[Stage Direction]
A message from His Royal Highness the Governor General, transmitting Supplementary Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1915, was presented by Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order of the Day being called:
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Customs):: When the Orders of the Day were called yesterday, I explained to the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), that I had instructed the Deputy Minister of Agriculture to send a special inspector. to Washington to investigate the claims made by the American officials with regard to the potatoes condemned at Boston. I discussed the matter with the Deputy Minister of Agriculture this morning and I find that the potatoes, after being condemned, were immediately purchased by some person in Boston and at once shipped to Cuba; so that when our inspector arrived at Boston to make his investigation the potatoes were not to be found. Mr. O'Halloran, the deputy minister, tells me that the potatoes were inspected by two United States federal inspectors. They condemned thd potatoes. They sent samples to Washington and the report of Mr. Orton, the plant pathologist of the Department of Agriculture in Washington confirmed their report. It was on this confirmation of their report that the potatoes were condemned. Mr. O'Halloran tells me that they are endeavouring to get samples of potatoes from Cuba, the country to winch they were shipped, and when they succeed in getting the samples v'e will be able to give a further report.



CANADIAN TROOPS IN ENGLAND.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I would like to inform the House that additional information has been received that the troops numbering about 4,000, who were despatched some time ago, have reached Great Britain in safety; that they are stationed at different points, where very suitable accomodation has been provided for them, and that they are all in good health and spririts.



NAMES OF ENLISTED CANADIANS.

Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: I desire to ask the Government when we may expect the publication of the names of those who have enlisted, including those who have already gone to the front as well as those who are in Canada. It is a matter of a good deal of interest to many people in Canada, and if the list could be issued in parts it would be of great advantage to the public.


Major General HUGHES:: A great many of the lists are ready now, but we are waiting until they are completed before issuing them. I had expected that they would have been ready before this, but the Printing Bureau is pretty well loaded up with work. We will press the matter forward as rapidly as possible.



THE BUDGET.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of lion. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) for the Committee of Ways and Means, resumed from March 5.
Mr. G. H. BRADBURY (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose on Friday night I was drawing attention to the criticisms offered by the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) and the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). I had remarked upon the temerity of the hon. junior member for Halifax for having challenged this side of the House in the matter of implementing its pre-election pledges. I think that a party with such an unsavory reputation as far as its preelection pledges are concerned ought to hesitate before making any such statement as that which was uttered by the hon. junior member for Halifax. I also criticised the attitude taken by the hon. junior member for Halifax regarding the cutting down of the Estimates for public works; and I wish to quote his words now, and when I do, perhaps what I said on Friday night will be better understood. Speaking of the Estimates of the Public Works Department, the hon. junior member for Halifax said:
Can the Minister of Public Works himself submit to the House any fair defence for his request to Parliament to vote practically $20,000,000 for public works expenditure in 1914-15? I do submit, and in fairness, I think, having: in view the circumstances prevailing- throughout Canada this year, and throughout the world for that matter, that instead of the Governm.nt's asking for an expenditure of $20,000,000 for public works, they
[Mr. Sneaker.1

might have asked for $10,000,000 or less, and, if need be, they might have wiped out altogether expenditures for public works for the next fiscal year. I do not believe that the people of any province of Canada would have objected to the most drastic measures on the part of the Minister of Public Works during the present year and during the next fiscal year in connection with public works expenditure. Many of these projected works were without justification, the necessity for others have at least temporarily passed away by reason of the declining business of the country. Expenditures for these purposes should have been reduced to the minimum this year and next year.
The hon. member for St. John, taking the lead from the hon. junior member for Halifax, follQwed along the same lines. He had been advising my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) to cut down the expenditure on public works. The minister asked him across the floor of the House if he would be willing to have the Estimates cut down for his own county, and his reply was:
I would not be worthy of my position as a member of this House if I did not answer " Yes " to that question. I would not be worthy of the confidence of the people of. my constituency if I were so cowardly that I would. not dare to stand up in my place and give an answer to that question in the affirmative. Therefore I say that in these times of stress and trouble the amount proposed for St. John harbour of $1,500,000 might very well be cut down during this year to $750,000. The work could go on, and a 'great deal of work could be done for that money.
When he was making these observations, I interjected a question across the floor of the House, asking him if it was not wise for the Government of this country to spend money when times were hard to provide work for the working people of this country. His answer was:
That is right, if you have the money in the Treasury. But is this the time to tax the people of this country, when, as I have said every dollar, every cent, they can spare is being given to charity'.
Right here I want to emphasize what I said on Friday night. The artisans and working people of this country are a selfreliant, independent class of people. They are not looking for charity, they do not wish to be pauperized, they want to be provided with work, and it would be an unpatriotic act of this Government, or of any provincial government, or of the authorities in any city in Canada, to follow the advice given by the hon. member for St. John, to reduce their expenditure on public works at this time, if they could possibly secure the money to go on with these works. A more unpatriotic position could
not be taken by hon. gentlemen representing great cities, such as Halifax and St. John, which cities must have thousands of men out of employment, than to ask the Government not only to cut the Estimates, but if necessary to eliminate them altogether and to stop all public works. What position do these hon. gentlemen occupy in connection with. the great organs that represent them in this country? I find on looking over the files that the Toronto Globe discusses this matter. The Globe is the mouthpiece of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House; in fact, its editor is looked upon as the outside leader. When there is any trouble in this House, we generally find the editor of the Globe-


An hon. MEMBER:: Reverend.


George Henry Bradbury: The reverend editor of the Globe sitting in the gallery encouraging hon. gentlemen by his smiles, and perhaps even by his enthusiastic applause. Therefore I think I can refer to him as the outside leader, without being offensive. Here is what he said on the 10th of last month. The editorial is headed: " When to Spend Public Money," and is as follows:
The time to spend public money freely is when private enterprise is on the ebb. If governments and public bodies enter upon huge programmes of public works when a building boom and a rush of railway construction are in progress the inevitable result is to attract to the country far more workers than it can provide employment for under normal conditions, and so to intensify the depression which follows boom conditions.
This is precisely what is happening in Canada today. The estimates introduced by the Minister of Finance make provision for carrying on public works begun in former years, but the financial situation is so difficult that practically no new works are to he begun during 1915 at the very time when the need for employment is greater than ever before in the experience of the building trades throughout Canadian cities.
It would be peanut politics to attempt to make party capital out of the situation. No Government in Canada, Liberal or Conservative, has ever deliberately curtailed expenditures upon public works in good times so that it might more freely provide employment during seasons of depression. In all probability this failure to take thought of the morrow has been the result of the belief of politicians that hard times dog their opponents only, and that the remedy may well be left for their opponents' consideration. The interests of the nation should be placed above party, however, and the Globe would like to see a healthy growth of public opinion in favour of husbanding the resources of the Dominion, the provinces, and the municipalities in boom periods so that public works may be undertaken at seasons of the greatest need. The work carried forward at such seasons would be done more cheaply and more thoroughly than under conditions of abnormal activity and would render unnecessary the spending of vast sums on maintaining willing workmen in idleness.. .

There are many organizations engaged in the study of social conditions-Conservation Commissions, Unemployment Commissions, Social Service Commissions. They could do nothing more calculated to fill up the valleys of depression than to secure that public employment shall be at the minimum in Canada when private employment is at the maximum, and that the stress of hard times should be lessened by the construction of public works during seasons of depression.
And yet, in the face of this pronouncement- by the Globe, hon. gentlemen opposite are -endeavouring to induce this Government to lessen its expenditure and to reduce work in this country to a minimum, thereby throwing tens of thousands of Canadians out of employment. The reverend gentleman who wrote that article described the conduct- of hon. gentlemen opposite as " peanut politics," -and I commend -that description to them. No more unpatriotic move -could be made by any man or body of men in Canada than to endeavour to induce municipalities or governments to curtail expenditure in these trying times. I believe it to be the duty of every great city, every municipality, and every government in Canada, to spend every dollar they honestly can on legitimate works, for the purpose of providing labour for our people. We cannot afford to lower the standard of our workingmen, by making them subjects for charity.
I wish Mr. Speaker, to devote a little time to making a comparison between the records of lion, gentlemen who occupy so serenely the Opposition benches to-day, when they were in power with the record of the Conservative Government now in office. The junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) had tile temerity to chide the Conservative party for having violated its preelection pledges. I wonder where the Liberal party stands in that respect. Let me refer to some of the promises made by the Liberal party before they came into power in 1896, and how well they implemented them. It will be remembered that fust previous to the election of 1896, and many of us are old enough to remember that campaign, these hon. gentlemen, having been for eighteen long years, in the cold shades of opposition, travelled throughout Canada and in every city, every village, and every concession, preached to the farmers the doctrine of discontent, trying to make them believe that they were the men who were paying the taxes and were being bled white by this awful protective tariff, and promising what they would do to relieve the situation if they came to office. I rpiote from one of the planks in the Liberal platform of 1893!

We cannot but view with alarm the large increase in the public debt and the controllable annual expenditure of the Dominion; we demand the strictest economy in the administration of the government of the country.
That is an admirable declaration for a political platform, and one which if lived up to would have redounded to the credit of the Liberal party. But what was their record when they came to power? In 1896, when the Liberals assumed office, the public accounts show that the national debt of Canada stood at $258,000,000, and in 1911, when they went out of office, they had managed, not to decrease the national debt, but to increase it to $340,000,000, or an increase of $82,000,000 during the fifteen years they were in power. But that does not tell one-half the tale. The Conservative Government had been in office for eighteen years, and it had laid the foundation of Canada's greatness, so that prosperity was in full tide when the Liberals came to power, and with a buoyant revenue the Liberal party that was pledged to reduce taxation and expenditure took out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country, in the ten years immediately preceding their defeat in 1911, $311,486,000 more than the Conservative party took in any ten years previous to 1896.	Therefore, when you add this
to the $82,000,000 of national debt, which they heaped upon this country, you can form some idea of the manner in which the Liberals implemented their pledge of economy to the people of Canada. I believe the Liberals never intended to carry out that pledge; it is quite clear to-day that the pledge was made to catch votes, and in that they succeeded. But the Liberal party stands before this country guilty of having violated every pledge they gave to the people of Canada previous to 1896. But that is not all. These gentlemen opposite have now the temerity to charge the Conservative Government with having increased the public debt 'since it came into office. True, this Government has increased the public debt, but let us see why. I find, on looking over the official returns, that on the 31st of March, 1912, the first year the present Government was responsible for the expenditure, the public debt stood at $339,919,460, and on the 28tli of February just past, the debt had risen to $401,891,909, or an increase of $61,972,000 in the last three years.
But, Mr. Speaker, how was this debt increased and what was the cause of the increase? Tne increased debt under the Conservative Government, was incurred

entirely for the purpose of taking care of liabilities left to it by the Liberal party when it went out of office. It was a legacy, Sir, left to this Government, and this Government was in honour obliged to accept it and provide for it. I shall give to the House a statement of what it has cost this Government to care for some of the undertakings that the Liberal Government rushed into so recklessly, previous to their defeat in 1911. In order to care for these liabilities left them by the Liberals, it was necessary to provide no less a sum than $178,000,000. For the fiscal years 1912-13 and 1914-15 we find the following expenditures on works which were in progress when the present Government came to power; on the National Transcontinental railway which was undertaken by the Liberal Government against the advice of the Conservative party; the present Government expended $56,000,000, and on the Hudson Bay railway $9,000,000.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: Does the hon.
gentleman object to the construction of too Hudson Bay railway?


George Henry Bradbury: that have been entrusted with our affairs that they come down to us and ask for* an expenditure of $38,000,000 a year for federal purposes. Sir, the thing is utterly unjustifiable.
I could go on reading pledge after pledge made by these hon. gentlemen to reduce the public expenditures of this country. I hold, Mr. Speaker, that a public pledge given by party leaders to the people of this country on the verge of an election is just as sacred and should be lived up to just as carefully and as scrupulously as a promise or pledge given in any business transaction.
But what has been the record of hon. gentlemen opposite on this question? In 1897, the first year in which the right hon. gentleman who to-day leads the Opposition, was responsible to the people in this country, the current expenditure was $38,349,760. That is the amount at which the right hon. gentleman found the expenditures of the country when he took office. The capital expenditure was $3,523,000, which makes'a total of $41,872,760. In 1902, five years afterwards, the Liberal Administration, with its promise to the people to reduce expenditures still warm on its lips, had increased the current expenditure to $50,759,392, and the capital expenditure to $10,078,638 or the total to $60,838,030. The expenditures still kept going up until 1911. It was a growing time, and the Liberal party was spending the people's money like a drunken sailor throwing away his money recklessly. In 1911 the current expenditure had risen to $87,000,000, and the capital expenditure to $35,000,000, or to a total of $122,000,000. But in 1912, the current expenditure for which the late Government was responsible, had risen to $109,000,000, and the capital expenditure to $46,000,000, or to the total of $155,000,000. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite criticise Conservative ministers for having brought down an estimated current expenditure for this year of $140,000,000. This is the record of the Liberal party as to the manner in which it has implemented its pledge to reduce the expenditures of this country.
I would like for a moment to draw the attention of the House to the percentage of increase in expenditure. The total disbursements under the late Government increased by 178 per cent in the fifteen years it was in office. The increase per head was 85 per cent. Let me give a ten-year record, which is worth placing on Hansard. The ten-year record of expenditure under the Conservative party previous to 1896 shows that it had expended on public works in this country $423,358,000; whereas the late
	.
Government, pledged to reduce the expenditures, during the ten years after it had. come into office, had spent $919,748,517, or an increase of $496,390,517. The per capita expenditure in 1896 was $8.80, and in 1911, $16.40, just double what they found it on assuming office-
This is the record of the Liberal party, showing how it implemented its pledge that if returned to office it would reduce the public expenditures. I do not know that I should have taken up even ia moment of the time of the House in reviewing tbjs question-for the people are thoroughly conversant with it-had it not been for the taunt thrown across the floor, the charge made that the party now in power deserves censure for not having implemented its pre-election pledges. -


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. gentleman has not attempted to answer that.


George Henry Bradbury: I have answered it by denying it, and by showing that hon. gentlemen opposite cannot prove it. The onus of proof lies upon the hon. members who made the charge.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You have answered it simply by referring to the pre-election pledges of hion. gentlemen on this side a quarter o*f a century ago.


George Henry Bradbury: These pledges given a quarter of a century ago were given by the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who still leads that party. And I hope he will live long to lead it. He is still with us and is still responsible for the policy of the Liberal party.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Hear, hear.


George Henry Bradbury: I find that these hon. gentlemen have a record on the question of the tariff. They went up and down this country for years denouncing protection. And I will read just one or two of their pledges, for it willl be of interest to the younger members on the other side of the House, who do not know what their friends were committed to in days gone by. Sii Richard Cartwright said:
I say our protective system was a huge mistake in so far as it was honest at all; and in so far as it was not honest, It was a huge scheme of robbery. . . Their ideal is protection ; ours is free trade. We will never desist until this country is freed from the incubus that has been weighing it down for fifteen long years.
The right hon. leader of the Opposition spoke in the city o'f Winnipeg on one of his western tours. I remember well his coming to any own constituency, and speaking

in the town of Selkirk, bringing with him the late Hon. D. C. Fraser, then member of this House for Guysborough; and I remember very well that at this meeting this is what he said:
The people of this country, the inhabitants of the city of Winnipeg especially, are toiling for a master who takes away a very large portion of your earnings, the earnings for which you toil and sweat for privileged masters, for those who use protection which I claim is bondage. If the Government take away from you any portion of your earnings, be they large or small, to give them to somebody else, that Government is as much a robber towards you as is the highwayman who puts a pistol to your head and says: your purse or your life. I denounce this policy of protection. Protection cannot be defended on any fair principle.
I also wish to call the attention of the House-because it affects my own province- to the utterance on behalf of the Liberal party of that day, by a leading member of the Liberal Government and the pledge he made to the people of the West:
Return us to power, and we will give you free trade as they have It in England. That is the Liberal policy. We will no longer tolerate the .policy of the Conservatives which robs you for the benefit of a handful of manufacturers. We will at once and for ever wipe off the statute hook the villainous protection policy which has stunted, the prosperity of the whole country and taken the heart's blood out of the people of Manitoba. Free coal oil, free clothing, and free implements you will have if the Liberal party are returned to power.
This is the statement of Hon. Mr. (now Sir Clifford) Sifton, a man who was the right-hand man of the present leader of the Opposition when at the head of the Government, and the strongest of his ministers from the West; in fact, he was known as the dictator of the Liberal policy; and this is the pledge he gave, speaking for his party. And what did they do when they came into power? One of the first things, Mr. Speaker, was to take into the Senate two of the greatest sinners, perhaps, so far as the West is concerned-Sir Melvin Jones and Hon. Mr. Frost. That is the way they carried out their pledge to give the farmers free implements. And for long years they did not even touch the duty on farm implements. At length they made up their minds that they must do something, that the farmers of the West could not be fooled all the time, and on the eve of an election they reduced the tariff on agricultural implements from 20 per cent, where the Conservative Government had left it, to 17$ per cent. And the farmers were told by Sir Clifford Sifton that 17$ per cent was only a revenue tariff. This is the manner in which they fooled the farmers
of the West into supporting them. They managed for fifteen years to pull the wool over the eyes of the farmers of the West by their promises to do something year after year. But the day came when the farmers had their eyes opened. As soon as the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) had the temerity to attempt to impose the reciprocity pact upon the people of this country, as soon as he attempted to make Canada an 'adjunct of the United States, the farmers of Canada turned him out of office.
What was their success in dealing with the tariff, in eliminating " every vestige of protection," as they promised to do ? On every platform in Canada these pledges were made by responsible men and repeated by those irresponsible, that if the Liberals were returned to office they would eliminate every vestige of protection from the tariff. But in fifteen years of power, they succeeded in reducing the tariff just about two per cent. Why, Sir, the greatest reduction ever made in the National Policy tariff was made by the Conservative party itself, made >by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). And he is not a free trader. This party does not pose before the people as being a party of free traders. We believe in the National Policy; we have advocated it in season and out of season; we believe in fair protection to farmer and manufacturer alike;' there is no hypocrisy in the position we occupy before the people. But hon. gentlemen opposite declare themselves to tie against protection. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) on all occasions since being placed in opposition lias preached the doctrine of free trade-a beautiful theory but utterly impracticable in this country, and proven impracticable in the world generally. History tells us that when Cobden introduced free trade in England, he declared that within a few years the world would adopt free trade. And. to-day we find that the world is protectionist everywhere except in Great Britain.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Hear, hear.


George Henry Bradbury: " Hear, hear," says
the hon. gentleman

Mr. .CLARK: What is the matter with Great Britain ?


