, are well known to all. When these men are released on the signing of peace a great many of them will undoubtedly take advantage of their liberty to come to Canada, if allowed to do so. In other words, they will find life in the United States too unpleasant for them, because the Americans are almost extreme in many of their views on this question, and will deliberately make life unpleasant for them. Pressure will be brought to bear to such an extent that many of these people will try to come to Canada. These people should be very carefully watched; that is a duty which the Government owes to the country and to itself.
In the third place, the resolution deals with those who left Canada shortly before or after the outlreak of the war. This class also requires oui attention. I have in mind a number of this class who lived in Vancouver and were known to be violently proGerman and engaged in espionage for the German Government. There was nothing against them, so far as the Canadian law is concerned, and many of them left the country just before the outbreak of the war. When times quieten down these people will want to come back to Canada, but they should not be allowed to do so, and any of this class now in Canada should be deported.
-Lastly, the resolution deal with those who have been guilty of conduct, whether in Canada or any other place, which has in any way jeopardized the peace, safety or well-being of -Canada or of the iBritish Em-



pire or of her Allies. The names of these men should be tabulated as international intriguers. Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Holland are full of them. A black list, so to speak, should be prepared of all these men, and they should be barred from Canada. Just at this point let me draw this to the attention of the minister and of the Government: Perhaps the most effective system of espionage on the part of the German Government was carried on through travelling theatrical companies and German bands. These would give entertainments in different cities, but at the same time would be gathering the information that was desired by their Government. This, of course, is well known to the Government. I say that all the^e people should be debarred from entering Canada for a great many years.
Hon. Mr. GAiLDEE: From the wording of the latter part of the resolution, I would take it to mean that all persons of enemy nationality are to be excluded. If I am wrong, my hon. friend will correct me.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There might be some objection to phrasing it in the very broad and plain language pointed to by the minister. So far as I am concerned, I would undoubtedly like to go that length. I realize, however, that many would not care to go so far. My particular object is to keep out of Canada persons who are beyond all question undesirable and a menace to the state. I have received a number of resolutions and letters and memorials on this subject from all parts of Canada, which shows that the public is prepared for some definite action along this line by the Government.
I have just a few *words to say in a general way on this subject. We have in the past, and I was very glad to hear the Minister of Immigration express the same opinion, been too generous with our citizenship and the privilege of immigration into Canada. I blame no one in particular for this, because I think it was the sentiment and ideals of the country as a whole, that were to blame. We felt we had a great country, and we wanted to see it settled, with the result that we welcomed almost any one to Canada. Not only that, but we extended the privilege of citizenship to these people. In future I think a great deal more care should be exercised, and it can only be exercised by taking action along the line indicated in this resolution. It is all very well for us here in the House of Commons to talk in general terms about immigration, but action is necessary, and I was very glad to hear the minister say that a Bill

will shortly be brought down dealing with immigration. I particularly urge him to consider, in drafting that Bill, the points raised in my resolution. We must not debase our citizenship to the level of the foreigner-using that term in a broad and generous sense-who may come to our country. In other words, immigration should be so restricted that we shall be able to assimilate the immigrant and bring him up to our standard of citizenship, rather than have him debase our own.
I wish to say a word on the question of the possibility of a peaceable invasion of Canada by Germans and persons of alien enemy origin. I notice in one of the latest issues of the London Graphic an article by a well known writer, Henri Bazin. This writer has given the question a great deal of study. The article was written a short time ago in a German town in which he was located with the military forces. In it he describes the entry of a military policeman and a little incident that occurred, and proceeds:
The same old doctrine of Delbrik law will eaze its way into allied lands in days to come; that is, the doctrine that a German remains always a German, whether he be naturalized or not; that he must group with his fellow countrymen in foreign lands, maintain individual and collective relation with the mother country, and always serve her first.
Now, I think we have had our lesson on the attitude of the German, particularly the German of the present time, the world over. Wherever he has gone, as a merchant or as a settler, he has taken with him his German ideals and his German conception of what his duty as a citizen should be, and sought to superimpose them upon the country to which he came, rather than to adjust hiiAself to the new conditions under which he found himself. This writer points out-and I wish to emphasize it as my own humble opinion at the same time-that a determined attempt will be made by the German people to start exactly where they were' a few years ago when the war broke out, and to carry on the same class of propaganda and the same policy of spreading German influence and of attempting to impose German civilization upon the world, just as they did before the war. I think they will endeavour to do the very same thing again in exactly the same manner, and it behooves us to be alive to this danger. Furthermore, I think this country would be derelict in its duty to itself and to posterity if it did not put up the bars, and do everything within its power to arrest that propaganda and that doctrine. The Hun to-day is unrepentant. We need to

get that fact firmly imbedded in our minds. We talk about being victors and sometimes we speak as though the whole danger were entirely at an end, and that we should shake hands with the Hun and go on as before. But, Sir, if we read the press reports aright and study the situation from the attitude assumed by the Hun today, we must be convinced of this fact, that he is an unrepentant enemy of Britain and of this Dominion, and that his hatred of Britain and the British race is deeper and more bitter and determined to-day than ever before the war; and underneath his hatred is the grim determination to do his utmost in the future to undermine and destroy British influence and British civilization from the face of the earth. He is still a Hun exactly as he was before 1914.
I do not intend to detain the House for any length of time, but I ask the Government to give this matter their most earnest attention. I do not want to he put off-ii the minister will permit me to put it frankly -with the statement "we will give it consideration;" but I would,, like the Government to consider that at this time they have a duty towards the country and towards posterity. It is all very well to say, "We will pass regulations and we will see that our offic'ers are properly instructed;" but my experience is this, Sir,-and I have watched the immigration problem very closely for many years-that regulations are very elastic. What I desire is, to see the policy of the country clearly defined in the statutes, so that there may be no possible mistake either to persons seeking to enter the country, or to citizens at large. It would be far better, in my opinion, to put into the Bill which is to be brought down in a few days, as we are told, a clear declaration that we are going to keep out of this country a certain type of enemy aliens. Let us put that beyond all question. I quite agree that regulations should be made regarding matters that might be considered temporarily desirable; but so far as this question is concerned, I think it should be a well laid down, publicly declared policy and determination of the Government, speaking for the country, in its attitude towards these people. And my resolution, as I pointed out before, is such that no person can possibly question successfully our rignt to shut out this class of aliens. In conclusion, I would ask the minister and the Government to give these facts their serious consideration and close attention, and to incorporate them in a statutory way in the Bill to be brought down.


James Alexander Calder: So far as I am personally concerned, I am very glad indeed to have had this discussion this afternoon, and to have learned the views of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. He has brought to our attention a matter in which the people throughout the country generally are very much interested at the present time. There is considerable agitation in connection with the whole subject, and it is a subject that must be dealt with by this Parliament before it rises. As the resolution stands, however, I doubt very much if it would be advisable to accept it, because it is exceedingly sweeping in its character. It will be remembered that I asked the hon. gentleman whether or not it was intended that the resolution should apply to all residents of enemy countries. Well, if it does, and the resolution were approved and made law as Parliament would be expected to make it, we might have a very difficult and complex situation. The resolution proposes, for example, that we should absolutely exclude all persons of enemy nationality whp caused us trouble during the past four and a half years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The resolution says: "All who have been guilty of conduct, whether in Canada or in any other place, which has in any way jeopardized the peace, safety, and well-being of Canada." I do not think it could be very much clearer.


James Alexander Calder: I have probably taken a rather technical view of the language; but, as I read it, I understood it to mean that the three, or four, or five million people we have been fighting during the last four and a half years have certainly done something to jeopardize the peace, safety and well-being of this country and our people, and consequently I read the resolution to mean that the hon. member proposed that we should establish a law in this country that would absolutely exclude any person coming from any of these countries. I understand, however, he does not mean that, but rather that it is intended to exclude only those-whether they have lived in their own country or elsewhere-who have conspired against the peace and orderly Government of this country. With that explanation we may very well make some provision in so far as that class is concerned. But the whole problem, as the House can understand, is a very difficult one to deal with in so far as European immigration is concerned, because undoubtedly this will be made the subject of very considerable discussion at the Peace Con-

ference, and conclusions will be reached to which we will be parties; and until such time as we know what decisions are arrived at, it is most difficult for us to deal with the question. Some of those who were our enemies yesterday are looked upon as our allies to-day. Take the Bohemians: The new Czechoslovak State was established in the city of Washington, and the Czechoslovaks in Russia to-day are not regarded as our enemies but our allies. They are sitting in conference with the Prime Minister of this country in Paris to-day.' The same is true to a large extent of the Poles, and to a certain extent of the Ukranians. So that these matters will be taken into consideration when we come to frame the policy that will govern the question as to the right [DOT]or the advisability of admitting certain classes of people to the citizenship of the country.
Undoubtedly later on this Parliament will have to decide the main principles that will have to underlie any immigration policy to be adopted. In my judgment there should be no question that Canada should exercise much greater precaution in the future in admitting people to our citizenship, and see to it that our law is framed with that end in view.
To the suggestion that we should make provision to exclude those interned either in Canada or outside of Canada, I do not think any serious objection can be taken. If there are people who are hostile, dangerous and plotting against this country, there is every reason why we should exclude them. There might be some difficulty in ascertaining who they are and in administering the law afterwards, but if we can ascertain who they are and where they reside we should prevent them from entering Canada. Any person who has plotted against our Government or our country, or who has done anything to injure Canada during the period of the war, should not be permitted to become a citizen of Canada, and it is our duty to prevent them from doing so. I can assure my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) that the subject matter of this resolution will receive further consideration on the part of the Government and that an effort will toe made to meet the situation as disclosed by making proper provision in the law.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just one word in reply.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: It is my duty, before the hon. member exercises his right to close the debate, to ask if any other hon. member wishes to speak on this subject.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister speaks with a little degree of unconcern regarding the possible immigration into this country of numbers of Jugo-Slavs, Ukranians, Poles and others. I think the country would not receive a suggestion of that kind with any degree of confidence or satisfaction. On the other hand, he must remember that the first duty of the country at this time is to reinstate our men in the civil life from which they have been ruthlessly torn away and their places taken by the very people that I have mentioned.


James Alexander Calder: I do not wish the hon. gentleman to infer that I was suggesting that we should encourage these people to come to Canada. As a qiatter of fact, it is only within the last week or two that we have published an Order in -Council under the Immigration law absolutely prohibiting people from all these countries, Germany, Austria, Turkey, and Bulgaria, from entering Canada. That Order in Council was passed some two weeks ago for the reason that on account of conditions existing at the present time we deemed it undesirable that any of these people should be allowed to come- in from any of these countries. -


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is decidedly encouraging to know that the minister and I are very close together on this question. The only thing I desire is that you should make the prohibition statutory. I would suggest that it would be far better for the Government and for Canada to err a little in the direction of shutting out some of these others even at the risk of technically doing them an injury. We could rectify that by amending the legislation if necessary. In other words, let us get into our heads that it would be desirable to stop for the time being all immigration into Canada except that coming direct from our immediate Allies. I think the country would welcome that. If the minister would agree with a proposal such as that I would be very glad to allow the idea more particularly expressed in my resolution to remain over and to be considered at some future time. But if he does not wish to do that then, without any hesitation I say, let us shut out every man of enemy alien origin that we can possibly shut out. I am serious about this; I do not want the minister to think that I have brought this resolution up for the entertainment of the House. I have not done so. I have brought it up in the hope that the Government would take it up seriously-not take it " into consideration." I abominate those words because

the way in which the private member is shuffled off by them is well known to us all. This is more serious than the Government actually realize. The feeling of the people is very serious. We have 5,000 soldiers in Vancouver, aocording to the president of the returned soldiers' association. It is true they are being paid by the Militia Department but that is not what they want. They do not want to be walking around town from month to month with their hands in their pockets. They want jobs; they want to get work. It is very galling to these men to see others holding jobs bringing them $5 to $7 a day who, if they are not actually Huns, are in close touch with them.


James Alexander Calder: I want to make it clear to the House that during the period of the war, for four and a half years, we have prevented any person of alien enemy nationality from coming into Canada. We were working closely in touch with the United States immigration authorities with the result that we kept our own alien enemies in our own country and they kept theirs in their country. My hon. friend's resolution deals with alien enemies or persons of alien enemy nationality but during the period of the war none of that class has entered Canada. Only recently, on account of the conditions existing, we put through an Order in Council, not under the War Measures Act but under the Immigration Act, excluding all persons from enemy countries. Any conditions existing in Canada at the present time do not result from the admission of people of alien enemy nationality during the last four and a half years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was not responsible for introducing the question of the Jugo-Slavs. However, I will simply conclude by urging very strongly upon the minister and the Government to give effect to the spirit at least of this resolution in relation to immigration.


Georges Henri Boivin: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman wishes to withdraw the resolution?


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the Government desires me to withdraw it I shall do so but I see no object in withdrawing it.


James Alexander Calder: I think the resolution in any event would have to be amended. It proposes to make a provision in the law which should apply without change for twenty years. But, you could not bind any future Parliament. It seems to me that as
legislation is to be brought down we should have an opportunity of carefully considering this provision in order to see whether it should be embodied in our new law, and under these circumstances I would ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw the resolution.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In dealing with this exclusion question, we realize that during war time we can exclude as much, and as absolutely, as we like. Has the minister considered what our jurisdiction is as a colonial Parliament to deal with absolute exclusion after peace is signed? Does he think we have power to legislate to the extent of the absolute exclusion of people from any country?


James Alexander Calder: I am not certain as to the extent by which we are bound by treaty. I have not looked into that matter but we may be tied up through treaties. On the other hand there is a provision in our immigration law under which by Order in Council we may exclude any race or nationality, or people of any occupation. That provision stands in our law. There may be treaties which stand in the way of our excluding certain nationalities, without getting into very serious trouble if we attempted to do so.


Mr. MURPHY:: Does the hon. gentleman refer to treaties to which Canada was not a party?


Georges Henri Boivin: I must remind hon. gentlemen that the House is not in committee.
Motion withdrawn.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. CANADA'S CLAIM TO WAR INDEMNITY.
,Mr. P. R. DuTREMBLAY (Laurier-Outremont) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, this country is entitled to an indemnity as a belligerent nation and that instructions should he given to Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister of this country, to take such steps as he will deem advisable to claim from Germany an indemnity corresponding to the amount disbursed by Canada in the pursuit of this war, and that, in any case, Sir Robert Borden should be instructed to claim from the British Government such amount to be paid out of the indemnity which the British Government might receive from Germany, and that the whole question should be submitted through the proper channels to the Peace Conference now sitting in Paris.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the most important question in the minds of the people at the

present moment is whether Canada will obtain a war indemnity, either from Germany,, directly or indirectly out of the indemnity paid to England by Germany, or possibly directly from England. The people are anxious to know what the Government have done in this respect. I am glad to see the acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) in his place; I hope he will reassure the people with regard to this important matter.
The first question we ask ourselves is: Are we entitled to this indemnity? To this we get an answer by turning to the beginning of the war with a view to impressing upon our minds who were the assailants; whether we were the offensive party, or the defensive; whether we were forced into the war against our will. It has been said and repeated often by the Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet that the first line of defence of Canada in the war was that of the trenches in Flanders and France and that we had to take part in the conflict to defend our liberty, our freedom and our property. For my part, I have many times advocated that Canada should participate in the war to an extent consistent with her condition and her means. I thought that if perchance the Allies had been vanquished and the Germans had been victorious, our freedom and our liberty would have been jeopardized and we would have been penalized by the German people. I considered, therefore, that rather than wait and have before us the possibility of the victory of the Germans, with all the necessary consequences to ourselves, it was preferable that we should defend^ ourselves now, that we should protect our freedom, our rights and our liberties. It is in all the codes, civil and criminal, that a citizen has the right to take the necessary steps, even if forcible ones, to defend and protect his property. Since the beginning of the world it has been a part of the law, either unwritten or statutory, of all countries that a nation has a right to defend itself and to take whatever steps may be necessary to uphold its liberties and its freedom. If, therefore, we were forced to participate in the war, we have the right, and it is our duty, to claim from Germany indemnification of our material loss. There is another way of considering this question. It has been said that when England is at war we are at war. I believe in that constitutional principle; our status as a colony puts us in such a position that when England is at war, we are at war;-when the whole is at wTar the part is at war.

We may look at the matter of a war indemnity for Canada from two points of view. If we were obliged to enter the war in order to defend ourselves, then Germany should pay us an indemnity. On the other hand, if we took part in the war to help England, England should indemnify us. To me, it is a question of simple justice and equity.
I have said that we should obtain such an indemnity directly or indirectly from what England may obtain. We all know that France will obtain certain advantages following the conclusion of peace. There is no doubt that she will receive Alsace and Lorraine, the two provinces towards which she has looked for fifty years. There is no doubt that the Treaty of Commerce of 1870- under which Germany was treated as the best customer of France, will be denounced. England will certainly receive great advantages. The German navy will disappear. It has cost England a lot of money to build up and maintain a navy of sufficient strength to meet the peril of the German naval policy and the general enterprise of Germany in that direction. This peril now disappears for England. England will receive many advantages in trade and commerce; possibly she will annex some territory.	.
The same thing might be said of other countries, such as Italy and Australia, that took part in this war on the side of the Allies; but this country neither needs nor asks any annexation or gain of territory. What we desire is to be indemnified for the money which we have spent and the material losses which Canada has suffered in connection with this war. It would mean a great deal for this country to receive an indemnity. To-day we owe about $2,000,000,000, and we nearly went into bankruptcy on account of this war. We have spent on the war about $1,500,000,000, which is a tremendous debt for a population of eight or nine million people. According to a statement made by a member of the Cabinet, we shall be called upon to pay out about $300,000,000 a year to cover interest payments, pensions for our soldiers, and other charges. Since the outbreak of the war we have been taxed in all directions. A heavy burden is to-day upon our people, upon their incomes, upon their profits. A stamp tax has been imposed upon cheques, notes, etc. The tariff has been very largely increased. All this is due to the war. This terrible-burden upon the country will remain not only for this generation, but for generations to come. It is, therefore, the duty of the Govern-

inent to do their utmost to obtain an indemnity for Canada. This Government must have done something in that direction- it would have been criminal negligence on their part if they had not taken some steps in the matter. But until now the people of Canada are not informed as to what has been done. We were not told in the speech from the Throne that some announcement as to what steps were being taken to secure an indemnity would be made by the Government. Nothing has yet been heard of the matter, although it is probably the most important question with which this Parliament has to deal during this session.
The people of Canada are anxious, indeed,
I may say nervous, in regard to this question, because we read some time ago a declaration by the Prime Minister that this country would not insist upon obtaining an indemnity, that what Canada had done in this war was done gratuitously. Indeed, we read in an important paper, the Globe, if I mistake not, a declaration that when Belgium and Prance received indemnities, this country would probably receive nothing. I am sorry that such statements should be made by the Prime Minister, and I am sure, if he is correctly reported as stating that Canada would not insist on receiving an indemnity, he does not voice the opinion of the people of this country.
Some days ago, the federal authorities in Australia took action to support their Prime Minister, Right Hon. Mr. Hughes, in France, in his endeavours to obtain an indemnity for that country. This question is not new; it has been in the minds of the people since the beginning of this war; and the Prime Minister himself announced at the outbreak of the war, that we were forced to go into it, but that Germany would pay the cost of it. Those are not his exact words, but that is substantially what he said.
The object of this resolution is to let it be known to our representatives, and especially to the representatives of other countries in France, that the people of Canada desire and, indeed, unreservedly demand, that an indemnity be paid to this country. I trust that our interests in this matter will not be sacrificed, that they will not be exchanged for titles or marks of distinction, that they will not be exchanged for a mess of pottage. I trust the Government will take this question in hand at once, because the future of Canada depends to a large extent on the securing of an indemnity. That is perhaps the only way to re-establish in this country the necessary stability in financial and other matters. This is not a
question of politics, it is a matter concerning the benefit of the country at large. I hope, therefore, the Acting Prime Minister will give an assurance to this country that the necessary steps have been taken, and that we shall receive from Germany, through the proper channel, or, if necessary, from England, the indemnity to which Canada is entitled.


William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, with much of what my hon. friend has said upon the matter of this resolution which deals with a most important subject, I can say that I am in agreement. My hon. friend has truly stated that the cause of the war was German ambition and lust of dominion. If there is anything clear to the world, it is that. It is not open to doubt in the mind of any one to-day that it was within the 'German intention to conquer the world-I do not say to conquer the world at once and in the war which she had in contemplation in 1914. Her immediate purpose was evidently to strike down France and to crush Russia. Having over-run Belgium and with Holland at her mercy, having defeated France and Russia, Germany would have been supreme in Europe, would have extended her frontiers to the Straits of Dover and the English Channel, would have seized the French seaports, naval stations, and navy, would have exacted an immense indemnity from both. Russia, and. Franco, and then would have bided her time-one, two, three, four, five or more years-preparatory to her next spring, which would have been against Great Britain and the world. It is not open to doubt that the rulers of Germany and their military advisers had in mind the unparalleled conception of conquering the world. When the war broke out I confess I had hesitation in believing that the German people were behind their rulers in their schemes of world aggrandizement, but as time went on it became clear to me, as I think it became clear to all, that the German people really were behind their rulers and military authorities, were possessed with the lust of dominion, and hoped by the strategy I have outlined ultimately to impose their will upon the entire world. As the war went on, it became apparent to all that it was not a European problem, but a world problem, and that I think accounts for the fact that almost from the beginning neutral opinion ranged itself on the side of the Allies. The neutral nations felt that their interest lay there; they were moved by fear of German ambition, and more than that, I am happy to say, they were moved

by the moral issue involved; because from the beginning it was apparent that the issue lay between right and wrong, and ultimately the right was bound to prevail, as it did.
The war is the greatest by far in the history of the world, with a greater outpouring of blood and treasure than was ever before dreamt of by mankind, and after four years of struggle, in which half the human race was engaged, in which millions of men laid down their lives, in which money was poured out on a scale that no financier would have thought possible at the beginning of the war, after the most terrible experiences, disasters and tribulations to mankind, the war by the efforts of the Allies was finally brought to a victorious conclusion, and Germany and her associates were crushed. It would seem to follow quite logically that Germany, having taken the sword and pursued the ambitious designs which she did, having attacked nations that did not desire or even suspect war and that had no policy of ag-gi anciizement to follow, the consequences of the defeat of Germany should be indemnity by Germany to the extent that she is able, and not only able now but having regard to the future, to those nations which have suffered by her attempted world dominion and have been put to the enormous cost that they have in bringing her to her knees. So that, personally, I agree with my hon. friend that there is every reason why Germany, to the extent that she is able actually and potentially, should be made to pay the Allies reparation for the losses sustained by their nationals through her illegal warfare, and indemnity against their war expenditure. I am frank to say to my hon. friend that I have very grave doubts whether Germany actually and potentially would be able to pay in full the colossal expenditures which have been incurred by the Allies in defeating her and those nations with which she was associated, and which also should be made to pay to the extent of their ability. But I lay down the proposition that she should be made to pay, and those in league with her should be made to pay, to the extent that they are able, and no consideration of mercy should enter. It should be a cold, economic calculation as to what Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey can pay, and then, in my view, they should be made to pay it. That is one of the questions under consideration at the Peace 'Conference in Paris. I understand that a committee has been appointed whose duties it is to make careful inquiries and ascertain what Germany and her allies 
are able to pay not only at the present time but over	a course of years;
in other	words, what would be
the maximum exaction which could be demanded from Germany to meet the losses of the Allies to their nationals through the unlawful warfare of Germany and to indemnify the Allies against the enormous war expenditures, including, of course, existing war debts which have been incurred by the nations which have been opposed to her. My hon. friend can rest assured that the claims of Canada have not been overlooked. Sir Robert Borden has been furnished some time since by the Government here with a full statement of Canada's war expenditure (including pensions) and of the losses Which have been sustained by citizens of Canada during the war; I refer particularly, but not exclusively, to the losses which have been sustained by owners of craft on our Atlantic coast which were destroyed by German submarine warfare. The representatives of Canada at the Peace Conference have complete information and Canada's statement of claim, I can assure my hon. friend, will be full and comprehensive.
I saw the item to which my hon. friend referred in one of the newspapers. I am satisfied that it must be based only on rumours, and that it has no substantial, official basis. Nothing has come to me from the Prime Minister which would indicate that the claims of Canada will not be pressed, as the claims of the other Allies, for satisfaction to the extent that they can be satisfied in the settlement with Germany. My hoh. friend has stated that Canada was brought into the war against her will. If I did not misunderstand him, he meant that Canada had no desire to go to war; that we were a peaceful and peace-loving people. We went to war not only because Great Britain but every part of the Empire was threatened; not only the Empire and every part of it, but civilization itself. And no nation that had a sense of honour could remain out of the war after its issues were truly known. When Great Britain entered the war in 1914 Canada became ipso facto at war. Our coasts became subject to attack. We are part of the British Empire, and, as my hon. friend said, when Great Britain went to war, Canada legally and constitutionally became at war with Germany.
We did not enter the war only for the purpose of helping Great Britain. I believe that Canada would have gone into the war for that purpose; but Canada went into this war from a profound conviction

that the cause of the Allies was just. And Great Britain having entered the war, Canada at once intimated-as all parts of the Empire similarly intimated-that we would send our forces forward. Great Britain was threatened; the Empire was threatened; Canada was threatened; and this House of Parliament in August, 1914, without a dissenting voice, concurred in the proposal of the Government, that we should use all our available forces for the prosecution of the war. My hon. friend (Mr. DuTremblay) seemed to suggest that Great Britain had rather leaned upon Canada in the war, and that we might have some right to claim from her some special consideration because we had gone in to help her. If I understand my hon. friend rightly with regard to that, I do not agree with him; and I should like to point out to him and to the House, that of all the nations that have been in this war- and I do not overlook the supreme effort of France-of all the nations, the very shield and buckler, as I said in the debate on the Address, of allied defence against Germany have been the Army and Navy of Great Britain, and her inexhaustible resources of money which she poured out without stint until the war was won. The British Navy alone did not win the war; but the war could not have been won without the British Navy. We have made great sacrifices; but I ask my hon. friend, if he can find time to do so, to consider the sacrifices which Great Britain has made in this war. I ask him to take the population of Great Britain and consider the number of men that she sent to the front, and the number she had on the seas. I ask him to look into the question of her expenditures of money per head of population and compare them with ours, or with those of any other nation, and he will be prouder-I know he is proud to-day-he will be prouder than ever before that he is a citizen of the Empire that has at its head a nation such as Great Britain. Now, my hon. friend has spoken of indemnity. He no doubt means, by that, re-imbursement for the expenditures which have been made by Canada as a nation through her Government in the conduct of this war.
There is another phase of the matter; I believe it is usually called reparation. The situation in Europe is that Belgium was overrun in violation of national law and the rights guaranteed her by the treaty to which Germany was a signatory; Belgium was made a victim of unlawful warfare and her people suffered terribly. Her towns and cities were destroyed, her countryside
was ravaged, the property of her citizens was stolen from them and sent to Germany, and many of their industrial plants destroyed, or removed. The same may he said with regard to the northern part of France. The French people also suffered terribly during the German occupation. Apart from the suffering inflicted upon them personally by the Germans and the atrocities to which they were subjected, the money loss was enormous in the villages and towns and cities which were destroyed. The same will apply to other countries (including of course Great Britain) where the nationals have suffered special loss by reason of the unlawful warfare of the Germans. Claims will be put forward by the respective nations for reparation as distinguished from indemnity. Whether such reparation will be made a first charge upon the amount which Germany and her allies will pay, I am not prepared to say; but I should think it probable. That however is a matter for the Peace Conference to determine. I have pointed out that Canada also has a claim for reparation owing to the damage done to . property of our nationals through unlawful methods of warfare, and that claim has been put forward and will be pressed.
Now, with regard to my hon. friend's resolution, it is I think inadvisable that this Parliament should put itself on record as the resolution proposes; and therefore,
I hope my hon. friend if he agrees with what I say, will withdraw his resolution. The representatives of the various nations, consisting of the ablest statesmen in the world, are giving consideration to this, among other questions, in the settlement which is under consideration at Paris to-day. It is the most momentous conference in the history of the world. It is concerned with the question of the recasting of boundaries, the grouping of nationalities, the determination of modes of government, the amounts, as I have stated, which Germany and her allies can pay to the nations which opposed and defeated her. All these questions are now under consideration at that Peace Conference. It would, I think, be embarrassing-I had almost said improper,-for any Parliament whose representatives are there to pass a resolution, necessarily without the full knowledge which those representatives have, and which might have the effect of fettering or binding them in respect to their decisions. I think this Parliament may well rest assured that the deliberations at the Peace Conference are in very able hands and that