George Henry Bradbury: Great Britain has
prospered in spite of free trade, by reason of her great marine power and by direct taxation. My hon. friend will not tell me that free trade prevails even in Great

Britain. He knows that it collects a large part of its revenue to-day from tea and other commodities of that kind, which we allow to come, into this country free for the poor people. The hon. gentlemen who now occupy the Opposition benches had control of the affairs of this country for fifteen years. In that time they became the close and intimate iriends of the great manufacturing industries of this country. But today, when they are in the cold shades of Opposition, there is nothing too hard or too cruel for them to say about the manufacturers. We will have the same old story from the Opposition benches before many years have passed that was preached by the Liberal party before 1896; the policy of blue ruin is starting to show in the faces of hon. gentlemen opposite, and we will have it proclaimed from every platform that the country is going to the dogs because they are not ruling its affairs. But it will take a good deal of persuasion on the part of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition and his eloquent friends to convince the people of this country that it will be a safe proposition to restore the Liberal party to office.
I wish now to refer to a few more of their many violated pledges, although time would not permit me to discuss them all. One plank in their platform was very interesting and very important in the West, that was the cry:	The land for the settler and not
for the speculator. Here is the plank in their platform:
Public land for the actual settler.
The sale of public lands of the Dominion should be to actual settlers only and not to the speculators, upon reasonable terms of settlement and in such areas as can he reasonably occupied and cultivated by the settler.
I want to say without any reservation that when that plank was put in the platform of the Liberal party it did more to win hundreds of votes from settlers in Manitoba even than their anti-protection plank, because there was a growing feeling that the lands of this country were being exploited by large speculators and that the poor settler was not being taken proper care of. How did the Liberal party implement that pledge? Did they keep the land for the settler or did they hand it out to the speculators, their special friends? You will all remember how they handled the Saskatchewan land deal. This notorious transaction has been spoken of in every part of Canada. Some 250,000 acres of land that is to-day the choice land of the Saskatchewan valley was sold to political friends for $1 per acre. This was div-
ided up so that the boys would get a share of the rake-off on these lands. You all remember that the Premier of Saskatchewan was charged by 4 p m. a paper in Moosejaw with having received $12,000 as his share in this land transaction. This was on the eve of an election, if I remember aright. He immediately took proceedings in court, bringing an action for libel claiming $25,000 against the paper. The case was hung up until after the election was over and then his attorney withdrew the case and paid all the costs. That does not look like the act of an innocent man. But he was not the only one. It is rumoured on pretty good authority that a Government official in a high position received $25,000 of this stock; blit he was timorous and returned the stock, and then three weeks afterwards repented and tried to get the stock back but did not succeed. This is the manner in which the Liberal party of Canada started out to implement their pledge to keep the land for the settler. Here was a magnificent area of land, 250,000 acres in extent, which in all fairness ought to have been divided up among the poor settlers who were looking for good land-settlers who, on account of transactions of this kind, have been crowded on to poor lands, some of them utterly unfit for settlement, while the good lands near the railways have been given away to Liberal friends, the speculators. This is one instance of how they implemented that pledge.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Was not that land which was sold to the Saskatchewan Land Valley Company sold on the condition of actual settlement?


George Henry Bradbury: Mr. Speaker, it was, and the condition was such a liberal condition that any man or set of men could have fulfilled it. However, it makes no difference what the condition was, we had the actual settlers in that country who wanted land, who were hungry for land; but they were crowded away from the centres and from the railways on to the poor lands in the different provinces-and here were men who secured this land, 250,000 acres, for $1 an acre. These lands to-day are worth from $40 to $50 an acre.


William Pugsley: Is it not true that before the Saskatchewan Land Valley Company got this land and began to bring in settlers there was a territory over 60 miles in length along that railway on which there was no settlement, although the railway had been

built for a number of years, because the general impression was that it was not good land, or land which was fit for settlement?


George Henry Bradbury: The answer to that is very simple. It may not have been thrown open to homesteading at the time and consequently no homesteaders could get on it.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is entirely mistaken; the land was all opened to homesteading.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not want to deny the hon. gentleman the opportunity of asking questions. What I have said was stated many times before.


Mr. CARVELL:: And denied many times.


George Henry Bradbury: We have the proof of the pudding to-day; we know what has taken place, and we know that a more glaring and outrageous scandal never was perpetrated on the people of Canada than the sale of these lands to this company; and the proof of it is that much of the stock of this company was divided up amongst a bunch of political friends. But I pass from that.
What has their policy been in connection with grazing leases? The hon. member for West Kent (Mr. McCoig) criticised the Government the other evening for having given away or sold cheaply some grazing lands for the purpose of raising horses. The hon. gentleman is young in this House and young in public life, or he would not have referred to this matter; for what does the record show? It shows that one outfit or one combination of political friends secured nearly four hundred thousand acres of grazing lands on irrevocable leases for twenty-one years at the nominal rent of one cent an acre, I think, and they were given the right of purchasing ten per cent of that land at one dollar an acre. That is how hon. gentlemen opposite attempted to assist the poor people of this country, the farmers' sons who are looking for homesteads,'and many of whom are to-day being crowded out of their own districts and forced to go farther west or farther north to lands many of them utterly unsuited for cultivation.
Then, we have the irrigation land deal. A few of the friends cleaned up a million and a quarter of money on that. Then there was the Blairmore townsite, a notorious case at the time. Many hon. gentlemen in this House will remember the man who got this townsite for something like $480-a townsite that was worth to the people of Canada at least two or three hundred thousand dollars. Hon. gentlemen opposite
gave this townsite to a political friend. The man has since died, so I will not go any further into that. Then there was the exploitation of timber lands. I heard the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) wax eloquent the other evening over the high price of lumber on account of this extra tariff. If the party that he has followed so long and so ably and faithfully had conserved the timber resources of the Northwest Territory and of Manitoba, we might to-day have been in a position to give to our people cheaper lumber than we can now give them. These timber lands are held by a few men, Liberals, who got them for a song.
Then, there was the exploitation of the fisheries. You all remember what they did with our fisheries. They gave all the fisheries north of lake Winnipeg-a kingdom in itself-to their political friends for the nominal sum of $10 a year, with the right to fish in Hudson bay-a most glaring outrage, I think, in view of the fact that our fisheries are one of the most valuable assets we have in Canada to-day. After this matter was exposed in the House the leases were cancelled, as they ought to have been. The pity is that the policy of restoration did not go farther and force some of these men who had received our timber lands and our coal lands in the manner they did to restore at least a portion of them to the Crown-
Then, we have the St. Boniface land deal, engineered by one of the Commissioners of the Transcontinental railway. The evidence shows that $161,000 was cleaned up on that deal. Hon. gentlemen opposite have had-the temerity to throw a challenge across this House regarding the manner in which pledges are kept, and I am giving these few examples to show the people of Canada how hon. gentlemen opposite implemented, when in office, the pledge's they gave to the people of this country. They have not shown, nor can they show one pledge given by the leader of this side of the House that has not been kept.	-
I want to refer for a moment to another pledge given to the people of this country -the pledge in regard to prohibition. Perhaps no question is receiving such earnest attention from the people of Canada to-day as the question of prohibition, the question of curtailing in some way the sale of liquor. On the eve of an election, when this was a live question, the right hon. gentleman saw his opportunity and pledged himself to give the people of Canada a plebiscite, and to

make good that plebiscite if it was carried by the people.
I want to refer for a moment to one or two of the pledges the right hon. gentleman gave. In 1895, just the year before the election of 1896, the present leader of the Opposition 'held a large meeting in Carleton Place, and spoke as follows:
The Liberal party has pledged itself in convention at Ottawa that whenever in power they would take a plebiscite on the question as to whether the people want a prohibitory liquor law or not. The answer is not in my hands, it is in the hands of the people, and according to their answer such legislation they will have at the hands of the Government.
That was a fair and distinct promise given to the people of Canada. If you vote for prohibition, the right hon. gentleman in substance said, I, as Premier of this country, will implement that pledge.


Mr. WILCOX:: What was the hon. gentleman reading from?


George Henry Bradbury: From a very admirable speech by a gentleman named Mr. Bennett, which is found on page 4305 of the Hansard Debates of April 25, 1900.


William Pugsley: Is it ancient or modern history?


George Henry Bradbury: It is ancient history, like a good many of the promises made by hon. gentlemen opposite. The right hon. gentleman went to the city of Winnipeg. He found the prohibition question a very live one in Manitoba, as it has been since and he took the opportunity of renewing his pledge there. He said:
He pledged his honour that as soon as the Liberals came into power they would take a plebiscite of the Dominion by which the party would stand, and the will of the people would be carried out even were it to cost power for ever to the Liberal party.
No promise could have been clearer, no stronger words could have been used; and yet, when the voice of the people of Canada voted in favour of prohibition by a majority I think of something like 13,000, the Government closed their ears. The book was closed and nothing was done. But there is a little history in connection with that matter. Every one who took any interest in that question at that time will remember that the different provinces of Canada, with the exception of the province of Quebec, voted largely in favour of prohibition. I ' forget the exact figures, but the majority for prohibition was one hundred thousand or more. The result of the poll in Quebec

could not be ascertained for days and weeks. There was a feeling throughout the country that the ballot boxes were stuffed, and an investigation proved that to be absolutely true. Let me just read what was found to prevail at some of the polling stations. In Quebec Centre, poll 23, 105 votes wpre polled when there were only 101 names on the polling list. They polled a splendid percentage between them.


Oliver James Wilcox: All against prohibition?


George Henry Bradbury: All against prohibition. At No. 1 poll, West Quebec, there were 114 votes polled and 115 on the list; at No. 2 poll. Ill polled and 114 on the list, and at the Lachine poll, Jacques Cartier, there -were 108 votes polled and 111 on' the list. I only quote these few figures to show that the suspicion of the temperance people who -were earnest and anxious for temperance legislation at that time was amply justified. I do not believe there is any province in this country which is more interested on this question to-day than the province of Quebec. They have made great strides since those days and they are in line with the people of Canada'on the question of prohibition. Some of the strongest legislation that has been passed by any of the provinces has been passed by the province of Quebec during the last few years. They have made wonderful progress in regard to this question. But they were under the tutelage at that time of men who did not want prohibition put up to the Government of that day. While the promise was given, it would have been a calamity in the eyes of some of the leaders of that day for any Government to -have introduced prohibition. But the day is coming, and it may not be as fiar away as some think, when this will be a live question again in this 'country and the records of hon. gentlemen opposite will stand out before the public as a warning, and will show whom the people can trust oil great questions of this kind.
If this were only the record of the Federal Government, led by my right hon. 'friend, it would not be so bad. But we (found the Manitoba Liberals very apt pupils of my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition. They took hold of this question right on the eve of an election. They said to themselves: This is a good election cry; it is something -we can sweep the piyOvince with; and Mr. Green-way, Premier of Manitoba, in 1892, advocated

prohibition and said to the people:	We
will have a plebiscite, and if you vote for prohibition you will get it. What was the result? There were 45,573 voters on the lists in Manitoba at that time; 18,637 voted for prohibition and only 7,115 against. Did [DOT]they get prohibition? Why, the Liberal leader took the same position in Manitoba as the Liberal leader has taken in the Federal House here. Mr. Greenway simply pigeon-holed the result and allowed the matter to. stand'as it stands at the present time. Although he had two and a half times as many votes in favour of prohibition in Manitoba as had been cast against it he still refused to act. The province of Ontario was in the same position under a Liberal Government. But another election was coming on in Manitoba at a time when the Greenway Government was discredited and was in a very tight box. The people of Manitoba are an easy people, at least they were once very easily fooled and cajoled by the Liberal leaders. In 1898 Mr. Greenway again submitted the question of prohibition. This time prohibition was carried by a majority of 9,000. Still there was no prohibition. The leaders of the Liberal party never implemented the pledge they gave to the people. It would seem that 'the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition to-day and the great Liberal leaders of Canada had been close and apt students of the German historian Bernhardi, who had taught that no pledge or promise should be kept unless it redounded to the interest of the party or state that was affected. That is what caused this great war that is going on to-day. The British Government, in its own defence, and in defence of its honour, determined to keep the promise it had given to the Belgians to protect the neutrality of their country. If the Liberal party of Canada had had control of a situation of that kind they would have had no difficulty in getting out of the responsibility as they have got out of other pledges that they have given to the people of Canada. [DOT] I have devoted all the time I intend to give to this phase of the question.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Hear, hear.


George Henry Bradbury: I think I have convinced even the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), that it is not safe for the Liberal party to charge this side of the House with not implementing its pledges. I now wish to discuss one or two phases of the present Budget as referred to by our hon. friends on the other side of the House.
My hon. friend the junior member for Halifax, during his discussion of the subject said:
But the general tariff to-day, as amended is such as to diminish the value and destroy the purpose of the preferential tariff to Great Britain.
This is a question, Mr. Speaker, that nearly every hon. gentleman who has spoken from the Opposition benches has dealt with. The fact is that when you go into this matter you find that the changes in the tariff have not materially changed the preference given to the British manufacturer. The British manufacturer occupies the same position relatively that he did before. The proposition before the House increases the general tariff by 71 per cent and makes only 5 per cent of a reduction in the British preferential tariff which still leaves the preference in favour of Great Britain 21 per cent better than it was before. Just an illustration; take item 453 in the Customs Tariff an you will find that on machinery the British preferential tariff was 15 per cent and the general tariff 271 per cent. That is what it was before this change took place. That gave Great Britain a preference of 124 per cent. Now the new tariff adds 5 per cent to the British preferential tariff rate and 7J per cent to the general rate. That makes the duty, under the British preferential tariff, 20 per cent and, under the general tariff, 35 per cent, giving a preference in favour of Great Britain of L5 per cent or 21 per cent better than it was. The same thing applies to item 567 which deals with clothing. Under the old tariff the preferential duty was 30 per cent and the general rate 35 per cent,' giving Great Britain a preference of only 5 per cent. The new tariff, which we designate as a war tax, although that is disputed by hon. gentlemen opposite, adds 5 per cent to the British preferential tariff and 71 per cent to the general tariff. The result is that we find that the duty on clothing from Great Britain is 35 per cent, while the duty under the general tariff is 421 per cent. The preference given to Great Britain in that ease is 71 per cent, or 21 per cent better than it was.
It is very difficult to understand, Mr. Speaker, how hon. gentlemen opposite make out that the British preference has been destroyed, in view of the fact that the British preference as a whole is as great to-day as it was before this Budget was brought down, and in some things it is greater. The tariff has not touched

mowers, or reapers, or binders, or binder twine, and all these things are just in the same position as they were. And yet we have the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) and other hon. members waxing eloquent over the manner in which the farmers of this country are being taxed.


William Melville Martin: Would the hon. gentleman mind telling us how many reapers and binders and mowers were imported from Great Britain?


George Henry Bradbury: Reapers and binders are not imported from Great Britain, but the duty of 7J per cent that is applied to all other items is not applied to these items. The Government of this country did not place an extra duty on these implements.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Ask him about ploughs.


George Henry Bradbury: I will tell my hon. friend something about ploughs before I finish. We had in this House a few years ago the Minister of Finance of the late Government, a very eminent man, a man who was looked upon by the Liberal party, and indeed by Conservatives, as one of the' big men of Canada; I refer to the Hon. Mr. Fielding. Let us see what position the Hon. Mr. Fielding now takes with regard to this Budget, and let us compare it with the position taken by his Liberal friends in this House. If Mr. Fielding were in the House now, sitting beside his old leader, I venture to say the criticisms that have been offered to this Budget never would have emanated from the Liberal party. I quote from the Journal of Commerce, of which the Hon. Mr. Fielding is editor, and in its issue of Friday, February 12, 1915, dealing with the Bjidget, it says:
Increased taxation is not at any time welcome, and therefore Mr. White's budget is not likely to be regarded as a thing of joy. But taxes which at another period might evoke sharp criticism may be accepted under present conditions with something like equanimity.
While expenditure had increased, the revenues were no longer flourishing. The war, no doubt, added to the diminution of income. But even if there had been no war, additional taxation would have been inevitable. Whether the money was required for one purpose or another, the situation to the Finance Minister was the same. He had to raise more revenue.
I commend this to hon. gentlemen opposite.
If there are any who are disposed to criticise his method they would do well to reflect whether any better and more convenient way could have been taken. The exemptions that have been made show the minister had a commendable desire to avoid, as far as he could, the placing of additional burdens on those least able to bear them. Some of the minor taxes may prove more irritating than profitable, but they are not un-

just. The addition of five per cent to the tariff or. British goods, and seven and one half per cent on other goods, is the main feature of the Budget. If the question were one of permanent fiscal policy, these additions would, of course, be open to grave objection. But they are imposed to meet what we all hope is a temporary condition, and if those who for the moment may profit by them distinctly understand this, and govern themselves accordingly, there will probably be little objection to this portion of the Budget.
Altogether, Mr. White seems to have made the best of a troublesome situation.
This is the opinion of the late Liberal Minister of Finance in reference to the Budget, and he was once looked upon by his own party as one of the greatest men in Canada; in my opinion he was the greatest finance minister the Liberal party ever had. These are his opinions; this is his advice to his party, and, comparing Mr. Fielding's remarks with the remarks of the hon. gentlemen opposite who are making this carping criticism on the Budget, tiie comparison places them in a very awkward position before the people of Canada. We had the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), a few nights ago in this House, in his wild heroics, raising his hand to Heave^i and declaring:	keep your unholy
and disloyal hands off the British preference. Just imagine the hon. gentleman waxing eloquent over this matter, and this in the face of the advice of the great Finance Minister of his own party, which warns him to be careful in his language, and points out to him that there was no better way to deal with the situation than that in which the present Finance Minister has dealt with it. But, Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Turriff) does not deceive any one; it does not deceive the electors in the West and it does not deceive the members in this House. So much for the British preference. Some hon. gentleman a few moments ago spoke of ploughs, and the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. member for West Kent (Mr. McOoig) have both referred in this debate to the increased duty on ploughs. The hon. member for Medicine Hat said:
I have here a clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press of Tuesday, February 23-
The Free Press is a very dangerous authority to quote on a question of this kind.
-containing the report of an interview with Mr. H. W. Hutchinson-
Mr. Hutchinson is a life-long Liberal, a man no doubt anxious to cast suspicion upon any act performed by the Conservative Government and ready to raise agitation or

ill-feeling amongst the farmers, so as to make them dissatisfied. This is the man whom the hon. member (Mr. Buchanan) quotes in this House as an authority.
-vice-president and managing director of the John Deer Plough Companyan American institution. Then the hon. member for Medicine Hat goes on to quote the following language from Mr. Hutchinson:
The pr.Arie farmers will, of course, be called on to pay the duty. We have been already
notified by Canadian manufacturers that prices will be increased to us and we have already begun to prepare a new price list for the sale of our commodities. On every walking plough there will be an increase in the price paid of from $1 to $2; on every sulky plough an increase of $1; on every drill an increase of $5.
Later on the hon. member (Mr. Buchanan) quotes Mr. Hutchinson as saying:
On every gang plough an increase of $6 ; on every wagon ah increase of $7, and on every disc plough an increase of $8.
This is a quotation by the hon. member (Mr. Buchanan) from an interview given by Mr. Hutchinson, the agent of an American manufacturing concern, and the inference he intended to leave on the House was that the Canadian manufacturers had increased their prices on farm implements. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that on examination it will he found that the Canadian manufacturers have not increased the price of these goods since this tariff came down. If there have been any increases-they are very small, and I will cite them to the House later-they were made months before the tariff was thought of, and just in the ordinary regulation of the prices of the different machines. I have here a letter from the Cockshutt Plow Company, and the Cock-shutt Plow Company owes it to itself to make this explanation.
I hold no brief for this company; but I am glad to be put in possession of facts that warrant me in saying in this House that the Canadian manufacturers were too patriotic to take advantage of the circumstances in order to increase the price of those ploughs, when they might have done so. This letter, which was written after the hon. member for West Kent (Mr. McCoig) spoke, reads as follows:
Mr. McCoig has, X notice, been making a statement in the House from our " Private and Confidential " lists in which he states we have advanced our prices for this season. Mr. McCoig being an implement man knows that each year a price list is issued (ours appearing in December) with such changes as are rendered necessary by the cost of production.
This list that was complained of was made up in December, 1914.
He saw fit to give only the increases and not the decreases.
As a matter of fact the ploughs that he named were advanced about 50 cents each, and not on account of the tariff, but to meet increased cost. These ploughs he referred to are a type that B.re sold in Eastern Canada and are not suitable for prairie use, and not one single type of these ploughs suitable for Canadian trade is made in the United States. As an implement man Mr. McCoig knows this, or else he does not know his business.
He goes on to say:
The Maple Leaf gang he refers to was not advanced in price-last year it was quoted without straightener. This year it is quoted with straightener at $1 more, so here also he is mistaken.
That explains the dollar increase in the cost of the gang plough.
The Ontario Footlift gang plough to which he refers is a new and improved design, and appears in our list for the first time, last year's pattern having been discarded.
He also in his speech infers that on May 1, our prices will again be advanced 5 per cent. How does he know? Who told him? We certainly did not, and we have already publicly stated our prices had been made for the season and would stand, so Mr. McCoig is wrong again.
This is an answer to the hon. gentleman who has been trying to make it appear that the Canadian manufacturers have been taking advantage of the situation in order to raise the prices of their ploughs to the farmers.
Let me give some of the reductions that have been made: Grain binders, 4-5 per cent; corn binders, 1-7 per cent; S.D. hay rakes, 4 per cent; hay tedders, 3 per cent; seed drills, 1-3 per cent; No. 2 cultivators, 1-6 per cent; No. 5 cultivators, 10 per cent; No. 3 disc harrows (16x16), 8 per cent; lever drag barrows, 3-4 per cent; two-way sulky ploughs (2B), 7 per cent; two-way sulky ploughs (IB), 13 per cent; gasoline engines, 7 per cent to 13 per cent, according to size.
The increases are: Reapers, 5 per cent; land rollers, 3 per cent; 16-tooth cultivators, 3 per cent; footlift sulky plough, 6 per cent. On 21 types of walking ploughs listed, 9 were increased 5 per cent; 1 was increased 5i per cent; 1 was increased 10 per cent; and 10 remained the same.
That is a pretty fair answer to the statement made by the hon. member.
I hold in my hand the Cockshutt Plow Company's list for 1915, which is red-inked, showing the reductions that have been made. Some of the items that affect the farmers of the West are as follows:
7S4

Grain binders: No. 3 binder, 5 foot w'th sheaf carrier, $5 decrease; No. 3 binder, S foot,, with sheaf carrier, $ 5 decrease; No. 3 binder, 7 foot, with sheaf carrier, 55 decrease; No. 3 binder, 7 foot, with sheaf carrier and pole truck, $5 decrease; No. 3 binder, S foot, with sheaf carrier, $5 decrease.
That reduction runs through the whole list. I am authorized to say that the list as it stands to-day is lower than it was in 1914, and that it will not be increased.


Mr. MACNUTT:: Is that decrease made
to the farmers or to the dealers?


George Henry Bradbury: It is made to any man who wants to purchase those implements. You can buy them or a dealer can buy them. That is a complete answer to the statements made in the Winnipeg Free Press interview which was used by my hon. friend the member for Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan). I am satisfied that that hon. member would not have read that interview in this House if he had understood the situation.
There is another article affected by this tariff, namely, cement. Hon. gentlemen opposite have a record onthis. My hon. friends, the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) and the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), who I am sorry is not in his seat, have devoted a good deal of time to endeavour to make the people believe that they are being injured by this tariff to the extent of the increased duty.


Mr. TURRIFF:: So they are.


George Henry Bradbury: The hon. member says, " So they are." The hon. member waxed eloquent against the great merger that was permitted to be formed. There is an old opposite have a record on this. My hon. they first make mad." If the hon. member had reflected on the attitude of his party towards that merger when it had an opportunity of preventing it, he would have hesitated before making such a statement. I had the honour of having a seat in this House when the merger was formed. I was sitting on the opposite side, and I called the attention of the late Minister of Finance to this merger and warned him of what might happen. I received a very unsympathetic reply, and no action whatever was taken to control the operations of the merger of which the hon. member is complaining to-day.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the hon. member for Assiniboia supported that legislation.


George Henry Bradbury: I am quoting from
Hansard of 1912-13, volume 1, page 400. I asked the question:

1.	Has the atttn i n of the Government been called to the Cement merger that has taken place, by means of which the Canada Cement Company, Limited, has taken over ten of the largest cement companies of Canada with a capital of $30,000,000 and that on account of this merger the prices of cement to the consumer has been very much increased?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to /take action to protect the public against this merger, which threatens to be a huge combine, thereby increasing the cost of cement which is almost a necessity to-day in great works?
Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) : The Government are aware from information in the public press, that a number of cement manufactories of the Dominion have been consolidated under one large company. Whether this consolidation has unduly enhanced the price of cement is a disputed point.
The law provides two methods of dealing with combinations which unduly enhance prices.
Then, the former Minister of Finance goes on to point out that the citizens can take action, but that he, or the Government responsible, refuse to take any action. Why? You have not far to go to find the reason- the promoters of the cement merger were leading Liberals. The late Senator Cox, the present president of the company, Senator Edwards, Senator McKay-all leading Liberals-are the men who created this merger. If this is a combine, the Liberal party are entirely responsible for it.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: What year is that Hansard?


George Henry Bradbury: It is 1912-13.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The hon. gentleman has made a mistake in the date.
Mr. BRAI)BURY: Yes, I have given correctly the date of the book from which I am now quoting, but I had a mistake in the date in this way: I am quoting from quotations made in a speech of my own of that year. But it was on the 16th of November, 1909, that I called the attention of the House to this matter. And what was the attitude of my hon. friend from Assiniboia at that time? Though he sat in this House then, he never raised his voice against this merger. And the hon. member for Edmonton, who was a trusted member of the Government of that day, had nothing to say. These hon. gentlemen, like others on that side, when in office were great friends of the combines and mergers; but since leaving office they have changed their attitude and are now trying to fool the farmers again.
Now, I wish to deal with the cement question as affected by the present tariff. The hon. member for Assiniboia says:
Now my hon. friend conies forward and puts an extra duty of 75 per cent on cement. . . .

Is he saving it to the farmer or to the town or villages that are using cement for paving, or to the business man who uses cement in putting up buildings? Is he saving it to any user of cement? No, Mr. Speaker, he is not, he is handing over a bonus of thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars to the greatest combine and merger that we have in Canada today.
This is the merger which he himseif allowed to be created, against which he did not raise his voice, though I was trying to prevent it in 1909. I wish to make the same statement about cement that I made about ploughs and farm implements a few moments ago. I am assured by the president of this cement " merger-combine," as my hon. friend called it, that there is no intention to raise the pr;ee in Canada. They have facilities to produce a surplus of two million barrels a year; they can control the situation to-day; and they say they have no intention of increasing the iprice of cement to the people on account of this tariff.
What was the situation? In 1894 the tariff on cement was 40 cents a barrel, including a duty on bags. In 1897, the duty was 43 cents a barrel. In 1905, under hon. gentlemen opposite it had been increased to 53| cents a barrel, and in 1906 it was reduced to 51| cents a barrel. Now, the reciprocity pact which these hon. gentlemen were so anxious to foist upon the people contained a provision, which, had it gone into effect, would have reduced the duty on cement to 46J cents a barrel, including the duty on bags. In 1913 the duty was reduced by tli * Conservative Government-the present Government-to 43 cents a barrel. It has always been the pleasure of the Conservative party to reduce the duty on commodities to assist the farmers and poor people of tlhis country. The present increase in the tax makes the duty on cement 53J cents a barrel-puts it back where it was in 1905 under the Liberal Government; and in view of their own record. I do not think hon. gentlemen have any reason to complain. On account of this awful war, we have had to increase taxation, and so the duty on cement is raised until it is one-quarter cent a barrel less than it was under the Liberals in 1905. In 1912, it will be remembered we had a cement famine- cement was needed all over this country. The present Finance Minister took advantage of a clause in the Customs Act to cut the duty on cement in two. And at once he and every hon. gentleman on that side including the hon. gentleman from Assini-boia, attacked the Government for doing it. - Mr. TURRIFF:	No.


George Henry Bradbury: I can produce the
record.


John Gillanders Turriff: No.


George Henry Bradbury: I take the hon. gentleman's word. I have not his record, but I have that of the hon. member for Edmonton. The hon. member for Edmonton charged this Government with having been actuated by a desire not to help the farmers but to influence an election. That was the position taken by the Liberal party. It happened that there was an election in Saskatchewan. But people in the West and all over Canada were in need of cement, and thousands, and ten of thousands, of men without employment because cement could not be had. And when the Government cut the cement duty in two these hon gentlemen were unpatriotic enough to denounce this Government for having done what it could to assist the farmers, declaring that the Government was not doing it for the good of the people but to influence an election. I do not think, in view of the record of hon. gentlemen opposite on this question, that they have any ground to stand upon nor any warrant for the charges they make that the present tariff will be an imposition upon the farmers. I have no hesitation in saying-and I am speaking by the book-that the price of cement will not be increased one cent a barrel in this country by reason of this tariff. The farmers of Canada will not refuse to pay their share of the war tax.
I have taken up a great deal more time than I had expected, but there are some things that I feel I must deal with. The hon. member for Edmonton makes a great noise about the stamp duty on letters. He makes this statement:
Then $300,000 is expected on insurance premiums, $7,000,000 from increased postal rates, and $3,000,000 from railway passengers. It appears to me that the ordinary man who uses the postal facilities is bearing an unduly heavy share of this burden of taxation, while the great financial interests are bearing an unduly light proportion.
Then he goes on, lower down:
While the ordinary man who posts a letter pays $7,000,000, the man who rides in a railway train pays $3,000,000. The principle of direct taxation is sound, but this is not the way I would do it.
What are the facts? We want to be fair in regard to these questions. Any man who knows anything about the postal system of Canada knows that the great business houses of Canada, the banking institutions, insurance companies and other

78G

great corporations, pay the largest proportion of the postal revenue. I venture to say that not 50 per cent of this postal tax will be paid by the ordinary man in Canada; it will be paid by the large corporations such as the banks. I have one bank in my mind now which is paying out $150,000 a year in postage. These are the institutions that are going to bear the burden of taxation in this as in nearly all other matters. That goes to show how unfair the criticism from the opposite side of the House on this question has been. If these gentlemen had taken the advice of their ex-Finance Minister they would not have found themselves in the awkward position they are placed in to-day, on account of their unpatriotic criticism of the present attempt to handle a difficult question.
I cannot close without referring to another matter which affects my own province, that is, the question referred to by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) and the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). During their speeches both of these gentlemen condemned the construction of the Hudson Bay railway.


William Pugsley: I desire to correct my
hon. friend. I did not condemn the construction of the Hudson Bay railway.


Mr. NESBITT:: I did.


George Henry Bradbury: Perhaps I had better qualify my statement. The hon. gentleman objected to the expenditure provided for the Hudson Bay railway this year.


William Pugsley: Of $5,500,000.


George Henry Bradbury: He advised the Government to cut the $5,000,000 estimate down to $1,000,000. His friend behind him went one better and said:
The first item X am going to speak about is the expenditure on the Hudson Bay railway I know that my hon. friends on this side of the House promised to build that railway, but 1 have come to the conclusion, or almost come to the conclusion, that political parties are justified in certain instances In not keeping promises which they should never have made.
This kind of reasoning is exactly what caused this war that is going on today. My hon. friends /while on this side of the House had this virtue, that while they promised to start the Hudson Bay railway they never did. They sent out surveyors and got reports on the road which, however, did not assist the (late Government in keeping its pledge to complete this road. But the fact is that they did not have cour-rage enough or honesty of purpose enough to implement the pledges they had given to the people because they had pledged themselves in 1908 that if they were returned to
[Mr. Bradbury.2
power the farmers of the Northwest could take their grain to the Hudson bay ports within three years. That was a distinct pledge given to the people of the West, and I say they did not have honesty or fairness enough to implement that pledge. My hon. friend says they did not start the building of the road; but they did start to build a bridge across the Saskatchewan which cost a large amount of money, and the road was in that condition when the Conservative party came into power. I shall quote what the hon. gentleman did say, I want to be fair:
When we come to the Hudson Bay railway and the terminals at Port Nelson, while I have always been in favour of the construction of that railway, yet we ought to.pause, and instead of proposing to expend, as the Government is doing, $5,000,000 during this year on that railway and terminals, the Government, in fairness to the people of Canada, ought to cut that amount down to the sum of not more than $1,000,000.
That is his proposition. But I find that the hon. member for North Oxford was a little stronger. When Mr. Sharpe asked: " Did they not let the first contract?" my hon. friend from North Oxford said:
Not that I know of. At any rate did not build any of the road. The Government are asking this year for a vote of $5,500,000 for the Hudson Bay railway. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) the other evening said that that could be cut down to $1,000,000 without hurting anybody. I say it could be absolutely wiped out, and that if the Government of the day would "pull up the rails and sell them to somebody else for whatever they would bring, they would earn the lasting gratitude of the people of this country. In my judgment the Hudson Bay railway has no more chance of earning money than Stefansson would have if he built a railway upon one of those islands where he is lost. They do say that there are some fish in Hudson bay.
This, Mr. Speaker, coming from a man who occupies the prominent position in his party that my hon. friend does, the man who was sent to Ontario during the reciprocity pact discussion to tell the manufacturers that they had nothing to fear- " We do not intend to reduce the duties, you are all right ''-sent there by his leader, a man chosen for the most important committees in the House, I say the hon. gentleman must have been-


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Would my hon. friend
repeat what he said about my being sent to tell the people in Ontario. I do not take back anything I said about the Hudson Bay railway.


George Henry Bradbury: I am glad you do not.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: But I want to know what the hon. gentleman says about my having been sent to tell the people of Ontario. Just repeat that.


George Henry Bradbury: What I said was that during the discussion in this House, as every bon. gentleman remembers, the hon. gentleman had been in Ontario, in his own constituency, I think, and he told the manufacturers that they had nothing to fear.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is not what you said. I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. You said that I was sent by somebody. Now, who sent me ?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.
' Mr. BRADBURY: I will tell the hon. gentleman before I get through. The hon. gentleman stated to these people, to the manufacturers, that they had nothing to fear. He said: " The present Government, if reciprocity comes into force, are not going to lower the duties." When these words were read by an hon. member to the Tight hon. gentleman who now leads the Opposition in this House, then the leader of the Government, and the right hon. gentleman was asked if the hon. member for Oxford had been authorized to do this, the answer was that he was only speaking or only announcing the policy of his party.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The hon. gentleman is only quibbling. I asked him a straight question. He said a few moments ago I was sent by somebody. Now, why don't you repeat what you said and not try to quibble P


George Henry Bradbury: I object.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You have talked long enough without taking up any more time. Why don't you state what you said ? You know it was not true.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The truth cuts.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for Selkirk has the floor and is entitled to a hearing and attention.


George Henry Bradbury: In connection with the building of the Hudson Bay railway and in connection with the position that the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House seem to. take through their quasi-leader from Oxforct, I want to say that there is not one man in the West who dares enunciate this doctrine west 501
of the lakes, not one. I want to say that the Hudson Bay railway was promised by the Liberal party. In 1908 the present leader of the Opposition gave the people of the West to understand that, if his party was returned to power, the Hudson Bay railway would be completed within two or three years at the most, that the grain from the West could then be taken over that road to the markets of the world. The conduct of the Liberal party with respect to this railway is just in keeping with their attitude on every great question that affects the people of this country. They are one thing in one province and another thing in another province; one thing with one class of people and another thing with another class. It is a double-faced policy, and I might say a double-barrelled policy, which will affect some hon. gentlemen opposite who come from the West in a manner that will not be satisfactory to them.


John Gillanders Turriff: Don't worry about us.


George Henry Bradbury: My hon. friend will have his own troubles. He will have lots to worry about without my worrying for him.


John Gillanders Turriff: I will take care of them.


George Henry Bradbury: I want to say just a few words about the railway situation. The railway situation in Canada has been made anything but a pleasant one, by reason of the reckless legislation of the right hon. gentleman and his friends on the other side of the House. Just on the eve of an election the right hon. gentleman guaranteed bonds to the extent of thirty-five million dollars to induce and assist the Canadian Northern to become a transcontinental line. I hold that that was one of the most reckless projects ever undertaken by the late Government, except perhaps the building of the Transcontinental, which was a huge mistake, a blunder that has cost the people of this country hundreds of millions of dollars. If we had the millions of money that have been wasted in the building of the Transcontinental, we should not have to borrow one dollar to conduct our share of this war. If the late Government had not encouraged the building of the Canadian Northern round the shores of lake Superior, creating another transcontinental line, we should not, perhaps, be in the awkward position we are in to-day. The policy of the Conservative party was the only sane policy for this country. If that policy, which included the extension of the Intercolonial railway, the purchasing or taking over of the Canadian

Pacific railway lines around the shores of lake Superior, and giving running rights to all roads, had been carried out, we should then have had one road coming through that barren country instead of three, and our railway situation would not be as it is to-day, a burden upon the people and a yoke around the necks of the farmers of the West. The building of that Transcontinental railway has robbed the farmers of the West of the opportunity of securing a fair reduction in freight rates, a reduction to which they were justly entitled, and which they expected to get when this railway was foisted upon the people of this country. I should like to point out to hon. gentlemen opposite that they are responsible for the position that the farmer of the West is in to-day in regard to freight rates. We could have had a much greater reduction in rates if our systems had not been duplicated. And if I know anything about the signs of the times and about the railway situation, the day is not far distant when the Government of Canada will be forced, in defence of the people, to take over as government undertakings one or perhaps two of these great Transcontinental systems. 'That has been made necessary by the reckless spending of public money, by the reckless use of iGovern-ment guarantees by hon. gentlemen opposite. When my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) was criticising the Government for going on with the construction of the Hudson Bay railway, I noticed that his friends from the .West all sat smiling; they did not cheer; but they did not contradict him. They allowed it to go out to the country that their opinion was that this road should be stopped and the rails pulled up. But the farmers of the West will have something to say about that. I should like to ask some of these gentlemen from the West whether they are in favour of this road? Is my hon. friend from Assiniboia in favour of the Hiidson Bay railway or not?