the interests of the several nations of the Allies represented there will not in any way suffer.
I should have looked the matter up had I thought this resolution was coming on this evening, but I recall that the British Prime Minister, the right hon. Mr. Lloyd George, or the right hon. Mr. Bonar Law, leader in the House of Commons, stated some time ago that it was inadvisable for any Parliament within the Empire to place itself upon record as to what the representatives at the Peace Conference should or should not do. Therefore, my view is that it would be inadvisable that this Parliament, on the necessarily imperfect information that we have as to the precise situation which exists in Paris, and in Europe, should endorse a resolution of this kind although generally in sympathy with its purport. The wording of the latter part of the resolution is not quite clear. My hon. friend asks:
That in any case Sir Robert Borden should be instructed to claim from the British Government such amount to be paid out of the indemnity which the British Government might receive from Germany.
I am quite sure that the same principle will- be applied to all parts of the Empire; that is to say, that if a certain principle is adopted in regard to reparation for losses sustained by nationals, Canada will be on exactly the same footing as Great Britain in regard to it. I am quite sure also that in the event of Germany being able to pay an indemnity, Canada will be placed in the same position as Great Britain and the other Allies in regard to that question. The principle will be the same. I do not know whether my hon. friend means by the wording of his resolution to claim that if Great Britain gets anything Canada should receive from Great Britain the full amount of her war expenditure. I hardly think he means that. But I can assure him that as far as reparation and indemnity are concerned, the same principle will apply to Canada, Great Britain and other parts of the Empire, and that therefore we shall have no cause whatever to complain.
My hon. friend has called attention to the fact that Canada is not likely to obtain any territorial acquisitions, that France will and that Britain may. My hon. friend has no doubt followed the reports of the Peace Conference. In so far as they disclose what has taken place up to the present time, it would appear that what is known as the mandatory system will be adopted. I am not able to speak

authoritatively in regard to that because I think it would be a mistake to anticipate conclusions of the Peace Conference, but if a mandatory system is adopted, no doubt the mandatory nation will hold whatever territories are acquired by it in trust for the Allies, or for civilization itself.
About ten days before the lamented death of the late leader of the Opposition, I discussed with him this mandatory system. It was not very clear to either of us precisely what is meant but he spoke of Great Britain's possession of Egypt and the many and beneficent advantages that had flowed to Egypt from British possession and administration. He spoke with the utmost admiration of Great Britain's justice in dealing with people such as those of Egypt, and he said that if the mandatory system that was being proposed at the Peace Conference would be similar to that under which Great Britain had ruled Egypt, he would feel very easy about it indeed. My hon. friend knows that where Great Britain is administering countries that are not yet self-governing the freest opportunities are afforded the nations of the world for the purposes of trade and otherwise. I think it would be a mistake- to assume that if Great Britain, or any other part of the British Empire, should become the mandatory over territory taken from Germany, there will be any direct monetary advantage to Great Britain in that. Great Britain has assumed many burdens in the way of administration and, as my hon. friend knows, her territorial acquisitions have not always represented gain. I feel sure that, in regard to any territory which Great Britain may acquire, there will be an equal advantage to all parts of the Empire in its acquisition. Perhaps I had better not say "equal," but relative advantage; we shall be practically on the same footing and therefore I think it would not be advisable for Canada to set up any special claim by reason of not acquiring any territories if Great Britain or any other part of the Empire should become the mandatory of any territory taken from Germany.
On the whole, I think, in conclusion and by way of recapitulation, that I can assure my hon. friend that the claims of Canada, both for reparation and indemnity are in good hands in Paris and that they have been put forward and will be pressed like those of the other parts of the Empire and of our Allies. I am sure that in regard to Canada Great Britain will desire, as she always has, to act in this matter, as in all others, with the most scrupulous sense of justice and even of generosity.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: war, that the battle line in France and in Flanders was the first line of defence of Canada, and that therefore any contributions we gave to that line of defence of our own country. That, of course, was what the hon. member thought and expressed, and I am sure that the Government and the hon. gentlemen, of this House will so understand it.
The Acting Prime Minister said that Germany made unlawful war on Belgium. There is no doubt in the world about that. Belgium had a right to suppose that Germany would abide by her solemn treaty; so had France; so had Great Britain; so had every other nation in the world. They had a right to suppose that they had only to make certain defences against Germany at certain places and that Germany would not attempt in an unlawful way to make war on France. Consequently it was ab ini'tio, as we say in the law, an illegal war, started illegally and continued illegally throughout.
When a thing starts illegally, as this war started, it is seldom if ever brought back to a legal basis. Therefore this war was just as much illegal, just as much in violation of treaties, just as much without justification so far as we are concerned as it was so far as any other country was concerned. True, it struck Belgium first. True, Belgium suffered more than any other nation. But the action was just as illegal to us as it was to Belgium or to any other country; consequently in international law our claim for reparation, for indemnity, is just as strong against Germany as is the claim of Belgium or of France.
It is almost impossible to calculate our loss, even in ships, in property, in material things; but in the lives that were lost and in the misery and sorrow brought to our people, it is unthinkable. These losses, of life as well as of material things, the pensions which we shall cheerfully pay to relatives of those who were killed and to others who have been deprived of the means of supporting themselves-these are legitimate claims that should be taken into consideration in determining the amount that we should receive from Germany or her Allied countries as a result of this war. If the war had not been brought on, our men would not have been maimed, and crippled, and killed. Our men have been maimed, and crippled, and killed, widows and orphans have been left on our hands, through the rascality and the brutality of Germany in instituting an unreasonable and unjust war, and she should be held to

know the result and significance of her act. Germany started this war without justification, and she is just as responsible for her act as is the man who throws a stone through his neighbour's window for his act. He may not have intended to kill the man inside or destroy valuable things in the house; he may have thought that there was ndbody in the house at all. But he will be held to have known that he was going to kill a man; he will be held to have known that he was going to destroy property; and when he comes before a tribunal to make good the loss he cannot plead that he did not know what was going to happen. Properly, legally, logically, even humanely speaking, therefore, we can hold Germany responsible for the consequences of her act. If Germany and Austria and their allies are, or will be within the next two hundred years, in a position to pay this indemnity, arrangements should be made to have them pay it.
I do not quite agree with the Acting Prime Minister that it is a mistake to discuss this matter in this Parliament. I agree that it is not, perhaps, well to pass a resolution in hard and fast terms, or to say to the Prime Minister or the representatives of this country at the Peace Conference that such and such are our hard and fast views. But the representatives of Canada will find their hands strengthened by the stand that this House will take, not necessarily in the form of a resolution, but in the form of expression of opinion by the Acting Prime Minister and members of the Government and by members of the House. Our representatives can then go before the Conference, not with a formal resolution of this House of Commons, not with an Act of Parliament, but with an official representative expression of opinion of the House of Commons of Canada, and say: " This must not be ignored." It is a good thing, therefore, for members of this House to have an opportunity of expressing their views on this question.
I am thankful to the Acting Prime Minister for the excellent address that he made and for having made his views and the views of the Government absolutely clear. I feel confident that the discussion which has taken place and may further take place on this subject will neither be detrimental to the country, nor weaken the hands of the representatives of Canada at the Conference. On the contrary, it will furnish them with a strong, sound argument representative of the views of the Canadian people and of this House of Commons. I

have no doubt .that my good friend from Laurier-Outremont will comply with the suggestion of the Acting Prime Minister, after such discussion takes place as hon. gentlemen may desire, by withdrawing his resolution.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: In view of the interesting declaration of the Acting Prime Minister, who seems to agree very largely with my views on this question, I shall be pleased to agree with his suggestion that I withdraw my resolution.
Resolution withdrawn.



RELIGIOUS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Rouville) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, amnesty should now be granted to religious conscientious objectors to (Military Service.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for me to speak at any great length on this resolution. I believe that it expresses clearly the sentiments of those who have any regard for liberty of conscience, a principle which has always been honoured in all countries forming part of the British Empire.
The adoption of this resolution would affect not very many people. I have not the figures, but I am under the impression that only a few dozen people were sent to jail because of their conscientious objections to the Military Service Act. My reason for bringing this matter before the House is involved in a personal reminiscence.
It was my good fortune to see my late lamented leader on the Tuesday before he died, and he reminded me that one of the matters which he intended to bring before the House was this very question of an amnesty for conscientious objectors. He had received many letters from various parts of the country, and to a circular letter addressed by Mr. George Wait to every member and senator, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier sent this reply:
Ottawa, December 14, 1918.
George Wait, Esq.,
Dear Sir,-I am in receipt of your favour enclosing circular letter addressed to every member of the Dominion Senate and the Dominion House of Commons. The matter therein set forth ought to excite deep sympathy and I consider it to be our duty to take it up as soon as the session opens. In the meantime, I will be much obliged for any details with which you can supply me.
I can, in all truthfulness, state to the House that it was the intention of the late lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier to bring this
matter before this House and to appeal to the mercy of the Government on behalf of conscientious objectors. It is true that, according to our Military Service Act, those who, owing to the tenets of their church or their creed, could not conscientiously undertake military service, were exempted; but as you are aware, Sir, there was no clause which would apply to the conscientious objector not belonging to a special church, like, for instance, the Society of Friends, or the Plymouth Brethren. Therefore, many in this country who did not belong to any of those churches had to present themselves before the military boards. I am not, of course, speaking of the defaulters, or tho-se who did not appear, who did not obey the law. But many conscientious objectors appeared before the military boards and there argued their conscientious objections. The military boards were, however, unable to grant their claim for exemption, and I am informed -at least this circular conveys the information-that those conscientious objectors were sent to jail and even to the penitentiary. As a British subject, as a Canadian, I beseech the Government to be merciful. The great war is over, and to all those who had conscientious objections to military service, I claim that the Government should grant an amnesty. We should only be following a noble precedent. In England conscientious objectors were exempted. In the United States conscientious objectors were exempted. It is a fact that when the question came up in the British House of Commons the conscientious objectors had for an advocate no other than Lord Hugh Cecil himself. He spoke against a resolution for the disfranchisement of conscientious objectors :
Lord Hugh Cecal, on the other side, said, that the State could not go into the reasonableness of an opinion. Complete liberty of opinion must be allowed in the interest of truth. He held that view not simply because of his respect for the religious opinions of other people, but because of his own religious convictions also. It was an Indisputable part of Christian belief that if a person sincerely thought a thing was wrong, then it was wrong to him. He was entirely out of sympathy with the conscientious objectors, but if they thought it would be doing a wrong thing to fight in the war, he did not want his country to descend to the wickedness of forcing people to do what they thought was wrong, or of punishing them because they refused to do what they thought was wrong.
Lord Cecil boldly denied that the safety of the State was the supreme law. Carried to its logical conclusion, that doctrine would justify the sinking of the Lusitania, or the bombing of women and children. Not the State, but the Divine law was supreme.
State worship is undoubtedly the poison which has affected Germany. " My country, right or

wrong " is a popular version of the doctrine that the State has a right to insist upon implicit obedience, hut is itself above the law and above morality. By firmly resisting this doctrine, British statesmen are doing more for the cause of liberty than would be gained by forcing a small body of conscientious objectors into the army, or by penalising them for refusing to serve.
Thus, in England the military boards took cognizance of applications made by conscientious objectors. Of course, conscientious objectors were assigned to non-combatant duties. I have here a series of trades to which they were assigned during the war. For instance, conscientious objectors could be utilized in agriculture, forestry, transport, education, public utilities, gas works, fire brigades, munition works, mills, timber yards, oil mills, flour mills, etc. Section 3, subsection 2, of the English Military Service Act, 1915, reads:
A certificate of exemption may be absolute, conditional, or temporary as the local tribunal think best suited to the case, and also in the case of an application on conscientious grounds, may take the form of an exemption from combatant service only, or may he conditional on the applicant being engaged in some work which, in the opinion of the tribunal, is of national importance.
I have here a facsimile of one of those certificates granted by the military boards in England. I will read it to the House:
This is to certify that 

 residing at

a Ohristadelphtan and a recognized' conscientious objector to military service, will not be called upon to join the army provided he is engaged in work of national importance such as agriculture, forestry, mining, transport, education, public utility, or such other work as may be approved of by the Committee on work of National Importance, 26 Abingdon Street, Westminster ; and that he notifies in writing that he is so engaged, on the first of every month to the undersigned, at the undermentioned address.
If the holder of this certificate cease to he engaged on work such as stated above this certificate will not be valid, and he will then be called up for Military Service.
Then follows the signature of the officer. In view of the example of Great Britain, I appeal to the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) and to the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) to be merciful in these cases. There are very few of them, I understand; let us say that there were fifty or a hundred people in this country who on conscientious grounds were opposed to military service, but who nevertheless boldly and in all sincerity presented themselves before the tribunals. :It seems to me that it is not good or wise policy to let these conscientious objectors languish in jail any longer. I have received many letters on this subject from different parts of the country, and I say that the least we can do, now

that the war is over, and having before us the precedent of Great Britain and the United States, is to act generously. Consider the obnoxious effects that will be produced on these young men by confinement in the penitentiaries! I will say no more. The House will believe me, I hope, when I say that I am sincere in my advocacy of the cause of religious liberty. I am a British subject, and I take pride in my British citizenship. It has always been the pride and honour of Great Britain to lead the world in the matter of religious and civil freedom, and it is on that broad principle of tolerance and of freedom in matters religious that I appeal to the Government to be merciful to these honest and sincere young men, law-abiding citizens in every other respect, who did not default but presented themselves boldly before the tribunals and stated their objections. I leave the case in the hands of the Acting Prime Minister, and hope that he will be generous and British in his treatment of these young men.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Solicitor General) :: The question which my hon. friend has just presented to the House is one of some complexity, and of a good deal of difficulty. The law of Canada upon the subject is to be found in section 11 of the Military Service Act, which provides for certain exemptions. Paragraph (f) of section 11 provides:
That he conscientiously objects to the undertaking of combatant service and is prohibited from so doing by the tenets and articles of faith, in effect on the 6th day of July, 1917, of any organized religious denomination existing and well recognized in Canada at such date, and to which he in good faith belongs; and if any of the grounds of such application be established a certificate of exemption shall be granted to such man.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that there is a wide difference between our statute and that passed by the Imperial Parliament in 1916. I do not know what the reason for the difference is, but certainly it was the opinion of this Parliament that exemption should only be granted upon the terms prescribed in our own statute. Now two things had to unite before a person in Canada could be entitled to exemption on the ground of being a conscientious objector, and those two things were, (1) that the applicant conscientiously objected, and, (2) that he was prohibited from engaging in combatant service by the tenents and articles of faith in effect on the 6th day of July, 1917, of any organized religious denomination existing and well recognized in Canada. That is our law. If the applicant objected, and his faith prohibited him from

entering combatant service, he had a right to exemption, and exemption was granted on those grounds by the tribunals from one end of Canada to the other. But the difficulty arose in this way. There were a number of the younger generation who had not formally become members of some of the lesser religious bodies throughout Canada, but who had become adherents of one of those bodies. When the applicant applied for exemption he was asked if he was a member of the faith to which he expressed his adherence, and on the rules of the church being produced these men were found strictly speaking not to be members. These cases were taken to appeal and were definitely settled by the Central Appeal Judge, in accordance with the terms of the Act, that a man must be in actual membership of the particular creed or faith on the 17th of October, 1917, which was the date of the first meeting of the various registration boards; and a man not actually and formally a member on that date was not entitled to exemption under the section I have read. I think the decision of the Hon. Justice Duff was absolutely correct and within the meaning of the enactment. We have no conditional exemption such as they have in England. Parliament in its wisdom did not see fit to adopt the British Act. Consequently, a large number of young men in Canada who believed that they were adherents of the various religious faiths which objected to combatant service found that they were not entitled to exemption under the Act, and some very severe sentences were imposed, a great 'many of them being for as high as ten years in the penitentiary.
There were two classes of conscientious objectors: Those who failed to report at all, some of them thinking that as they belonged to various objecting faiths it was unnecessary for them to report; and those who reported, joined some military unit, and then refused to obey some military command, or to don His Majesty's uniform. These latter, technically, were charged with refusing to obey a lawful command, hut their refusal in many cases was based upon a real conscientious objection. Those who had failed entirely to report were merely defaulters or deserters under the Military Service Act. There were no more than "a few dozen" of these cases. My recollection is that there were, all told, 152 conscientious objectors in confinement undergoing sentence.
The sentences varied from two to ten years. Many of these cases had been dealt with by the military authorities, and in these the sentence was almost uniformly ten years. However, these sentences can
all be reviewed by the Governor General in Council, and they were all reviewed; and all of the extremely long sentences were reduced to two years. At the conclusion of the armistice, or, to be more accurate, about the first day of February last, the Govern-, ment appointed a special committee, ol which I had the honour to be Chairman, and I had associated with me the Judge Advocate General, representing the Militia Department, and Mr. Newcombe, Deputy Minister of Justice, representing the Military Service Board. The question of the sentences which had been imposed upon conscientious objectors, and also upon other military defaulters, was referred to us. After a great deal of consideration of these two classes of cases, the Committee reported that, in its judgment, conscientious objectors who were bona fide objectors and not slackers should be liberated after they had served six months, notwithstanding that many of the sentences were ten years. Up to the present time between 70 and 80 of 152 have been liberated. Twenty cases are now under consideration and, I think, will be disposed of during the present week; and the balance will be disposed of within from two to five weeks, because I think they will all then have served the full six months which is the minimum penalty according to the report of the Committee-which report, I may say, was approved by the Governement. We investigated each case to see whether the man was in reality a bona fide conscientious objector, or was more or less of a slacker. We had cases, for instance, where men claimed to be conscientious objectors, and would not engage in combatant service, but were quite willing to make munitions and earn from eight to ten dollars a day. I do not think that clemency should be extended to such men. For the purpose of gaining information in regard to each particular case, we used the services of the parole officers throughout Canada, the reports of trial magistrates, and in some cases the recommendations of hon. members of this House. If the report shews that a man has been a well behaved citizen, is really and virtually a member of the faith to which he claims adherence, and has been of good conduct in the community to which he belongs, we unhesitatingly accept that, and at the end of the six months' term release him. I think that, comparing our action in this matter with that of the United States, our terms have been extremely lenient. Sentences were imposed in the United States of imprisonment for twenty and thirty years, and in many cases

for life. However, since the armistice the authorities there have undertaken a personal investigation of each case. In many of the cases they have ordered liberation; in many others they have refused it. I think about 75 per cent have been granted their freedom, while about 25 per cent have been held to be more or less slackers. Of the 152 cases in Canada, I may say that very few have so far turned out upon investigation to be really slackers. I believe a very large proportion of them are bona fide conscientious objectors. I think that the six months' penalty, which has been resolved on as a minimum, is a moderate one, and it would hardly be fair to grant a general amnesty at the present moment, as eighty who have been already released have been penalized to the extent of six months' servitude or more. However, at the end of the six-month period in these cases, our jails and penitentiaries Yuli be quite free of these unfortunate prisoners. I do not know if my hon. friend desires to press his motion. I think my explanation may be sufficient for his purpose.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In view of the explanation of my hon. friend, I think, perhaps, my motion might be dispensed with. It is unfortunate that we did not, in the excitement attending the discussion of the Military Service Act, frame a clause which would have been consonant with the British Act-a much more liberal one than ours. At all events, the clause was inserted in the Act and the military boards had to act accordingly. I am rather pleased at the statement of my hon. friend that only 152 cases were dealt with by the military boards, because in my opinion it is conclusive evidence that there have not been, throughout this wide Dominion, any undue claims made by so-called conscientious objectors. There were no sham or fraudulent objections, and I believe that the 152 men who boldly presented themselves and sincerely pressed their objection to military service did so in absolute good faith. I think, Mr. Speaker, that in future, if the Military Service Act needs to be amended, a clause might be inserted like that in the law of Great Britain. One of the many contributions to war correspondence which I read lately mentioned the fact that the Quakers in England served in the war not as combatants, but served in the desolated regions of France and Belgium, helping to restore the cities, the villages and the hamlets. The article I read was most interesting. The writer stated that the Quakers, who have an antipathy to participation in war in any form, were ready 
to do their duty by the state in a non-combatant capacity. I therefore urge upon the Government that if any amendment is thought necessary at any time, our law should conform as nearly as possible to the British law. With the hope that my hon. friend will extend his clemency to the unfortunate conscientious objectors, I will withdraw my motion;
Motion withdrawn.



THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 5, to authorize a further extension of time for the completion of the Saint John and Quebec Kailway between Gage-town and Westfield.-Hon. Mr. Keid.
Bill No. 9, to authorize the Reclamation of Dominion Lands by Drainage.-Hon. Mr. Meighen.
Bill No. 17, respecting the Units of Electrical Measure.-Hon. A. K. Maclean.


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on a certain proposed resolution to provide for the constructing and improving of highways in Canada.-Hon. Mr. Reid-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queens) :: * Might I suggest to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) that, before this matter is finally disposed of, he should give the House some idea, if he can, of the nature of the agreement which is to be entered into with the provincial governments. I think that if there be any difficulty in regard to the matter it will arise in that respect. Provision is made that an agreement shall be entered into between the Dominion and the local governments but we have no information in detail as to what that agreement shall be. I quite understand that we cannot expect all the details, but if the hon. gentleman has made any progress in the preparation of the agreement it might be very helpful to the committee to have that information before it. It may be possible that the Dominion Government are going to have more control than they are entitled to. They are only going to provide forty per cent of the money, and it looks as if they were going to have seventy-five per cent or more of the control. It would be well if we could have some information on that point.
Generally speaking, the object is one that I very heartily approve of. We can-

not. ignore the fact that in the past discussions of this measure the impression existed in the minds of many hon. members that the Government at Ottawa were endeavouring to exercise an undue influence upon public opinion in this way. I do not endorse that view. I merely state as a fact that that was the objection that was raised to the measure in this House on a former occasion. I was not present, and I am only speaking from my general reading. If the minister could give us, before the matter is finally disposed of, some information as to the nature of the agreement which he desires to make with the provincial government, it would be helpful. We all recognize, I am sure, that if the Dominion Government are going to make a large contribution to this service, it is reasonable that they should have ample guarantees that the money is going to be applied to road work. There is a possibility, and more than a possibility, of difficulties between the local and Dominion Government in regard to the terms of the agreement. I would suggest to my hon. friend-I do not expect it now but at a later stage when he has made sufficient progress in that direction,-that he should give us some idea of what the terms of the agreement are and the conditions to which the local governments will be obliged to submit.


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad indeed to give any information that the House may desire in connection with this matter, either now if I have it with me, or hereafter when we go into Committee on the Bill.
With reference to the' point raised by the hon. member, I may say that so far I have not any agreement that would be universal for the provinces. What I had in mind when I prepared this Bill was to decide on the amount to be paid to each of the provinces. First, as the resolution shows, we advance $80,000 to each province; after that we pay so much per capita according to the last official census at the rate of forty per cent of the work to be done on each road. I realize the difficulty the hon. member (Mr. Fielding) has advanced of making an agreement that will be satisfactory to the Dominion Government, and ensure the work being properly carried out. The hon. member will see that the resolution states that the money is to be expended in accordance with an agreement that is to be made with the several provinces. Of course, the provincial governments control the roads, and
they will submit a plan showing the location of the main roads or the roads that they suggest the Dominion Givernment shall contribute to. Prior to that we would have to come to an arrangement as to who would control the expenditure.
In my opinion the fair way to do it would be this: Each particular province should select a commission of three of the very best men they could get in the province, men who have knowledge of work of this kind. The Dominion Government should have one representative on that commission. If we had three upright honourable men, men who knew their business, I should think if the Dominion had a representative who would see that the work was carried on honestly and in accordance with the agreement to be made, [DOT]that would be an efficient body. In addition to that the commission would lay before the Dominion Government their location plans of the roads that the Dominion Government would be called upon to subscribe to. Those plans would have to be approved. After they were approved by the Dominion Government the work would be proceeded with. The Dominion Government would have an engineer for each particular work during its construction to see that the specifications were carried out. In that way, it appears to me, the Dominion Government would be properly protected, its representative on the commission would see that the money was honestly expended, and the inspecting engineers would see that the work was carried out in accordance with the specifications. Fears have been expressed that perhaps this money would not be expended in the way that we would wish, that is,' that permanent roads would not be made. But I think we would be fully protected by simply having our man on the commission and our engineers in charge of the work.
I thought that perhaps when the Bill was going through the House I would get suggestions from hon. members either from their own knowledge of the subject of good roads or from information from their several provinces, as to provisions to be made, either in the Bill or in the regulations, that would ensure a full return for every dollar expended. When we get the Bill printed and before the committee I will try to have the form of agreement, for submission to the House, that I would ask the provinces to agree to.
In taking this matter up with the representatives of the different provinces-and they are all anxious that this Bill be proceeded with-I have found that they are all very eager to co-operate in every way to



make everything go satisfactorily and to see that the money is expended to the very best advantage. I do not think you will have any trouble if the Bill goes through and I am able to carry out the
10 p.m. provisions that may be embodied in it. I shall be very glad indeed to have a discussion on the Bill and to receive any information or advice that can be given.


William Stevens Fielding: It may be that the municipalities will have to participate in this matter, so I presume the agreement which my hon. friend may prepare will contemplate that, because the roads are municipal matters to some extent. Of course, the municipalities are created by the provincial legislatures, but I imagine that, to make this effective, you would need the co-operation not only of the Provincial Governments but also of the municipalities. Once or twice my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) has referred to "main" roads. Well, I have had some experience in by-gone years in defining what a "main" road is, and my observation has been that every man thinks that the road that runs past his house is the "main" road, and any project which proposes the expenditure of money at some other point is looked upon by him with a great deal of suspicion. However, these are difficulties we shall have to meet and make the best of as we approach them.