John Gillanders Turriff: Since my hon. friend has asked me the question I am quite ready to answer. There is no doubt at all that it was the late Government that undertook to build the road. My hon. friends opposite had promised to build the road for 20 years, but had done nothing. I quite agree with the remarks of my hon. friend from St. John, and would say that the Hudson Bay railway, in common with all other enterprises, might well be given less money this year', until an equilibrum is obtained between our revenue and expenditure.


George Henry Bradbury: The hon. gentleman has not answered the question I asked. I asked whether he was in favour of building the Hudson Bay railway.


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes.


George Henry Bradbury: The fact that the
Hudson Bay railway was not started by the late Government although they had given a pledge is no surprise to anybody who knows how the Liberal party has implemented other pledges it has given to the people of this country.


William Melville Martin: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the railroad was not started by the late Government?


George Henry Bradbury: The building of the
railway was not started by the late Government. Surveys were made by the late Government and a bridge was under construction. The late Government was committed to the whole of this project both by promise and by money allready expended.


William Pugsley: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. It is not permissible to say that the conduct of another hon. member is unworthy, It must be assumed that what he does is done with a proper motive.


George Henry Bradbury: I will qualify that by saying that the statements made by the hon. gentlemen are entirely worthy of the hon. gentlemen who made them. The attempt is made to create the impression that the taxes that are levied are not "war taxes because the dollars that are going into the revenue are not going directly into the war fund. Every hon. gentleman knows that the interest on this borrowed money has to be met, seven or eight millions of dollars. Every man in this House knows that we are making provision and ought to make provision, if we are doing our full duty to the men we have at the front, for perhaps a large pension list, and in this way I -say that every dollar of this money going into this increased tax may be considered just as much a war tax as the money we are borrowing from Great Britain. I believe that when these hon. gentlemen have the chance of meeting their constituents they will find that the opinion of their constituents is that they made a huge mistake in taking the attitude they have taken in this House regarding the Budget that is before the people at the present time.


Thomas MacNutt: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to attempt to follow the arguments of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bradbury) who has just taken his seat. He dealt, in the first part of his speech, with ancient history. Later on he made some statements that I do not think are in accordance with the facts. He said, amongst other things, that the imposition of higher taxes under the tariff would result in the lowering of prices in Canada, and that the manufacturers are too patriotic to charge any more on account of the additional protection which they have obtained.

I want to speak more particularly on behalf of the farmers of the West with reference to the effect this tax will, in my opinion, have upon production which is bracketed with patriotism. I have no doubt that the farmers of the West, and farmers generally, will continue to be patriotic, but I am very much afraid that this tariff will have the effect of reducing production rather than increasing it. The people in Canada generally are behind the Government and would be behind any Government in connection with matters appertaining to this war. They would not desire to do anything to embarrass the Government as long as they were legitimately endeavouring to assist Great Britain and her allies in bringing this war to a successful termination. But it does not follow that domestic concerns should not be criticised. This Budget refers to domestic matters. I see that the speech of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) is headed in Hansard " Proposed War Taxation." I think it should be changed to " Proposed Deficit Taxation," because if it were it would be fairer. The hon. Minister of Finance made this quite clear himself in his statement to the House, and 1 will quote a few words from what he said with reference to this matter:
So far as concerns our special war expenditures which may reach one hundred million dollars I should be disposed, if we had not such heavy and uncontrollable capital expenditure to meet, to recommend that we should pay at least a part of it from current revenue. But it is obvious upon a consideration of the figures which I have submitted that we shall not by any re sonable supplemental taxation measures be able to close the gap between revenue and expenditure much less to pay a portion of the principal of our special war outlay. In the circumstances I have no hesitation in proposing to the House that we shall borrow the full amount required under this heading.
And further on:
It is therefore the intention of the Government to negotiate for a continuance of the arrangement which I have mentioned with the Imperial Government for the purpose of procuring the funds necessary to meet our special war expenditure.
That is proof that this proposed tariff and direct taxation is not for the purpose of carrying on the war or of maintaining our soldiers at the front. It is claimed, with a good deal of justice, that the deficit as between revenue and expenditure mentioned by the Minister of Finance is the result of extravagance and mismanagement. I am not going to deal with that phase of the question because it has been already fully treated in this debate. There is a
[Mr. MacNutt.l
deficit, and no matter who is to blame, the people must pay it. But the right people should pay it and in proportionate amounts. I believe that the farmers under this Budget will have to pay more than their proportionate amount. Although the hon. member (Mr. Bradbury) says the additional tariff will make articles cheaper, I think it goes without saying that it will raise the price of everything we have to purchase on which an increased duty has been placed. The farmers, as everybody else, will have to pay for their clothing and for the necessaries of life. In addition they will have to pay the extra tax on their farm implements. The hon. member read a price list to show that the prices would not be increased, but would probably be decreased on the articles he referred to. If that be so, this is not a revenue tax at all, because foreign goods will not be imported. The additional taxation would have to be added to them and consequently it would discourage importations, and all goods would be made in Canada, and there would be no revenue coming to the Government. There is no doubt, however, in my mind, that the manufacturers, unless they have over-produced, will most decidedly take advantage of this increased taxation to put up the prices. The Toronto News makes this statement:
The farmers should be pleased with the exemption of binder twine and agricultural implements from the general tariff increase.
The Toronto News evidently thinks it is an authority on western matters, just as most eastern men who have gone to the Pacific coast come back and think they know all about it. But when the Toronto News speaks about agricultural implements, it shows how little the editor of the News knows about farming. There is only one class of implements which is not included in the increase in the tariff, while it is made to appear that there are four-binders, harvesters, reapers and mowers. They are simply all harvesters, and mowers also are harvesters, so that there is only one class of implements that is exempted and that class is of no service in the production of crops, although they certainly save the crops. There may be others besides the Toronto News who do not know what agricultural implements are required, and I consequently will give the names of some of them: a breaking plough, gang plough, harrow, land packer, seeder, disc, cultivator, fanning mill, hay rake, wagon, buggy, sleigh, etc. Fence wire, lumber, and cream separators, will be included in this additional taxation.

The greatest asset the Dominion has is her undeveloped agricultural land. Manufactures are very important, but they can only legitimately be a result and not a cause of prosperity. The manufacturers cannot create wealth, they may acquire it and distribute it or retain it, but they do not create it. We would be all glad to see the manufacturers doing well and prospering, but they cannot prosper unless the land is occupied and the people on the land are prosperous. How are you going to make the agriculturists of this Dominion prosperous? We have millions of acres of unoccupied land to-day which should be under cultivation. It has been the object of every government in this country to try and settle the western lands and that has been accomplished with more or less success. But the success in that direction is not continuing at present and it is because the conditions are not made sufficiently inviting for people to stay on the land. It is well enough to talk about "back to the land," but you cannot compel people to go back to the Jand or to stay on it when they get there. The only way you can get people to remain on the land and to cultivate it properly is to surround them with reasonable comforts and remove the obstacles and difficulties in their way. The farmers do not ask for special privileges, but they do ask that unnecessary burdens should not be placed on them. We find that the men on the land are not satisfied to remain, and that is tne ease even now, although the increased prices of products occasiond by this unfortunate war are temporarily inviting. However, I believe there is not a farmer in Canada who would not sooner take much lower prices, and have no war, if that were possible I believe that the prices of farm products will increase on account of the war, but that will only be a temporary condition and things will go back to the normal when the war is over. It is the duty of this Government to institute a policy, in the interests not only of the farmers, but of the manufacturers and the business men and all the people. A policy could be inaugurated which would make the farmers feel that they are getting some of the wealth they create and render them content to remain on the land. I believe that the West could be made inviting to the right kind of men. There are many ups and downs in the farmer's life, but if many of the burdens that are now placed on them were removed, not only would those who are still on the land feel like extending their operations but others
would be induced to come and the country would be developed. Quotations have been made from an interview with Mr. Hutchinson, but there are so many good points in that interview that I wish to place it all on Hansard. I may say that if the John Deer Company increases the price of implements every other manufacturer will do the same. The prices are generally all about the same no matter who makes the implement, so that I think there must be a combine among them. This is the interview with Mr. Hutchinson:
H. W. Hutchinson, vice-president and managing director of the John Deere Plough Company, was asked by the Free Press yesterday for an opinion on the effect on western Canada of the increased duty on farm implements. Mr. Hutchinson has expert knowledge on this subject, having been most intimately connected with the trade in this country for manyjrears.
In reply to a number of questions he stated that he fully recognized the need for a very large increase in the Dominion revenue. He was of the opinion, however, that it would be a very grave mistake at the present time to impose a heavy burden on the prairie farmer, on whom the burden of this tax, should it be imposed by the Parliament, would instantly fall. An advance in the price of tillage implements would inevitably have the effect of checking cultivation which, under the stress of the present conditions, ought to be encouraged in every possible way. The proposed tax, Mr. Hutchinson pointed out, would be much higher than was generally supposed owing to the fact that in addition to imposing the duty the Government also made what might be deemed an arbitrary valuation of the imported goods, thus in reality greatly increasing the percentage of the tax. Mr. Hutchinson also pointed out that although the Government of Canada during the past four years had apparently reduced the duty on certain agricultural implements, there had been no real reduction owing to the fact that the arbitrary valuation placed on the imported goods had been greatly increased, so that the total revenue was not affected.
That does not quite agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Selkirk.
" The prairie farmers will, of course, be called on to pay the duty," said Mr. Hutchinson. "We have been already notified by Canadian manufacturers that prices will be increased to us and we have already begun to prepare a new price list for the sale of our commodities. On every walking plough there will be an increase in the price paid by the farmer of from $1 to $2 ; in every sulky plough an increase of $4 ; in every drill an increase of $5 ; in every gang plough an increase of $6 ; in every wagon an increase of $7 ; and in every disc plough an increase of $S; with similar advance i in the prices to the farmer of all kindred tools. The margin on which dealers do business is so small that no part of the burden will be borne by them. It will all be passed on to the farmer.	,
"When I was in Ouawa some time ago I made inquiries regarding the arbitrary revaluation of imports by appraisers. There is no provision which I could find in the Customs

elusions, (that " there is every indication that higher protection will be maintained," I have just time to quote from the remarks of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell):
My hon. friend cavils at protection. Protection seems to be the red rag that angers Liberals in this House and out of it. I have no apology to make for protection; I am a stalwart protectionist. Protection has built up Canada. When this country is in straitened circumstances, as it will be more or less, and as all other countries will be owing to the war, and after it is over, it will be protection and the protectionist interests and the National Policy over again that will rebuild this country and put it back where it was before the outbreak of the war, and make it even more prosperous than ever before,
I gather from that that these additional taxes will be maintained. Let me quote a few lines from the analysis of the Budget by the Financial Post:
The increase in the general import tax of 5 per cent on preferential and 71 on our general tariff should encourage more manufacturing in Canada: but to get its full value the Minister of Finance should make some announcement as to its permanency.
I think we have every reason to fear that this increased tax is not for the purpose of producing revenue, but to protect the manufacturers of Canada, increase their profits and thereby retain their friendship. But business men do not all take the same view. Every hon. member, I have no doubt, has received a circular sent out by Mr. Stewart E. Bruce, of Toronto, in which he says:
As a business man I consider this tax levy ill-advised and ill-considered and I have given my objections in detail.
it is fortunate that we can find a man here and there, even in Toronto, who is not a slave of protection. But they are rare indeed. As it is six o'clock, I will bring my remarks to a close.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 8, respecting The Edmonton, Dun-vegan and British Columbia Railway Company.-Mr. Green.
Bill No. 20, respecting The Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Bradbury.


Mr. RICHARD BLAIN (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, on the 4th of February this session

of Parliament was opened. It will be remembered by the House and by the country that the war in which we are now engaged was declared on August 4, 1914. The first question the Canadian people asked themselves when war was declared was: Have we a Government in power in which the people of Canada have implicit confidence; have we a Prime Minister at the head of affairs who is able to cope with the task, and who has also the confidence of the whole Canadian people? The right hon. gentleman who leads the Government (Sir Robert Borden), was equal to the task at the commencement of the war; and during this session of Parliament he has shown himself fully equal to the burdens placed upon him, and he will, I am sure, be able to take his part in this great struggle to the satisfaction of the whole Canadian people. When Parliament was called in August last the eyes of all Canadians were centered upon the city of Ottawa and upon the Government. Everybody expected that some important legislation would be introduced, and that some additiohal war taxes would be placed upon the Canadian people. The people had made up their minds to bear those taxes, whatever they were, cheerfully, as the Canadian people always do in matters of this kind. An amount of $50,000,000 was voted in the special session of August, 1914. There was practically no criticism in the House; there was no disappointment in the country, and the people of Canada felt pleased to think that the Government were willing to face this matter fairly and do their part in the great struggle. The war continued, and Parliament was again called together on the 4th of February, 1915, the session in which we are now engaged. On the 11th of February my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) introduced his Budget, termed the War Budget. The people of Canada again expected, when this session was called, that some war taxes would be placed upon them, and the Budget that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance introduced is called, and will go down in history as, the War Budget.	My hon. friend the
Minister of	Finance presented	his
Budget in a way that met with the approval of all members of this House. There was no word of partisan warfare, there was nothing to stir up the Canadian people and make divisions among them. It was presented in a fair and honest way, a business presentation of an important Budget. I think the thanks of the whole Canadian people are due to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance for having been able to

meet his task and present his Budget in the manner in which he did. Naturally there would be a great deal of thought by the Canadian people upon this Budget. Almost every person in this country, being a Canadian and interested in the welfare of Canada and the Empire, was anxious to know what it contained. Every Board of Trade engaged in the great commercial interests of Canada was interested in the Budget. The agricultural classes, from one end of Canada to the other, were particularly anxious about the Budget presented by my hon. friend. The manufacturers, towards whom some of our friends on the other side are not too kindly, being large employers of labour, naturally asked themselves the question: How will this Budget affect trade? and I am bound to say-and I think this House and the people of Canada will agree with me-that no Budget was ever presented to the people of Canada that met with such universal approval as the one introduced by my hon. friend on the 11th of February. The financial critic on the other side of the House, the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), had eleven days from the date of the introduction of the Budget on the 11th of February down to the 23rd of February, when he rose in his place to discuss the Budget and to present to the people of Canada the Opposition's opinion upon it. It is currently reported that my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax consulted his friends. Everybody would expect that he would consult his friends. The Opposition had a caucus in the meantime to consider, I suppose, among other things, the Budget that was presented. To that I offer no objection. My hon. friend the junior member for Halifax, I understand, had the co-operation and the help of a gentleman not now in this House, who is very conversant with budgets, who has had the honour of introducing many in this House himself; and, after all this, the hon. gentleman's criticism was mild.
He could not raise very much objection. He was unable to single out with any emphasis those portions of the Budget to which he objected; and when the people of Canada read what my hon. friend had said they concluded that the best the Reform party in this House could do was to make only a mild criticism of the Budget introduced by the Minister of Finance. The Journal of Commerce, Montreal, discussing the Budget, said:
Altogether Mr. White seems to have made the best of a troublesome situation. It will be much easier to find fault with his proposal than to offer any better as a temporary and convenient money-raising scheme.
I understand that the Hon. Mr. Fielding, the ex-Mmister of Finance, is the editor of that paper; so no doubt he is responsible for that utterance. That is a statement from a gentleman whose opinion on budgets is worth something. He says that the Minister of Finance has made the best of a troublesome situation. Why troublesome? Because the people of Canada were engaged in a great struggle, are engaged in a great struggle now. The Finance Minister not only had to provide for the large expenditure that is going on from day to day, but had to meet many and great obligations placed upon the people of Canada by my hon. friends opposite. That meant an enormous expenditure. At the same time, on account of the disturbed condition of trade resulting from the war, the Minister of Finance was confronted with people in every part of the country saying that they feared unemployment; and unemployment there was in small measure, I think.
Some hon. gentlemen opposite have made strong statements in this House to the effect that the Minister of Finance should have cut down the general expenditure of the country. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has cut down the general expenditure. He was absolutely frank when, in presenting his budget to the House, he said:
So far as expenses are concerned the policy we enunciated in August we shall continue. Our estimates contain no new items, and as to items which they include we shall proceed with works not already under contract only as we feel justified having regard to the financial situation.
That was an honest statement. And so careful was the Minister of Finance that there should be no misunderstanding in this House or out of it as to how trace should be keipt of the money raised by the Budget, that he said:
The revenue obtained from the present tariff changes will he separately shown in the Trade and Investigation returns of the Department of Customs. By this we shall know the precise amount collected through the customs under the provisions of the War Revenue Act.
Surely that was a fair statement; there was nothing to conceal; there was no quibbling as to whether this part of the Budget was for a war tax and that part for another purpose. The statement was made on behalf of the Government that, in so far as the new Budget presented to this

House was a war Budget, the Minister of Finance would see that a clause was placed in the Customs, returns giving the revenue obtained from the present tariff changes, and showing exactly how that money was being received. Surely that was frank; surely that was what the people of this country expected from my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, so careful a man in financial matters. Surely there was nothing to provoke criticism from the other side of the House lest any taxes collected under the war Budget should be devoted to other than war purposes.
I think that the Opposition led by my right hon. friend has not done itself justice as a party. When we assembled in August last they made a few declarations that Hey would assist the Government, that they did not propose to carry on political hostilities, that whether bound or not bound they were going to have a truce, that they would give every possible assistance to the Government in providing ways and means for carrying on our share in this great struggle. But when the Minister of Finance introduced his Budget this session it seemed as if a change had come over the Opposition. The Minister of Finance presented his Budget to the House on the 11th of February. On that day the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) attacked the Government at once. He attacked the Government at the close of the speech of the Finance Minister; he attacked the Government when my right hon. friend the Prime Minister moved:
1. That it is expedient to provide that a sum not exceeding one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) he granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses that may he incurred by or under the authority of the Governor in Council during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1916,
and so on. What did the hon. member for St. John do when that resolution was introduced? He rose in his place and attacked the Government right on the war resolution introduced by the leader of this Government. He made the statement that some persons down in New_'York were declaring that they represented the Canadian Government, and were trying to give contracts for this Government and for the British Government. Surely that did not look as if the Opposition were trying to assist this Government; for if any purchases had been made, either for the British Government or for this Government, they must have been made in part out of the $50,000,000 appropriation voted last August My hon. friend

from St. John made a very long speech, in the course of which he read an article from an Ottawa newspaper that I think condemned himself and his speech as well:
As a consequence of tlie misrepresentations that have been made to business firms in the United States and Canada by persons who have fraudulently styled themselves agents of the British and French Governments, it has been considered advisable by the Government to publish the following list of purchasing agents for military purposes of the allied governments.
And continuing in that statement is a list of the gentlemen representing the British Government, whose head office was in Montreal, and of the gentlemen representing the French and Russian Governments. And notwithstanding the statement in the hand of my hon. friend-a plain statement made by this Government and given to the newspapers so that every one might understand the situation-the hon. member for St. John attacked the Government, and charged that somebody had been in the United States buying ammunition for the war at exorbitant prices, prices that far exceeded the regular prices of ammunition in that country. Surely that does not look like wanting to assist the Government. Surely that savours of partisanship. My hon. friend went on in that long speech condemning the Government. The same day the hon. member for St. John attacked the Government for the purchase, under the guidance of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), of two submarine vessels. He stated that an Order in Council had gone through to buy two submarine vessels for $1,050,000. He attacked the Government upon that in his speech, a cojiy of which I have here. He makes an effort-and to his own satisfaction, I suppose, succeeds-in connecting Sir Richard McBride, Premier of British Columbia, with this transaction in a way that he thought was very shady. All he had to do, as my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries stated in his reply, was to walk across the floor of the House and ask my hon. friend if there was an error in the Order in Council passed by the Government for the purchase of these submarines. My hon. friend states in his speech that if my hon. friend had crossed the floor and asked him that question he would have told him that an error had taken place in the figures and that when the error was detected the correction was made in the proper and legal way, so that the amount put through for the purchase of the two submarines finally was the exact amount that was paid for the submarines