Mr. H. B. MORPHY (North Perth):: The minister (Mr. J. D. Reid) has asked the House for information in lieu of not giving any himself on this Bill. As I take it, one of the most important things that should be in the resolution is left out; that is, that this Government shall have some check upon the location of the highways which it is going to assist in building. The word "location" is left out. I called the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) to that the other night. He claims that it is in by virtue of the use of the word "otherwise."


Some hon. MEMBER:: And "description."


Hugh Boulton Morphy: And "description." Well, strike the whole section out and make it "description and otherwise." I think the most important word of all is "location."
I take it that if these roads are to be permanent, they should be, first, provincial; second, interprovincial; and third, national. Location, therefore, is the very essential principle of the whole scheme. The roads must go through one province to meet a highway in another, and so on continuously through-
out the country; otherwise the highway would in no sense be a national one. The word "location" should be in the resolution; otherwise it may afterwards be said that this Government never intended to exercise any control over the location-and I think we should.
The minister said the other night that there were to be roads of three different standards as to construction and as to material. The committee should know what standard will be number one, what number two, and what number three. Unless these roads are to be what a good engineer would call permanent highways, the cost of contributing forty per cent to their construction will be wasted money. My mind goes back to rural roads that have been constructed in Ontario under the Provincial Good Roads Law. Ontario has been assisting municipalities in the building of county roads by paying for grading and for gravel of a certain standard and its application to the roads. Forty per cent has been contributed to the roads of Ontario and forty per cent has been blown off by the winds and washed off by the water. They called them "permanent highways," but that expression is a misnomer. The natural cement in the gravel and broken stone had nothing to bind it to'the road, and motor cars came along and whisked it off, assisted by the wind. I fear that this Government, unless their agreement with the provinces is such as to protect the exchequer, may fall into the error that occurred in Ontario. The Toronto and Hamilton highway is the only one that I know of in the province that is permanent. It is' solid stone; it will last beyond the lifetime of any one living. Millions of dollars have been put into the roads of Ontario, and that is the only one that can be said to be lasting.


John Dowsley Reid: Has the hon. gentleman any idea of what that road cost?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It is a pretty expensive road. I had the pleasure last year of going over hundreds of miles of the New York State roads. New York State has spent about $70,000,000 on its State roads, but they are there to eternity. I understand that the cost of maintaining these roads is about five dollars per mile per year. They are of solid stone, solid brick or solid tar macadam. A journey in a motor car or a waggon for a distance of a hundred miles becomes monotonous on any one kind of road. A ride of a hundred miles on a cement or concrete road tires you out, although the road may be as smooth as glass. So

over there they have tar macadam for a stretch, vitrified brick for a stretch, and solid concrete, with expension joints every twenty-five feet, for another stretch. Are we going to have roads like that? Are we going to have anything nearly like that?
I see the minister smile. I think it is his duty to take the committee into his confidence and tell us exactly what kind of roads we are going to spend forty per cent on. The minister may say that arrangements have not yet been come to with the provinces in that regard. I quite appreciate that. I hope that Ontario will be more progressive in the expenditure of its money on roads. I admit that they have improved their roads, but they have done so more by improving the roadways than by what they put on them. The term "permanent roads" seems to signify the exact opposite of what it ought to mean.
I concede that it would be impossible to make roads from one end of this country to another at the tremendous cost that would be required for permanent roads. It is important, however, that we should have a continuous chain of roads so that the Maritime Provinces will connect with a good road at Quebec, Quebec with Ontario, and so on. Through the co-operation of State and Federal Governments and the county authorities, the United States are going to build a road from Port Huron, opposite Sarnia, clear down to the Gulf of Mexico. The superintendent of highways of Michigan stated this in so many words at a convention in Stratford, the county which I have the honour to represent here. He came to Canada for the purpose of asking the people of that district to connect up their road with this one at Sarnia and Port Huron, with resulting advantage to both countries. It is the duty of the Government to be very careful in this matter; they should not entirely surrender the right to say as to the location of the roads in any agreement that they may make. I should like to hear the minister tell us how "permanent" these roads are going to be,-of what they are to be constructed and whether they may be denominated as permanent or semi-permanent roads. I do not want to see under the Dominion aegis what I have seen in Ontario: roads on which the province have paid forty per cent blown to-I was going to say blazes.


James Alexander Calder: Conditions throughout our country vary very considerably. What would apply to Ontario will not apply to Saskatche-
50J
wan. I have lived in Saskatchewan for fifteen or twenty years; I was connected with the Government there, having been Minister of Highways for about five years, and I think I know the conditions in that province. The road problem was before us all the time. If you suggested the building in Saskatchewan of a road such as exists between Toronto and Hamilton, the people of that province would not stand for it for two minutes.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: Is not my hon. friend furnishing the committee with a good reason why the provinces should be left to settle this matter?


James Alexander Calder: That is another phase of the general question. So far as Saskatchewan is concerned, our road problem is so huge, there is so much work to be done, the volume of expenditure that must be carried on during the next ten or fifteen years is so great, that to talk of spending money on a road that will cost in the neighbourhood of $12,000 to $15,000 a mile is out of the question. In our province we have mud roads. There are in that province large sections in which there is no stone and no gravel. Consequently, we have had to develop simply the best system we could of mud roads, clay roads, and in the main, they are serving their purpose fairly well. We can have a fairly high grade clay road if it is properly built and drained. Roads of that class may be considered as of three classes or grades. Therefore, if in the consideration of this measure the House is to determine that in all the provinces of Canada we are to have but one standard of roads, and that the various provinces will not have an opportunity of taking advantage of this measure if they do not conform to that standard, I doubt very much if that will be acceptable to some of the provinces. I think that, if the measure is to be adopted, it must be elastic in its provisions; that there must be sufficient latitude that the Government may make with each province an agreement which will suit conditions in that province.
Mr. ORREN D. CASSELMAN (Dundas): The hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) asked for information from the minister (Mr. J. D. Reid) with regard to the class of road towards which the department purposes contributing forty per cent. If I remember correctly the explanation given by the minister, when he introduced this resolution to the House last Friday, he made a division of the roads into classes based on the classification which obtains

In conclusion, I shall make a contrast between the part of Ontario that I happen to know well,-the part of Ontario where the representatives from all parts of the Dominion are now gathered,-and the state of New York immediately over the St. Lawrence river. Infinitely better in the character of its soil, with a people fully as intelligent, fully as skilful, fully as industrious, and with climatic conditions equally as good, eastern Ontario, because of its lack of good roads, is leagues behind the state of New York,	which, because
of the	fact	that	it has good
roads and magnificent transportation facilities for vehicles, far surpasses us in productivity and general agricultural development.
I	think that the only objection to this Bill is the method by which the money will be distributed. It involves the old principle of patronage; and I am of the opinion that if this Bill is wrecked, it will be wrecked upon the rock of politics, and not on the rock of principle. The Bill proposes to hand over certain amounts of money to the provinces, to be spent by the provinces. The Governments of the provinces must have the confidence of the people; they will be responsible for the money that they expend under this Bill if it passes the House. Surely, we can trust the people; and these governments are responsible to the people. Furthermore, while this Bill proposes to hand over money to the provinces, the money will be paid only after the work is completed; it will be paid only on those roads approved of by the Good Roads Department. Now there has been placed at the head of this department a man who knows roads and road building perhaps better than any other man in Canada, a man who has earned the name "Good Roads Campbell," a man who has given his life to the study of this work. Surely such a man can be trusted to see that the money will not be spent for political purposes, but in a way to give to the people what the people in Ontario and Quebec are clamouring for-good roads. There will be no difficulty in the province of Ontario. We have a Conservative Government in Ontario. There will be no difficulty in the province of Quebec; and Quebec, of all provinces of the Dominion, has gone further in this work and has spent more money to build good roads-and spent it judiciously, as the roads in that province will show- than any other province in Canada And I, for one, Mr. Chairman, knowing the history of road building in the province of Quebec, am quite content to trust what-
ever government may be in power in that province to spend to the best advantage the money that may be given it under the terms of this Bill.


John Wesley Edwards: What about Nova
Scotia?


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I do not know anything about Nova Scotia. But the government of Nova Scotia, like that of every other province, is responsible to the people; and I have sufficient confidence in the intelligence and honesty of the people of Nova Scotia to believe that if the government there spent the money for political purposes, the people would immediately set about turning that government out and establishing in its place one that would spend the money honestly, wisely and well. However, the people of the Dominion must have good roads. They are looking to this government to contribute liberally towards providing them, and I hope that this resolution will be passed and that the Bill that is to be brought down, founded on this resolution, will meet with the approval of the House.


Mr. T. M. M. TWEEDIE (Calgary West):: be deatl with by the provinces. We all realize that when this Government undertook to regulate certain matters in connection with the sale of stocks and bonds . in Canada in times of great pressure and stress, they were promptly brought to task by the provincial governments throughout the country. Those governments would not stand any infringement of provincial rights; they would not allow you to cross the threshold one single step. While personally I am in favour of assisting the provinces in this great work if we can do so, I feel that there are so many undertakings to be carried out by the Dominion Government at the present time that we could not have launched a policy of assisting them in road- work at a most inopportune moment than we have done.
It has been suggested by my hon. friend from Swift Current (Mr. Argue) that this money had better be spent on branch lines of railway, and I agree with him. I think that if we used that money to provide the settlers in the West with the railways that they so much need, we would render a better service to the country than we will be by expending it on road work. I would call your attention to another matter in connection with the expenditure of this road money. What is the position of the province of Alberta?-and the same applies to some extent to the province of Saskatchewan. If, in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, we had control of the natural resources which justly belong to those, two western provinces, we would not be asking this Government for assistance in the construction of our roads.
But we have valuable lands held by the Canadian (Pacific Railway which are exempt from taxation; we have vast areas of unplanted land held by the Dominion Government which do not contribute one cent to our revenue; we have vast areas in the school sections which do not contribute anything to our revenue. Instead of voting one million dollars a year to the province of Ontario, eight hundred thousand dollars a year to the province of Quebec, and an equal amount to the province . of Nova Scotia which is only one-tenth of our size -as to the province of Alberta, we say you should distribute that money so there will be a quid pro quo to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan for those resources which are withheld from us and against which we cannot levy one cent of taxation for the construction of our provincial roads.
There is another matter which affects the West and has affected it right along. We have heard discussions in the House [Msr. Tweedie. ]
and in the corridors in regard to the position which has been taken by Western Canada in regard to the tariff. I have been a protectionist, but I want to see some concessions given to the farmers of Western Canada, and when they tell us they cannot give us any concessions on account of the great needs of the country, my answer is that we should not embark upon provincial works and expect to pay for them out of revenues which are derived from the tariff. I would be much better satisfied if the tariff were reduced by $4,000,000, and keep the $280,000 which they hope to give us from this measure of road construction in the province.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Tweedie) has spoken loyally for one of the Western Provinces. His idea is that the money would he more fairly distributed if based on road mileage than on population. After all, I presume roads are built for the use of the people, and if you have not any people in a certain section of the country there is not much use building roads there. We happen to have a greater population down here in Ontario and the eastern provinces. But the western provinces are not the only ones interested in agriculture by any means. May I be permitted to tell my hon. friend that. the province of Ontario produces a greater agricultural wealth every year than all the western provinces put together. And when it comes to a question of having a say in the tariff or how the tariff revenue should be expended, it might be pertinent to ask what part of the Dominion of Canada produces that revenue, where is the most of it raised? There again, I say, the province of Ontario comes in for special consideration. This is the province which not only produces more in agricultural wealth than all the western provinces put together, but this is the province where most of the tariff revenue is raised, and this is the province which contributed more than all the rest of Canada put together when it came to raising money for Victory Loans and other war purposes. We are entitled to some consideration, therefore, it seems to me.
If you want to build a standard road out to every outlying settler on the fringe of civilization in the provinces of Saskatchewan or Alberta, your money will not go very far. And the hon. the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) has told us that the same class of roads we require in Eastern Canada would not do out in Western Canada. He says there they

have mud roads; that there are three standards of roads: mud road No. 1, mud road No. 2 and mud road No. 3. So I suppose No. 1 out in Saskatchewan would be the kind that would have most mud on it, No.
2 road with less mud on it would 11 p.m. be entitled to a smaller grant, and the one that has the least mud on it, No. 3, would get the smallest grant.
Now, Sir, I am not going to offer any congratulations to the Government or the minister in regard to this matter until I see the Bill. I am going to be Scotch for the time being and be a little canny. I suppose that more money has been wasted in Canada on railroads than on any other one thing. Next to that I suppose more money has been wasted on highways than on anything else, and I think the chances are very good, from present indications that the highways will out-run the railroads in the matter of waste. I believe that every dollar of money voted by this Government for the building of any kind of road except the kind that is absolutely permanent is money entirely wasted. In that respect I am entirely in accord with the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy). There is no use giving $80,000 to Saskatchewan to pile up a little mud and call it a road; that is money absolutely wasted. They might better have five miles of road in Saskatchewan built properly, five miles of road that will last for all time, than have a hundred or two hundred miles of mud piled up on any road. That is the kind of road they have out there, we are told by the Minister of Immigration. Well,
I do not think much of that kind of road. We should not vote the money of this country to the assistance of Ontario or any other province for the building of any kind of road except one built on a proper foundation and properly surfaced, a road somewhat similar to those built on the other side of the international boundary, a road which will be absolutely permanent. Money voted for any other road improvement is money absolutely wasted; at least, it is money from which .you will get only a very temporary advantage. For a year or two second class roads will show up very well, but then they will be blown or washed away as the member for North Perth says.
It seems to me that if this Government is to vote forty per cent and the province sixty per cent, the province should have sixty per cent control, not only in regard to road location but in regard to the kind
of road they want. If the province of Saskatchewan wishes to have sixty per cent interest in mud for a road, and this Dominion is willing to have forty per cent interest in mud, why, all right, if they can reach an agreement of that kind; but I do not think it is a very good or a very wise agreement.
I also think that if this' Government is to vote forty per cent of the money it should have some say as to how that money is to be expended. That is to say, the money should not be handed over to a province, for instance, like Nova Scotia, which will unquestionably use it for political purposes, as they always have done. That is what they use the road money down there for. They do not use it for anything else except election purposes, I am credibly informed. The Government- should not countenance any such actions as that; they should not encourage political dodgery in Nova Scotia, even though that province has persisted in following that policy for years. Let them fight elections on their merits, not simply on the expenditure of road money. If we vote forty per cent to the provinces for the building, of roads, Dominion engineers should consult with engineers from the provinces regarding the kind of roads to be built. A standard road should be devised and agreed upon by the Dominion and provincial engineers, and the work should be let in sections by contract to the lowest bidder, thus getting it out of political control. Let the contractor build his section of the read in accordance with a standard fixed by agreement between the provincial and Dominion engineers, subject to proper inspection by some one agreed upon by the provincial and Dominion governments. We need better roads in Ontario; we are entitled to them; we are entitled to assistance. Out friends from the West must not forget that they have received a good deal of assistance from Canada as a whole in the building of the railway lines throughout the western country. An hon. gentleman says that the people of the West have paid for it all. Not by any means. The greater part of the burden of expenditure for the building of railroads throughout Canada, particularly throughout the West, has been borne not by the West, but by the eastern provinces. The East has contributed very largely to the prosperity of the West; the East has borne the bulk of the burden of railway construction in the West as well as in the East. Ontario, from every Standpoint, particularly from that of population, and more particularly from the standpoint of the fair claims of its agricultural popu-

lation, is entitled to special consideration in the construction of roads. In Saskatchewan when one of two farmers live twenty miles from market, of course, they need a road. But in Ontario, Quebec, and the older provinces a good many farmers live on a twenty-mile road, and if it is in the interests of the country that one or two farmers in Saskatchewan have a road to enable them to get to the market, it is much more in the interests of the country that the twenty, thirty or forty farmers along the twenty miles of road in the older provinces also have means of getting their produce to market.


Mr. J. S. SEXSMITH (East Peterborough) :: I am entirely in accord with the proposal that the Government has brought forward. I do not know of anything that will benefit the country more to-day than a good system of public highways. It is evident that if we continued the old provincial or municipal system of road construction and improvement, we should be a very long time in getting proper roads. We have heard a lot about the high cost of living; if we had a proper system of highways within a radius of fifty miles of every city in Canada on which the farmer could run his car into market with his produce, a good deal would be done toward reducing the high cost of living.
In discussing this matter some hon. members have been looking at it from a provincial point of view. I wish to deal with it not from the standpoint of Ontario or in the interests of any one particular province, but in the interests of the whole country. I was surprised to hear the member for Calgary West (Mr. Tweedie) say that the little two-by-four province of Prince Edward Island would get as much under this proposal as his great province of thousands of miles. I would remind the member for Calgary that a few years ago the House provided some $12,000,000 for the purchase of seed grain for the farmers of Saskatchewan and Alberta. I understand that five or six millions of that money have not yet been repaid; yet not one hon. member from Prince Edward Island, Ontario, or any other province has found fault. We should get away from this provincialism and discuss matters of this kind from a national standpoint. If we are going to discuss from a provincial standpoint all matters that come before the House, we shall be*looking up the records and finding out what each province pays most in taxes, what each province imports most, what province exports most, and so [IMr. Edwards.]
on. I wish to support this resolution purely from a national standpoint as furthering a system of national highways. When the Bill comes before the House we can go into the matter in more detail. I am not in favour of patching roads; I believe that whatever money is spent by the Federal Parliament should be spent on a system of permanent highways.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Hon. J. D. Reid the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
Tuesday, March 25, 1919,


[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Shipping report of the Department of Customs containing the statements of navigation and shipping of the Dominion of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1918.-Hon. Mr. Reid.

[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENT BY MR. MeMASTER IN REFERENCE TO TARIFF REDUCTION AND RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH U.S.
["I was paired with the hon. member for Kent (Mr. MoCoig). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment. '"]
William Thomas White: That the House do go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. ANDREW ROSS MeMASTER (Brome) moved in amendment:
That all the words after the word "that" be omitted and the following substituted therefor :-
Whereas in order to meet the great expenditure necessitated by our national obligations it is imperative that tihe labour and capital of this country should be directed to the obtaining of the greatest eoonomic 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 tome 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 bands of the privileged classes of the community ; and
Whereas the reciprocal trade agreement negotiated with the Government of the United States in January, 1911, 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 Congress 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 ithe statute 6 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 (b) 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 materia] 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 of 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 be made in the tariff with the object of reducing the burden upon the 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.


Mr. McMASTER:: Possibly I can best introduce what I have to say in explanation and support of this resolution by taking up one by one the various matters embraced in the resolution. I presume it would be well for us in this discussion to find out the greatest common ground on which we are all agreed, in order that the points on which we differ may be clearly set forth. I presume there will he little difference of opinion as to the first clause of my resolution, namely, that the exigencies of the financial situation require that the labour and the capital of this countiy should be devoted to those lines of activity which will produce the greatest wealth. Where we may differ is in the means whereby this labour and capital can be so applied. A belief which I have cherished for many years is that people generally know their own business better than any government can, and that under the dual influences of free competition and personal initiative and energy,
the greatest possible wealth will be acquired. This is always subject to two main exceptions. I take it that it is the duty of the State always to interfere in free competition when one of the parties to an economic bargain cannot protect himself. I believe it is right and proper that the State should interfere to protect women and children who happen to work in factories. I also believe there are certain great natural monopolies and perhaps certain great artificial monopolies which are properly the concern of the State and not of the individual, but with those two exceptions it is my belief that, by allowing people as much as possible to carry on their business in their own way, we shall create most wealth in Canada.
One of the main objections which I have to the protective theory is this: that the Government undertake to direct the labour and capital of the country into certain channels, and the Government is more often wrong than right.
The next point which I wish to bring before you, Mr. Speaker, is that which I have placed in the second paragraph of the resolution: 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 monopolists or trusts or into the hands of the privileged classes of the community which have a direct interest in the incidence of taxation.
That is sound doctrine, and I believe it will be appreciated, though not, perhaps, as fully as it should be on the other side of the House as well as upon this. The next clause merely states a fact-a fact which, perhaps, some people in Canada may have forgotten. The reciprocal trade arrangement -that great and beneficent piece of public work framed by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and the late lamented Hon. Mr. Paterson-is yet open to the Canadian people to accept. It is only necessary for this Government to introduce legislation to have this beneficent arrangement come into effect.
The five steps which I ask this House to agree with me in thinking the best steps to be taken under the present circumstances are: First, the repeal of the statute 5, George V, chapter 3, which places certain increases of duty upon the statute book-an increase of 5 per cent on goods coming from . Great Britain, and an increase of 7J per cent on goods coming from other countries.

This Act was placed upon the statute book as a war measure. But now the war is over, at least, the fighting is done, and I think it is incumbent upon the Government to remove this burden which was placed upon the people merely as a war measure.
The next step which I wish to see the Government take is the acceptance of the reciprocity agreement. Next, the elimination of duties upon foodstuffs. Next, the elimination of duties on the means of production of the great extractive interests of the country: agriculture, mining, fishing, and lumbering. Next, a general downward revision of the tariff, made after careful investigation, and with the double object of relieving the consumer and bringing more revenue into the coffers of the state. The transition 'should be made very carefully, and be as little onerous as possible on those interested.
It is often well in discussing this subject to endeavour to remove from the minds of one's hearers certain misconceptions which they may have. I believe that many people will ask: How can we make these reductions in duties and still find sufficient revenue to enable us to meet the exigencies of the financial situation? I trust, Mr. Speaker, to be able to satisfy hon. members in that regal'd.
The increases of 5 and 7J per cent have brought into the coffers of the State a certain amount of revenue by the taxation of raw material, generally for manufacturing purposes, which formerly came into the country free. But, on the other hand, by adding 5 and 7i per cent to a tariff already somewhat high, the ingress of other goods into this country has been prevented, and the coffers of the state have suffered in that proportion. Again, if the increases of 5 and 7J per cent are removed, it is reasonable to argue that the manufacturers, relieved from the tax on their raw materials, will possibly make more money, a certain portion of which should find its way into the public treasury through the Income Tax Act or the Excess Profits Tax. Now what will the acceptance of reciprocity mean? Will it involve a great loss of revenue to this country? I do not think so. The reciprocity agreement was negotiated in January, 1911, and I have had recourse to the figures for the year 1910 of the imports into Canada from the' United States, and the exports from Canada into the United States, of goods coming under that reciprocity arrangement. These figures, though not for a recent year, are sufficient to be a guide for us. Canada, on the basis of ' 
the year 1910, would have remitted duties on goods coming in from the United States to the amount of $2,500,000, and the United States would have remitted duties on goods going into that country from Canada to the amount of just under $5,000,000. But since then matters 'have changed to a certain extent. A great number of articles then taxed somewhat highly by the United States are now subject to a lower rate of duty. The elimination of duties on foodstuffs would mean a loss of revenue, on the basis of the last fiscal year, of $14,366,000; on agricultural implements, $1,428,000; on cement, $4,376; on saw-mill machinery, $57,530; on fertilizers, $77,224; on oils of all sorts, a little more than $2,509,000. So the loss of revenue by placing these things on the free list would not make any substantial inroads upon the treasury of the country. Indeed, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) said the other night, although I did not entirely agree with him, that ten million dollars here or ten million dollars there was not a matter of first-rate importance.


Mr. CARVELL:: Will my hon. friend
show me where I said that?
Mr. (MdMASTER:	That is my recollection of what the minister said, and I think Hansard will bear me out. I have not a copy with me.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I should like you to produce it.
Mr. McMA'STER: I think my hon. friend will find that I am right. That was certainly the impression made upon my mind, and I listened to him with all the care and attention which a former political friend should give to his speech. But, Mr. Speaker, we are not dependent in this country upon indirect taxation for our revenue. For many years it was thought in this country that direct taxation was impossible. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) was one of the first to raise his voice, strong and eloquent, in the House and in the country, to show that direct taxation was the proper way in which to raise the revenue. And to-day we are receiving a very substantial amount of revenue, though not nearly as much as we should, through direct taxation.
It will interest the House, I am sure, to learn what proportion of the revenue of the United Kingdom, the United States, and of Canada was raised by direct and by indirect taxation in the year 1917-18. The United Kingdom during that time raised 81 per cent by direct taxation, and only 19 per cent by indirect taxation. The

United States during the same period raised 69 per cent by direct taxation, and only 31 per cent by indirect taxation; while Canada, in the period under review, raised 11 per cent by direct taxation, and no less than 89 per cent by indirect taxation. My friend the hon. member for Huntingdon and Chateauguay (Mr. Robb), has handed me Hansard, from which I shall quote in order that I may not rest under the imputation of having misquoted the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell). On the 26th of February the minister said: "It is so big that a matter of $10,000,000 does not matter much one way or the other." So, I do not think I was unfair in the way I quoted him.
Now, I wish to call the attention of the House to what the United States is doing. In the issue of the New York Nation of March 1, there is a most interesting article by Mr. Thomas S. Adams. Mr. Adams is Professor of Political Economy in Yale University and is War Revenue Expert in the Treasury Department of the United States Government. What he says is so interesting that I will ask the House to bear with me while I read it. He says:
The Revenue Act of 1918-
That is, the Revenue Act of the United States.
-will impress the student of financial history as a signal victory for certain theories of taxation which a few years ago were regarded as "socialistic." Within a quarter of a century Justice Field pronounced an income-tax law socialistic and unconstitutional because it exempted incomes of less than $4,000. from the 2 per cent "burden" which it imposed upon larger incomes; and heated controversy waged about the practicability and propriety of progressive rating. But the Revenue Act of 1918, designed to produce in the first twelve months of its operation $5,788,260,000, will raise more than 80 per cent of this sum from progressive income taxes.
The estimates are worthy of notice. The war-profits and excess-profits tax-a form of income taxation unknown five years ago-is expected to raise $2,500,000,000, or 43 per cent of the entire tax budget. The income taxes proper, individual and corporate, will raise $2,207,000,000 additional or 27 per cent of the tax budget. Ability taxes-
I understand that the word "ability" has reference to taxes placed on those who are able to pay, and not on those who will feel the burden grievously.
Ability taxes therefore account for more than 81 per cent of the entire tax levy. If we add progressive estate or inheritance taxes the proportion rises to more than 82 per cent; and if or 37 per cent of the tax budget. Ability banco and other luxuries-
I do not know whether all hon. members in the 'House will regard tobacco as a luxury. Some, indeed, may regard it as a necessity.
-together with taxes on admissions and dues, we account for nearly 94 per cent of this colossal tax bill, leaving only about 6 per cent to be provided by taxes on transportation and on necessary processes of production and commerce.
If I may pause here, Mr. Speaker, to interject a remark, it is this, that we have long regarded the United States as the example par excellence of a highly protected country, gathering into its treasury, to meet its public expenditures, the great part of its income through customs tariff. That day has passed. The progressive democracy of the United States now taxes those who can afford to pay, in order to obtain the money required to carry on the affairs of the country.
Practically no tax is laid upon articles of actual necessity; Contrast this with the tax programme of the Civil War and we find much reason for congratulation. The new Revenue Bill may be full of imperfections, but it represents a striking victory for ability taxation and democratic finance.
The most important feature of the new law is the striking advance in rates. Income-tax rates have, for most taxpayers, been more than doubled. The taxpayer having a wife but no children will pay, on an income of $3,000, $60 under the Revenue Act of 1918 as compared with $20 under that of 1917 ; on $10,000, $830 as contrasted with $355 ; and on $100,000, $35,030 as contrasted with $16,180. These amounts are not high in comparison with the similar British taxes. For example, a married man with no children or dependents would pay 3.6 per cent on an income of $5,000 in this country as contrasted with 15 per cent in the United Kingdom ; on $25,000, 14.8 per cent as against 35.75 per cent; and on $100,000, 35.03 per cent as against 47.19 per cent. The British rates are notably in excess of our own for incomes under $150,000. The two schedules meet at $200,000, and on larger incomes the American rates greatly exceed the British. An income of $1,000,000 will pay 70.3 per cent in this country, but only 52 per cent in the United Kingdom.
"This country," of course, means the United States. Now-if I mistake not,-a man with an income of a million dollars in Canada does not pay anything like 70-3 per cent. I may say, however, that the author whom I have been quoting thinks that a rate of 70-3 is too high and will possibly lead to attempts to evade the tax.
My next point is this: The United States has a population about twelve or thirteen times greater than our own, and I think I am well within the mark when I say that its annual income or wealth is not more than twenty times as great as ours. TJiat is merely an estimate. There are no figures, but I have checked that estimate with a gentleman who above all others is best

able to advise me, and he tells me that, in his opinion, the national wealth of that country is not greater than I have stated.
If we calculate the United States wealth as being twenty times as great as our own we ought to be able, if we adopt the same schedule as they do in the country to the south of us, to raise by direct taxation in this country $235,350,000. It is true that some of us will have to give to the state a great deal more than we have been accustomed to, but I do not mind that as long as the division is fairly done. I say that up to the amount that is absolutely required for a man to live respectably, and to bring up his wife and children respectably, the Government should endeavour as far as possible not to touch that amount. Over and above that amount, however, the Government should be prepared to take, and the people should be prepared to give, a very substantial proportion of what Providence has blessed them with.
Now, I have, to my own satisfaction at least, shown that it is not economically unsound to reduce the customs duties, and it is my desire now to place before the House the way in which the tariff affects the agricultural interests of this country. I have before expressed the opinion in this House -which I believe is concurred in by very many-that most difficult and troublous financial times confront this Dominion, unless we are able to induce to come upon our fertile fields and to remain upon those fields, a very much larger number of people than now live in the rural parts of Canada. I think, Mr. Speaker, that whoever is to blame for it, we are over-developed, as far as railways and urban development are concerned, and what we need to-day is to develop the rural parts of our country. Now, oan we expect to induce people to come into Canada, and can we keep people on the farms of Canada, unless we give them substantially as good living conditions as they will obtain in the United States of America, or in other parts of the world? I do not believe we can, and that is the reason I would crave the indulgence of the House while I place before hon. gentlemen the conditions under which the farmer suffers, and perhaps especially the Western farmer, because the latter produces for a world's market. The price of his products, in many instances, is settled not in Canada at all, but in Liverpool, and it is necessary, in order that social and economic justice be done him, that what he requires to buy he should be able to obtain at a reasonable and proper price.
[Mr. McMaster.f


John Wesley Edwards: Does my hon. friend think that the trend from the rural to the urban centres in Canada, say in the last ten or fifteen years, has been greater than it has been in the United States?
Mr. MaMASTER:	I am not prepared to
say that, but I am prepared to advance the opinion that a high protective tariff has increased the trend of people from the country into the town. I know from my own experience as a member of the Bar in Montreal that, man after man, the leaders of the Bar, are country boys who came into the city because there was greater wealth, and greater opportunities for their ambition, in the city.