-$1,150,000. The hon. member for St. John spent a long time discussing that. I might point out that while hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are making an effort to convince the country that they are assisting the Government, we find the hon. member for St. John, on the day the Budget is introduced, attacking the Government on two points in a partisan way that does not do credit to the hon. gentleman who, I am very glad to see is now in his seat. My hon. friend is a master at all that sort of thing. He has sat on both sides of the House and has a great advantage. My hon. friend is able to put to good account all that he learned on this side of the House while in the Government and on the other side while in Opposition. Whatever may be said in the country, whatever may be said either in the East or in the. West, if these hon. gentlemen propose to continue this political, partisan discussion in this House, they will be unable to make the people of Canada believe that they are assisting the Government in discharging their responsible duties.
During this discussion many hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have endeavoured to poison, if possible, the minds of the farming interest of Canada against the Government, because, forsooth, they are imposing some taxes upon the people. In the early history of my hon. friends opposite such a policy was pursued by "their leaders. There was an effort made by the Reform party some years ago to put the farmer against the balance of the citizens of Canada. They pursued that warfare with some success. They told the farmers that if there was protection at all placed upon the statute book that protection must be paid for by the farmer, that the manufacturer was the gainer, and that the farmer was the loser.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend says, " Hear, hear." I do not expect any change in my hon. friend. I may say to my hon. friend who says " Hear, hear," that he cannot fool the farmers that way now. The farmers do not require any special defenders in this House, because they are able to take care of themselves both here and in the country as well. The farmers have flourished under the" protective tariff and it does not do my hon. "friends opposite much credit, because, after condemning the protective tariff when it was introduced by the Liberal-Conservative party many years ago, and promising that it would all he taken off the statute books
when they came into power, they were in power for fifteen years and you would have to search the tariff with a microscope to find out .any changes that these hon. gentleman made in the way of a reduction. They condemned the Liberal-Conservative party for protection; but when they came into office they adopted the very same policy. Then my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), who the other day tried to stir up the farmers and to make it appear that they were opposed to this Government and to the proposed tariff taxation, will have a very difficult task on his hands to make the farmers in 'the West believe that protection .is all against their interests. He will have a greater task on his ibands because he supported a Government that maintained protection. My hon. friend could have performed that task perhaps more successfully, if, when he was sitting on this side of the House he had proclaimed the same belief that he now gives expression to. He came into the House in 1908 when his party were in power, and if my hon. friend's voice had been heard from his place at that time condemning the Government for protection and refusing to give them his support, and if he had continued in that policy while he was there land also while he was on the Opposition benches, he would have a record. But the best he can do is to say: My actions show that I supported protection, that I supported it to the letter when my party was in power, the same policy that is now on the statute books under this Government I now condemn. That is my hon. friend's position. Whenever my hon. friend has taken the floor he has taken rather special pains to point out that this taxation provided for in the Budget that we are now discussing, presses very severely upon the farmers and the poor man. I say:	away with that sort of argument. The poor men of this country do not require such defenders, the farmer-: are strong and brave, the poor men are willing to take up their burdens with the rest, and the farmers will condemn any gentleman in this House who is trying to suggest that they are not willing to bear their fair .share of the burdens that are placed, upon us by this war.
It is not at all difficult to show that this Government has done much for the farmers of Canada. When the Liberals were in power the cry came loud and long that the farmers in Western Canada required government-owned elevators, but the Liberal

war, and he mentioned in particular the iron and steel industry. I have here from today's Montreal Daily Mail a statement, the heading of which is: "War had serious effect upon the Scotia Steel Company-the company was hard-hit by war." The article reads as follows:
As was to be expected, every part of the company's operations was affected by the war. In the first place, as was well known in the trade, the Scotia Company had sold a large amount of its iron ore at the beginning of last year to Germany, and, of course, these sales could not be consummated after the war broke out. On this account the iron ore mines had to be shut down and at the same time the general recession in the steel trade in Canada was so immediate that practically all the iron and steel departments were idle for a large proportion of the last hall of the year. During all this time the company was also confronted with the problem of meeting the cost of keeping the mines unwatered and maintaining the plant, all of which naturally caused serious inroads to be made upon the profits of the first half of the year. Under these unusual and unprecedented conditions, the showing made is regarded as satisfactory. The situation is already much improved and the indications are that from now on further improvement should be the rule.
Notwithstanding the depressed conditions of. the steel industry we were able to keep the most of our plant in operation during the first half of the year. In view of the fact that Parliament had provided for assistance to two of the) Transcontinental railways, to the extent of $50,000,000, a very large part of which it was understood would be expended in equipment we felt justified, from negotiations then pending in assuming that there would be considerable improvement in our business during the last six months of the year.
The outbreak of the war not only destroyed these expectations, but it very seriously interfered with all our operations. "We had sold our output of iron ore for the year principally in Europe, and on the first of August had about 120,000 tons mined and ready for shipment. As further shipments to the continent were impossible, we immediately suspended mining operations and our ore mines have since been idle. Not only tlje profit on all the ore on hand at Wabana, but also on all ore which would have been mined during the remainder of the year, was lost to the company.
I read that article for the benefit of my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax, who stated that the war has not seriously affected the trade of this country. The Scotia Steel Company is in his own province of Nova Scotia. His own province follows Ontario in its war taxation. I read the following article:
The first direct provincial taxation in the his tory of Nova Scotia since Confederation is now proposed by Premier Murray, who introduced a Bill in the House of Assembly yesterday called the Provincial War Tax Act.
Under its provisions it is proposed to levy a tax of one mill in the dollar on all assessable property in the municipalities, towns and cities of Nova Scotia. The tax, it is estimated, will produce $117,000 additional revenue. The provincial deficit at l{ie end of the fiscal year was $113,000.

Premier Murray intimated that this would not be the only new taxation Bill to be presented at this session of the Legislature.
So it is found that even in Nova Scotia war has something to do with disarranging trade.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How much?


Richard Blain: So much that the legislature of the hon. gentleman's own province was compelled, according to what I have read, to place a war tax upon the province, He shakes his head. Well, I propose to take the word of the provincial premier to the effect that, following the example of Ontario, he is introducing a war tax. What would that mean? I would ask my hon. friend.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. gentleman is
quite right in saying that a new revenue Bill has been introduced, but I do not admit that it is made necessary by the war. There was a loss of revenue prior to the declaration of war, and I think that the Nova Scotia Steel Company has been busier since the outbreak of war than before.


Richard Blain: Does the hon. gentleman
suggest that the war has helped trade in Nova Scotia?


Mr. SINCLAIR:: There is not the slightest doubt that the large orders received for war materials have greatly helped the position of the Nova Scotia Steel Company and that that company is in a better position than when the war broke out.


Richard Blain: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What does he manufacture?


Richard Blain: Boilers, radiators, and
steam-heating goods.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am told that the manufacturers of fertilizers have increased their prices since the introduction of the new tariff.


Richard Blain: Will the hon. gentleman give us his authority?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not speak by authority, but I think the information is pretty reliable.


Richard Blain: I am afraid it would please my hon. friend if they did increase prices. His colleague from the city of St. John (Mr. Pugsley) seemed to be particularly anxious on the fertilizer question.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman will find that the farmers are anxious too.


Richard Blain: It is the only specific article the hon. gentleman dealt with. He looked into the Budget very closely, and is very conversant with it, yet the best he could do was to attempt to prove that fertilizers should be on the free list. For my part, I say these fertilizers can be and will be manufactured in Canada. That is the answer. And I would ask the hon. gentleman whether he would rather have them imported from the United States and Germany, or would he rather have them made, in Canada?


William Pugsley: As the hon. gentleman has had the courtesy to ask me a question,
I would point out to him that in the manufacture of fertilizers it is very important to get the raw material. You want nitrates, you want potash, you want phosphates-


Mr. EDWARDS:: And squid.


William Pugsley: It is hardly worthy of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) to introduce into such a discussion as this remarks which have no bearing upon the subject. My hon. friend from Peel will bear in mind that nitrates, potash, phosphates and other ingredients of fertilizers were all on the free list until this Budget was introduced. If they are to be made in Canada, you must have the natural elements in order to compound them.


Richard Blain: I understand some have been imported from Germany.


William Pugsley: Potash from Germany and nitrates from Chile.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Are you going to make the potash in Canada ?


Richard Blain: If the friends of my hon. friend had thieir way we would not manufacture very much in Canada.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Answer that question.


Richard Blain: Yes, although my opinion may not be very valuable on this point, I shall be very much surprised if the people of Canada do not find themselves fully equal to the task of making and manufacturing in Canada all the fertilizers required by the people of Canada.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I asked my hon. friend if he thought we would manufacture potash in Canada now, under the new tariff.


Richard Blain: I say that we may not be
able to manufacture potash, but we will manufacture something that will take its place. My hon. friend beside me says they are making potash in Canada at the present time.
There (has been some criticism by newspapers of the present Budget, although not very much. In the main, the newspapers have applauded the Finance Minister for his Budget. I have here a paper which does not usually give much help to the Conservative party. It is the Christian Guardian, published in Toronto on February 17. The article is headed, " Canada's War Budget," and reads:
Canada needed to raise ?30,000,000 by extra taxation this year in order to meet part of the extraordinary war expenses, and the problem for the Finance Minister was to raise that amount with the least possible friction. There were rumours that tea and sugar, tobacco and liquor would again be singled out for special attention at the taxgatherer's hands, but wisely, we think, tea and sugar have not been further burdened. Instead there is a general increase of 7 5 per cent intermediate and 5 per cent preferential. . . Evidently the new tariff has aimed to spread the increased tax as lightly as possible over the whole community, and there will probably be little objection to it. The money has to be raised and the new taxes will not he specially burdensome to any one class.
That is from a paper that does not usually give support to the Conservative party. Since this Government faced the war problem they have bad to purchase a very large quantity of goods. Their ambition was to purchase these goods in Canada as far as possible, and I do not think there has been any criticism against the Government upon that point. They have aimed fairly, regardless of politics, to see that manufacturing establishments that could make these goods were given orders. That applies not only to the goods purchased by this Government, but to goods purchased for Britain, Russia and France. For example, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce had control of the purchases of blankets for the French Government. Did he assist his political friends particularly in these purchases? Let me point out to the House what was done. He called the blanket manufacturers of Canada together, regardless of politics. He had the advantage of their knowledge and discussed the question as to what the price for blankets should be if they were purchased in Canada

for the French Government. After a somewhat prolonged discussion, they arrived at a price that was regarded by them and by the Government as a reasonable and fair price, considering the price of wool and workmanship. The price was submitted to the French Government and it was satisfactory to them-60 cents per pound. Did the Minister of Finance suggest that these orders should go to Liberal Conservative supporters? No; he made it broad and clear that every manufacturing establishment in Canada that could make blankets should send to Ottawa and receive an order for as many blankets as it could make up to a certain day. That was the proposition of the hon. gentleman who was representing the Government in respect to the purchase of blankets for the French Government. The blanket manufacturers from all over Canada came and received their orders, and the blankets were made, and I think, in the main, the transaction was very satisfactory to the people of Canada as well as to the French Government. That applies also to other large purchases that were made by this Government for the British Government; and I may say that, although there is some criticism about the goods manufactured for the soldiers, I had the privilege of seeing some articles that were sent from France as a sample for the Canadian manufacturers to go by in making another line of goods, and the articles made by the Canadian manufacturers surpassed altogether the sample, which is a proof that, after all the Canadian manufacturers find themselves in a position to supply a very large quantity of goods and to make them equal to the requirements of the British, French and Russian Governments.
The Toronto Globe undertook to criticise the Government in two articles, one of which I shall read. The Globe of January 19 said:
Put Names on War Supplies.
There is one effective way of putting crooked contractors for army supplies in the pillory, and that is by requiring that all makers of cloth, clothing, shoes, and equipment shall stamp their name in some indelible fashion upon the articles they make. It is already observable that contractors, discussing the failure of supplies to come up to requirements, are certain that it was " the other fellow '>
who put shoddy workmanship into articles on which men's lives depend. There should be a means of checking up vociferous contractors. No other would be half so effective as the production of the defective articles with the name of the maker stamped upon them. The Militia Department should lose no time in insisting that all army contractors put their names upon their product as a guarantee of good materials and honest workmanship. The country is paying the top price for war supplies

and has a right to demand that the contractors play fair and provide goods of the highest quality.
That was a mild criticism by the Globe. No other inference could be taken than that the Government were not insisting on the manufacturer putting his name on the article produced by him. If the Globe had been anxious to do the fair thing by the Government in power and to assist them in their difficulties and the task they are facing, all they had to do was to go or write to the department and ask them for a copy of the tenders. I have a copy in my hand. This is the notification sent from the department to successful tenderers:
Department of Militia and Defence, Ottawa.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that your tender of the -, instant for the supply of certain goods has been accepted as follows:
Please note that delivery should be made at

 and should be completed not latter than

. The supply must conform to the sealed
pattern and specifications in every respect, and each article must bear the manufacturer's name and the date of manufacture.
All'the editor of the Globe had to do before poisoning the mind of his innocent readers by suggesting that the Government had failed to compel the manufacturer to put his name and the date on the article he was making for the Government, was to write or ask the department for a copy of the tenders; and he would then have seen that the Government was careful enough to insist that every man who manufactured goods for this Government must put his name and the date on his goods. Therefore I say that that kind of argument will not have much effect upon the electors of this country.
I had some other statements to make, but I have already spoken much longer than I had intended. I say that, in my opinion, the Budget is satisfactory to all classes of people in Canada. The people of Canada have implicit confidence in the Prime Minister and in his Government. Whatever criticism has come from the other side of the House, no gentleman was able to stand in his place and say that any department of the Government was neglecting its duties in these perilous times; for every department had met the situation strongly and honestly; every department had measured up to what the people of Canada expected from it. Whatever may be said about the enormous expenditure of money, the $50,000,000 that has been expended and the $100,000,000 that will be expended, the people of Canada believe that they have an honest Government in power, which is 511
meeting the situation strongly, and fully carrying out what the people of Canada expect from them; namely, that in this important crisis we should bear our full share both for Canada and for the Empire.
I want to say one word in regard to the clothing, boots, and other supplies furnished to our soldiers. I was told in conversation with a gentleman who was born in the old country, and who had lived alongside Salisbury Plain and played there when he was a boy, that he could not believe the statement he had read that there was wet weather and very deep mud on Salisbury Plain. He said that he had played upon Salisbury Plain in his early boyhood days, and that it was almost impossible then to find a blade of grass upon the Plain. I am mentioning this in order to point out that, no matter how this Government may have been criticised in regard to the clothing, boots, etc., supplied to the soldiers, the greatest enemy was the wet weather at Val-cartier camp and the exceptionally wet weather experienced at Salisbury Plain; and over this the Government had no control. The people of Canada must understand that * Salisbury Plain was selected as a training camp for our soldiers, not by this Government, but by the Government of Great Britain and by the War Office; and I have no doubt that they selected it as the proper and the best place they could provide for the purpose. While some part of the clothing and boots and shoes may not have stood all that was expected of them, I repeat that it was not because of their quality, butTiecause of the extraordinary weather conditions experienced at Yalcartier and Salisbury Plain. I think it is only fair that I should mention this, not particularly in defence of the Government, because I do not think they require any defence, even on that point, but in order that the people of Canada may fully understand the facts in connection with the articles I have mentioned.
I am sure that when the people of Canada have had a better opportunity of studying this Budget, when they understand it more fully, when hon. gentlemen opposite have made all possible criticism of it, the people of Canada will say with one voice that this Government and the Finance Minister have placed before the country a uniform and satisfactory Budget which is in the interests of the people of Canada-and I am sure the people of Canada will bear their burdens cheerfully, whatever they may be-a Budget that will meet with the approval not

only of the .people of this country, but of every part of the British Empire.