John Wesley Edwards: How does my hon.
friend account for the movement in England from the country to the town?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I will reply to my hon. friend in this way: That the trend citywards from the rural districts has been found in all countries. In the United Kingdom Free Trade was the great thing that built up the cities, and the drift citywards-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. MaMASTER: I believe I am correct in what I state; that Free Trade is what built up the cities in the United Kingdom, and I say this-that if the cities had not been built up under Free Trade in Great Britain, the shield and buckler of the Allies would never have had the money to keep the war going that it has had.
What I propose to do is, to lay before-the House, as graphically as possible, the burdens under which the Western farmer suffers through the tariff. I know that to read long lists of figures is tiresome for the speaker, and more tiresome for the hearer, but nevertheless, I would ask hon. gentlemen to come with me to the home of the farmer on the Western prairies, and if I make any mistakes, there are those on the other side of the House who will be able to kindly set me right, because perhaps they know a great deal more about the matter than I do.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. MaMASTER:	Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, that those who know more about this matter than il do will be those who will most entirely agree with me. Now the Western farmer gets up in the morning-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: At what time?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Andrew Ross McMaster: You will be glad to know, Mr. Speaker, that my few remarks have developed the keenest sense of humour on the part of some hon. gentlemen opposite. Well, the Western farmer gets up very early, my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. White) tells me, and let us say that he needs woollen underclothing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The woollen underclothing, let us say, comes from England, and it pays a duty of twenty-seven and a half per cent. Let us suppose that the shirt which the farmer is putting on came from a Bradford manufacturer and was invoiced to the importer in Montreal at $24 the dozen, or $2 apiece. On the arrival of the goods in Montreal, the importer pays the insurance and freight, which, let us say, amounts to five per cent, and he in addition advances the duty of twenty-seven and a half per cent. 'Supposing the shirt costs $2. Very well, five per cent on $2 is ten cents, and twenty-seven and a half per cent on $2 is fifty-five cents, making a total of $2.65. Then the department head of the importing house calculates the profit, and let us say he puts on a profit-my friends in the dry goods business will say whether this is right or wrong-of twenty-five per cent. He calculates this profit, not on the invoice price of $2, but on the $2 plus the cost of freight and insurance, 10 cents, and plus the duty 55 cents, and we therefore find that when the Western retailer buys this shirt he pays $3.30 for it. To that should be added 5 cents to cover expressage, and the shirt laid down in the small town near which our farmer lives comes to $3.35. The Western retailer has to make his overhead expenses andi his profit, and in order to do that he adds 30 per cent, so that shirt costs our farmer $4.40. Out of this amount the Government has received 55 cents by way of duty, but the amount by which the duty has increased the cost to the consumer is a great deal more than that, because the importer who advanced the duty in the first place has to have his profit on it, and the retailer who handled it in the second place has to have his profit as well. Therefore, if you work the sum out, omitting the duty altogether, and giving the same profit to the wholesale importer and to the retailer, you will find, that there has been 95 cents added to the price of the shirt attribute able to duty, and out of this only 55 cents has gone into the treasury of the nation.
I submit for the kindly consideration of the Acting Prime Minister and Minister of Finance that that is a very expensive way to raise a revenue. If the goods come from the United States, the duty is higher and the amount of profit realized on the duty, advanced in the first place by the importer, is higher also. Now, putting on his socks


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Andrew Ross McMaster: he finds that they
are taxed. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether it is my friends the Western men that are laughing-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not think it is, because, if so, they will not laugh very loud when their constituents find out that they turn to derision any economic argument advanced with the endeavour to reduce the heavy burden upon the Western consumers,* as well as those in other parts of the Dominion.
Now, to return to the socks, Mr. Speaker. If they came from England they would be taxed 221 per cent, and if they came from the United States they would be taxed 321 per cent;-I am mistaken, I have got ahead of my story. I should have mentioned the boots. If they came


Some hon. MEMBER:: You put the socks on first.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Speaker, in a dreary and dry subject like this it would be always a pleasure if my neighbours on the opposite side who have any remarks to make would make them in such a tone that I might have the advantage of them.
Now, the man pulls on his boots. If they came from England they were taxed 221 per cent; if from the United States, 321 per cent, and if they were made by a Canadian manufacturer I beg leave to suggest that you will find their price was just a little under what they could have been produced for abroad and brought into the country, freight and duty paid.


John Wesley Edwards: I should think he had better put on his pants before he puts on his boots.


Andrew Ross McMaster: After our farmer is
up, Mr. Speaker, he steps across a strip of carpet which was taxed 421 per cent, and then he walks over his linoleum or oil cloth, which came from the United States, each of which is also taxed 421 per cent; and as a great proportion of the articles used in the Canadian northwest come

either from the States or from Eastern Canada, where the price is raised to within speaking distance of the tariff charged goods from the United States, I will make use of the figures of duty as on goods coming from the United States.
He goes to the washstand which is taxed 42} per cent, and makes use of a jug and basin, which were taxed 27} per cent; the soap he uses was taxed 40 per cent, and his brushes were taxed 35} per cent; the towel was taxed 37} per cent. The water, you will say, was not taxed. Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, it was taxed, because it comes through an iron pipe and has been raised by a windmill. The iron pipe was subject to a specific duty of $8 per ton and an ad valorem duty of 7} per cent, and the windmill, which came from somewhere in Ohio, was taxed 27} per cent.
He then put on his outer clothes, consisting of a good ready-made suit, composed largely of wool. It was taxed 42} per cent, although civilized man throughout the world has rarely got to withstand a more rigorous climate than that on the plains of Saskatchewan. Our farmer felt inclined to make some biting remarks about the eastern clothing manufacturer who taxed him 42} per cent on his clothes, but then he remembered that that gentleman had to buy the raw material, tweeds, overcoatings, and such things as that, which were also taxed at exactly the same rate, 42} per cent. The cotton clothes which his wife wore were taxed 42} per cent, and her woollen garments at the same rate as her husband's. Our farmer was a very excellent man and he went out to do the chores, and while he was so engaged his wife lit the fire in the stove, which was taxed 32} per cent, and put on an agate ware kettle which was taxed 42} per cent. She also pushed forward to the front of the stove a double boiler in which the porridge had been cooking the night before while the supper was preparing; they were Scotch folk and therefore thrifty. The porridge was taxed 7} per cent in addition to a specific duty of 60 per cent per 100 pounds. She fried some bacon, which had been taxed two cents a pound, plus an ad valorem duty of 7} per cent. Out of respect for the President of the Privy Council	(Mr. Rowell)	I will
make no unkind remarks about the price of the bacon. The tea which they used was taxed ten cents a pound plus war duty. The teapot was taxed 37} per cent. If they had used coffee, Mr. Speaker, they wrould not have escaped taxation, because

in that case if it had directly come from its country of origin it would have had a duty of from eight to ten cents a pound placed on it, with an ad valorem duty of 71 to 10 per cent. Their table cloth and napkins were taxed 371 per cent, their knives and forks at the same rate, while their modest display of silverware was taxed at the rate of 421 per cent. I note, Mr. Speaker, with great satisfaction, that the hilarity of hon. gentlemen opposite has somewhat subsided.
Meanwhile our farmer had proceeded to the barn, and it was a cold dark morning in November he took with him a lantern, on which the duty was 371 per cent.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Was that the light in the window?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I will come to the
light in the window later. He took with him the lantern, taxed at 371 per cent, and with his milk pails (taxed at 321 per cent), over his arm he started to milk the cow. After he had milked the cow he pulled the blanket off the horse, taxed 421 per cent- that is the blanket, not the horse-led the horse by the halter, taxed 371 per cent, to the hitching post, where he gave him a good grooming, the curry comb he used having been taxed 371 per cent. After breakfast his wife washed up the dishes, taxed 371 per cent, and the beds having been properly aired she prepared to make them. Being a woman of information and education, she was struck with the fact that if the blankets were of pure wool made in England they were taxed 271 per cent, but if of an inferior quality, such as is used by the poorer people, they were taxed at the higher rate of 35 per cent. She put away her summer things and got out her winter things for the approaching cold weather. The hats she put awray had been taxed at 421 per cent, the fur caps she took out were taxed at 371 per cent, the gloves at 421 per cent, a fur coat at 37} per cent, and a fur-lined coat was taxed at the same rate. The mitts were taxed 421 per cent, and the new muff, which her husband had given her on the last trip he had made abroad, was taxed at 371 per cent. Her husband had carelessly thrown aside a pair of suspenders and she remembered that those were taxed forty-two and one-half per cent. The handkerchiefs that she had laid aside for the weekly wash were taxed at the same high rate. Cuffs and collars were at ihe very peak of the load; they were taxed at 45 per cent, and the very buttons with which they were attached to the shirt were

taxed at 421 per cent. As it looked as if it might rain, she got out some rubber clothing, taxed at 35 per cent; and her soliloquy was: Is there anything under the blue canopy of heaven that is not heavily taxed?"
The meat which she placed in the oven was taxed, and while it was cooking she took out her sad irons.


An hon. MEMBER:: What?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Sad irons, articles
which are used by a woman when she wants to smooth out things.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Does the hon. gentleman propose to collect under his system less taxes in the aggregate than are collected under the present system?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No.


John Hampden Burnham: Then what is the advantage of it?


Andrew Ross McMaster: What I am endeavouring to place before the House is the fact that the articles commonly used by the plain and common people are taxed at exorbitant rates. These irons were taxed at 371 per cent, and had they been plated they would have been taxed at 421 per cent.
After this had been done she put some mince-meat on some pastry. The mincemeat was composed in part of raisins, spices, peel, etc., all of which were taxed. She also turned out a mould of jelly taxed at 3} cents per pound, plus war tax, and laid out a plateful of nuts taxed at 421 per cent. She had a few minutes left before dinner time-she was an extraordinary woman, as you will all admit.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: So she went through her cupboard to obtain a list of articles to give to her husband the next time he went to town, some little distance away. She discovered that she had plenty of cereal foods in small packages, taxed at 271 per cent; plenty of molasses taxed at $1,111 cents per hundred pounds, plenty of catsup taxed at 421 per cent, baking powder taxed at 6 cents per pound plus war tax, soap powder taxed at 40 per cent. She noted that she would have to ask her husband to buy on his next trip, tooth powder, taxed at 40 per cent, sage, thyme and savoury herbs taxed at 25 per cent. As the children had been particularly good recently she felt that they deserved some chocolate confectionery, taxed at one cent a pound, plus 35 per cent.
While she was so busy, her husband had been looking over his machinery with the idea of putting it carefully away for the winter. He found that his plough was taxed at 321 per cent, and his harrow at 271 per cent, his wagon at 321 'per cent, and his harness at 371 per cent. He made some small repairs to the harness room, using for the purpose tongue and grooved lumber taxed at 321 per cent. He also did a small job in cement near the kitchen door that his wife had asked him to do weeks before, and noted that the cement was taxed at 10 cents per hundred pounds.
After supper the family gathered round the dining room table on which stood a shaded lamp taxed at 30 per cent, burning coal-oil taxed at 21 cents a gallon, plus 71 per cent, and discussed the affairs of the day. Is it surprising that their conversation turned upon the extortionate and exorbitant rates of the tariff on what was used by the western consumer? Their thoughts were rendered none the less bitter because they knew that in regard to many of these articles of prime necessity, through mergers and trusts and combines, competition within the tariff wall had been practically eliminated?
I think that a short study of the tariff will bring one to realize how absurd the tariff is. I crave your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and the patience of the House, because I know that to give the details cannot be otherwise than tiresome. However, 1 shall try to make it as little tiresome as possible.
Cream separators are free-an excellent thing-but a Babcock milk tester, which is used in every butter 'and cheese factory throughout the Dominion, is taxed at 321 'per cent, and the earthenware churns in which the butter is made are taxed at 371 per cent.
If a man needs a bandage for surgical or medical purposes he will find that rubber bandages are taxed at 35 per cent, silk web bandages at 45 per cent, and flannel bandages at 421 per cent.
If a man is slightly deaf he learns with interest that aurasage for treating the deaf comes in free, but if he is completely deaf he finds that an auriphone, acousticon or artificial ear-drum is taxed at 35 per cent.
Liquid asphalt is taxed at 25 per cent. Asphalt road oil for improving roads comes in free, although road scrapers, road graders and road rollers are heavily taxed.
Citron rinds in brine come in free, but candied peel is subject to a specific duty of



half a cent a pound and is taxed up to 42} per cent.
Barrels come in free sometimes; other times they are taxed. Barrels containing pork, beef, petroleum, or linseed oil are taxed up to 32} per cent, but barrels containing apples, wheat flour, cornmeal, or beer come in free.
Although seeds are either free or taxed on a low basis, cabbage, cauliflower and celery plants are all taxed at 25 per cent.
Dentists' instruments come in free, but the chloroform that the dentist gives to the patient to ease the pain is taxed up to 321 per cent. A surgeon has to pay taxes on cotton wool used in dressings.
Although it is of the greatest possible importance that agriculture should be encouraged in every possible way, derricks and stump pullers are taxed up to 35 per cent.
Unset diamonds are subject only to the war tax of 5 to 7} per cent, but set diamonds are taxed up to 42} per cent. School maps and engravings for school purposes come in free, but the blackboard and the slate on which the poorer child writes his lessons are taxed, one at 42} per cent and the other at .321 per cent. Dormant orchids come in free, but onion sets are taxed at 37J per cent, and rose bushes pay as high as 271 per cent.
The tariff seemed to have been framed with the idea of placing a heavy tax on warmth and cleanliness. Woollens and flannels, fur caps, mitts, gloves, and muffs are all taxed, many of them as high as 371 per cent and even 42} per cent. Clothes-wringers and clotheslines are all taxed quite heavily. Indeed, at first glance, one would imagine that the tariff had been dictated to Alice in Wonderland by a committee composed of the Mad Hatter and the March Hare.
But closer examination shows that the tariff has been a battle ground not of principles but of appetites. For instance, one gathers from a consideration of the tariff that the woollen manufacturing interests, the biscuit manufacturing interests and the confectionery manufacturing interests must have had excellent friends on both sides of the political dividing line. One is also struck with the burden which the tariff imposes on industry. Let us suppose that a man purposes building a factory in Canada. A modern factory will be composed largely of brick, steel and belting. Brick is taxed as high as 30 per cent; structural iron and steel as high as 42} per cent, and belting as high as 22} per cent. It is, therefore, an undoubted fact that the tariff in-

creases enormously the cost of establishing factories in this country. Machinery of all kinds made in Canada is taxed as high as 35 per cent; if not made in Canada it comes in free or at a very much lower rate, and this ridiculous result is obtained: Suppose a man on an inlet up in British Columbia needs some machinery for a factory or a cannery or something of that sort, if there is no factory in Canada making that sort of thing, he can bring it out free from England mostly by water carriage and place it in his factory at a low rate. If, however, there is a factory away down in Nova Scotia making that same article, the machinery is taxed. Is that a reasonable proposition? I do not think so. Lubricating oil which is used in all factories is taxed as high as 27} per cent. The manufacturer of clothing operates under conditions which give to him a protection of 42} per cent, but imposes against him practically the same rate of duty on his raw material.
We have gone very extensively into the railway business in Canada; we may have to go into it even more extensively than we have done, and I draw your special attention, Sir, to the fact that the duty on railway ears is as high as 37} per cent and on locomotives as high as 42} per cent. If we are going to run the railways of this country economically and well, surely the necessary machinery should not be taxed as high as 42} per cent.
I would submit for the careful study of all members of this House,- a study which would, I know, well repay the time and energy expended upon it, the present protective system as it operates against industry in this country. What remedy do I suggest? I have suggested first of all the removal of the duties of 5 per cent and 7} per cent, and I have dwelt somewhat fully upon that aspect of the question. I would now ask the House to consider with me what the adoption of reciprocity would do for the Canadian people. What are the great advantages of reciprocity? First of all, in regard to the natural resources of this country, the products of the field and the forest, the sea and the farm, the North American continent would become one economic unit. On the whole North American continent people would apply their energy and capital on the farms to raising those crops that are best suited to their locality, and then there would be free interchange. There is another great advantage which reciprocity would give us. The Americans have, as I shall explain in a moment, very substantially reduced their duties, but they have left certain duties on certain second-

Articles
affected.
Present rate of duty.
Cod, haddock, ling and pollock, smoked Sea fish, preserved Salmon, smoked Salmon, canned, prepared or preserved Fish, smoked Fish, boneless Fish, prepared or preserved (canned) Gypsum
Certain sorts of paper
3c per lb.
25%
3c per lb.
25%
3c per lb. 3c per lb.
25%
10%
25%
Proposed
reciprocity
rate.
Free
Hon. gentlemen will see the advantage reciprocity would have given to us, over the present tariff of the Democratic party in the United States, in the matter of fish.
If one compares the rates of American duties prevailing at the time the reciprocity arrangement was negotiated with those prevailing at the present time, one is bound to admit that the Democrats did reduce the duties very substantially, but not so low in very many cases as would have been the case under the reciprocity agreement. Now what would that have meant, supposing one economic unit for natural products had been established between the United States and Canada? One of the most densely populated portions of North America is found on the northeastern Atlantic seaboard of the United States. In that area we find the great city of New York, and the manufacturing cities of New Jersey and of New England. Now if you will visualize the map of the United States and Canada, and place one end of a pair of compasses, let us say, on the city of New York, and draw a circle with a radius of 500 miles, in that area you will find practically
the whole of Nova Scotia, the whole of Prince Edward Island, the whole of New Brunswick, practically the whole of the inhabited part of the province of Quebec, and the province of Ontario as far west as Sudbury. What is left outside the circle? Six-sevenths of the United States itself. The whole thing would have come down to a question of transportation, and as that part of Eastern Canada which I have just mentioned lies within easy water communication of the great consuming centres of the north Atlantic seaboard, one can see the advantage which the reciprocity agreement would have given to the producers of Eastern Canada.
Now one of the arguments which I have advanced this afternoon has been that if we are to attract people to our fertile fields and keep them there, we must give to the agriculturalists of this Dominion as good living conditions as those enjoyed in the northwestern States. We have all of us, I presume, been brought up with the idea that the United States has a very high protective tariff; but I believe that is not true to-day. Certainly, some duties have been retained at a high figure, but a great many duties to-day are ten, fifteen or twenty per cent. In addition to that, the United States have a free list which is very long and very wide. I shall read a list of articles that are on the free list under the American tariff and the rates of duty which these same articles have to pay under the Canadian tariff. I shall read only the rates on goods coming from the United States; the duties on the same goods coming from Great Britain will of course be substantially lower.
Articles free on	Canadian Kates.
American tariff.	Corresponding	.Flows	
20	25	271Tooth and disk harrows	171	25	271Headers	
20	30	321Harvesters	121	121	121Reapers	,	121	121	121Agricultural drills, planters	121	171	20Threshing machines	
20	251	271
Machinery for use in the manufacture of sugar. Free.
"Wagons	
22	30	32117	221	25Carts	Buggies-carriages:	Children's Carriages andSleighs, minimum duty for open rigs is $40 ; covered, $50.	271	371	421.All sorts and kinds of agricultural implements, Hoes: 20	271	30whole, or in parts, including repair parts; as Hay carrier; 25	35	371well as animals for breeding purposes .. ..Rollers: 20	30	321Hay-forks: 20	271	30Hay-loaders: 20	30	321Cultivators: 171	25	271Hand cultivators: 21% additional Feed cutters: 20	30	321Potato digger and other quality implements, n.o.p	
2030	321

You do not have to surmount any difficulty at the present time; you have just got to leave things as they are. But I say, Mr. Speaker, that the time has arrived in the world's history when things cannot be left as they are. I do not say that the time for special privilege has passed, but I say that the time when special privilege will be patiently and silently endured has passed, and the people want a change. I say that that road of leaving things as they are leads downhill, and that there is danger for those who follow it. I say that when the night comes, and the mists will arise the only guide those who travel that road will have will be the flitting lights of political expediency. The other road leads up the Hill Difficulty. It will he difficult, there are things to adjust and hard things to do, but up that Hill Difficulty lies the road that the Canadian people should travel, for up that Hill Difficulty we will reach the Delectable Mountains, from whose summits we can view the Promised Land. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have much pleasure, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria, Alta. (Mr. W. H. White) in moving the resolution which, Sir, is now in your hands.