Mr. ROOH LANCTOT (Laprairie-Napier-ville):: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with the few Temarks I have to offer to this House I wish to refer to the speech delivered in the course of this debate by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury). I find that he is reported on page 760 of Hansard to have used the following words:
The bon. gentleman oannot quote any statement contained in the platform laid down by the Conservative party previous to their return in 1911 asserting that if returned to office they would reduce the public expenditure.
Now the Montreal Gazette dated August 15, 1911, a conservative paper, Has the following article:
Conservative Policy.
What the Party is Pledged to Carry On.
The Liberal Conservative party gives its pledge to carry out the following policy if returned to power:
(1 A thorough reorganization of the method by which the public expenditure is supervised. The increase in what is known as ordinary controllable expenditure from $21,500,000 in 1896 to nearly $74,000,000 in 1911 is proof of extravagance beyond any possible defence.
R. L. Borden.
Mr. iLAN'OTOT. (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, on the 18tli of August last, Parliament was summoned in extraordinary session. The object in view was the organization of a contingent of 22,500 men, to be sent to fight with Allies in France and Belgium. The Government then asked and obtained, for those objects, a vote of fifty million dollars. The Minister of Militia set immediately to work to put the contingent on a proper footing. The men of that contingent spent a few weeks at the Valcartier camp to complete their military training. On October last, those men went to England, and on arriving there were sent to Salisbury Plains to complete their training. Since then they have given a good account of themselves on the battlefields, whatever may have been alleged to the contrary, on the 18th of February last, by the Toronto Evening Journal which showed its lack of patriotism to the extent of stating that our Canadian contingent, after making . a favourable impression on its arrival in England, was no longer in a position, after several months of training, to do honour to Canada when its services were needed in action.
It was with satisfaction that, personally, I voted the 50 millions to defray the con-
[Mr. Blain.l
tribution which we deemed it proper that a country such as ours should vote.
But, Mr. Speaker, I believe that such help must be proportionate to our resources, and that we have no right to indulge in inconsiderate and uncontrolled expenditure. The help which a son must give to his father should be proportionate to his resources and to the needs of his father, and if we must accept that proposition as being absolutely logical and reasonable, we must also infer that we have now greatly exceeded the limit of our obligations.
Let us calmly look into the situation, having solely in view the performance of our duties as representatives of the people.
It is universally conceded that England has all the money that she wants. We know, through the Minister of Finance himself, that we go to England to obtain the very moneys that have been appropriated for our war expenses. Is not that sufficient evidence that instead of fulfilling an obligation, we have on the contrary imposed upon ourselves an immense sacrifice?
In view of the present financial situation in England and in our own country, is it not evident that our sentiments of loyalty and the deep indignation felt at the atrocities committed by those blood-thirsty Germans have been the sole motives of our spontaneous participation?
But, Mr. Speaker. I ask this House, are we then justified in leading the country into bankruptcy? No, unless it can be shown that our participation to the full is the only guarantee of the certain success of the Allies. And as a member of this House is expected to fully speak his mind, let me say right here that the interest we have in this war, however great it may be, is far from being equal to the interest of England or of the other independent nations engaged. We are only a self-governing colony, and wo have no war to wage here for the conservation of our sovereignty, as other nations have, and that makes an enormous difference. If we had to followr the dictates of certain visionaries, we would exhaust, nay we would have already exhausted at this moment our resources in men and money, and, I say, under what circumstances?
The chancellor, Lloyd-George, has just announced that England is in a position to make loans to foreign nations so as to keep the war going five years more. He also stated that France has enough money to last her more than two years. Then, our Minister of Finance is bound to acknowledge that we have to go to England to get the money

which we desire to apply to that war. Then again, Lord Kitchener stated that he has an army of more than two million men, and General Joffre has a million and a half of reserves. In the face of such statements, which considering the high standing and responsibility of those making them are beyond cavil, would the people of Canada think that we are justified in bleeding the country any further? I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the most practical and patriotic way for us to contribute effectively to the war and to the aftermath of the war would be to let our population give itself up entirely to the improving of our agricultural resources, through the eneourragement of intensive farming, so that a large part of the world may be secure against all danger of famine, a danger which has already assumed such a threatening aspect.
The House will perhaps allow me to quote an extract from an editorial in the Westminster Gazette:
We are told that Canada desires to carry its contribution in men to 150.000, before next fall, should that number be required. It is needless to say that we do not believe that such a sacrifice will ever be required from the Dominion. We fully acknowledge that Canada will be with us in the present war to the extreme limit of its resources. But we hope that the recruiting which is going on in England will suffice, and that we will never be obliged to make such a call to Canada. We must not forget that what is required from Canada during the present conflict is a double service. That country must remain the granary of the Empire. and if we are to achieve victory in this war, the men working in the Canadian fields will help us in that victory just as effectively as those who expose themselves to the fire of the enemy.
Mr. Speaker, during the session of August last, the hon. Minister of Finance, with a view to providing for the requirements of this war, moved that the House should resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means in order to raise the customs and excise duties on articles and foodstuffs which are generally taxed in times of war. 'Those articles were particularly coffee, sugar, spirits and tobacco.
The hon. minister expected that the imposition of those duties would yield an additional revenue of fourteen millions. Now, in spite of that additional revenue, the deficit announced by the hon. minister for the fiscal year ending on the 31st of March next will be at least 60 millions, not including the 50 millions voted in August last for the war.
At this session, the hon. minister comes down with proposals for additional taxation
for war purposes, and how does he proceed? Is there anything in his words of a nature to reassure the people? The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) stated a moment ago that the people of Canada never received from a Finance Minister so satisfactory a statement as the one of this year. Let me say to the hon. member that he has not visited all the electors of this country; and as representing the county of Laprairie-Na-pierville, I challenge contradiction when I say that I have not yet met either a Conservative, a Liberal or a Nationalist favourable to this alleged war tax and to such a participation to the full, yea, which has reached such proportions that we are well nigh on the eve of bankruptcy.
If I am not mistaken, the hon. minister has informed us that the English Government had advanced the 50 millions voted last year, and was ready to advance the 100 millions that are now asked for, and even more if that is necessary. If such is the case, the tax asked by the hon. minister is not intended for the payment of those sums or part of those war loans, but rather to cover a part of the deficit occasioned by the extravagances of this Government.
Why should we impose those new taxes on the people? Why not wait until those 150 millions are spent, and then we could give our note, as all business men do, and pay that note at maturity.
No, you will not deceive the electors of Canada as easily as you think. You have taken them by surprise in 1911, but you will not succeed in any further attempt, if that is what is contemplated. The people realize fully what is the object of such a demand; that is easily discernible; the tax is intended t< make up for the deficit of this year and for the one of next year, which every one says will be of 200 millions, including the war expenses. Such is the result of the extravagances of this Government.
And what is the cause of all that? The reason must be found in the fact that we have in this Administration only one man having previously held office. I mean Sir George E. Foster, the present Minister of Tr ade and Commerce, to whom the Government have not seen fit, to confide the portfolio of Finance, because he might have been a source of embarrassment to them, ard whom they promptly sent out as trade commissioner to the antipodes.
I have often heard the hon. minister taking to task the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and in flaming words denounce the extravagance of the Laurier Ad-

ministration. He may have been sometimes in the right. At all events, he was wont to say that a party which was spending 70 millions for the ordinary expenses of the country was surely extravagant, and he used tc add that if ever the Conservative party should resume power it would surely reduce the expenditure. Accordingly, they were careful that Sir George Foster should not be put in charge of the Department of Finance.
The present Minister of Finance (Mr. V hite) never previously having held office, or occupied a seat in this House, of course lacked the requisite experience.
The hon. Prime Minister seems to me wanting in energy, and that is why we see every one of his colleagues doing exactly as he pleases. I say that this Government is too costly, that extravagance is too rampant, ai d that is why we are heading towards bankruptcy.
A moment ago, I heard the hon. member for Peel saying that the people are satisfied since his party has reached power. When hon. genetlemen assumed office, there was an annual surplus of 30 to 40 millions, and after three years and six months we see an increase in the- gross debt of nearly 200 millions, and of over 80 millions in the net debt. That is why the present Government have seen fit to increase the taxes at the session or August last and at this present session to nearly 45 millions. And yet they will try to make the people believe that everything goes well and that the present Administration have only "clean politics" to their credit, in fact that they are a Government of honest men. You may rest assured that the people are well enough posted as to the capabilities of this Government.
I was saying a moment ago that the present Government has only been in power three years and six months. Honourable gentlemen claim that they diminished the public debt during the three first years of their regime. To that, I can only answer: If you have done so well during the three first years, you have managed the affairs of the country very badly during the last five months. We will discuss that. In 1911, the elections took place on the 21st of September. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) had only had five-twelfths of the Estimates submitted to the House. Now, on that very year, the Laurier government could only go on with the public works to the extent of those five-twelfths. The Liberal party having undergone defeat hon. gentlemen assumed power. During the following session of November, we were asked by the
tMr. Lanctot. |
new Government to pass seven-twelfths of the Fielding Estimates. You remember, Mr. Speaker, that there were very few new items submitted to the House, with the exception of the three famous dreadnoughts which were to cost 35 millions.
Reference has been made to dreadnoughts; I wish to refer to them myself, and I must ask, would the country be richer if those dreadnoughts had been provided for two years ago, or would England be in a better position to conquer on sea to-day with those three dreadnoughts still on the stocks?
Mr. BBULBMAEIE, (Translation): Will the hon. member allow me to ask a question. Does he mean to say that Canada would be richer if the Laurier navy was now in existence?
Mr. LANCTOT. (Translation): I am very glad to be asked that question. If the Liberal government had remained in power, I presume that the Laurier bill, passed in 1910, would have followed its course, and that we would have to-day three or four cruisers to protect our coasts. We would not have been forced to buy two submarines which had been refused by the government of Chile, and to pay $400,000 more than the price agreed between the builders and the Chilean government.
Mr. BELLEMARE. (Translation): Is my hon. friend not aware that the two submarines which have been bought in Vancouver are used as destroyers?
Mr. LANCTOT. (Translation): The hon-member surely will not contend that submarines are not a part of a navy. At any rate, those submarines are not in the Pacific ocean, and are not worth any thing because they have not been built in accordance with plans and specifications.
I wonder in what situation we would be to-day if the Government had succeeded in the Senate, as they succeeded in the House, in putting through their famous policy of dreadnoughts, even though the hon. member for Maskinonge managed to get in because of his opposition to all expenditure savouring of militarism to the Laurier navy, and to any war contribution whatever proposed by the Borden Government, claiming besides that he was a representative of the people who would not hesitate to take a firm stand and say: Now, gentlemen, I am here with a mandate of the electors of Maskinonge, I am neither Conservative nor Liberal, I am in favour of the people who have elected me, I intend to keep my pledges to my consti-

tuents, and I must protest against all such expenditure made by the Government in power. 1 have been elected to oppose any government indulging in all such expenditure, either for a navy or for a war contribution. It is the first time I hear him, and he will certainly regret having asked me such a question.
But let us see what lias been done by that honest Government which to-day boasts that it has so well managed our affairs during those last three years. The hon. member for Toronto-south (Mr. Maedonell) who spoke after the member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) stated that his party had diminished the debt and completed the Transcontinental; and some of those lion, gentlemen have even gone so far as to say that the Transcontinental had cost this government 116 millions. Let us see what are the facts:
In 1911-1912 the expenditure
reached	 $21,110,683.05
In 1912-1913 the expenditure
reached	   13,730,733.48
In 1913-1914 the expenditure
reached	 12,683,701.97
In 1914-1915 the expenditure reached	 6,511,551.00
Total	$54,836,679.50
It is true that we have spent some millions, but we have that railway as an asset, whareas you [DOT] have [DOT] only the bare expenditure. Since those honorable gentleman reached power, they spent for various other purpose enormous amounts which have given no return whatever. I may first point-out in support of that view what has been going on in the Department of Public Works. There were public works that had to be carried on in the county of Laprairie. I am considering Laprairie, because I happen to know that county better than some others. In 1911, out of a total of $27,000 we have had five-twelfths of that amount and that other seven-twelfths of the money have only been expended in the following spring, after the Conservatives had assumed power. At the time the Liberals were in power, we had only one foreman to supervise the works. What happened after these gentlemen had assumed power? They appointed ten, some people even say twelve foreman, to help spend the other seven-twelfths.
Such are the methods followed by this Government in carrying out public works, there are as many foremen as workmen, a fact that has fallen under my notice, not only in my county, but also, last summer,
in the Lower St. Lawrance, where I was then visiting. At the St. Irenee wharf, at Riviere Ouelle and at Riviere du Loup, there were two foreman and only one workman on the job. I must say I was somewhat taken aback on withessing such squandering of money. At St. Irenee, $5,000 had been voted for the wharf, and that amount would certainly have been sufficient if the number of foreman had not been so large and if there had not been such a waste of money. However, I see that in this year's estimates an additional appropriation of $10,000 has been made to carry the work to completion.
In the county of Laprairie, over a distance of 8,000 feet a highway has been built, varying in height between five and ten feet. With a view of preventing its washing out by the St. Lawrence the district engineer, Mr. L. J. Michaud, recommended the construction of a stone wall eighteen inches thick. That wall was to be cemented in accordance with certain plans and specifications. The contractors did not comply with those specifications, and were content with building a dry stone wall, only six to nine inches thick. However for the purpose of deceiving, the wall was covered with a light coating of cement, which heavy rains washed away in the fall, leaving only a crumbling wall, with gaps of six hundred to fifteen hundred feet. Onlookers were amused saying that the Germans had come during the night and effectively bombarded the place. What is the reason of it? It may be found in the fact that the man who has the patronage in that county is waiting, to complete those works, for the federal and provincial elections. When engineer Michaud wanted to do his duty, he was immediately suspended. I am bound to blame the engineer for not having his duty despite all threats. He should have given up his position, rather than be derelict in the fulfilment of his duty. At all events so far, we have only got a portion of that famous "King Edward highway " on which work was started in 1910.
But we are told; you have also spent money yourselves, and in certain cases employees have been cheating the Government. There does not exist, I dare say, a single Government which is not more or less cheated by its employees. But there is a great difference between the expenditure for which the Liberal Government is responsible and that made by the present Government. Thus, in 1910, the ordinary expenditure chargeable upon the Con-

solidated Fund, amounted to $79,411,749.12, in 1911, to $87,774,198.32; in 1912, to $98,161,440.77; in 1913, to $112,059,527.41; in 1914, to $127,284,472.99; in 1915, to $140,000,000 and in 1916 it will be another $140,000,000.
One of my political friends was saying to me a few days ago that he had lately met a great politician of this country-now out of politics-and that he had asked him what he thought of the present Government, and if he could see no way to reduce expenses. And he answered: 50 millions could be easily taken out, but I say at. least 40 millions.
What is the reason for the increased expenditure? It may be detected in the increased cost of administration. Thus, in 1911-1912, we spent on account of civil government, fisheries, mines, and geological surveys, immigration, quarantine, Indians, public works, customs, dominion lands, post offices; $38,321,660.41. In 1913-1914, for the same services; $50,570, 553.531; in 19151916, we are asked to vote $60,280,128.62.
We can thus see that the present Government spends, in round figures, 27 millions more than in 1911-1912. True that the public works of the present Government cost 12 millions more than in 1911-1912. However there remains on civil government 'account the further enormous amount of $15,000,000. And I am not far from agreeing with the statement recently made by professor Shortt that the 2,000 men who had been removed from office had been replaced by 10,000 newly appointed officers.
But, speaking of civil servants, we do not see everything. The report which has been brought down does not mention the commissions of enquiry which have covered the country, nor does it speak of the secretaries, or of the briefless barristers whom the Government employs the whole year round, and who would be dying with hunger if only this Administration did not happen to hold power.
I will only mention two cases-and there are hundreds of similar ones-Mr. Bergeron who has been a member of this House during some twenty years, and who is costing us lots of money. He has the misfortune of always losing his elections, but finds some solace elsewhere, being secretary of a commission in British Columbia, called the Indian Reserves Commission. From March 1918 to March 1914, he worked like a Trojan and managed to furnish 366 working days in the year. That is a record.


Mr. GATJVREAU:: That was a leap year.


Mr. LANOTOT:: At $30 a day and no time lost, Sundays as well as week days. And that reminds me of a story. Once upon a time there was a candidate in the county of Laprairie, when the famous Curran bridge was under construction, and lucky owners of wooden derricks were being paid $50 a day by the 'Government; and as they were being paid for Sundays the same as for week days, that candidate used to say that the $50 for Sundays were for praying God, so that the iniquities of the Conservatives might be forgiven.
In my county, every one will be of the opinion-and I dare say the hon. member for Maskinonge will bear me out in this- that a man who draws $20 a day may well afford to pay his board. But such is not the case of Mr. Bergeron. I find in the Auditor's Report the following item: ' 366 days board at $10 a day. Surely, he has a good apipetite and it cannot be said that he is a dyspeptic. That makes the good round sum of $3,660 only for board, and you have not come yet to the end of it. That man is also fond of taking automobile rides, and when he travels by railway he takes mighty good care to secure a seat in the parlor car, and at times the state-room.
According to that report, Mr. Bergeron drew both for salary and board $11,180; however the report states further that he has been paid $140 in excess, and I have no doubt, knowing Mr. Bergeron as well as I do, that his account of next year will be reduced in proportion.
But that is not all, and according to the Auditor General, there is, for travelling expenses of Mr. Bergeron in British Columbia, an additional item of $1,568.91 for automobiles, cabs, board, etc.
I have been told that Mr. Bergeron is now in Montreal, and from what I know of him I am confident he will not waste any time.
Then we come to the case of Mr. Ferguson, K.C., who has been drawdng $50 a day, and has earned during 317 days $15,850. Besides that, he has an additional account for board, cabs, autos, etc., totalling about $2,000. It may also be interesting to note that the mere printing of his initials on his trunk has cost us the trifle sum of $37.
But there is another man who is costing still more to the country, and that is the hon. Minister of Justice, who enjoys a State pension. In 1867, the object of the legislators, in framing the law for the superannuation of the judges, was to provide

for the retirement of those who, by reason of age or infirmities, had become unable to administer justice, and might even inftict grievous losses on litigants. I told the lion. Minister last year that he should introduce a bill providing that, so long as he remained Minister of Justice, he should abstain from drawing his pension as julge. The hon. Minister simply answered with a smile. But this year, he got angry when the leader of the Opposition saw fit to make him the same reproach. So that I am making some headway with my state pensioner. I offered him to meet him in St. Anne division, and discuss the matter with. him.
I am still waiting for an answer.
It is not his duty, as Minister of Justice to make laws or amend the bad ones? Let him give up his pension, and he will command our admiration. It is true that he would lose $4,666 a year. But I have been told that he has other jobs on hand, in Mfut ea! or elsewhere. What is the i-ut-ecmo if it all? Tt is that the minister being unable to attend personally to his duties, the salary of his deputy-minister was increased to $10,000. And not only that, but as he spends all his time in administering estates in Montreal, we are obliged to adjoin to him two chief clerks in his department with a salary of $4,000 to $5,000 each a year.
Hon. gentlemen on the other side are always telling us that everything is serene, that everything is all right and that the country is prosperous. But following on the statement of the Minister of Finance, that we may expect a deficit of 200 millions next year, I do not think that those gentlemen are sincere when they thus praise the Government.
There is a talk of elections. Well, as far as I am concerned, I declare that I would be happy to have an election in Laprairie-Napierville, either right now or in two months, and I am sure that the people of the country will overthrow this Government which has so badly managed our affairs for the last three years.
Mr. A. BELLEMARE (Maskinonge). (Translation) : Mr. Speaker, considering the grievousness of recent developments, I beg to call the attention of the Government to the following proposal:
"To provide the farmers of each province with seed grain of superior quality and chosen by experts, which would be sold and delivered at cost price to every farmer who applies for it. We should even pay, if possible, the freight to destination. In such manner, we would be sure to see the pio-vinces of Quebec and Ontario with the maritime provinces take to the growing of wheat during next season."
By such means, the Government would greatly assist the farming community, because, after all, a time will perhaps come when the ears of grain will be of greater service on the battlefields than even muskets or bayonets. Indeed, what would be the use, for the Government, of sending soldiers, if the Allies, our friends, should be famished.
The best way to be of service to the run-pire, is to make a granary of Canada, and in support of that opinion, I will quote an article of a London paper, the Westminster Gazette, dated 6th of November last, and which says:
We fully acknowledge that Canada will be with us in the present war to the extreme limit of its resources. But we hope that the recruu-ing that is going on in England will be sufficient, and that we will never be obliged to make such a call for men to Canada. _
We must not forget that what is required from Canada during the present conflict is a double service. That country must remain the granary of the Empire, and if ve are o achieve victory in this war, the men working in the Canadian fields will help us win that victory just as effectively as those who are exposing themselves to the fire of the enemy.
We see in that paper, which is published in the very heart of the Empire, that they set a higher price on the foodstuffs than on the thousands of men who could be sent at our own cost, and a great many papeis in Canada proclaim the same necessity.
The Press of Montreal of the 16th of November says:
The opportunity of increasing our agricultural production is no longer put in doubt. The war will reduce enormously the ordinary output of the wheat crop in Europe. Among the millions of men enrolled under the flags of the nations at war, how many are there not who have been taken away from the cultivation of the land?
Canada contains an immense number or agricultural lands which have never been cultivated, and which are only waiting for the ploughshare in order to yield enormous crops.
As regards the farms already under cultivation, only a little more care and better methods are often necessary to increase the yield twofold or even three-fold.
Intensive agriculture is now in order on our continent, because it is easy to foresee the day when the millions of men whose estates have been ruined by the war will expect to receive from our soil the wheat which will save them from starvation. The new world will become the granary of the old world. In view of the present situation, is it not the duty of the Government to lend a helping hand to private initia-


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), one has to come to the conclusion, if these hon. gentlemen take themselves seriously, and they generally are serious minded persons, that they regard those of us on this side of the House as being a most horrible class of people. The hon. member for Selkirk is very much concerned about our patriotism. But this is not so serious a matter as that which troubles the hon. member for Peel who looks upon us as a lot of poisoners. Apparently, in his opinion, there is nothing

that we are not prepared to poison; we poison the minds of the farmers, we poison the minds of the people of Great Britain and there are few things that we do not poison. However, these hon. gentlemen are quite willing to mix with us on different occasions. I am sure that if these hon. gentlemen took themselves seriously they would not consent to mix us in such a friendly way as they do. Hon. gentlemen opposite in this debate are prepared to . discuss everything on earth except the Budget. The hon. member for Peel did deal with the Budget lor a little while, but he apparently thought it was a dangerous subject and shied away from it as soon as he possibly could. Hon. members are more anxious to find fault with their opponents for their alleged wrongdoings, which have nothing to do with the Budget, than they are to discuss the proposal brought before us by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White). If these hon. gentlemen, who have so much to say about the failure of the late Government to materially reduce the tariff, would take the trouble to look up some of the financial returns of their own Government and make a careful computation therefrom they would find that had the same average rate of duty, which was collected during the financial year ending June, 1896, the last year in which their friends of the Conservative party were in power in the old days, been charged on the imports of Canada during the thirteen years and nine months from June 1897, the year in which the Fielding tariff came into operation, to March 1911, we would have been obliged to pay in customs auties some $90,000,000 more than we actually paid, and had we during that same period of thirteen years and nine months, paid at the same average rate which was collected from 1879, the year of the introduction of the National Policy tariff, to 1896, there would have been collected from us in customs duties an extra $112,000,000. These sums may seem very trifling to hon. gentlemen opposite but I think they would have some difficulty in explaining them to the people of the country or satisfying the people that these sums were so small after all. I do not propose to defend the late Government because of their failure to decrease the existing duties more than they did. I think they should have made greater decreases than they did but that is no reason why we should not give them credit for the reduction that they did make and which these hon. gentlemen opposite seem bound to deny.	[DOT]

I want to say a word or two in regard to some of the criticisms of the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Wright), who seems very much displeased with the farmers of the West. This hon. gentleman thinks that the farmers of the West have been very derelict in their duty in not sending more representatives here who are farmers. He thinks that they should have sent all farmers here. If my hon. friend would only look at that in a fair way, I think he would come to the conclusion that this only shows the broadmindedness of the farmers of the West. It shows that they only want to be represented here by people who understand their situation as well as that of the whole country and who are able to deal with the subjects that come up here for consideration irrespective of whether they come from the farms or the towns. But my hon. friend is not quite fair to the western farmers or to their representatives. If he takes the trouble to properly inform himself he will find that there are several farmers occupying seats on this side of the House who represent western constituencies even if he does not include myself in that category. My hon. friend says:
Some time I would like to see some seat on the Opposition side occupied by a real farmer, one of those men who are actually suffering from the conditions that prevail in the West at the present time.
My hon. friend has his wish gratified now. I am actually suffering by the conditions which prevail in the West under the present Government. At the present time I have more money than I personally own locked up in western farming operations, and during the time that the hon. gentleman's political friends were in office before I spent twelve years working on a farm. Talk about suffering! Surely any man who has farmed in the West for fifteen or sixteen years under Conservative rule, or misrule, should have suffered sufficiently to satisfy a harder heart than that of the hon. member for Muskoka. My hon. friend says that he is a farmer. He is willing to admit that I have some knowledge of actual conditions in the West and in that he is more kind than the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) who on a previous occasion in this House inferred that I was not a proper farmer, but merely a miner of the soil. My hon. friend (Mr. Wright) claims to be a farmer and I suppose that he means that he is a real farmer. Well, the Guide calls him a blacksmith and general merchant and agent. If a gentleman who occu-

pies all these positions can be classed as a real farmer I do not see that the time I spend in my law office can disqualify me from being classed as a farmer. My hon. friend also owns a farm in the West, I believe. I understand his farm is in my constituency. I have heard a great many complaints from our Ontario friends about our mining the soil instead of keeping an unlimited supply of live stock. I never heard that my hon. friend was any better in that particular than the rest of us. He occasionally visits his farm in the West and I suppose he gives some directions as to the farming or mining operations carried on there. I have no doubt he rakes off the profit from the mining operations but he scorns to remain and spend them in the wild and woolly West. Instead of that he' speeds eastward and spends that money in the more refined atmosphere of Muskoka. In the old days we talked about our buck-board farmers. My hon. friend apparently prefers to be classed as a parlour car farmer or an absentee landowner.
My hon. friends opposite find fault with hon. members on this side of the House because, while we agree that all possible assistance should be given to Great Britain in tl'.ese days, and while we agree that we should contribute whatever money is necessary in order to give that assistance, we object to the mode in which that money is to be collected by the Government. Their objection is unreasonable but we are perfectly justified in the course we are pursuing because it is our duty to criticise where-ever we find the Government failing to collect the money that is required in the way in which it should be collected. At present we know that our forces at the front are engaged in a severe conflict, but it strikes me that' the taxpayers of Canada have also a stern battle before them in financing not only the war operations but also the ordinary operations of the country in this time of stress. Our soldiers at the front look to their comipanding officer for directions and it strikes me that the commanding officer, if he is a wise man, will take counsel with, and seek the advice and even criticism, of those who are about him. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance at this particular time occupies the position of commander in chief of the taxpayers of Canada but the law requires that Parliament shall be called together to consult with him. I think it is our duty to consult with him with respect to whatever
measures he puts before us. If we fail to offer criticism or advice to the hon. gentleman we are derelict in our duty. A clear duty devolves upon Parliament as well as on the ministers. To follow this simile farther; a general at the front is bound to make whatever progress he can, but he is bound also to safeguard the lives of his men. In the same way the minister should feel that he is bound to guard the money of the ratepayers. If he takes more than is necessary to accomplish his proper purpose, he is blameable, and if we endorse such action we are also blameable.
It has been made abundantly clear in this debate that the Government is largely responsible for the present shortage in our revenues; but I do not propose to discuss .that at the present time. We have also had a good deal of discussion on the question as to whether or not this is a war tax, and neither shall I go into that question at any very great length. It is admitted on all hands that no part of the money which will be raised by this tax will be used to pay any part of the expenses of the prosecution of the war. It is claimed on the other hand that this deficit has been caused by war conditions, and that may be true as to a certain amount of it. In support of that contention, we are told that in the United States they also had to place extra taxes in order to make good a deficit said to have been caused by war conditions. This illustration of the United States may be very good so far as it goes, hut it does not go far enough to help the Finance Minister very much. We are told that the revenues of the United States are suffering because of this war to the extent of over one hundred million dollars. If we try -to find out what, under similar conditions, the revenue of Canada would suffer, we must use the test of population, and if we do that we find that Canada's revenue should suffer to the extent of less than ten million dollars, although the Minister of Finance asks us to raise thirty million dollars, and that without touching the war expenditures at all. It seems to me that, while both the United States and Canada are commercially affected by the war, naturally the United States should lose more in her revenue than we, because we are engaged in fitting out a very large force of our own, and the equipping of that force brings a great deal of money to our manufacturers and our traders, and should be a benefit to all classes. Besides this, we receive a preference from the Mother Country in the matter of contracts, because we know that the Mother Country is very anxious to look

to us for as much of her war supplies as we	can	possibly furnish.
It is true the United States will reap some benefit in that way, but that benefit must .be very much less than ours. There is, therefore, no reason why our deficit on account of war conditions should be even as great in proportion to our population as the deficit in the United States because of the same conditions.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Is it not a fact that the Allies have placed enormous contracts with manufacturers in the United States?


Levi Thomson: That is quite true. I have said that the United States is reaping considerable benefit from that, but I am sure my hon. friend knows that if it is a matter between giving a contract to us and to the United States, Great Britain will give us the preference. The hon. gentleman shakes his head, but I do not think he means it. He must be aware of the fact that if we are not getting a preference in this respect it is the fault of our Government, who are not performing their duty unless they see we are getting a preference, but I am quite certain they are performing their duty in that particular and that we are getting a preference. Therefore the loss per capita we sustain will not be as great as the loss sustained by the United States.
I notice that the United States did not raise any part of the revenue it required from customs tariff. It is all raised from direct taxes. It seems to me that, when it was necessary at this particular time to raise all the money we possibly could at the least possible expense to the tax-payer, that was a wise plan. If that were the main object of the Minister of Finance, I am satisfied he would have adopted the same principle as that adopted in the United States, and that he could raise all the revenue necessary to make up the deficit from direct taxes. But I do not think that is the main object of the Minister of Finance; I think his main object is not to raise revenue, but to put money into the pockets of his political friends the manufacturers of Canada. The range of direct taxation adopted by the United States is very much wider than that adopted by our Minister of Finance. It seems to me that if the minister had followed the same wise plan as did. the Government of the United States in the matter of direct taxation, and collected from these other institutions at the same rate as he has collected Lorn those where he has adopted the principle of direct taxation, he -would 
have no difficulty as to the required revenue, and indeed an my opinion he would have a great deal more than he will get under his present scheme. I do not purpose going through these particular items that are subjected to a direct tax in the United States and not in Canada, but let me refer to one particular matter. The Minister of Finance lays .a special tax on wines, but he leaves other liquors alone. The United States not only puts a tax on Wines, hut also on ale, beer, whisky, brandy, and other intoxicating liquors. It may be said that if we adopted the same principle in Canada it might affect the consumption of intoxicating liquors, and therefore we would not get .so much revenue as we expected. Well, if it did affect the consumption of liquors that would not be altogether an unmixed evil, and I do not think it would render our people any less able to face the conditions. Besides that, the American Government is not only taxing these things to the consumer, but it also taxes the manufacturer of these articles. Of course I know that would seem rank heresy to the Minister of Finance, and we can hardly expect him to adopt such a suggestion. He would not think of taxing the manufacturer. He is quite willing to tax everybody else im the country for the benefit of the manufacturer, but he would not think of taxing the manufacturer, and therefore there is very little use in making such a suggestion to him.
I notice that the Minister of Finance proposes to increase a great number of items in our tariff by 7-j per cent on the general tariff, and 5 per cent on the preferential tariff. I do not know what proportion of these goods the minister expects to come in under the preferential tariff and what proportion under the general tariff.
I think, however, that the general rule has been that about one-fourth of our imports have come in under the preferential tariff, and if we make our calculation on that basis we will find that the general increase on the things affected by the proposal of the minister will be 6| per cent. So that if we calculate at 61 per cent on the articles we shall import, that .-might indicate the extra amount we shall receive, provided there is no decrease in our imports. I am .satisfied, however, that the minister has carefully calculated and studied out what the effect of this increase will be. I have made some calculations, and I think I have a pretty fair idea of

what was in the mind of the Minister of Finance a*s to how much he expects the imports of the country to decrease. We can tell fairly well what we have to pay extra on the articles we import. We know that exporters generally sell at a minimum profit. It is mot true that manufacturers dealing in the home market sell at a minimum profit, because protection is an institution erected for the benefit of the manufacturers to prevent that, and to render it unnecessary to sell at a minimum profit in the home market. We know very well from experience that the manufacturer does not sell at a minimum profit in the home market; but when he exports he sells as a rule at a minimum profit, because 'he has to sell at as low a profit as he possibly can afford in the foreign market, where he meets with competition from all the world, and unless he can meet competition he cannot enter the market. We cannot therefore expect that outsiders shipping into this country will be able to sell their manufactured articles except at the old price plus the duty.
The question then comes up as to whether or not our home manufacturers will increase their prices. It is quite plain that the minister has formed the conclusion that the manufacturers will increase their prices, but that they will not increase them to an amount equal to the increase in the tariff. That is quite clear from the conclusions announced here as to the amount of money which the Minister of Finance expects to receive from the extra taxation. If he expected that the home manufacturers would not increase their prices in the least, he would know very well that instead of getting any increased revenue from the tariff by means of the increase which he made, he would get a vast decrease. If that were the case, not only would he fail to receive the necessary money to make up the decrease in the revenue, which he expected to do, but he would have to make other provision in order to get money to pay for the ordinary expenses of the country, because it would be unreasonable to expect that our imports would continue to any fair proportion of the present extent. They would practically cease if the manufacturers undertook to sell at the present prices.
I have looked up the trade returns, and I find that these proposed increases may naturally be expected to affect about $500,000,000 worth of our whole imports. If these imports will not be decreased by the change, and if one-fourth of them will come in
under the preferential tariff, we should obtain $34,375,000 from the proposed tariff increases. The minister, however, expects only between $20,000,000 and $25,000,000. Therefore he probably expects that some $40,000,000 of the manufactured goods which we now import will be made in Canada. I think, on goods classified by the Government as manufactured goods, we collect considerably over 25 per cent duty; but if we put it at 25 per cent, we shall lose by reason of the decreased imports $12,750,000. I suppose in that case the Government will expect an increase in the importation of raw material needed for those home-manufactured goods.
The tax on raw material is very low. If we put it at 8 per cent, we shall be making a liberal allowance. If we have an increase of $8,000,000 in our imports of raw material, we shall receive from the present duty and the proposed increase $1,030,000 extra. This amount taken from the $12,750,000 leaves $11,720,000 to be deducted from the sum of $34,375,000 that we would receive, were there no decrease in our importations. This would reduce the extra revenue we should receive from that source to $22,655,600, which is about what the minister expects. I do not believe he will receive that amount. It is quite likely that the imports of manufactured goods will decrease by $100,000,000 instead of $40,000,000, in which case our revenue will drop to about $5,000,000, and the increase in home manufacturers and decrease in imports would require to be only a little more than that to wipe out his whole proposed increase in tariff revenue.
But if this tax increases our home manufacturers even by $40,000,000 and decreases our imports by a like amount, what will be the effect on the consumers? Will the manufacturer raise his prices? Surely he will. Otherwise we may expect the leopard at once to change his spots. If he raises his prices even by half the amount of the increase in the cost of imported articles, there will be a tremendous increase in the cost of living to the Canadian consumer. Not only will the price of the imported article be increased, but the cost of the home-manufactured article also. I have been unable to obtain an official statement of our home manufacturers since 1910, but it seems quite plain that the value of our home manufacturers is at least four times that of our manufactured imports. Our imports of manufactured goods affected by the pro-

posed increase will be approximately $400,000,000. Therefore our home-manufactured goods affected should amount to $1,600,000. Let us add even $40,000,000 to that and calculate the cost to the consumer added by the proposed tariff increase, and we shall find that, even if we count only on the home manufacturers charging us one-half of the increase, we shall be paying an additional $56,375,000 into the pockets of the manufacturers. Add to this the $22,655,000 we shall pay to the Government under the proposed increase, and you will find that the minister proposes to collect from the Canadian tax-payer $78,030,000 in order to have a little more than one-fourth of that sum paid into the public treasury. If the increase in our home manufactures and the decrease in our manufactured imports is $100,000,000, the position of the consumer and the public treasury will be infinitely worse. If a general at the front should show such disregard for the men under him as the minister is showing for the money of the Canadian tax-payer, he would be court-martialed.
We have heard a great deal about the campaign for buying goods made in Canada. That campaign is all right, providing it is properly handled; but as carried on to-day it is merely a scheme to rob the public. That scheme, is rolled up in the old flag in order to give it an air of respectability. Manufacturers should encourage buying in Canada by manufacturing and selling better and cheaper goods than the consumer can buy elsewhere. They can well afford to do that under the present tariff, which is already largely in their favour. The manufacturers will have no trouble at all in doing that if they will make an honest effort. If they do that, they will not need any expensive literature or public meetings in order to boom this " Made in Canada " campaign. Then the consumer could well afford to pay the extra tax in some other way. But the minister should arrange that what we pay shall all, less reasonable expenses, go into the public treasury. As he has arranged the tax at present, we shall pay $3 or $4 into the pockets of his manufacturing friends in order to pay $1 into the public treasury. This is not a tariff for revenue; it is a tariff for the enrichment of the manufacturers and the enslavement of the public.
As regards the proposal of the Minister of Finance, I have another serious objection, which has been dealt with to a certain extent by other speakers. I refer to the in-

crease in the tariff on goods imported from Great Britain. It is quite plain that Great Britain at the present time is in a peculiarly bad condition as far as exporting goods is concerned. The cost and the danger of shipping her goods are very much greater than they have been in the past, and are very much greater than the extra cost and danger experienced by her greatest competitor, the United States. If the present Government allows Great Britain to come in under the present tariff and charges the United States and other countries 74 per cent , extra, I believe the United States will still be getting a preference and will be in a still better position as compared with Great Britain than the position in which it was before, because the United States has none of these dangers and none of the increased cost that Great Britain has. The minister knows that, and he knows the duty that we owe to the Mother Country in her time of extremity. It seems to me that the minister is more unfair than is apparent from a casual glance at this Budget. In the existing tariff I find there are twenty-one items in which a duty of from 5 per cent to 25 per cent is charged on foreign products, and no duty is charged against Great Britain. But, under the hon. minister's proposal, these will be entirely wiped out, except the inconsiderable items of limes and crude lime-fruit juice. Furthermore, I find that, according to the last trade returns, we were importing about 21 1-3 per cent of our total imports from Great Britain. Under the minister's proposals there are certain exceptions made, certain lines of goods to which the increase will not apply. I find that of these excepted only 18 per cent come from Great Britain. So, the blow to Great Britain is more severe than appears at first glance. We have heard a great deal of patriotism. I am not going to accuse any one of lack of patriotism, but, surely, if such an accusation could rest against any one, it would be against the minister who, at this particular time, when the need of Great Britain is so great, when she is in such a crisis, when the dangers to her shipping are so great, when she is undertaking greater financial burdens than ever were undertaken by any nation in the world's history, places these obstacles in the way of her trade. It seems to me this is the time when Great Britain might have been shown consideration, instead of discriminations being made against her as is done. The Finance Minister makes complaint that others do not show a proper sense of the perspective of the

situation. Surely, he is the last man in Canada who can afford to administer such censure as that; surely if any one is biameable from that point, he is the man.
It is alleged that it is necessary to increase the tariff in order to give employment to working men. But what about the cry, "Back to the land," about which we hear so much? What about the statement that there are not sufficient labourers to seed, harvest and thresh the grain necessary for the very salvation of the Empire? Would it not be better to send the surplus men, if we have them, to work the land, to produce wheat, meat, eggs, butter and other things that will be of use to the Empire, rather than ask us to put our hands into our pockets and pay out $56,375,000 to the manufacturers in order that a few men may be employed and our manufactures increased by $40,000,000? According to the Government's figures, that would only give employment to about 18,000 men who, according to the Government figures, would receive only $8,250,000 in wages. We are asked to pay $56,375,000 into the pockets of the manufacturers in order that they may give $8,250,000 to the labourers. Would it not be better to pay that $8,250,000 direct and keep the rest in opr own pockets and then give these unemployed men useful employment in the production of foodstuffs beneficial to Canada and the Empire?
We hear a great deal of talk about the farmers. I am not talking about this matter from the standpoint of the farmer, but from the standpoint of the consumer. The consumer is the one to be considered but the Finance Minister considers only his protected friends. The consumers are willing to pay into the treasury everything really needed, but they are not willing to pay untold millions to the manufacturers. It would be better for the Empire, for Canada and for the unemployed that we should pay $8,000,000 direct to them and save the balance of the money, and let these men employ themselves in a way more useful to the country. It would be better for all parties except the manufacturers. But I think the manufacturers have had more than their share; I think they have done well enough; and I think they would be well advised to let well enough alone.