William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the
House we are always glad to hear from the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). He has a pleasing countenance and a vein of poetry which 'we greatly like to hear express itself from time to time in this practical and prosaic chamber. I think it will be conceded by all that a member who can start his address to this House with a Canadian customs' tariff and finish it with an excursion to the Delectable Mountains of John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, is at least entitled to high distinction in the realm of the imagination.
In politics my hon. friend is not only practical, but he is optimistic and decidedly persevering. Only the other night the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. D. D. McKenzie) hung up a light which was to guide the errant footsteps home. Well, the light appears to have gone out, but my hon. friend from Brome, determined to have something by way of attraction, has this afternoon set up a banner; but I think when this discussion comes to an end this afternoon my hon. friend will find that, while the light has gone out, the banner will not wave, and that all the allurements which have been set up on the other side of the House are indeed in vain.
My hon. friend covered a very wide field in his dissertation-political economy, free trade, protection, the fiscal policy of the

United States, together with its income taxation system, reciprocity, and finally, and the most interesting thing to which my hon. friend referred this afternoon, his delineation of domestic scenes of Canadian farm life.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


William Thomas White: Now, I have an advantage over my hon. friend because I was born on a farm, and I am sure he was not from the description of farm life which he gave us this afternoon. I thought as I listened to him that he must have learned what he knows of farming from one of those correspondence schools-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.
.Sir THOMAS WHITE:	and if I maywithout offence to my hon. friend and in justice to the intelligence of the farming community of Canada,-I should like to correct one indubitably false impression which he has as to the habits of the farmers of Canada, especially in the morning. I should like in all seriousness to point out to my hon. friend that the farmer on rising in the morning does not as he told us, first put on his socks and his boots; there are other garments which have priority over the boots at least.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Those are the unmentionables.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend did not mention any of the unmentionables. My hon. friend did make one true observation about the Canadian farmer this afternoon, and that was that he got up in the morning. He does get up in the morning, and when I was a boy upon a Canadian farm, quite a small one, I had to get up very early in the morning myself, and I have never forgotten it. The farmer gets up in the morning, and, Mr. Speaker, he gets up too early in the morning, and his representatives in this House get up too early in the morning, to be caught by any want of confidence motion masquerading in the guise of a genuine tariff resolution. Political economy, free trade, protection, American fiscal policy, reciprocity, the constitution and constitutional practice, winding up, as I have said, by an excursion to the Delectable Mountains-Mr. Speaker, what is it all about? What is the amendment of my hon. friend from Brome, and what is the motion before the House? Let us come back from his expedition into the realm of imagination and find out what is the motion before the House, and what is the amendment proposed by my hon. friend

to the motion, and what is the effect of that amendment if adopted by this House.
My hon. friend knows perfectly well that this is not the time to bring forward a tariff resolution in this House. The time for a tariff resolution is not upon going into Supply, but upon going into Ways and Means on the Budget. That is the time for a resolution on the tariff, and if my hon. friend genuinely and sincerely desired to put forward a tariff resolution, that is the time when it should be put forward, because that is the only time on which a tariff resolution can be intelligently discussed.
Now, why do I say that? Because it is only when the Budget is brought down that the financial position of the Dominion is disclosed, the needs of the Dominion exchequer are made known to Parliament and the country, and the policy which the Government has to meet those needs is submitted to the House of Commons. The time for a resolution on the tariff therefore is not, as I have said, upon a motion to go into Supply, but when the Budget speech has been brought down and the policy of the Government is before the House.
What is the motion before the House today? The motion before the House is, that the Speaker do leave the Chair and the House go into Committee of Supply. Any amendment whatsoever, no matter what its merits or demerits may be, moved as my hon. friend has moved his motion is a motion of want of confidence in the Government. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that the adoption of the amendment which he has moved to-day would mean the defeat of the Government upon a vital matter, namely, Supply. Why does the Government move that the House go into Supply? In order that the Government may be enabled to carry on the administration of the affairs of the country. The motion is to go into Supply in order that the Estimates which have been submitted to the House may be taken into consideration; in order that items may be voted-items providing the necessary funds for the payment of members of the Civil Service, to provide effectually for the judicial administration of Canada; to provide for the construction of important national works and undertakings; to provide for carrying on the railway systems owned and operated by the Government; to provide for pensions for our returned soldiers; to vote the sums of money necessary to bring our soldiers back from across the seas. That is the reason why the House is moved into Committee of Supply. My hon. friend moves in amendment that the House do not go into Committee of Supply; therefore his amendment is a motion of want of confidence in the Government, because if the House does not go into Supply, if the items contained in the Estimates are not voted by Parliament, the Government cannot carry on. While my hon. friend's motion is technically in order, as an amendment, it is entirely out of place. I say that with entire respect to my hon. friend, because resolutions of that kind have been moved in the past. But their effect has been precisely as I have indicated; they have always been regarded and must be regarded under our constitutional system as a motion of want of confidence in the Government upon a vital question.
As I have said, my hon. friend should have postponed the moving of this resolution, if he desired to have it considered by the House, until after the bringing down of the Budget, until after the financial situation of the country has been disclosed to the House, and until the Government proposals have been submitted to the House for consideration following the Budget speech. I do not propose, therefore, to discuss the proposals in this resolution because this is not the time to discuss them. They are important proposals; they relate to revenue, to trade, to finance, to international treaties. But I shall not discuss them because, as I have said, the proper time to discuss proposals of this kind is in the Budget debate, not on a motion to go into Supply.
While my hon. friend is a popular member of the other side, as indeed he is on this side of the House, I was interested in observing that no very great happiness was expressed in the faces of hon. gentlemen opposite as he proceeded with his dissertation. Some of them I noted particularly. When my hon. friend was talking about the duty on woollens and might have inadvertently touched on the duty on cotton goods, I looked at the member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb); his face seemed grave. That, however, may have been merely a synchronism, not cause and effect. Similarly, the member for Richmond and Wolfe (Mr. Tobin) did not look particularly happy until the member for Brome had taken his seat, and the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) by no means reflected the expression of enthusiasm which beamed from the face of the member for Brome when he was putting forward his want of confidence in the Gov-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I do
not purpose, at this stage, addressing the House at any great length. The amendment which has been moved upon this side of the House has been very fully and clearly discussed by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. MoMaster). Every phase of it has been as well put and as well supported by facts and figures as could have been done by any one. For that reason, it would not be proper for me to endeavour to duplicate the work of my hon. friend. The training which you, Sir, and I have received in our profession is that when a thing is once well done, when an argument is once well put, it should not, in the same case, be put the second time. For that reason, I shall leave well enough alone-a good Tory injunction.
'I am very much surprised at the attitude taken by the leader of the Government (Sir Thomas White) in regard to this amendment. I would like to ask him and other hon. members who are interested in the tariff, and who have to say to their constituents and the country generally whether or not they are satisfied with the present condition of the tariff. When you go back tcf your constituents, is it an answer to them to say:	" Why, the leader of the Government from his seat in the House told us that if we voted for this amendment it would be a vote of want of confidence in the Government, and consequently, we had to vote it down." The hundreds of thousands, aye, millions of people in this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific who
are after the Government and after improvement, do not care very much whether that Government is sustained or not. They want relief; they want the right thing done. I appeal to hon. gentlemen in this House who are better acquainted with the history of government in the Old Land than I am, whether governments have not been defeated in the Old Land on a vote of want of confidence and turned out of office on scores of occasions, resulting in the necessary reform being brought about. So long as the supporters of this Government always obey the crack of the party whip we shall never have reforms in this country; for I should like to see the motion from this side of the House, which the hon. gentleman who leads the Government would not pronounce a motion of want of confidence if it was likely to be supported by his followers. That is an old cry; it has no significance. I ask the Acting Prime Minister, or any of the experienced parliamentarians sitting behind him, in what form a resolution should be introduced into this House that would have for its effect, if carried, the putting of the Government out of power, which would not cause the Acting Prime Minister to run into this little hen-house of " Want of Confidence."
What the people of this country are looking for is action, reform, the bettering of conditions in this country, so far as it is in the power of this Parliament to bring that about. We have heard a great deal said in this House condemnatory of the party system. It is not party that is the curse of this country, but the hanging on to power. And when we arrive at the stage when hon. members of this House will put the interests of the people first and the love of power second, we need not be very much concerned which party is in office. It would appear that no matter what aggregation of supporters you get behind this Government, the same nostrum will do. When they are afraid of their toes being trampled on or of being disturbed in their seats, as the ants will fly when a stone is upturned, the same argument is made as was made by the old line Tory government. The people of this country ought to know that the crack of the whip that was good in the days of the old Tory Government of Sir Robert Borden is equally good in the days of this so-called Unionist Government. I have just had placed in my hand Bourinot, an authority on Parliamentary procedure, who lays down the principle (P. 424):

An amendment moved to the motion to go into Committee of Supply or Ways and Means does not necessarily involve a want of confidence in the Administration.
I would suggest to tlie leader of the Government that he pay less attention to the Pilgrim's Progress and more to Bourinot and parliamentary procedure.
The minister talks about waiting. This game of waiting does not appeal to live, progressive people. If the leader of the Government is so particularly strong on waiting, on teaching pupils what they ought to do, and on bringing his children to task, he should give his attention to some hon. gentlemen on his own side of the House who should have waited. The minister had a gun, so to speak, put at his head the other day, and he was told that unless certain things happened within a certain set time, His Honour the Speaker would have in his hand a certain set of resignations which would bring the hon. gentleman to his milk. And that was with regard to the tariff question.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend will pardon me for correcting him, but I have never even heard of such a suggestion, let alone receiving any intimation of that character.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. gentleman
must have been absent on his Pilgrim's Progress, for that statement was made in the House the other evening by the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg). If my hon. friend will look up that speech he will find the intimation word for word just as I have given it, except that the hon. member did not say he was holding a pistol at the head of the Acting Prime Minister; but that was what he was doing. The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie), that veteran war-horse and leader of the Ginger Group, that real true-blue Tory, spoke in the House the other night not only of putting a gun to the head of the Government, but of a Government funeral unless certain things were done, and he was not satisfied with an ordinary funeral hut predicted a state funeral unless the leader of the Government pronounced himself along certain lines of action. We have also had a spectacle since Parliament met such as I have never seen before in this House. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) was not willing to wait. He was put up, I presume, upon the advice and direction of the leader of the Government. He fully understands his position as a minister of the Crown; he knows the practice that ought to govern ministers who sit together in Council, and il venture to say-at least 1

hope I am right in saying-that when he stood up in this House he did not give a full explanation, an open-book account, so to speak, of the deplorable condition of the finances of this country. When he was asked why he did not wait for the budget he said he was not giving a budget speech-but was disclosing the financial condition of this country, which should be remedied if possible. The question of finance having already been dealt with by cabinet ministers and by supporters of the Government, it cannot therefore be improper for hon. members on this side of the House to put their cards on the table and say to the Government and to this country, as we ought to say: We do not know what the Government proposes to do, as we have no means of knowing, but we appreciate the necessities of this country, and we know what should be done to meet them. We are simply saying to the people of this country: This is what we are prepared to do, and we ask your opinion upon our policy. That is the proper course to take. We have no business to go behind closed doors and conceal our ideas on the tariff. I might say to the leader of the Government that I never knew when he was willing openly to discuss what he was going to do about the tariff. His plan always has been to go behind closed doors and do what he proposes to do with regard to the tariff by Order in Council. He will not trust this House on a matter of that land, because it might lead to a vote of want of confidence in himself and his colleagues.
So long as they can govern by Order in Council, this fifth wheel of a coach, as they treat this Parliament in matters of this kind, has nothing at all to do with it. "We will do it by Order in Council," they say, "and the thing will be in operation before Parliament knows anything about it." Let me remind our western friends, who are particularly concerned in the tariff, that when this matter was adjusted under Order in Council we on this side of the House said, "If you are in good faith with the West and mean what you have done, confirm it by statute; make it absolute for the people of the West for all time to come." There are some hon. members on the opposite side to-day who sat on this side on that occasion and voted for our resolution, while every Tory on that side of the House voted against it and said that it would be merely an Order in Council, and that when the proclamation was issued repealing it, the Order in Council would be void. That, Sir, is not the way that Liberals on this side of the House intend to deal with the people

of Canada. We shall deal with the people openly and above board. If ever there was a time when the masses of the people want to know what Parliament is doing, what the Government is doing, what the true inwardness of things is, and what is in the hearts of Parliamentarians, that day is now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The great masses of Canadians do not care a button for such technicalities as to how motions are proposed to the House. On the real merits of the case, they will ask my friends from the West and those from the East-every man who has the authority of a vote in the House-"what have you done and what answer have you to make for your action on this resolution?" It is our duty to give the people an opportunity of expressing their views on a matter of this kind. The responsibility for their action is upon them. This is a free Parliament. We have no means of coercing any one, and if we had such means we would not use them, because the principles of Liberalism recognize the fact that every man has a will of his own upon which he should act. And when the day comes for any man to appeal to Caesar as to whether he has done right or wrong, we hope the people will be free to pass judgment upon our actions in this House, whether we sit on your right or on your left, Sir. The views of Liberals on this side of the House have been put plainly and forcibly by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). I accept every word he has said. I do not differ from him in the least, and I think he expressed very fully, indeed, the views of Liberals as well in the House as out of the House. So far as Canadian Liberalism is concerned, I look with pride to my hon. friend who represents the county of Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) as a man whom I have followed for about fifteen years in this House, a man who has stood true to the policy of Liberalism which he laid down and which brought such magnificent success to this country. We appeal to the people upon the record of Liberalism in the past, the record of Liberalism to-day, and the record of Liberalism which we intend to carry forward when it may be their will to oast upon us the responsibilities and burdens of administrating the affairs of Canada. We have nothing to conceal, and for that reason we have made this motion. It now rests with this House to say what it shall do with it.


Michael Clark: Mr. Speaker, I shall detain the House but for a few minutes on this question. I shall imitate the brevity of my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie), who has just resumed his seat, but I sincerely trust I shall avoid the unusual heat which developed with his remarks. There is not the same reason for heat on my part as there is on the part of my hon. friend. I do not resemble the apostle Peter to the extent that he does. We all remember that when that apostle made a famous recantation upon a famous occasion, he accompanied that recantation by unnecessary cursing and swearing. My hon. friend, of course, did not break the rules of this House and of good Presbyterian conduct by indulging in blasphemy, but he went as near it in his remarks as it was possible for him to do.
I must offer hearty congratulations to my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster). I cannot pretend to be greatly disturbed by the fact that I see opposite to me a whole party, such as it is-shall I say, without offense, a whole opposition?-who are at long last united upon a really radical tariff policy so far as declarations in this House can tell us where they are. That is a matter which cannot possibly seriously discompose me, Mr. Speaker, for I was working for that very state of affairs, with the most indifferent success, for a great many years. I congratulate my hon. friend from Brome that in two short sessions, or rather in one session and a very small portion of another, he has been successful where I was a lamentable failure during a period of many, many years.
I shall have no hesitation in following the leader of the Government and the House in voting down this resolution, and I shall do so for very plain reasons which will commend themselves, I am perfectly sure, to the people of Western Canada who are careful students not only of tariff but of tariff records and of tariff situations. I shall vote against this amendment to go into Supply, because, in the first place-I do not want to say anything unparliamentary, and I do not think I shall be doing so when I say-it is not meant to succeed. Hon. gentlemen opposite know very well, and they knew before the motion was introduced, exactly how it would be treated. They knew it would be voted down. Ostensibly it is a motion to change the Government of this country from one set of rulers to another; but in reality it is not such a motion, for its authors know it will not have that effect, and it is not meant to have that effect. I will go a step further

than that, Mr. Speaker. We have had the most absolute evidence from my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (iMr. Jos. Read) that this is the state of mind of the Opposition upon the subject. My hon. friend without contradiction on the other side of the House, said expressly in his remarks upon the Address that they on the other side did not wish to have a change of Government at the present time. They did not wish to have a general election at present, he said, because it would be folly to have an election-which, of course, might result in a change of Government-until the return of the soldiers. In view of that statement, to which no exception was taken by any hon. gentleman opposite, and which, I take it, expressed the opinion of the Opposition, I do not think I am going too far when I say that this resolution is not seriously proposed to the House as one which it is hoped will succeed. That is the first ground upon which, as a man with sincere views upon the tariff question-which views I have never altered and never will -I cannot vote for this resolution.
Now I want to say, in the second place, that I shall not vote for it because there are only certain possibilities in regard to the handling of a tariff. It is a very sweeping resolution, and I thoroughly endorse what has been said by my hon. friend (Sir Thomas White) who leads this House about the impropriety of introducing a sweeping resolution, which ought to be an amendment to the Budget, weeks, and possibly months, before the Budget can be in' troduced. Why, it is a perfectly elementary fact, in connection with parliamentary practice and governmental procedure, that if the attitude of a government upon customs duties were to be avowed before the Budget is presented, it would inevitably , lead to commercial transactions in the way of avoiding these very duties after they were imposed by the Budget. That alone, ought to have guarded my hon. friends opposite from bringing in this resolution at this time; and I shall be very pleased indeed to hear how any one who speaks upon this subject will meet that point. If the Government were to accept the amendment of the Opposition, weeks before the changes advocated by the amendment could possibly be given effect to in the Budget, the result would be to defeat the Government in the very objects it had in making changes in the tariff, because commercial transactions would take place beforehand which would save the merchants of this country from the effect of the tariff, whether

it was heightened or whether it was lowered.
My hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition, with a good deal of vehemence of manner which showed he was not very sure himself whether he was on safe ground, appealed to his record on this matter, and the record of those with whom, in former years, he and I were associated. Well, there are records which might have guided my hon. friend and his associates at the present moment in regard to the sweeping nature of the resolution to which I have just referred.
It is interesting to recall how tariffs were handled when they were abolished in the Old Country, and it is important historically to be well acquainted with what is possible in the way of handling tariffs at any given point, having regard to the very principle which my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) laid down himself-that these changes should be undertaken without unduly disturbing existing conditions. Every one who knows the tariff history of the Old Country knows that Sir Robert Peel made comparatively trifling changes in the tariff, in the year 1842, on manufactured goods in Britain, and in the same year he introduced an income tax. Well, when my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition is working himself into a state of excitement upon the state of the country, and the need of doing something, he should recall that at least fifty per cent of the policy carried out by Sir Robert Peel in 1842, in moving towards freer trade in England, has been carried out in its entirety by my hon. friend the leader of the Government, for he has followed exactly in the footsteps of Sir Robert Peel in introducing an income tax in this country, something which did not find its place upon the record of my hon. friends opposite, to which he has made such confident appeal. The changes of 1842 were followed by the repeal of the Corn Laws in the year 1846. In three successive Budgets after 1846, going on to the year 1861, Mr. Gladstone swept off in stages almost all the protective duties of the Old 'Country, ending with the abolition of the paper duty in the year 1861. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to reflect that from the year 1846 to the year 1861 is included a period of fifteen years. That fifteen years period is the span of the period during which hon. gentlemen opposite held power in this country-power achieved by the profession of Free Trade-and it is not only interesting to make this reflection but to draw a comparison between how real

Liberals, led by Mr. Gladstone, dealt with tariffs, and how tariffs were dealt with under the record of my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) to which he makes such confident appeal. In the year 1896, coming in with certain professions-which I have no desire to be repeating in this House, but the need of doing so is forced upon us, shall I say by the disorderly parliamentarism which brings in a Budget amendment on a vote to go into Committee of Supply, and I am compelled to make this statement to renew my hon. friends' acquaintance with the history of tariffs in other countries, and with their own tariff history-in the year 1896, the so-called Liberal party came into power in this country, and in 1897 they introduced some trifling reductions of the tariff, and put two or three articles of importance upon the free list. They also introduced the British preference, which was a- fairly substantial piece of tariff reduction, and then they went to sleep for ten years. That is not the way Mr. Gladstone tackled the tariff. For ten years, from >1897 to 1907, my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) who is so excited now-who says thtereis to be no such thing as waiting-waited with absolute patience during that long term, because the tariff was practically passed over for ten years, and then it was, -I was going to say tackled, but that would be an absurd misuse of language,-flirted with again in the year 1907.
Well, what happened to the tariff in 1907? Absolutely trifling alterations were made in it, and in some cases, so far from following the example of Mr. Gladstone, the tariff was raised. It was raised notably on those woollen goods about which my hon. friends are so anxious at the present moment. Any one would have thought that the climate of Canada had improved in the ten years during which these .fiscal-preaching Rip Van Winkles had been sleeping. Any one would have thought that the climate of Canada had changed from an Arctic to a tropical one, because hon. gentlemen opposite actually put up the duties on woollens. I suppose they conceived in the intervening time the desire to bring their children up a little more hardily. Well. I am thoroughly at one with my hon. friend from Brome that there could be a good prima facie case made out in a Budget discussion for having woollens reasonably cheap, because there are many months of the year in Canada when we are liable to have a temperature at forty degrees below zero; but when I agree with my hon. friend I must ask him also to disagree with the record of the hon. gentlemen with whom
he is now associated, and to which record appeal has been made by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition.
It is true that the reciprocity agreement was brought in. Now, I do not want to detract by a single word from the credit for that agreement. My hon. friend the member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) seemed to chide myself and others from the West the other night, because we did not always give full recognition to what he, and the Government of which he was a member, had done in this connection.
There is no hon. gentleman in this House, Sir, by whom, on many grounds, I should less care to be chided than by my hon. friend; there is no hon. member of this House for whom I have a higher personal regard. I want to say now that I do not desire to detract from any of the merit that attached to the reciprocity proposals, though a great deal can be said as to whether that is the best method of dealing with the tariffs of a country. But I do want to say this in regard to the reciprocity agreement, and I want to put it on record with these few remarks: that there was a notable quotation made from a notable speech by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding)-as he did not divulge the authorship I should not-but he uttered language in which he pointed out that under the reciprocity agreement the manufacturers were not disturbed. I am not sure that my quotation is verbally accurate-it might have been that he said that they were not hurt. In any case, he quoted from a speech which was made in Montreal in the spring of 1911 for the purpose of soothing the manufacturers, and I hope that western voters and members will note that it was a speech made for that purpose. The manufacturers of 'Canada were told by someone high in the authority of the Liberal party on that day, that they were not hurt in the reciprocity agreement. That is part of the record relied on by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. Well, when he comes to attack the tariff in earnest he will not be able to use that language.
If I were dealing with this question on its economic merits, I should try to prove that free trade would not hurt manufacturers who were really self-reliant. I have said in this House that the manufacturers of Great Britain never did anything worth the name until free trade was established in that country. And that is capable of proof by the most exact figures. But that was not the sense in which the statement, reproduced and commended by my hon. friend

the member for Shelburne and Queen's, was made. The sense in which it was made was that it was meant to commend to the country an arrangement which had regard to natural products only, and which gave practically no relief from protection on manufactured goods, which is the only real protection there is in Canada. That is something that my hon. friend would do well to pay attention to before he asks this country to vote for him and his friends-at any rate, on that record.
In the face of that record I cannot help thinking how much more freely men can talk when they are in the position of great freedom conferred by sitting on the Opposition benches, and when they have not that responsibility which weighs so heavily upon my hon. friend, the head of the Government, in regard to the great subjects that- he has touched upon in this House this afternoon. When one thinks of the fiiteen years' record of the Liberals in power, which practically amounted to the tariff being untouched, and not proposed to he touched in any way worthy the name in the reciprocity agreement; when one compares that with the record of real reform during an exactly similar period of English history between the yeaTS 1846 and 1861, then one cannot help exclaiming about the hon. gentlemen opposite:	What patience
they had in power compared with their eagerness and impetuosity when they are in opposition! Having regard to the record of the way in which tariffs have been dealt with in this country in the past, compared with the way they were dealt with in Great Britain, I must say that this motion is a very great compliment to the Union Government. The Union Government has only been in existence about a year and a half. They came into existence at the most critical period of the greatest war of history; they have seen that war to a victorious finish in accordance with the wishes of the great majority of the people of this country, and they are now tackling in manful style the difficulties of the early months of reconstruction; and yet my hon. friends opposite have such confidence in their ability that they say, "In your very first Budget, within three months of peace being declared, we want you to make ten times as ' drastic tariff changes as we were able to do in fifteen years in the times of piping peace.'' Is that a reasonable proposition to bring before this country on a motion for going into Supply? On that ground I shall have no hesitation in voting against this motion.

I need not amplify the special points which have already been made by the leader of the House. It is a motion that, while technically correct, is highly irregular and calculated to upset and embarrass the trade of the country, and we need be in no doubt as to why it is introduced.
I heard no argument in the long speech of my hon. friend (Mr. MoMaster) about the bearing that this question would have upon actual reconstruction in the country. I did hear him give a most emphatic declaration of his belief in party government. His position in that respect was very strongly and emphatically endorsed by my hon. friend who leads the Opposition, and in those declarations we have revealed, unintentionally no doubt on their part, the real meaning of this amendment. It is an amendment by which they do get back to party government; they forget pensions, they forget reconstruction; they snatch ,at the first thing that seems to have excited a few voters and inclined them to come back from an allegiance which they entered into for the noblest of all purposes. They seize upon the first handle by which they can abuse the Government, the first inducement which they can offer to voters outside. They tell us they emphatically believe in party government on all these grounds.
I hold that on the Budget would have been the time to introduce this resolution, that it is not meant to succeed, and therefore has in it an element of insincerity which does not make an appeal to me; that it is playing a purely party game, and that there is no evidence in the general conduct of the Opposition that they are so vastly in earnest upon a number of other matters which are exercising the people of this country. We had an example of that last night, when one of the policies of the Government of this House was debated for two hours without any gentleman on the opposite side of the House stating his opinion. On all these grounds I shall not have the slightest hesitation in voting with the leader of the Government.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. WILLIAM HENRY WHITE (Victoria, Alta):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to second the resolution moved by the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), I may say that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House have frequently brought resolutions of this nature before Parliament. Since the year

1911, when the Liberal party were defeated in trying to reduce, in a measure, the high tariff of this country, we have on many occasions moved resolutions to show that we still stand by the principles that we stood for at that time.
We are told by the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) that this is not the time or the place to bring in a resolution of this kind. It certainly is the place, Mr. Speaker; I do not know what the Acting Prime Minister would consider to be a proper time. If we brought it in, as he suggests, in the Budget debate, it would still be a motion of want of confidence. There is no proper time, according to his way of thinking, for hon. gentlemen on this side to bring in a resolution which in any way interferes with the policy of the Government.
The Acting Prime Minister said that many things would have to be settled before this matter could be taken up. It is true that many things have to be settled, but in many parts of the country, particularly the part of it from which I come, where the same problems have to be solved, the people do not consider this an inopportune time to give attention to the tariff. Perhaps more men went overseas from my province than from any otheT, consequently, there will be more to come home. The fathers of these men and the people generally throughout that country think that this is the proper time to consider matters relating to the tariff. Not only do the farmers, representing seventy-five per cent of the population, hold this view, the three provincial legislatures have unanimously adopted resolutions in favour of action being taken. The Conservatives in the western provinces must be different from those in this part of the country, because these resolutions were supported by the Conservative Oppositions in the three legislatures to which I have referred. Surely the Acting Prime Minister cannot say that this is a political move; that it is made for the purpose of gaining something for party, when he knows that the Conservative Opposition in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba unanimously voted for resolutions in favour of tariff reduction.
A few days ago a platform was laid before this House-that of the United Farmers- that everybody engaged in agricultural pursuits stands for. The Western Legislatures stand for it; the tillers of the soil and the organized farmers of the three Western Provinces stand for it. It is not surprising that Liberals, particularly those who went down to defeat on the same ques-52
tion some years ago, should stand for it; and in doing so they should not be accused of trying to make political capital. An hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who is, perhaps, as fluent and as well-informed as any to be found there, speaking the other day in favour of the large interests which this resolution is directed against, said that Toronto alone paid more income tax than the whole of the four Western Provinces. I believe that is absolutely correct, but it is an unfortunate condition when an area of not more than ten square miles can produce more wealth than the large areas of the Western Provinces. The member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg), came, perhaps, nearer the mark than any other when he said that the average income from exports of the farmers in the West was about $700 per capita. 1 think that is pretty nearly correct, and the farmers who work so hard for what they receive want to reduce a little the income of the large interests and at the same time increase their own.
When the income tax law came into force a year ago many farmers found it difficult to strike a balance and find out what their net receipts were. I have in mind one farmer in the West who, if not the most intelligent man in his district, was as progressive as any other. I cite his case in order to show that the conditions in the West are not what they should be. This man, living in one of the most fertile parts of the country, with land and stock to the value of about $50,000 found that his credit balance last year was $95. True, the year was not one of the best, but he is no small farmer. His gross income was over $7,000, but his expenses were almost the same amount. When you consider that we are paying over twice as much for a plough as we did five years ago, twice as much for wagons, harness, machinery of all kinds, and supplies, it is no wonder that this man's expenses were within $95 of his gross income. You will admit that the farmer whose gross receipts are $7,000 is a great deal more than an average farmer. Besides some hundreds of acres of land, this man had a splendid stock. He had over one hundred head of cattle and possibly forty or fifty horses. I have known him for thirty years, and I know that he has never used anything but registered sires for breeding purposes. He has improved his stock until probably it is the best in the country. Yet he found himself in the position that I have stated, and was obliged to borrow some $2,000 to carry himself over.



The Acting Prime Minister said this afternoon that the farmers would not be misled by this resolution; they would know that some political motive was behind it. When the farmers have not had a prosperous year, members of this House receive telegrams from them. I have received over one hundred, and I shall read a few of them from different districts; the member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) and the member for Stratheona (Mr. Douglas) will see that I am distributing them pretty well. I will give to the House only a few samples, marking the different corners of the district. The opinions expressed are very similar and they will, perhaps, go to show the unrest that exists amongst the farmers of this country as well as their sincerity in regard to this tariff question. I do not think any hon. member, the Acting Prime Minister included, will say that these men are sending these telegrams in order to make political capital. I do not think the men who sent them ever marked any ballots for me. This is a telegram from Bawlf in the Stratheona Riding:
Bawlf Local of U.F.A. request you as federal member for Victoria constituency to stand resolutely for downward revision tariff along lines proposed in farmers' platform being essential for more production.
Yours respectfully, (Signed) R. C. Reinhard.
Bawlf is in the northern end of the district. I have here a telegram from a district which, at one time, had the honour to be represented by the eloquent member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark). This is from Forestburg, and is signed by Mr. A. Mallett, secretary, Forestburg local:
Forestburg Local U.F.A. sends the following resolution: Be it resolved that the Government of Canada be requested to make substantial reductions in the tariff for imports into Canada.
Forestburg is in the southern end of the district. I have here another telegram from Sedgewick. I might say in passing that out of 200 votes in this section I received seven or eight, so that the gentleman who sent this telegram is not very likely to be a supporter of mine. This telegram reads:
The members of Sedgwick U.F.A. respectfully urge downward tariff revision outlined by farmers' platform proposed by Council of Agriculture and endorsed by provincial farmers' convention this request based on grounds of common fairness to great body of people unjustly burdened by excessive cost of production in basic industry.
I have altogether a little over 100 of these telegrams, all couched in pretty nearly the same language. It seems apparent, there-

fore, that it is not only the Liberals in this House who are anxious to see some change in the tariff, but the farmers of Canada as well; and when the position is this, that the people of one town in Ontario are producing more, getting more revenue, making more money than all the farmers of the West, it is time for the Government to wake up and look into the matter, in order to see whether some remedy cannot be found for such a condition of affairs. No better land can be found that that in the West; the climate is good and the people are optimistic, and perhaps work harder than any other body of people in Canada, and yet they find they cannot make much money. My opinion is that heavy taxation is the cause of the lack of success in the West. The statement will be made that the people of the West are rich, but I have been a member of this House for ten years and since I have been in this House, I think the Government, on four or five occasions, had to come to the rescue of the Western farpiers by giving them seed grain. If they were prosperous they would not require assistance from the Government. It shows how close they are sailing to the wind when one bad crop will compel them to appeal to the Government for aid. I do not think such a thing has happened in any of the older provinces, but when we hear it stated that everybody in the West is making money, why is it that every time there is a crop failure in the West the Government has to render aid? This is a serious question. The Government surely do not understand the real conditions in the West, because if they do, they have a great deal to answer for. There must be something wrong in that country when people who have managed a $50,000 plant for a number of years cannot make an income of over $2,000 and come under the income tax. The people of the West have also the geographical position of the country to contend against. Up to the beginning of the war, the average price of oats was 25 cents a bushel, or 35 cents at the lake front. Let us take these prices, and we cannot expect any higher prices now that the war is over. As transportation costs 12 cents a bushel, that leaves 23 cents. It costs ten cents for threshing, so much to bind the grain and so much to till the land. Therefore, if you make a calculation, you will find that 200 acres of land will bring less than $2,000.
An hon. gentleman from Ontario, a manufacturer, I think, laughs at the idea that the farmers are bearing their share of the

taxes. The farmers are willing to bear their share. They have suggested a method by which they can do so; namely, taxation on unimproved lands. As one who has been a farmer all his life, I am in favour of that. Let the Government figure out our share of what revenue is needed, and tax all lands in Alberta, improved and unimproved, and let us pay by direct taxation so that we may know what we are paying, f think every province will be willing to agree to that. But let us not be taxed in this indirect form whereby no one gets the benefit and yet the farmers are paying the taxes just the same.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I understand the hon. gentleman to favour direct taxation on all lands.


Mr. WHITE (Victoria, Alta.):: Yes. If there cannot be found in Alberta enough uncultivated land to pay our just share of taxation in proportion to the population of Canada, I think that is the proper way to get it. The Government might as well take it one way as the other.
When I was reading out some telegrams a little while ago, I overlooked a very important one. This resolution was passed at a farmers' convention:
Farmers of Vegreville district covering an area of over 1,000 square miles request that agricultural implements and all farm machinery and vehicles be placed on the free list that the reciprocity agreement of 1911 which still remains on the United States Statute Books he accepted by the Parliament of Canada that the customs tariff on all necessaries of life be materially reduced.
(Signed) Thos. Balam, Vegreville Organised Farmers.
The hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg), I understood, stated that he was in favour of the Government's fixing a price on wheat. I am not in favour of anything of that kind. I do not think there is any necessity for the Government to fix the price of any commodity in the way of foodstuffs. It was decided at the farmers' convention, I understand, although I was not present, and it was stated by the president of that organization who, my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) claims is an annexationist, that they did not want any privileges and they would not go on record as asking the Government to fix a price on anything.
He said they had to go into the open markets of the world and sell, and they wanted an opportunity to buy in those same open markets. In spite of all that has been said, after all the objections made by the Acting Prime Minister in that beautiful
" twilight-sleep " speech that is said to have worked such wonders at the caucus the other day, I should like to know what other opportunity we had of stating where we stood with regard to the tariff; I do not know of any other way myself. He was followed by my old friend the hon. member for Red Beer (Mr. Clark). As long as I have been in political life I have known the hon. member for Red Deer. In the year 1908 he and another gentleman were good enough to give me a good deal of assistance in my first campaign. He was very well received, and may have made some converts. I was very much surprised to-day to find him deprecating the efforts of the late Liberal Government; he said that as regards the tariff they had done nothing but sleep for ten years. I remember his chief argument on that occasion-and I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, whether he cannot put the best side on any cause he undertakes- he carried the people along with him and made them believe that their only danger was in being led away by some misfortune, perhaps like the present Elections Act, from the Liberal Government which had done such wonderful things in respect of the tariff. We were both successful on that occasion, but my hon. friend was not elected on his political or personal record. He was a new man in that country with no political record behind him, so naturally he " went nap " on the political record of the Liberal party. I might say that prior to that occasion, at a provincial election, when my hon. friend did not depend upon the record of the Liberal party, he was not successful, being one of the two Liberal members defeated in the whole province of Alberta. I am not saying that in an unkind way, because we have all had our experiences. We know that, perhaps, the best representative that Alberta has ever sent to this House was defeated in an election; I refer to the Hon. Frank Oliver. But he was not defeated in Alberta, nor by the farmers. He was defeated in France. He won ninety-five per cent of the rural poll; the farmers for whom he had	striven so	hard	stayed with	himto the	end. He	was	defeated in	thecity of	Edmonton	by	people who	didnot know him. I mention this to show that defeat in an election is not necessarily a reflection upon a man's character or political record. My hon. friend (Mr. Clark) scolded us this afternoon, and he is getting	into the habit	of scolding	hon.
members on this side of the House, in whom he used to take such pride when leading them on the straight and narrow

path. He pointed out, in very different terms from those used by the Acting Prime Minister, that this amendment was only political jobbery and humbug, and did not mean anything, being only brought in for political effect. Now, to show what trouble a bad memory may cause, I shall read an amendment moved by the Hon. Frank Oliver to the motion for Supply, on May 29, 1917, which I think is as close a parallel to the amendment moved this afternoon as could be found. Hon. Frank Oliver (Edmonton) moved in amendment:
That all the words after the word " that " in the motion be struck out and the following he substituted therefor:
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 saw-mill machinery, and repairs for same, rough and partly dressed lumber, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils, cement and fertilizers be added to the free list.
3.	That staple foods and food products (other than wheat flour), domestic animals and foods 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 fifty per cent of the general tariff.
I do not think two amendments more similar in language and meaning could be moved, than the one I have just read and that moved this afternoon. The amendment of Hon. Frank Oliver was voted on, and I want to call attention to what happened. We were told this afternoon that it was in bad taste, very unfortunate, and none too patriotic to move such an amendment now that the soldiers were being brought back, but the amendment of Hon. Frank Oliver was moved in 1917 when the war was at a most critical stage, and among the 'Yeas' who voted for the amendment I find the names of Buchanan and Clark (Red Deer).


Michael Clark: Was that after or before the Budget?


Richard Smeaton White: It was before, but whether it was before or after, the war was on, and my hon. friend voted for the amendment which was so similar to the one moved this afternoon. My hon. friend should not scold us just because we cannot follow him across the floor. Perhaps we learnt our lesson too well when he was our teacher.

He also told us that the Opposition had no responsibilities I might tell him that if we were as erratic as he has proved to be, we might never be in the Opposition; we would be supporting the (Government. There is a way of keeping out of the Opposition, and there are other reasons for an hon. member being on the other side. I have heard of a man who represented a district as a party man and received the party endorsation for some years; and when that endorsation was refused him, he changed sides and ran as candidate for the opposite party. That is another way of staying in the 'Government. After all, we can say that we have the support of all organized farmers in the province from which he and I come. We have the support of both sides, Conservatives and Liberals, in pur legislature; and if we are guilty of playing politics all those people in the province of Alberta are guilty of the same offence. I suggest to my hon. friend, who is so well versed in the principles of Liberalism, which he probably learned in a better school than we did, and had perhaps a more sincere teacher than many of us who learned the free-trade doctrine in this country, that he should be more tolerant, if we are not able to see eye to eye with him. My hon. friend admitted the other day that all the preaching and all the beautiful speeches that had been made in this House had been without avail. He said that the most promising pupil of all was the hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). But I do not think there is much to show for twelve years of labour. I do not notice any tendency in that direction. If the hon. minister has views of the kind indicated, he has kept them very well concealed. We hope the statement is true, however; and hon. gentlemen on this side will be only too glad to support a resolution of this kind, whether introduced by the Acting Prime Minister or by the hon. member for Red Deer.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the House very long in any contribution I have to make this evening to the discussion on the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). The subject matter of the resolution is particularly interesting at this juncture of the session and at this time in the life of the nation. I shall be quite frank with the House, as to where I personally stand in this matter. My record in regard to the fiscal policy of Canada is well known at any rate in that part of the country which I have the honour to represent and in

which all my work has been done. The position of the farmers of Western Canada on the question has, I think, been Stated to the people of Canada very clearly and in an unmistakable manner. I have been associated, and am still proud to be associated, with the organized farmers. When I entered this Government some eighteen months ago, I did so from a profound sense of duty upon the most outstanding issue before the Canadian people at that time.
I followed my conscience then on this question, and I shall do the same on other questions that may call for settlement. I do not disguise the fact that I have always believed in a low tariff policy for this country.
I know that there are those in this House,
' and many in the country, who differ conscientiously from me; but I trust that we can still have differences of opinion on important questions of national policy that are of vital moment to the welfare of Canada, and discuss them purely and simply on their merits. That being my position in this important matter, let me say, Sir, that I think the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) has introduced his resolution at a rather inopportune moment; and I cannot help thinking that perhaps it has been introduced by the hon. gentleman as much for the benefit of some of the members on his own side of the House, as for the benefit of some others on this side. As the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) stated this afternoon, hon. gentlemen on the opposite side must know that this resolution cannot be accepted at the present time. What is the situation? If the amendment to the motion were accepted, it would mean the overthrow of the Government and a general election, with all the necessary turmoil that would ensue.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Not by reason of the acceptance of it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, that is what it
would mean. It could mean nothing else.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. minister
states that if the resolution were accepted it would mean a general election. It would not, Mr. Speaker; it would not mean a division at all, and the Government certainly could not be defeated.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The Acting Prime
Minister, this afternoon, made the position quite clear as to what the real significance of the resolution is, and there is no difference of opinion, on this side of the House at any rate, as to what is involved. I say that 'it would mean the plunging of this country into a general election, and that
is not desirable at this stage. It is wholly undesirable for several reasons, which I do not need to enumerate. I propose to vote against this resolution because it should not have been introduced at the present time. If the hon. gentleman wishes to press the principles contained in it, the proper time to do so is when the Budget has been brought dowm and when we are considering the future fiscal policy of the country.
Mr. McMlAlS'TER:	If I withdraw this
motion will the Minister of Agriculture pledge himself to vote for a similar resolution later?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. gentleman isvery ingenious; at any rate he thinks he is. As far as my position is concerned, I am quite willing to leave it until the Budget is under discussion. The fiscal policy of the Government will be disclosed when that Budget is brought down, and that will be the proper time, in my judgment, to discuss the question which the' hon. gentleman has raised this afternoon.. Nevertheless, this question is an important one. There is no disguising the fact that in Western Canada there is a very strong feeling that substantial reduction of the tariff should be made, and I think I may say that there are good arguments to support that contention. |I do not desire to twit hon. gentlemen opposite with their past record on the fiscal policy. I think I can say, however, that they will have to go a long way before they convince the farmers of Western Canada that they are absolutely sincere in the position they take. If I understand the temper of the Western farmers-and I mention this because free allusion has been made to it this afternoon-he is looking with a very critical eye indeed upon this whole matter. I frankly say that I do not think that a resolution such as the hon. member for Brome has introduced this afternoon-introduced for no other purpose that I can conceive of than to embarrass the Government in carrying on the business of the country at the present time-will find very much favour with the Western farmers at this moment. If the hon. gentleman had introduced the resolution later in the session, and if he had been able to convince the people of Canada as to his bona fides -I do not question that for a moment, because II think the hon. gentleman is entirely	sincere-he
might have had a better chance of carrying conviction to their minds. Whatever

the future may have in store if in the turn of the wheel of political fortune hon. gentlemen now sitting opposite should be entrusted with the reins of office in this country, I only wish to express the hope that they will then be as sincere in their position on this question as they purport to be at the present time. For the reasons I have given, Mr. Speaker, and particularly because this is not the proper time to introduce or discuss this resolution, I intend to vote against it; and I have no doubt whatever in that my action in so doing will be understood by the country.


Mr. JOSEPH READ (Prince, P.E.I.):: Mr. Speaker, my name has been brought into this debate by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) who made the assertion that during my speech on the Address I declared we could not have an election just now, and that I was going to support the present Government by giving them good advice, and helping them in every way I could, as long as I thought they were right. Another hon. gentleman (Mr. Mclsaac) in his criticism of my speech stated that I had at one time been a follower of the late Sir John A. Macdonald.


John Dowsley Reid: Hear, hear.


Joseph Read: It was true, and I am proud of it, because at that time Sir John A. Macdonald was the strongest advocate of Reciprocity in Canada. However, it does not make any difference; if I get sufficient new facts at any time to justify me in changing my mind I am going to do so. I believe that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." The wise man may change his mind several times, but the fool never. My mind has been changed since I made the appeal referred to. What do hon. gentlemen suppose caused me to change my mind? I almost gave my Western friends the assurance-I am sure I gave them the assurance-that the interests of my province down by the seas were identical with theirs. We are a farming population, purely and simply, in Prince Edward Island, and our interests are identical with those of Western Canada; and I told my friends to-day, when they were talking about bringing in this motion: [DOT] "Bring it in and let those Western people have a chance to save themselves."
I hold in my hand a little paper, the only Liberal paper published in the city of Charlottetown. It is called The Patriot, a paper once owned and established by the late |Hon. David Laird, the great Liberal that hon. gentlemen from the Northwest at one

time had out there taking care of their interests. Here is an advertisement which takes up practically the whole front page of this paper, and it reminds me of the anti-reciprocity dodgers of 1911. Those people went down there and bought up the space in every paper they could get in the Maritime Provinces in order to debauch public opinion. Listen to this extract from the advertisement:
At the very moment when Canada is struggling; with this problem-
That is, the problem of raising the revenue.
-the Western Grain Growers come forward with insistent demands for:
An immediate and substantial all-round reduction of the customs tariff.
Free Trade with Great Britain inside of five years.
Reciprocity now, and Free Trade later with the United States.
Then the advertisement goes on to say-


An hon. MEMBER:: Who signs it?


Joseph Read: The Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the particular and especial friends of the hon. gentlemen who occupy the Government benches.


Mr. DEVDIN:: What does the advertisement say further?


Joseph Read: This is what is says:
These demands are apparently made in the hope and belief that, if they are granted, those making them will be relieved of a large part of what they call the " Burden of Taxation," which the tariff imposes upon them.
They may argue that under a lower tariff the volume of goods imported win increase, and consequently there will be no decrease in the revenue. But mark this: they want the duty removed entirely from implements, lumber, cement, oil and other articles of which they are large consumers. If the revenue Is to he maintained under such a rearrangement of the tariff schedules, other classes of the people must pay what the Grain Growers will escape.
It is pretty nearly time that the Grain Growers begin to do something. My province, as I said before, has identical interests with the great provinces of the west, particularly the three prairie provinces. What has happened in our province through this tariff, the brightest province in the Dominion-that province which nature has done more for to the square mile than any other province in the Dominion of Canada; the jewel of the Dominion? This is what has happened: That province has become absolutely depopulated through forty years of this tariff-forty years of protection. When we were an autonomous province doing our own business, and doing it well, the whole revenue was raised by a ten per

cent ad valorem tax on imported goods, and we did not have to pay one per cent of direct taxes. That ten per cent has been raised up to 35 per cent to forty per cent to-day, and they expect the province to live under a burden like that. Why, the agricultural interests of this country are hewers of wood and drawers of water for these Big Interests. Here is another paper -not a Charlottetown paper, but
9 p.m. no less than one of the greatest financial and trade papers in the Dominion of Canada, the Montreal Gazette. This advertisement is headed "Dangerous to Production, to Labour, and to Industry." Then it goes on and gives the whole story, just the same story only in other words, and below are "The proxies of the fifteen thieves,"-Madam Smith the other day in the British Columbia Legislature, drew attention to. She said that the soul of Canada was held in leash by fifteen of the Big Interests of the Dominion of Canada-fifteen men own the whole shooting match. If their names are not signed, well, their representatives are there- Shaughnessy, George, Godfrey, Beatty, Black, Drummond, Ellis, Nanton, Nicholls, Williso-n, Bulman, Rolland, Russell, ficully, Worthington-just fifteen they total up.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why I have changed my mind, because I see the danger that the Western people are standing in. As I told you the other day, we will send you four members from Prince Edward Island-I am as sure of that as that I am alive-if we get a fair show, but if they come down with that stuff, if they buy the press and debauch the people, as they do whenever they have a chance, where are you going to get off at? I may as well tell you Western farmers that you are not going to get this thing if you work alone, you have to get assistance from the Eastern Provinces, and if you do not look out for yourselves you will be in the soup.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.


Joseph Read: The Acting Prime Minister told you that the appeal we were making to you would be in vain. Very well, if it is in vain, then the burden is on your political souls, and when you go back we will see what the Western people will say about you for losing this cause. There is the danger of delaying for the Budget. If my hon. friend, the Acting Prime Minister, could be entirely depended upon, and we could have the assurance of \fhat he told you people in caucus, it might be all right, but you remember the trick he served us in 1911, when he went in with Sir Edmund
Walker and that gang in Toronto. I have not too much confidence in him in that respect.	.
All the Government has got to do now, if they do not want defeat-as I said before, I do not want to see them defeated at this juncture-is to come out flat-footed and accept this motion. I dare say a few of the Ginger Group would vote against them, but I am pretty well satisfied that if they accept the motion they will get the bulk of the men on this side. That is the proper thing to do, accept this motion and avoid defeat or stultify itself. Let the Government show its hand.
If you defeat this resolution, what is going to happen to the reciprocity agreement? You cannot, you know, according to the rules of this House, bring up this motion again this session; do not make any mistake about that, unless you get the unanimous consent of the House, which you are not likely to get. My hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) said that it should not be moved now. Let me tell him in the words of the good old Methodist preacher: " Now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation."


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, the sentiments contained in the [DOT] amendment before us have a somewhat familiar ring to me. I had an idea when I heard them first that my hon. friend had been " cabbaging " some of the work of others. I have a very distinct recollection of being on the committee that framed the original resolution from which this present one is drawn, and I may say that I fully agree with the principle contained therein.
I remember that while my duty was to assist in the framing of that resolution, the duty of some other members was to canvass support for it, and my recollection is that the men who were sent out to canvass said they had harder work than we, that we had taken the easy part.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: Where are those members you were speaking about? They are not on this side; they all crossed to your side.


Levi Thomson: I think some of the members we canvassed are with you still. However, that is not the point. I thoroughly agree with the principle laid down in the amendment. There is no man in this House who is more thoroughly earnest in support of a low tariff and even free trade.
I have no use whatever for the principle of protection; it is vicious in principle and

the sooner we do away with it the better. Perhaps, however, that is beside the question, because the resolution before us does not propose free trade. As the member for Brome has said, our present tariff system is the most expensive way of collecting a revenue. Last year we collected, I believe, about $160,000,000 under the customs tariff. I am satisfied that we paid on account of that tariff at least $500,000,000; that leaves $340,000,000 that does not go into the treasury. I agree that there are many other less expensive ways of raising revenue, and if the question before us were simply whether or not we were in favour of the principle laid down in this amendment, I should be quite willing to vote for it. There is no excuse for our present tariff, and it is up to this Government to see that it is materially reduced. Former Conservative and Liberal Governments had an excuse for not reducing the tariff, which does not exist now. When they were in power the American customs tariff was higher than ours and its existence was the main excuse for protection in Canada. At present, however, we pay practically double the average tariff rate paid by the people of the United States; therefore it is the duty , of the present Government to see that there is a material reduction in the customs tariff. I have some hope, notwithstanding what the member for Prince, P.E.I., (Mr. Read) says, that the Acting Prime Minister and the Government will give that some consideration. I do not see how they can avoid giving it consideration. The fact that agricultural implements, cement, boots and shoes, harness and saddlery, and other things mentioned by the member for Brome-I mention only some of the more important ones-are on the free list in the United States is a good reason why a material reduction in the duty on those articles should be made here. The Canadian manufacturers have the American market open to them; they have as good a chance in that market as American manufacturers have, and I see no good reason why Canadian manufacturers should have preference over American manufacturers while American farmers have a preference over Canadian farmers. I am confident that the Government will take this into consideration when they come to deal with the matter of the customs tariff in the Budget.
While saying this, I agree with most of what has been said by the member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. T. A. Crerar). I 
think they have placed the position of the Western members on this side fairly well before the House. The member for Red Deer says that in bringing forward this resolution the Opposition had no desire to defeat the Government; in other words, that it was not their desire to stand by the natural consequence of their action if this resolution should carry. Is the leader of the Opposition prepared to form a Government to carry on the business of the country if this resolution is adopted?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Why not?


Levi Thomson: I do not think he will say that he is; I think it is thoroughly understood that there is no desire of that kind. In what he said the other night, the member for Prince, P.E.I., was voicing his own sentiments and the sentiments generally of the members opposite.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the hon. gentleman did me the honour of listening to my remarks this afternoon, he must have heard me say that the Liberal party was prepared to assume any responsibility which this country chose to cast upon it.


Levi Thomson: He did not say that he thought this country or the House were prepared at this time to cast that responsibility on the Opposition. What would the consequences of carrying this resolution be? If all the members from the Prairie Provinces, who are deeply interested in the carrying out of some such policy as that suggested by the resolution -very much more deeply interested in it than most of these hon. gentlemen are- should vote for the resolution, the Government would be obliged to resign. A great many of those western members would not be prepared to support a Government formed by the present Opposition. And even if every man of us was prepared to support it, we would not have a working majority in the House, and a general election would have to follow. Who wants a general election? Does the leader of the Opposition want a general election now?
I have too much respect for him to suppose that he does. I certainly do not want one.. Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Levi Thomson: The member for West
Middlesex (Mr. Ross) laughs at that. It is implied, I suppose, that I do not want to go back to my constituency for election.
I do not care a straw how soon I go back for election; I do not care a straw whether I ever go back for election or not. I am not hankering for it; I do not know whether I shall run again or not. But if the Oppo-

sition are not prepared to abide by the consequences of their action-and I do not think they are-their object cannot be altogether to defeat the Government. When I saw this resolution brought up at this stage, it occurred to me that its main object was not to defeat the Government, but to place members from the western provinces on this side of the House in a false position. And if I had not thought that before this debate commenced, I would be quite sure of it now, because member after member on the other side has held out a threat to western members on this side of the House. What hon. gentlemen have said in that regard bears out the idea I had at first. Of course, it is quite open to my hon. friends to do whatever they see fit. I am not worrying about the false position;
I am not worrying about my electors. I addressed only one meeting in my constituency before I was elected, and that meeting was attended by intelligent men who had been strong supporters of the different parties-good red-hot Grits and Tories, pretty equally divided. I explained to them as fully as I could what my position was and would be. I foresaw just the position that we are in to-day. I told them that it was quite possible that a resolution of this kind would be brought up in the principle of which I would concur, but that I reserved to myself the right to use my discretion if I felt that the Government in power should be sustained. I said: " If you are not prepared to send me to Parliament on those grounds, send some one else; I positively will not go as your representative otherwise." I say that those who attended this meeting had been strong party men, but not one of them raised the slightest objection; all approved of the position I took.
And I think the position of the western members generally is the same. I want to make it clear that I am thoroughly in sympathy with the principle laid down in the amendment, and were it a question of voting yea or nay on that without its having any other effect, I certainly would vote for it, but I cannot agree with my hon. friend from Victoria, Alberta (Mr. W. H. White), when he says that the position is the same now as it was when we introduced a resolution some two years ago, because my hon. friend must remember that at the time we introduced that resolution the Budget debate was over. I think my hon. friend knows that very well.


Richard Smeaton White: Some hon. member near me, when the question was asked, stated that the Budget had not been brought down. I accepted that statement. I am not
altogether sure that such was the case. If the Budget had been brought down I apologize to the hon. member for Red Deer.


Levi Thomson: I am not accusing, and I do not wish to accusd my hon. friend of purposely wishing to mislead the House, but I am quite sure that is the position. My hon. friend (Mr. Richardson) has just placed in my hand a note to the effect that the Budget was introduced on April 24 and the resolution was moved by Mr. Oliver on May 29. The position would, therefore, be different. But whether the position is different or not, I do not think that would bind us, under the present circumstances, to vote for this amendment. The circumstances are a little different, but I do not purpose going into them. I do not say that I might not, under certain circumstances, feel justified in voting for this amendment as it stands. It might be the simplest matter for a few of us who represent the most red-hot free trade constituencies in the West merely to sit back quietly, and when the vote was taken to vote for the amendment. That would not defeat the Government. But hon. members must remember this, that there are at least 30 members from the western, provinces who are in practically the same position as I am. Would it not, then, be the meanest thing on earth if I did that sort of thing? What would my hon. friends opposite think if I acted in that way? In fair play to each other, under present circumstances, we have to stand together.


Ernest Lapointe: Does not my hon. friend know that during the debate on the Address, many speakers on the other side challenged us to show where we stood on the tariff question, and no one asked us to wait until the Budget was. brought down?


Levi Thomson: That may be. It is not necessary to deny or admit that. People may make challenges to my hon. friend which they have no business to make; but it is not necessary for him to fall into every trap laid for him, is it? I am afraid my hon. friend is rather hard pushed for an excuse-and finds a rather poor one-for the position which he occupies at present. He will have to endeavour to secure some better reason for the action of his party than that. I do not purpose complaining about the action of the Liberal party when in power. At least I do not wish to complain any further than I complained of their action when I was on the opposite side of the House. I do not wish to adopt towards the action of the Liberal

party when in power in regard to the tariff question a different tone from that which I adopted when I was a member on the opposite side'of the House, or a Liberal candidate. On those occasions I endeavoured to make it perfectly clear where I stood on the question. I also endeavoured to make it perfectly clear that I was not satisfied with the record of my party on that question. And I may say that I am very much dissatisfied with the want of progress shown by the Liberal party when in power on their much-talked-of pilgrimage towards "free trade as it exists in England." They did not make such vast progress as would satisfy me then, and it will not satisfy me now. I do not purpose making any further criticism; but when my hon. friends speak about dealing with the West, satisfying the West, they must remember that the West wants action. The West does not rely very much on opposition promises. The West is more likely to take cognizance of the performance of a party when in power. The West is not playing politics and is not favourable to the playing of politics by any person, and I do not think it will look with favour upon the present action of the Opposition, because the West will regard it as playing politics.
Mr. EMMANUEL B. DEVLIN (Wright): Before entering upon my remarks, I wanted to ask the hon. gentleman a question without wishing to interrupt him in his speech. Could the hon. gentleman suggest any other way than that we have taken by which we might bring. this matter before the House in order to get an expression of view from hon. gentlemen on the other side?


Mr. LEVI THOMPSON:: If I were going to suggest a way, it might better be done when the Budget is brought down. But I am not objecting so much if my hon. friends merely wish to place themselves on record.
I placed myself on record before and I have placed myself on record here this evening as to what I think. If my hon. friends are actuated merely by a desire to place themselves on record, I have no objection to the method they have adopted. If I suffer by it, that is all right.


Mr. DEVLIN:: My purpose in asking the question was simply to endeavour to establish in my mindi just how sincere the hon. gentleman was, because I think hon. gentlemen in this House know me well enough by this time to understand that I do not want to make myself the judge of the actions of my fellow-men. But to-day 
I have listened to a debate which has been somewhat marvellous. I gave very keen attention, as I generally do, to the speech of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark). I always admire his manner of speaking, and when he sat with us upon this side of the House I admired his earnestness. If I speak along the lines I speak to-night, I will make an open confession-it is said confession is sometimes good for the soul-that it is greatly due to the lessons which the hon. member taught me. He will remember quite well that for years we sat in this House as desk-mates. He said, upon several occasions since this session began, that he was the father of free trade in this House. Perhaps I will not go quite as far as that.


Michael Clark: If the hon. member will pardon me, I never used that expression about myself. I never called myself the father of anybody except four boys.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The teacher?


Michael Clark: I never describe myself.
Mr. DEVLiN: Does the hon. gentleman say that he was not a teacher? Why, the hon. gentleman pointed out to me on a hundred and one occasions-and this is no breach of confidence-that I must be blind if I could not see that free trade was the only thing to save this country.
Does not the hon. gentleman remember how cleverly he put the matter when he spoke of the rays of the sun coming through the window, and turning to me, said:
" Would you put a wall in front of those rays?" Does not the hon. gentleman remember that language? " Why," he said, "it is the same thing exactly when you try to build up a wall against the free entry of goods into this country." Now, I take it that my hon. friend was sincere when he said that; I may be credulous, but I certainly thought he was sincere. And when I heard him say this afternoon that this was not an opportune time for a resolution such as this, I began to think: Has my old desk-mate gone back on the principles which actuated him during so many years, simply because he has changed from a seat upon this side of the House to a seat upon that? We all have the privilege of changing our opinions, of course, and I hope that none of us is so glued to any one particular opinion in non-essentials that he will not change it on any account. But the hon. member for Red Deer has pointed out, not on one or two or three or half-a-dozen occasions in this House, but in season and

out of season, that free trade as they have it in England is the proper thing for this country. Remembering how he had told us with that eloquence of his how he had learned free trade under William Ewart Gladstone, we thought he was going to instil into the minds not only of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House but of hon. gentlemen opposite, the same undying principle^ -until this afternoon, when he said: "A punctilio, the merest technicality, prevents me from supporting the opinions I have held on the tariff during my whole political career."
Mr. Speaker, what is good for this country in the matter of trade? Is a low or a high tariff the best? The Acting Prime Minister will tell me that a high tariff is best; my hon. friend from Red Deer, that a low tariff is best. The hon. gentleman from Red Deer says that a low tariff is best, provided there are no technicalities in the way. Away with such talk about technicalities! How often have I heard the hon. member from Red Deer use similar language: Away with your technicalities and your precedents; give us free trade.
I must now leave, with very great regret, my hon. friend from Red Deer and turn to my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Levi Thomson) for a very brief moment. He is another gentleman who sat with us upon this side of the House; another gentleman who said that he had great difficulty in finding converts, as he put it, to the resolution which I have now in my hand, proposed on the 29th of May, 1917, by the Hon. Frank Oliver, when the war was perhaps at its most critical stage. The hon. member says that hp is thoroughly in accord with this present amendment, I understand that the hon. member is a lawyer, who occasionally does some farming. He wants the West to know that he is in favour of this resolution, and h<e is going to support it by voting against it. He hopes the Government will give consideration to the matter. Why, my hon. friend must know that all Governments give consideration to all matters that come btefore them; oftentimes that consideration is unfavourable, and sometimes it is favourable, and judging by the attitude of those on the Government benches this afternoon and their attitude during the past few days I do not think I am prophesying rashly when I tell the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that the Government is giving very serious consideration to this question, and its final decision will be unfavourable. After saying that he is in favour of the resolution, the hon. member goes on to say
that he cannot support it because it might result in the defeat of the Government. Surely the hon. gentleman h-as not reached the stage where he clings more strongly to Government than to principle. I can hardly believe the hon. gentleman is sincere, because upon other occasions when he sat upon this side of the House looking across at the Government he did not care whether the Government was defeated or sustained. |He believed then in principle, but now he has apparently changed, not his principles, let me hope, but his mind. A strong argument which the hon. member brought to the debate this afternoon, and which must have appealed to you, Mr. Speaker, was that whilst he wanted to support the resolution by voting against it, he could not vote for it because it would place his western colleagues in a falsie position. Mr. Speaker, his vote will not place his western colleagues in a false position if I know anything of the sentiments of the West as we rtead of them in the Unionist press of today. The West is demanding a lower tariff. Is that not so? The West is not asking hon. members representing western constituencies to wait, but is dtemanding immediate action. Am I right, or wrong? The hon. member, however, says that he does not want to vote for this resolution, because it will placte the western members in a false light. And that can be readily understood. Western Canada has sent representatives here in great numbers to support a lower tariff, and is now demanding action. The West says to its representatives: Now is your time to ask for a lower tariff; we want you to act immediately. One h<m. member from the West replies:	Will you
not wait until the Budget comes down? Another hon. member says: Will you not . wait until we see what consideration the Government gives the matter? And yet another hon. gentleman tells us that he will go back to the West and explain his position. He says: It would have been all right for me to do it, but I would have placed my western colleagues in a false light. It seems to me, Sir, that we have come to a time in the political history of Canada when the representatives of the people must not be actuated by political motives, but solely by motives of principle. We, unfortunately-and I shall only allude to the fact in passing-have lost our leader. We have lost one in whom we could confidently place even our own judgment. We were so sure of the greatness of his mind, ve were so sure of the position he would take, and that his every action would conduce to the greater advantage of Canada, that we

could safely follow Mm On all political questions which might come before this House. We no longer have him with us, but we have the beautiful fruits of his life work, the principles which he laid down and which should guide not only the Liberals who supported him, but every man who is intent on his country's good and wishes to do his duty by those who sent him here and by the Dominion at large-not as he sees it in his own parochial way but' from the broader standpoint of the whole Dominion. Sir, these principles have been instilled into the minds of Liberals in this House and throughout the Dominion, including my Liberal friends on the other side of the House who would follow them if they had the courage of their convictions. I listened with much interest to my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster), who gave a good reason why his motion should be adopted-indeed, he gave many good reasons. He took the question up in its economic phase, and although I shall not weary the House by repeating the virtues of the resolution, I will assure my hon. friends from the West that in supporting the resolution we are not at all guided by what action they may take. We do not care a jot whether they desire to place their colleagues in a false or a fair light in the House. That is a matter of their own concern. But what we wish to place upon the record is the fact that, of all classes in this Dominion, the one class that is not protected is the farming population; and we wish further to record our recognition of the just demands of the farmers and our support of them in those demands. Will technicalities stand in the way? Let that same resolution in a different form be introduced by any hon. gentleman on the opposite side as a Government measure, and I appeal to my leader to tell me whether I am right in saying that hon. members on this side would give the same measure of support to the resolution so introduced as they propose to give to that now before the House.
It is not my intention to endeavour to embarrass the Government. Heaven knows, Sir, they are sufficiently embarrassed as it stands, although they have brought this embarrassment on themselves. They have made innumerable pledges, and if they cannot fulfil those pledges, well, we can only shrug our shoulders and pray for them. But I want to say one word to my friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. T. A. Crerar). We recognize the extremely difficult position he is in, and sympathize with him. We under-
	i
stand that he has been for many years the spokesman for the farming communities in the West. He entered this Government as a matter of conscience, he tells us, and adds that to support this resolution would place him in a false light, it would perhaps mean the defeat of the Government; in any even he did not think the present was an opportune time to propose it. Well, I readily agree with the hon. minister in that last argument; any resolution which may have a tendency to embarrass a Government is likely to be regarded by that Government as inopportune at any time, war or no war. The resolution which was proposed on the 29th of May, 1917, and which was supported by the hon. gentlemen now seated on the other side of the House, was not, according to my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, introduced at an opportune time. Its introduction, I take it, would be eminently opportune if the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture happened to be seated on this side of the House; but he is not on this side, hence his opinion. Other members following him spoke along the same lines. Well, Mr. Speaker, any time is an opportune time for the farmers of the East; and if it is not an opportune time for the farmers of the West, my advice to hon. gentlemen representing Western interests will be to wait until such time presents itself. If the farmers of the West are satisfied to wait indefinitely, it is well; but we who represent constitutencies wherein farmers are to be found, and who know something about the farming communities of Eastern Canada, are of opinion that the farmers are not prepared to wait any longer for action on the part of the Government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Speaker, considering the importance of the amendment before the House, and the number of times that I have discussed the tariff question in this House during the last fourteen or fifteen years, I do not feel justified in giving a silent vote upon the amendment, and for that reason I shall proceed to place myself on record very briefly as to my position. In doing so I hope it will be distinctly understood that I am speaking for nobody but myself; I am not attempting to represent the Government, and I am speaking, in so far as it is possible to do so, as an ordinary member of the House. Like my friend from Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. :Levi Thomson) when I heard the amendment read this afternoon it sounded very familiar to me: it was practically the Oliver resolution of 1917, which

I seconded, which I supported, which I honestly believed in when I supported it, and with the principles of which I am strongly in accord to-night. There are two matters referred to in the amendment now before us which were not included in the Oliver resolution. The first is a declaration that the Reciprocity Agreement of 1911 should be brought into force by the Parliament of Canada at the present time in order that we might have the advantages of it.
Let me say, Sir, that there was no man in Canada who honestly believed in the virtues of the Reciprocity Agreement of 1911 to a greater extent than I did. There has never been anything in my whole political experience which I viewed so favourably from the economic standpoint-which I believed would be to the advantage of the great majority of the people of Canada-as I did the Reciprocity Agreement. I have not changed my mind one jot or tittle down to the present day, and the greatest regret of my life-not from any personal feelings, but from the standpoint of the public-was that the Reciprocity Agreement of 1911 was not sustained by the people at the polls. 1 am, however, unable to agree with my friend that any very great good would come by the adoption of the Reciprocity Agreement by this Parliament at the present time, for the simple reason that practically everything which the Reciprocity Agreement grants to the people of Canada has already been obtained, either by the action of the United States Congress, or by the action of the Canadian Government during the last three or four years. Lumber has been made free. That means a tremendous amount to the eastern portions of Canada, and I believe to some extent as well to the western portions of the Dominion. Fresh fish have been made free, which must be a tremendous gain, I know it is in fact, to the people of Eastern Canada. A great proportion of the agricultural products of Canada are free into the United States. Cement has been made free, boots and shoes are free; and practically, as I said before, everything which is produced in large quantities, and which means a great deal to the industries and the producers of Canada, now goes into the United States free of duty. There are, it is true, a great many small items, referred to by my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) this afternoon, which are not free, but they play a very small part in the general trade of the country.
In addition to the articles which have been made free by the United States Congress, wheat and wheat products, or the
great majority of them, have been made free by the action of this Government. The same thing can be said of potatoes, due, of course, to taking advantage of the provisions of the recent United States tariff. My reason for saying that the adoption of this policy would not be of very much value to Canada at the present time is, that I always contended that the reciprocity arrangement was not a treaty, but was simply an agreement by which like tariffs should be adopted by the two countries on a certain list of articles. It is well known that a change has taken place in the political complexion of the Congress of the United States during the past three or four months. What course the new Congress may take I do not know; but I am sure that any action which this Government or this Parliament may take to-night would have no influence whatever upon the action which the United States Congress may take when it meets, some time probably in the month of May.
I am not going to-night over all the ancient history in regard to this question, but I do feel that I ought to read one extract from the letter written by the two gentlemen who negotiated the treaty on the part of Canada in 1911, to show that this was not a treaty, but simply an agreement that certain tariff reciprocal arrangements should be provided by the two countries. I am going to take the liberty of doing that because it seems to me it goes to the very pith, the very heart, of the proposal of my hon. friend as embodied in the amendment which he has submitted. I am reading now from the letter, dated 21st January, 1911, signed by W. S. Fielding and William Paterson, in accepting the proposal of the United States Government as contained in a memorandum of the American Secretary of State to them. I will read one paragraph from that letter, to show what was the real intention of the document. It is to be found at page 2457 of Hansard, 1911:
Nevertheless, It is distinctly understood that we do not attempt to bind for the future the action of the United States Congress or the Parliament of Canada, but that each of these authorities shall be absolutely free to make any change of tariff policy or of any other matter covered by the present arrangement, that may be deemed expedient.
With that understanding, and with the changed conditions that have taken place in the United States, I can see no very great good in the Parliament of Canada, after nearly eight years have gone by, attempting to adopt the provisions of that agreement, and therefore I have no hesita-

tion whatever in voting against that portion of my hon. friend's amendment.
The hon. gentleman next deals with the repeal of the Customs War Tax imposed in 1915. I want to say here that I realize the full gravity of the statement which I am making, or about to make. I was opposed to the imposition of these duties in 1915; I did not believe they were necessary for the purpose for which they were intended. While it is true they may have brought in some revenue, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that they have added a tremendous burden on the consumers of Canada. I was opposed to them then, and I have failed yet to be convinced that they were necessary.
As to the remainder of the amendment, it is practically the Oliver resolution of 1917, to which I have referred before, and I have but very little quarrel with any of the sentiments expressed in it. I agreed with it in 1917, and I have not seen very much to cause me to change my opinion at the present time.
I do, however, want to point out to my hon. friends opposite that, as was said by the hon. membeT from Prince, P.B.I. (Mr. Read), a man has a right to change. his mind if he finds that he is wrong. If a man has any honesty about him, and is convinced that he is wrong in his views, he will not hesitate to change them. I have not arrived at that point yet, but I may tell my hon. friends frankly that I am very much at sea as to what should be the policy of this country during the next three or four years, as to the whole question of the taxation by which we are going to raise a revenue. Earlier in this session I took occasion to point out, in a very brief manner, and in a very general way, the financial situation as I viewed it in Canada. I pointed out that I could not see how, under present conditions, we were going to raise the last $100,000,000 of revenue required in the next twelve months, after the current fiscal year, and I have listened in vain for any person on either side of the House even to discuss the matter, let alone point to the solution.
I think I can go as far as to say that I have seen no very great change in the attitude of the people of Canada and their representatives in their demand for the expenditure of public monies. I am afraid that my teaching has not produced very much result up to date. On account of the changed financial conditions, I tell you very frankly that I am at sea to know exactly what ought to be the proper method of

raising taxation in this country. I think practically every method' which we have ever heard of before and which we can conceive of in the future is going to be necessary in order to produce the required amount of money; and I want to point out to my friends opposite that the debt of this country will ue a billion dollars more before the affairs of the present year are wound up than it was when the Oliver amendment was discussed. While that may seem a very unimportant matter to some hon. gentlemen of this House and some people in this country, it is a very, very serious matter to me.
With many of the general principles laid down by this amendment I am in hearty accord. I do not believe in the doctrine of protection for protection's sake. I do not believe that any industry is entitled to protection to such an extent that it means the prohibition of the importation into this country of the article covered by that industry. I do believe that the raw material of the farmer, his agricultural implements, should be made free, or as nearly free as ft is possible to make them under existing conditions. It may be that the manufacture of some of those articles could not exist in Canada if they were made absolutely free. I have not been convinced of that yet, but I am willing to listen to argument, and I would feel like deciding only after a very mature consideration of the subject. But I believe that a great majority of the agricultural implements of this country ought to be free to the farmers.
Now, I realize, Mr. Speaker, that I am making statements which, considering my position, mean a good deal to me. I can only say that when I entered this Government-I am not going over the very, very long and somewhat unpleasant conditions which existed between the month of April and the month of October, 1917; possibly another occasion may arise when they can be discussed-I did so after the most mature deliberation, which many of my good old friends opposite know all about, and nobody knows so well as does my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding). II did so for one specific purpose and for a specified time. The purpose, I am happy to say, has been achieved; the time has not yet expired. During the election in the province of New Brunswick I issued a letter to my constituents and to the people of our province, setting forth the fact that the Government was to be composed of an equal number of former Conservatives and former Liberals, for the

purpose of carrying on the war and providing recruits for our army, and that it would continue for the duration of the war
and a reasonable time thereafter for demobilization.
Demobilization has not yet been completed, and so far as I am concerned my contract has not expired. Therefore, regardless of what may have been my opinions in 1917, and regardless of 10 p.m. what my opinions may be today, on economic questions I am not going to take any action which would put this Government out of power while the soldiers are on the ocean coming back and before they are demobilized, and which action would probably, if carried out to its logical conclusion, bring on a general election while this great movement is in process.
I have no fault to find with my hon. friends for bringing up the motion as they have done; that is their business. I have been in this House long enough I think to know the political game pretty well, I have supported governments and I have been in opposition, and I realize the situation. If my friends wish to bring this up at this particular time, it is not according to my views of good political strategy, but, that is their affair, and I realize they are not asking my advice, and I am not tendering it. But the motion having been brought up I am perfectly prepared to face the situation, and I do not think there will be any question that everybody on this side of the House will be prepared to take the same stand exactly, and to vote upon this matter simply for the reason I think very largely that it would be little short of a crime to bring on a general election in Canada under present conditions.
It is all very well for my friends to say, "Well, accept the amendment." Let us get down to earth for a moment. I tell my friends, and they know very well, that this Government could not accept it, and when they say, "Accept it," they are simply asking this Government to do something which is impossible; it could not be done. Therefore it means a vote, and a vote which, if the amendment carried, would mean the resignation of the Government and a general election. I am not prepared to take that responsibility to-night, the members on this side are not taking that responsibility. Further, I do not believe there are more than two or three on the other side who would assume such a responsibility if they knew that was going to be the result.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have stated my views, perhaps somewhat frankly, and I propose to stand by this Government until the soldiers are home. When that time arrives it will be up to me, the same as it will be to every other man in this country, to do exactly what he has a mind to do. I am making no promises of what I will do; I believe that sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof, and when that time .arrives I am absolutely free to take any course which I consider in the interests of the country and in honour to myself.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac): Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in support of the resolution. We in this country with abundant resources have struggled against the tide of protection for more than forty years, and we have fought a losing fight. Protection was inaugurated about forty years ago, and since that time we have been losing in population at the rate of two hundred thousand people per annum. Instead of having as we should havo had fifteen million people in the Dominion, at the last census we had only about seven million. That was largely due to the protective tariff, which induced the people to go into the cities, the manufacturing centres, at the expense of the rural districts.
When the Liberal Administration came into power in 1896 and advocated their low tariff policy, they at the same time inaugurated a system of immigration, and they were able to get a very much larger number of immigrants from the British Isles and from the United States than had ever been attracted to this country before. We gained in population from 1901 to 1911 1,835,000 people and in the preceding ten years we gained only 530,000 people. During the 1901-11 period we gained that number of people largely from the British Isles and the United States, and they were mainly people coming to settle on the land. But again in 1911 and after that period our immigration fell off and our people quit settling on the land to any extent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been a good deal of talk in this country by the protectionists for some time past about the production of wealth. Well, the production of wealth in this country comes largely from the land.
The wealth of the nation is created for us in our magnificent land, timber, fishery, and mineral resources, but the only producer of wealth is labour. If you exhaust the timber resources and do not replace

them by reforestation; if you deplete the minerals or the fisheries, you are drawing on capital account; but agricultural production is practically self perpetuating if it is properly carried on. The soil, therefore, is the place from which we should largely draw our wealth. For* the last forty years the protected manufacturer has been advocating through the press, through active politicians, and on the stump, the principle that we should build up large manufacturing industries, that we should build up an export trade in manufactured goods. Well, previous to the war, England, the chief exporting country of the world, was an importer of foodstuffs. The foreign trade of England previous to the war amounted to $100 per capita; of Germany, the next greatest trading nation, $50 per capita; of the United States, only $30 per capita; and of the smaller nations lesser amounts. No nation ever built up its export business until it became an importer of foodstuffs. Great Britain before the war was importing practically two-thirds of her foodstuffs and Germany one-third; they were doing a world trade in manufactured goods. The export and import trade of the United States was largely in luxuries and in goods they did not produce; it amounted to about ten per cent of their internal trade previous to the war. The export and import business of Germany was done through a free port; the export and import business of Great Britain was done, of course, through a free trade country. It is impossible to build up an export and import business unless you do it in a free trade country or through a free port.
We are asked by the manufacturers to give them protection on their goods, to pay them a bonus on the goods we consume, in order that they may be able to build up an export business. Then, if we allow them this protective tariff or bonus, they say that they are not able to sell their goods in foreign countries; that they cannot find a market unless we, the people of Canada, furnish the funds to foreign countries with which to buy the goods which we produce in Canada. Of course they cannot sell their goods, because they cannot exchange them. The export and import business of a nation is an exchange business. If you are not able to buy from the nation to which you wish to sell, necessarily you cannot sell to that nation. They cannot ship you gold to pay for their purchase. There is not enough gold to go round; they must exchange goods with you.
Thle Bill that is to be brought down to provide for a loan to foreign countries to

enable them to buy our products provides, I understand, that two-thirds shall apply to manufactured goods and one-third to raw and finished farm products. We expect to sell, say, to Roumania and to Serbia not wheat or beef, but finished articles such as bacon, flour and other manufactured foodstuffs. That being the case, the Canadian manufacturer gets the benefit. We are being asked to furnish thte money to buy the goods of the manufacturer.
, I am not familiar enough with the rules of the House or the rules of the game of thte manufacturer to be in a position to say when this subject should be taken up and debated, but I am quite sure that so far as we are concerned, and so far as thle men who believte in a lower tariff or free trade are concerned, the time is now. Certainly the manufacturer will never be ready to say that thle time is now; and if we do not take action now, when are we to take action? The western people are asking that action be taken now, the farmers of my constituency arte asking that action be taken now. The member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Levi Thomson) may be able to explain his attitude to his constituents; but I make this suggestion to the Government: If they have any doubt as to the seriousness of the farmers in this matter, let them hold by-elections in the constituencites of Assini-boia, North Ontario, Glengarry and Stormont, and Quebec East. If they do that, they will find out what the farmers are thinking to-day. If they will not do that, and if the member for iR'ed Deer or the member for Qu'Appelle has any doubt about the attitude of the farmers in their constituencies, I make this proposal: If either of them will resign his seat I will resign mine, and we will test public opinion on this question and find out whether the peoplte think this is a proper time to give it consideration. Hon. gentlemen opposite who believe in low tariffs and in free trade should accept this as an opportune time for action, and vote accordingly.
I must admit that I was rather taken aback this afternoon when I heard the great free trade lion from Red Deer let out a yelp at the Opposition about their attitude, and then come to heel when he heard the party whip crack. If that is the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite who are free traders, we shall never get to the point where we can agree on this question in the House. But a majority of the people favour this resolution; why do not the free traders on the other side vote for it? Members on the other side as well as on this side of the House should show the people where they

stand in this matter in order that those who sent us here as their representatives may know what to expect from us.


John Wesley Edwards: Is my hon. friend in favour of absolute free trade for Canada?


Mr. CAHILL:: I am in favour of absolute free trade for Canada at the present moment.


Hon. MARTIN BURRELL (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is important in one or two respects, notably in that it has to be taken, if carried, to involve a vote of want of confidence in the Government. It is not my intention to discuss many of the aspects of the matter that have been touched upon this evening, but rather to reply to some remarks made by hon. gentlemen opposite who are evidently going to vote for the amendment and who have attempted to justify their vote by all the arguments that they consider necessary to support their position.
It is an amendment to the motion for going into Supply, and it is argued by the leader of the Opposition and by most of the other hon. members who have spoken on that side of the House that it is not thereby a vote of confidence motion. It is true that during the years that I have been in this House, I have.heard this point argued a good deal, and especially has it been argued that this is not necessarily to be taken as a vote of want of confidence, if the subject matter of the amendment is not of any very great importance. There may be some force in that, but I do not think' any hon. member in this House, either on this side or on the other, could possibly say that this was anything but a want of confidence motion, when it involves an absolute and complete change in the whole of our fiscal policy at the present time. A matter so fundamentally important must certainly, if brought up in this way, if carried or rejected, be regarded as a want of confidence motion, especially when it is brought in at this time before the Budget is brought down. The amendment, as every hon. member knows, relates to the whole of our fiscal system. It is intimately concerned with all our business ramifications throughout the country, and yet the leader of the Opposition said that if it was accepted, it would not be a vote of want of confidence. I can only say that from my point of view, if an amendment of that kind were accepted at this time, when the Budget is at least a few weeks off, and when the closest study is being given to
the fiscal and trade conditions of this country, I can conceive of nothing that would so disturb, dislocate and perhaps destroy the industries of this country as to have an amendment of. this kind carried at this particular moment. The leader of the Opposition rather taunted the members of the Government and other members on this side of the House and said: Waiting, waiting, what are you waiting for? My hon. friend (Mr. Cahill) said that the time to take this action is now. The leader of the Opposition said that he was extremely impatient and that everybody on that side was satisfied that the matter should not be put off, and he appealed to the record of the Liberal party on this whole matter. May I say to my hon. friend that the record of the Liberal party on this matter is not one of rushing into violent fiscal changes at very short notice? I happened to be in this country in 1896, not taking a very keen interest in politics and certainly not taking an interest in party politics. I listened to the discussions that took place throughout the country at that time. Everybody knows that the party which my hon. friend supported then and which he is supporting now was pledged to free trade as it existed in England. At that time I happened to be engaged in farming, largely fruit growing, in the Niagara peninsula, and I will recall to my hon. friend, if he does not know it; that all the people of that district-it did not matter what their party affiliations were-were greatly disturbed as to the possibility of the promises of the then Opposition being implemented. They did not know what was going to happen, and the whole case was argued very completely before a tariff commission which came around and which comprised amongst others my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding), who spoke the other night. My hon. friend from.Shelburne and Queens, as a member of the Government that had been elected in 1896, did not do what the leader of i Opposition is now getting impatient to do when urging this country to rush into this change suggested to-night, but he toured through the country and listened carefully to all the presentations made by interests affected by tariff changes of any kind. As a result, the particular industry with which I was associated at that time was left practically untouched by a Government which had been pledged to free trade. As the years went on, there came demands for tariff changes, and again the Government which was supported by



the leader of the Opposition made another tour of the country and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens was at that time a member of that commission. He came out to British Columbia where I happened to be living. I was still associated with the same kind of farming and the same kind of business, and I had the honour again of putting forward some of the arguments in reference to that particular industry and everything was given a most careful and patient consideration. And, I may say, again to our satisfaction there was practically no change in the tariff as it affected that particular industry. I put these matters before the House as showing the tremendous contrast between a party which was still in power and with which my hon. friend was still associated when it had the responsibility of advocating changes in the tariff, and the attitude assumed by those hon. gentlemen who now have no responsibility at all, except to endeavour to disturb the affiliations of those who are now forming Union Government and a Union party and to try to make ammunition on that side of the House for political purposes throughout the country.
A good deal has been said about reciprocity. The word has a familiar sound to many of us who debated the matter for many weary months in the House and throughout the country I will not discuss it except to refer to the statement made by the mover of the amendment (Mr. McMaster) this afternoon, that the only thing that affected the people of Canada in giving what he called this unfavourable and mistaken verdict upon this point was the appeal to racial passions and so on. I think the hon. member completely misjudges the people of this country if he puts them down as such fools that, after a campaign of education of months and months, the vast majority of them could come to a decision dnly through appeals to passions. The people of my province came to a decision for various reasons. So far as the industry in which I was engaged is concerned, they came to that decision because they were absolutely convinced that a policy of free trade as regards the fruit growing industry would have meant the absolute extinction of, or at all events, a serious blow to that industry, in which millions of dollars were invested. Over and above that there was a very ' strong and healthy sentiment amongst the people of Canada at that time that helped to defeat the reciprocity proposal. They believed then-and I believe they do now,-that it was better, whatever 
mistakes we might make, to be master in our own house, to have complete autonomy and power and control over our own affairs, than to allow our powerful neighbour to have a finger in the pie so that in years to come she could exert over our affairs a control that might be disastrous. I do not wish to argue that point. The leader of the Opposition argued that this was not a want of confidence motion. I will recall to him what the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) said the other night.	That hon. member
said that he did not wish to see an election precipitated in this country at the present time; that he was prepared to vote against any want of confidence motion, because he did not feel it was in the interest of Canada to have an appeal to the electorate at present. My hon. friend hardly did himself justice in his taunt that our desire not to accept this amendment was because we wanted to hang on to power. I do not think my hon. friend, if he would give a conscientious expression of his opinion, will accuse any minister who has gone through the stress and strain of the last four years of being anxious and keen to hang on to power with all the nerve ranking responsibility that is entailed on members of the Government. I can only assure him for myself-and I think I can say the same thing for other members of the Government-that there have been many times when we would have gladly relinquished to others the responsibilities of power and all it entails, and I think it was rather unworthy for my hon. friend to throw out a taunt of that kind. If he thinks the desire of the Government is to hang on to power, then it is still more unworthy of him to show such an anxiety and eagerness to attain to power by the manner he proposed to the House to-night by putting an amendment of this kind. I do not agree with him when he argues that the people will realize that our position is based on a technicality. I do not think my hon. friend need think that the people of this country are so foolish as not to see through the insincerity of such an amendment at this time and not to see that it is simply a political game. We have all played it more or less in the past. There is hardly a member of this House who has not, in some form or another, been guilty of precipitating a vote, or putting the other'party on record, knowing that nothing will come of it but thinking: Here is some good ammunition I can fire out to my constitu-

ents to show what a lot of blighters these fellows were voting against the best interests of the country, at the same time knowing it was not going to be effectual.
He knows perfectly well this motion will not carry, and I venture to say the leader of the Opposition would be the most disappointed man in this House if the motion did carry and he found himself in the extraordinarily difficult position of having to form a government in this country at this time on a platform along the lines of this amendment. Plunged into the enormous tasks facing this country at the present timfi, how long would he hang on to power under these conditions? He would not last five minutes; that is my opinion.
My hon. friend from Victoria, Alta. (Mr. W. H. White) dealt at some length with our good friend from Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark). I do not think I or any other man in this House need take up the cudgels for the hon. member for Red Deer, because I have never seen a man better able to handle them than he is himself. But I submit that there was absolutely no argument whatever in taunting the hon. member for Red Deer for voting on a motion on May 29, 1917, of a fiscal character, at a time when the Budget was six weeks old. We all know how ardently the hon. member for Red Deer has advocated the cause of free trade, but I venture to say that even if he had been on that side of the House he would not have voted for this amendment, or would have done his best not to have it introduced at such a time if the Budget had been coming down on May 29 and the amendment had been moved on April 24, because he would have known perfectly well what it would have involved. His position was absolutely consistent.
There is sometimes an approach to hypocrisy in this House in regard to political and tariff matters. I think if we told the absolute truth we should express the conviction that the tariff is in a very large measure a local matter. I know that in British Columbia we are mostly protectionists. Speaking for my constituents, they are protectionists because it is a matter of life and death with them in their industries. Coming to the prairies-I am not criticising at all-farming is carried on under different conditions, and the farmers there believe that free trade will in the end be better for them from a financial standpoint. Coming east, the same differences exist, and it is quite natural that even in our own Unionist party on this side of the House there should be difference of opinion amongst our members. We honestly recog-53}
nize that difference do exist; there-must be honest differences honestly held, and the task of statesmanship, at all events, is in the face of extraordinary national difficulties to try to reconcile these differences to some extent. No man on earth can satisfy the (extremists of either sides. People talk about compromise. It reminds me of thie old story that was told of a man and his wife who had a violent quarrel over what colour they should paint their house. The man stuck to it that it should be painted greten. The wife insisted it should be painted white. A friend later asked the husband how the matter ended, and he replied:	"We effected a compromise."
" What colour did you paint the house eventually?" The husband said:	"We
compromised on white."' That was the wife's idea of a compromise, and I think lots of people would like a compromise along those lines. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition who is so wild in his enthusiasm for the amendment of his friend from Brom'e, and who possibly, whilst he is in Opposition, would support my hon. friend who has just sat down, who declared for absolute free tracte, has never shown any keen enthusiasm for free trade, and he will probably not get up in his place and say he is in favour of fre-e iron or free coal, because hie knows perfectly well that these things affect different parts of the country differently. If he wishes to say that.he is in favour of free iron or free coal now is the tirn-e, as my hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) would say, to state so. Now what is the good of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition.saying: " We deal openly and above board?" And he talks about toon, members on this side of the House rushing to get into line when the party whip is cracked. I have a high personal regard for my hon. friend, but I must say that, politically, I hava*. never seen in this House a more slavish adherent to the party whip and the party system than the hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition. Again and again, during the last ten years,
I have known my hon. friend get up ancl vote against amendments of this kind on going into Supply, not on vital questions which would overturn the fiscal system of the country, but on matters of an entirely trivial character,	and
that had	no bearing on	the
substantial policies of the Government. Again and again I have known him get up w and vote against such an amendment on going into Supply, on the ground that it was a vote of want of confidence. Let me say to hon. gentlemen opposite that amend-

mehts of this kind, and much of the discussion to which I have listened thus far since the House met, show too feverish an anxiety to try and break the affiliations which at all events hold now various members on this side of the House, who have perhaps thoroughly strong antagonisms or honest differences of opinions on trade matters. There is too feverish an anxiety to try and split up the members on this side of the House who have come here for a high and noble purpose, and who naturally do not want to split up so long as the present conditions face the .world. I would say to my Unionist associates-and I am speaking as an old-time member of the Conservative party and of the Conservative Government-I admire the men who came into Union Government because (and I say this advisedly) they showed a far higher sense of proportion than hon. gentlemen opposite. They showed a real knowledge of values; they knew something of the differences between essentials and non-essentials. They left political friends and joined political opponents, than which there is, perhaps, no more distasteful task to any man in public life. Thdy joined political opponents whom they had berated and with whom they had perhaps had very acrimonious discussions in this House. They turned from policies which they had advocated vigorously, simply because they realized they were small in comparison with the infinitely greater matters facing the nation at that time. My hon. friend from. Red iDeer was one of these men, and I especially admire him for this reason: there was no man on that side of the House who had advocated so vigorously and so consistently the policy of free trade; I venture to say that he was the only member I have seen on that side of the House during the time I have been a member since 1908 who has unceasingly and consistently preached the same gospel in regard to fiscal matters. I admire him for realizing that these things were as nothing in the balance against the pressing and deadly danger that faced this nation at that time. I say it is infinitely to his honour and the honour of other hon. members who did the same thing that the non-essentials counted_ as nothing against the pressing, grievous' and deadly danger facing this country in 1917 and 1918. Talk about taxation and differences of opinion as to taxation methods. What would these have mattered if that danger had become an actuality? If the Hun had won we should have sweated under the most grievous kind of direct and indirect taxation for a lifetime. These men knew that, and not only 
to my mind did they take the right stand, but they took the sound view according to the opinion of those like the hon. member for Skeena (Lt.-Col. Peck), who pointed out the other day that those who were in the trenches fighting that bloody fight for freedom knew that was the right course if the Empire was to be saved.
Those hon. gentlemen who came over and joined us are now taunted because they happened formerly to have held certain trade theories and convictions, and hon. members op the other side seek to embarrass tjiem and the Government by a resolution which they know they cannot carry, and do not want to carry, but which they propose simply to put those who have joined the Government in an invidious position in the House and before the country. I do not think that the people of this country are so foolish as my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition assumes they are. I do not belong to the same political school as my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark), although we were born in the same country and lived there for many years. I belong to an opposite school of political thought; but as I look across the seas at this juncture of the world's history, perhaps more grave and portentous than at any period during the war-at all events equally so-with all the terrific turmoil and confusion, military, political, social, ethnological, and fiscal; untest in every phase of life,-as I look across the seas and consider this state of affairs, I feel that our older theories of life are upset and that there is no man either over there or in Canada who can say at the present moment exactly what political doctrine should be preached and what line of policy should be laid down. My hon. friend from Red Deer was of the same political faith as Mr. Lloyd George- a school of thought that I as a Conservative was brohght up to detest, and I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that Mr. Lloyd George, an ardent exponent of advanced Liberalism, during the war, sat side by side with many dyed-in-the-wool political opponents, and indeed is still so sitting to-day because he sees that party affiliations are of smaller moment than the great issues that should make for national and international unity.
The country will not mistake the attitude of the House in a Vote on a question of this kind at the present time. They know that there are greater things than putting into effect or rejecting this particular piece of political economy. They know that there are greater and vastly more important things that must be done in the face of the dangers threatening the whole

world; and that it is absolutely essential, if the world is to be saved from the greatest of all evils-which my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) seemed the other day to hold rather lightly, the peril of Bolshevism,-if we are to hold the sanity of this world and preserve it against the inroads of what all thoughtful men regard as the gravest menace with which we are faced, graver perhaps than even the war; they know that there must be on the part of thoughtful men a recognition of what things are great and what are not great but merely temporary. And it seems to me that the salvation of this country, as of other countries, lies in the frank recognition of differences, and the full determination to reconcile, in the face of bigger things, these differences, and the determination above all things that we shall not be pushed aside from our path by little catch votes but shall recognize that there are larger purposes in view which we intend to achieve.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity a few days ago, in a recent debate, of expressing my views on the general tariff question, and therefore I do not deem it necessary that I should enlarge upon them now. I am reluctant to give a silent vote on this matter, the more so because I am obliged to differ from the hon. gentlemen who sit on your left, and with whom, I assure you, I am more anxious to agree than to disagree. I do not agree with all that was said by the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) in his opposition to this resolution. I cannot at all concur in the opinion he expressed that any motion in amendment to Supply is necessarily a vote of want of confidence, though this particular one may be argued to be such. A motion in Supply is one of the occasions on which the representatives of the people have an opportunity to present their grievances, if they have any. It is an opportunity for free discussion, and it is not an unusual thing to have an amendment to Supply moved. My hon. friend drew a distressful picture of what would happen if the amendment to Supply carried. Why do we go into Supply? He says it is to vote money for railways, public works, soldiers, and pensions; and that all this would be stopped if anybody moved an amendment to Supply. That is altogether a mistaken notion. The parliamentary rule was read by the leader of the Opposition, but I know from my own experience that
again and again motions in amendment to Supply have been accepted. I have not turned up the records, but I have no doubt it can be found that more than once, when I was Minister of Finance, I accepted motions of that character. Nor do I agree with my friend when he says that we should wait until the Peace Conference deals with our tariff matters. If he will not deem it offensive, I must describe this as some of the "eye-wash" we get concerning Canada and the conference. There is no fiscal question concerning Canada before the Peace Conference. Tlie fiscal questions of Canada must be settled here on the floor of this Parliament. Our right to settle them is beyond dispute, and we will not surrender it to Downing Street or the War Cabinet; neither will we surrender it to the Peace Conference or the League of Nations. We retain that right, and need not wait a single moment to see what the Peace Conference intends to do regarding the matter.
I have not had the opportunity of studying the motion that has been read by way of amendment, but from its general tenor I know it is in accordance, largely, possibly wholly, with my owti views upon the tariff questions which are more or less agitating the country. It may be asked, "If the motion is in accordance with your views, why not support it?" Well, I agree with the Minister of Finance that the motion is not opportune at this time. I am obliged to take that position for several reasons. If I were younger and more enthusiastic, less experienced and less responsible, I might feel free to vote for the motion. But I happen to have been Minister of Finance for a period of fifteen years-longer, I am informed, than any other man. Therefore I know something about how tariff questions have been dealt with in Parliament, and I look back on my own experience and put myself for a moment in the position of the Finance Minister. It is well, in considering public questions, sometimes to place yourself in the opposite position. And I ask myself the question, if I were Minister of Finance to-day how would I view this motion. I have to view it as I viewed similar motions when I was Minister of Finance. The records, I am sure, will show that on several occasions, at an early stage of the session, efforts were made to commit the House to particular actions in tariff matters, and I argued that it was appropriate to wait until the Budget was under consideration. If I took that view when I was Minister of Finance, why should I change it today merely because another hon. gentleman

happens to be occupying that position? I do not think this is the right moment for raising the question. It is a fair case of applying the rule to do unto others as one would have done to him. If I were Minister of Finance to-day I should have to regard this motion as inopportune, and that being the case, I regret very much that I cannot join my hon. friends on your left in supporting it. Later on the question will come up again, but for the present I do not think the motion is a wise one, and it should not prevail.
Mr. FRANCIS N. McCREA (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, before casting my vote on this amendment I wish to explain my position. The amendment contains much that I approve of, but there are some features in it which do not meet with my approval. I deem these to be unjust, and consequently I shall be compelled to vote against the amendment.	*
Doubtless I am looked upon as a manufacturer, and that designation is correct, but I wish to place the House in possession of the facts with respect to my attitude in the tariff. In the products that my firm turns out we are prepared to meet the competition of the world; we need no protection, and would be only too glad if free trade were to prevail. What we produce we sell in the open market and are prepared to meet the competition of the world-in fact we invite that competition. On the other hand, very much of the materials that enter into the manufacture of our goods and the construction of our plant are subject to a high duty. Speaking for myself personally, and as one engaged in manufacturing operations, free trade would be welcomed in our business. But I recognize there are some industries that do not occupy such a position, and that are not prepared to compete against the world. That is my position as a manufacturer speaking on this question.
This afternoon while the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) was explaining his amendment, and the Finance Minister was replying, I was absent from the Chamber. I understand, however, that the latter hon. gentleman said I looked very uncomfortable, and that he did not think I was enjoying the situation. I may have looked uncomfortable, but I was thinking of the unjust features embodied in the amendment submitted by the hon. member, for Brome.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. MoCREA: Hon. gentlemen had better hesitate a moment before they applaud.

That brought to my mind the unjust treatment which our industry has received. I do not wish to be offensive to the Finance Minister, but it recalled the unfair and unjust treatment that the industry with which I am connected has suffered at the hands of the Government, and that, no doubt, accounted for my doleful look.
The hon. member for Prince, P.E.I., (Mr. J. Read) in his speech to-night declared in very emphatic terms that the public press of Canada had been debauched-had been bribed, bought, and paid for and so on- with the people's money. I am inclined to think the hon. gentleman is not in possession of all the facts upon which he based his statement. I am not, and therefore I cannot say how much public money went to paying, or buying the public press; but I do wish to say that about a million and a half of the newsprint manufacturers' money was devoted towards buying the press of Canada in the last election, and since that time. That is to say, the manufacturers of newsprint in Canada during the last two years have had to contribute the necessary paper for the press of Canada at about a million and a half of dollars less than they would have received if they had been allowed to sell newsprint in the open market of the United States and elsewhere. Consequently I say that is what it has cost the manufacturers of newsprint in Canada to support the Government. We have heard the emphatic statement from hon. gentlemen on both sides that they do not want an election at the present time. Certainly from the paper manufacturers' standpoint we do not want an election just now if we have to pay the newspapers the same price we paid last election.
In part the amendment does meet with my entire approval. That is in so far as it calls for the acceptance of reciprocity as specified and laid down in the agreement of 1911. I was in favour of reciprocity at that time, and for that reason presented myself as a candidate in the county of Sherbrooke where I succeeded in being elected, although that county had never previously returned a Liberal member.
The features of the amendment to which I object, and which I say are unjust and unfair, especially at this particular time, are those which are likely to make inroads into our revenue. Faced, as we are now, with an enormous debt, when the expenditures of the country call for $437,000,000- and I venture to say that when the supplementary Estimates are brought down the total will be swollen to approximately half a billion of dollars-the situation calls for the exercise of caution. If every man is

to be exempt from paying his fair share of taxation, if all are not to be required to contribute towards the revenue, where is the money coming from to meet our national necessities? That is the question that puzzles me. If we did not require money on this vast scale I would be a free trader, but on a- basis in which all parties would be placed on a position of equality. The amendment calls for the placing of agricultural implements of all kinds, and mill and mining machinery, on the free list, but other industries are to remain untouched. Let me give an illustration of what the effect of this will be. Supposing there is in the city of Ottawa a large manufacturer of farm implements, and on the . other side of the street there is a manufacturer who produces another class of goods on an extensive scale. Both men import a great part of the raw material whidh enters into the manufacture of their products. The man who manufactures farm implements is allowed to import his steel, iron, and brass, the metals of all kinds which he needs, his paint and other materials, free of duty. The man on the other side of the street has to pay a duty on his raw articles, and has to compete in the labour market, has to pay the same wages, and meet other outlays on the same scale. Where is the fairness in that kind of tariff arrangement? If it is possible to reduce the tariff let us do so, but let that reduction be carried out on a uniform basis, and not select certain industries for favoured treatment.
It would appear that the population in the western provinces are largely farmers, and they represent a great many votes. Is it the interest of the country we are supposed to be working for, or are we influenced by the desire to gain the votes of these farmers? For my part, I believe the present to be too serious a time to play politics; it is too serious a time to be bidding for votes. I do not believe in a tariff when it reaches the point that it protects industries in this country; then it is too high. But I do say that the manufacturers of this country with its population of some seven and a half million people are not in a position to compete with the manufacturers of England or the United States, and they must have some protection as tariff for revenue. There is no man more anxious to help the farmers than I am, hut there are two sides to the farmers' question. If you give the farmers free implements and everything else, and if they have no population to sell their crops to, what are they going to do
with them? I say that it is just as essential that we should build up industries in this country and create centres to consume the products of the farm as it is for the farmers to produce, and the way to do that, in my judgment, is for this Government and for the people of this country to work out some policy which will be fair and reasonable and equitable to all parties-a tariff to produce revenue. I do not think it makes very much difference whether we call upon the farmers of the West to put their hands down into their pockets and pay direct taxes or call upon them to pay in the shape of a duty on implements, provided that that duty does not build up a tariff wall and enable the manufacturers to put the money in their pockets.
I he manufacturers of this country, in my judgment, must have some protection, and if I may be allowed, Mr. Speaicer, I wish to take up a little of the time of the House to illustrate just what I mean. I have never had anything to do with any branch of business except the one I am engaged in, but I have had a little insight into this one particular line of business. A man with whom I was connected for some ten years and very familiar with was a shoemaker, as were his father and grandfather before him. This man had two factories employing about twenty-five hundred people and manufactured four or five different grades of boots, common men's and boys' boots. The boot from when it started with the	side of	leather	until it	reachedthe	finished	article	probably	passed	.
t through the hands of twenty-five or thirty men, and every man had to do his share . of that work down to the twentieth part of a cent. The man who cut the leather had to furnish so many taps, so many soles and so many heels out of each piece of leather; if he did not he had to give an explanation to the foreman. The outcome of that was that they got this particular business down to a science. The man who owned this shop and showed me through it several times, told me that when they made five cents a pair net profit they were doing good business and able to pay substantial dividends. Why? Because they had a population of 110,000,000 people to sell to and could specialize. Now our boot and shoe manufacturers, with our population of 7,000,000, have to make everything from the finest lady's shoe to the brogan, and cannot specialize on anything, and that applies to every other branch of business. We are



[Stage Direction]
not in a position to compete with the old-established concerns which have had this experience, specializing in every branch and favoured with a large home market; and until we reach that point it would be folly to throw down the tariff wall entirely.
I	understand that the majority on both sides of the House are not in favour of throwing down the tariff wall. But why
throw it down on certain articles
II	p.m. and not on others? As I explained at the outset, the reason I am opposed to this is because of the injustice of removing the tariff from certain things and leaving it on others. That is too long a jump to start off with. If it is possible to reduce the tariff generally, let us do it. Tariff for revenue is all we need, and I think that the common sense and wisdom of the people of this country, both in the West and everywhere else, will force them to the conclusion that as members of a portion of this Empire and responsible for the debts of this country, it is their duty to contribute their fair share, and they may as well do it in the form of revenue as by the way of direct taxation.
Mr. LOUIS AUDET LAPOINTE (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on this question, but I find the discussion is so interesting that I feel I ought to express my views on the subject before the House.
I am not a manufacturer nor interested in the manufactures of any commodities, but I represent a thriving constituency within the city of Montreal in w.hich there are quite a number of manufacturing industries. I tell you honestly, Sir, that I be-, lieve it is my duty as representative of that constituency to vote against the amendment, and I shall do so. First, because I believe that this is not an opportune time to bring forward an amendment of this character. .Second, because I am going to put before this House the business reasons why I believe -nat I should vote against it. I have just received a resolution from the Board of Trade of Montreal, which represents the trade interests of the city and knows something aoout tariffs and questions of commerce-


Mr. GAUVREAU:: They did not vote for you.


Louis Audet Lapointe: I do not care. I have confidence in their reasons and I believe in them. I quite agree with their views on this matter.

This resolution which I have received from the Montreal Board of Trade is dated March 21, 1919:
I beg to communicate, by direction of the Council of this Board, the following resolution v/hh regard to the adverse balance of trade it unanimously adopted on 18th inst., and to say that same has been sent to the Honourable the Acting Premier and the Honourable the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce:-
Some hon. ME'iviBE-RS: Oh, oh.
Mr. LaPOINTE (St. James): My friends sitting beside me apparently will not allow me free speech. If any hon. gentleman does not agree with my sentiments I must just ask him to keep quiet and not interrupt.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I rise to a point of
order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has no right to -address himself to me directly; his protest must go through you, Mr. Speaker.


Louis Audet Lapointe: I hope my protest will go to my hon. friends through you, Mr. Speaker.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for St. James has the floor and I hope he will not be interrupted again.


Louis Audet Lapointe: I will continue my reading of the Montreal Board of Trade resolution:
Whereas, at this time when our fighting forces are returning from overseas in large numbers and they, together with munition workers, are seeking other employment, business must be stimulated to create confidence and stability in commercial enterprises, thereby providing for the maximum employment of labour,-
Whereas, values of all commodities are in process of re-adjustment, and any changes in the present fiscal policy would tend to delay the return to normal conditions, retard initiative and create uncertainty,-
Whereas, because of the heavy adverse balance of trade as between Canada and the United States, as evidenced by the continued high premium oi ever 2 per cent for the .purchase of New York funds, importations from the United States should be kept at a minimum, more especially of such commodities as are made in Canada or as are non-essential,-
Whereas, Great Britain, France and other European countries have seen fit to restrict imports and thereby conserve their own resources and provide employment for their own people,- Whereas, the burden of taxation must be borne by all classes, and not be sectional, it is therefore necessary that all classes, including farmers, manufacturers, merchants and workers should be fully employed, and thereby make Canada more than ever self contained and less reliant upon imports from other countries,- Therefore resolved.-That the Council of the Montreal Board of Trade is of the opinion that until a definite tariff policy is adopted for the British Empire, the Dominion Government should exercise, during the period of reconstruction, some degree of special control over all imports, either by a license system or otherwise.

The Chainbre de Commerc'e of Montreal, which*, includes many able business men and manufacturers, will certainly, at the proper time, pass resolutions similar to this. I have not yet recieved any, but I expect some, because some of my friends who belong to that organization-manufacturers of shoes, leathers and so on-are not specially in favour of too much free trade to-day. There was some difficulty in getting some of the manufacturers in my county to understand they should vote Liberal at the ,1911 election; many of them voted for me from a personal standpoint. But some of them were afraid of their trade at that time. I am taking this position, reserving, of cours'e, the right to Whatever opinion I consider proper when the Government brings down its tariff proposals.


John Ewen Sinclair: I was paired with the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Ernest Lapointe: I was paired with the Minister of Customs (Mr. Sifton). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. KENNEDY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MARSHALL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent (Mr. MoCoig). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment. '



SUPPLY-INTERIM VOTE.

[Stage Direction]
Motion (Sir Thomas White) agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply,-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
William Thomas White: The present fiscal year ends on the 31st of the present month. I have spoken with the leader of the Opposition (Mr. D. D. McKenzie) with a view of obtaining, as is usual, an interim supply of two months. With his concurrence, I desire to move:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $52,310,026.12 being one-sixth of the amount of each item set forth in the Main Estimates for the year ending 31st March, 1920, laid on the Table of the House on the 19th instant, be granted to His Majesty for the year ending 31st March, 1920.


Samuel Hughes: Did I understand the Acting Prime Minister to say "with the consent of the leader of the Opposition," or "with the consent of the House."


William Thomas White: I stated "with the concurrence of the leader of the Opposition," and I assumed that the other members would also concur.


Samuel Hughes: I just wished to know whether there were any other members in the House than the two leaders.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What the leader of the Government says, namely, that so far as he and myself can concur in this resolution, we have done so, is quite true, but, of course, that was with the expectation that the House would concur. I wish nevertheless to reserve certain rights which the members of the Opposition have in connection with all the items as they come up for consideration later on. Rule 17 (c) of the Rules of the House reads:
On Thursday's and Fridays when the Order of the Hay is called for the House to go into Committee of Supply, or of Ways and Means, M,r. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any question, provided that, except by the consent of the House, the Estimates of each department shall be first taken uip on a day other than Thursday or Friday.

It might be argued later on that all the items were taken up on this resolution, and that consequently this rule did not apply. I want to reserve the right that this rule will be regarded as in force in connection with the Estimates of any department that may come up, notwithstanding that we are consenting by this resolution to one-sixth of the Estimates of all the departments being passed, and also to reserve to ourselves, or to any member who may so desire, the right to criticise any particular item of the Estimates of any department.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend's request is entirely reasonable and I have much pleasure in agreeing to it.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time, and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Acting Prime Minister) the House went into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
William Thomas White: Resolved that towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty, on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1920, the sum of $52,310,026.12 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time, and concurred in.



SUPPLY BILL-INTERIM VOTE.

[Stage Direction]
Sir THOMAS WHITE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 32, granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public services for the financial year ending March 31, 1920.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Civil Government-Department of Railways and Canals-Salaries, $189,300.
Progress r'eported.
On the motion of Sir Thomas White the House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.

Wednesday, March, 26, 1919.