Mr. J. H. FISHER (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to occupy the time of the House for more than a very few minutes; but there are one or two matters I would like to refer to.
First, I desire to congratulate the Minister of Finance upon the splendid way in which he presented his Budget to this House, and also upon the general satisfaction with which it has been received throughout the country. At the present time, every one realizes that he must bear his share of the increased expenditure of the country and I am quite sure that all classes will cheerfully do so. From my own constituency I have not heard one word of protest or complaint in regard to the tariff, in fact the only complaint I have heard at all came from a Liberal paper which complained that a duty had not been placed on binder-twine.
There is one matter to which I desire to refer before going on with the consideration of this subject, and that is the remark made by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) the other night in regard to a beautiful village in my constituency. I think I have one of the finest constituencies in the Dominion. The township of Burford is one of the finest in the Dominion, and the village of Burford, which was singled out for attack by the hon. member, is one of the finest villages to be found in Canada. The hon. member for North Oxford, the other night, in reply to a question that I put to him said that a twenty-five-thousand-dollar public building in a village like Burford would look like a palace beside the other buildings. I cannot let that go unchallenged, because Burford is one of the most progressive, up-to-date and progressive villages in Canada; and the fact that I have been able to get a twenty-five-thousand-dollar building for that village should not excite the jealousy of the hon. member for North Oxford. I made him an offer the other night that if he wishes to get a public building for the village of Drumbo or the village of Princeton, in his own constituency, 1 would give him my assistance, and I was sure the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) would assist also; that in fact we had both been asked by constituents of the hon. member to give him that assistance. The hon. gentleman said, in reply, that he was not aware of it, but his constituents had shown very bad judgment.
That may be the case, but I believe that these places are entitled to public buildings, and I am sure, as I have said, that both the hon. member for South Oxford and myself will be pleased to give him any assistance in our power in obtaining them. The hon. member for North Oxford has been a friend of mine for many years. When I first knew him he was at his best, and at



that time, I believe, he was a Conservative. I am sorry to say that since then he has fallen from grace.
He also referred to the fact that there was a vote in the Estimates for an armoury at Brantford, and he wanted to know if we were never going to be done with Brantford. I want to say that an armoury in Brantford is needed, and we are proud of what Brantford and the town of Paris and the county of Brant has done in the way of sending soldiers for the defence of the Empire. Nearly 1,000 men have enlisted from the city of Brantford, Paris and the county of Brant; and if it was necessary I am sure we could send another 1,000. Thus I do not think the hon. member should have *ny fault to find because we are asking for an armoury for Brantford. It is a military centre, one of the best in Canada, and it is certainly entitled to the amount placed in the Estimates for the armoury.
But by many, if not all, the speakers on the other side of the House the suggestion has been made that at a time like this the Government should curtail the expenditures, more particularly in regard to public works and public buildings. This is not the opinion that I have heard expressed in many places on many occasions; on the contrary, I have heard the opinion expressed that the Government should prosecute vigorously all public works in order, as far as possible, to relieve the situation and give employment to those who are out of work, largely owing to the war. The cry everywhere is that more public works, municipal, provincial and Dominion, should be undertaken in order that the unemployment situation may be relieved to some extent at least. Many municipalities are endeavouring to do this, and in my opinion it is the duty of this Government to carry on all the public works for which they can find the money; and I know that that policy will be approved by the people at large and that the policy of the Opposition, as expressed in this debate, that important public works should brfe either stopped or greatly curtailed will not be considered to be in the best interests of this country. I hope that the public works which are being carried on in Canada will not only be continued but, where it can fairly be done, increased, thus giving all the employment possible.
There is another matter that does not seem to appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite, and that is the made-in-Canada movement. If I remember rightly, the hon. junior mem-

ber for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) spoke very lightly in regard to this movement. To be sure, his remarks do not appear in Hansard, but I believe that has been satisfactorily explained. I can assure him, however, that the
11 p.m. remarks of the hon. gentlemen opposite who make light of this movement do not express the opinion held throughout the country. Take the section of the province of Ontario from which I come. That is an important industrial as well as farming centre, and the people there all firmly believe in this movement. Not alone the artisans of Hamilton, Dundas, Brantford, Paris, Guelph, Berlin, Galt, Waterloo, Woodstock, Preston and other manufacturing centres, but the merchants and farmers as well realize the importance of the made-in-Canada movement. The artisan knows that increased demand for Canadian-made goods means more, work and better wages for himself, and consequently more comfort for his family; the merchant knows it means more and better business, while the farmer has learned the value of the home market and knows that it means a better market for everything he has to sell. This view is shared by Liberals and Conservatives alike.
I should like to read a few short articles on this movement taken from the Brantford Expositor, the leading Liberal organ in the section from which I come, and I would commend these extracts to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. After quoting an article from the Canadian Courier, the Expositor, on the 14th October, 1914, said:
The Courier does well to impress upon Canadians the serious danger which threatens the Umpire as a whole, and the need of readiness for still greater sacrifices than any which have thus far been made. The responsibilities in this regard must not be minimized. But, on the other hand, there is no need to be downhearted. While the war brings serious responsibilities, and must involve a considerable derangement of trade, it also brings great opportunities for adopting measures which will in due time extend our commerce and greatly increase employment. A large amount of business hitherto done by European countries, and by the Mother Country as well, is open for seizure, and with properly directed effort a good deal of it must come to Canada. Then we are being taught, as never before, the advantages of trailing more largely within ourselves, and of giving preference to agricultural products and manufactured goods which are grown or made in Canada. There is, consequently, need of courage and determination at this crisis, and if these are properly displayed the time will assuredly come -when we will confess that the great

sacrifices occasioned by the war have not been made in vain.
On* the day previous to that, October 13, the Expositor published an article with the heading, " A Good Creed for Canadians
I believe in Canada.
I love her as my home.
I honour her institutions.
I rejoice in the abundance of her, resources.
1 have unbounded confidence in the ability and enterprise of her people, and I cherish exalted ideas of her destiny among the nations of the world.
Anything that is produced in Canada, from Canadian materials, by the application of Canadian (brain and labour, will always have first call with me.
On November 4, 1914, it published another article, from which the following is an extract :
To keep prosperity in Canada and the spectre of hard times out, just means that from now on the people of Canada will consider their own *business of first importance, will spend their money for the goods made in Canadian factories. It is the importance of maintaining Canadian pay-roll that puts us all on the same level.
Again on January 30, 1915:
The people are anxious to give preference m their purchases to goods that are the product of Canadian industry, but they must be maae more familiar with the nature and extent of these articles. An educational campaign backed up by frequent exhibits in every city and town in the country of made in Canada goods will do much to increase the activity of the manufacturing establishments of the Dominion.
On February 9, 1915, the Expositor contained a number of economical epigrams, of which I will read two or three:
Now that the real 'estate soap-bubblers are out of business in this country we are again estimating the value of land by the number of smokestacks. There's more money in the made-in-Canada habit than in the subdivision habit.
God made the farm, but man makes the factory. The factories of Canada, created by Canadians are entitled to the admiration of every farmer in Canada.
Half the world does not know how the other half laves, and half the people of Canada might just as well say they don't care how the other half live so long as they deliberately keep them out of work by buying imported goods.
These are clippings from the most prominent Liberal paper in that section of the country. I am sure that after listening to these extracts, every member in this House will agree that the made-in-Canada policy has taken a strong hold on the people of Canada, and, as the importance of the question is better understood, this hold will con-524
tinue to grow. I might say that the editor of the Brantford Expositor is Mr. T. H. Preston, a gentleman who stands deservedly high in the councils of the Liberal party in Canada, a former member of the Legislature at Toronto, and, if I am correct informed, he was at one time offered the leadership of the Liberal party in that House If he had accepted it I am sure he would have filled it with credit to himself and to the Liberal party. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) is a personal friend of Mr. Preston, and I am sure will endorse what I have said with regard to him.
There is another matter that I wish to refer to briefly, and that is in reference to dismissals and appointments in the Indian Department. It may be that it would be better to allow the Minister of the Interior to deal with this question, hut as I have a large Indian reserve in my constituency I naturally feel somewhat interested. The statement was made by the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) that there had been 135 dismissals and 295 appointments in the Indian Department. As far as they go, these figures are correct; but the statement is not complete. From the statement made by the hon. member for Halifax it would appear that the appointments exceeded the dismissals by 160. But' what are the facts?-135 employees were dismissed, 122 resigned, 17 left the service, and 14 died; thus leaving the dismissals, resignations, etc. 288 as against 295 appointments, or a difference of only 7. This puts the matter in a very different light, and what is true of the Indian Department I am satisfied will be found to be true of many of the other departments. I was led to give these figures because I knew that as far as the reserve in the county of Brant is concerned, there had been only one resignation and only one appointment, and that appointment was made at the request of the Indians themselves. I could not understand the figures when they first came out but after getting the correct figures and the complete statement I can easily see where the mistake occurred.
1 also wish to say a word in regard to the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Fripp) to permit of the exercise of the franchise by the men who have enlisted for active service. I was not present when this Bill was presented and discussed, and I therefore wish to take this opportunity of saying that while there may be some considerable difficulty in arranging the details as to liow the vote should he

taken-and I believe the committee are finding great difficulty-I sincerely trust that a satisfactory way will be found to overcome it. If there is one class of men in the Dominion who above all others should have the privilege of casting their votes whenever an election may come, it seems to me that it is those men who have left their homes and all that is dear to them, and are now fighting the battles of this great Empire, and who are prepared to die for her if necessary. In my Own county we are proud of the fact, as I have already said, that nearly one thousand of pur best young men from the city of Brantford, the town of Paris, and the county of Brant have enlisted for active service. I consider that it would be a matter for regret if these men, many of whom have taken a prominent part in public affairs, should be deprived of the right to cast their votes. I know a great many of them personally, and as I say a great many have taken a prominent part in public affairs, and it does seem a shame that these men should be deprived of the franchise. I know they are great difficulties in the way, but similar difficulties were overcome at the time of the American war, the war between the North and South; and at the election between Lincoln and McClelland, nearly 120,000 northern soldiers in the field cast their votes. I am sure there must be some way of overcoming these difficulties, and I sincerely trust that the committee having the matter in hand will find a solution.
In conclusion-and I think, Mr. Speaker, you will agree that I have kept within my limit very well-I wish to congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance upon his splendid speech, and upon the presentation of a Budget that has, I believe, already commended itself to a large majority of the people of Canada. Let me also say that whenever the present Government may see fit to appeal to the electors I am satisfied that they will again be returned to power by an overwhelming majority.


Mr. B. B. LAW (Yarmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of attention to the remarks made by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Fisher), and I must congratulate him on the very moderate tone of the speech which he has delivered on this occasion. If the hon. gentleman will pardon me, there are only one or two matters in his speech that I care to refer to. The first is the matter of public buildings. The hon. gentleman seems to think that the Government should

go on putting up public buildings as in ordinary times of peace. He says that all public works should go on for which they can find the money. That is a very broad statement. I presume that the hon. gentleman means, provided the country can afford it or can borrow the money. I am probably as much in favour of public buildings as the hon. member for Brant, but I think that this is a time when the Government should cut out some of the public buildings which are provided for in the Estimates, and which will no doubt be criticised when the Estimates come up. I believe that the erection of public buildings in different parts of the 'country is a necessity, provided they are in proportion, not out of proportion, to the population; and many have been built in the last two or three years which were altogether out of proportion to the population.
The hon. gentleman has referred to the fact that the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) was a Tory some years ago. I should like to inform my hon. friend that, if this Budget passes without any amendment, there will be more Conservatives who will have their eyes opened at the next election, and who will turn to the Liberal party and give their support to it.
I should not occupy the time of the House in eontinuimg this discussion were it not that I consider this the most important matter that has been brought to the attention of the people of this country for many years. I wish to say at the outset that I am in hearty sympathy with the Government in asking this Parliament for an appropriation of $150,000,000; and I am prepared to vote any further amounts which the Government may consider necessary in order to prosecute this war to a victory which shall be lasting, which will mean the end of militarism and of Kaiserism, and which will give freedom and protection to the smaller nations of the world. In saying this I feel thait 1 am voicing the sentiments not only of every member of this House, but of Canadians as a whole.
But what I do object to is the levying of increased taxes and burdens upon a portion of the people under the guise that the money so raised is for war purposes. If we look at the present situation of the Government, and inquire what has led to the most humiliating position in which it now finds itself, only one conclusion can be arrived at. I maintain that the de-

ficit of $60,000,000, the largest in the history of our Dominion, which the Finance Minister was compelled to present in making his Budget .speech, is the result in part of gross extravagance and absolute waste by tire present Administration. The -hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) in his speech the other day .said that this Budget was historic, and I agree with him. I sincerely trust that Canada may never be called on to witness another Budget with such a laTge deficit as this. From 1896 to 1911 times in Canada were exceedingly prosperous, due largely I maintain to wise administration and careful expenditure of the public money.
At the time the Liberal party went out of power our ordinary expenditure was about $80,774,000. But what do we find, Sir? Almost immediately upon the present Government taking the reins, Providence seemed to hide his face, and hard times to take possession, and the revenue to fall off. What, Sir, I would ask, would any sane and competent board of directors of any large business concern do under these circumstances? Would they continue to add to their staff of employees, increase wages, pay dividends out of capital, and generally increase their expenditures? I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you would say such a board should be dismissed; but, Sir, this is what the present Government have done, and they cannot deny their record. Instead of curtailing their expenditure, let us see what they have done. Their ordinary or consolidated fund expenditure for the last four years and their estimated expenditure for the coming year are as follows:
191->
$ 98,161,000
1913"	'	  112,059,000
1914	  127,384,000
j915 * [	 140,000,000
1916 estimated	  140,000,000
I know, Sir, that comparisons are sometimes odious, but I ask you to compare the management of the present Finance Minister with that of the Hon. W. S. Fielding, Finance Minister under the Laurier Administration, and what do we find? When in 1908 and 1909 the revenue was showing a slight falling off, the then Finance Minister commenced to trim his sails and get ready for a storm if it should come. Without crippling a single industrial or other enterprise in Canada, he was able by his sagacity and good judgment to announce in his Budget speech a substantial surplus.
I think the present Finance Minister is
also open to criticism for not cutting down his expenditures during the present fiscal year; but can there be any justification whatever for the remarkable and extravagant Estimates placed before this House at this session for 1915-1916, in face of the hardest and most trying times in the history of Canada? I say, Sir, most emphatically no. There can not be any excuse offered whatever, and only one interpretation can be put upon it, and that is that the expenditure of so large a sum under present conditions is only intended for political and party advantage.
I think a fair way to judge any Government, be it Conservative or Liberal, is to a large extent by their attitude while in Opposition, and just here it is interesting to note the manifesto issued by Mr. R. L. Borden, now the Prime Minister, in 1911.
This was the Conservative party's platform in that year:
The Liberal-Conservative party gives its pledge to carry out the following policy if returned to power.
The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), in speaking this afternoon, considered that a pledge given by a party or a Government was as sacred as any pledge that could be given in the world and I agree with Kim. Here is what the Conservative party pledged itself to carry out .if returned to power:
A thorough reorganization of the method by which the public expenditure is supervised. The increase in what is known as ordinary controllable expenditure from $21,500,000 in 1896 to nearly $74,000,000 in 1911 is proof of extravagance beyond any possible defence.
It is interesting to note that instead of the expenditure being $74,000,000 it has practically been doubled under the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite. On April 26, the present Prime Minister, then Mr. R. L. Borden, moved the following resolution:
That the public assets have been depleted and the public expenditure has been largely and unnecessarily increased by reason of the unsystematic improvident and extravagant methods of the present Administration.


An hon. MEMBER:: In what year?


Bowman Brown Law: 1907. You will find the quotation in volume 4 of Hansard of that year, page 7856. If these words were transposed to apply to the present Government, I would agree with the right hon. the Prime Minister in every word and sentence which he expressed. I would ask if these hon. gentlemen have carried out their pre-election pledges? I leave it for the people of Canada to judge them by their work. They

seem to have taken as their model one of their members who, when they had come into power and at the full flush of victory, said: "Dash away and spend the money no matter where it comes from." Let me read some remarks made by ihe hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Geo. Foster) in a speech delivered by him on March 17, 1908, which shows that he cannot be in sympathy with the course adopted by the Minister of Finance and the other members of the Government. I quote from page 5165, volume 3 of Hansard, 1907-8. He says:
In 1890 when the first stress of hard times csime the aim of the Government was to lighten the load of taxation upon the people and in that year taxation was taken off the common necessaries of life to the amount of $521,755. In 1891, pursuing the same course the Government struck the duty entirely off all raw sugar, and reduced the duty on refined sugar, and in the years from 1891 to 1895 the relief given to the tax payers in that respect alone was $19,851,995, counting the decreased duties upon a nearly equal consumption.
You will notice that that is entirely different from wdiat they are doing at the present time. He goes on to say:
But, Sir, there was another way in which the Government aided in that time of trouble. It economized in expenditures. I think a Government should always set an example to the country. I think a government ought to act very largely as a business man or as an individual having a business and a home would act, and economize in the matter of expenditures when depression is on.
That is entirely in contrast with what the present Minister of Finance is doing. Instead of economizing, the expenditures are increasing by leaps and bounds and in order to put the people of the country in a position to meet these increased expenditures they are putting on customs taxation and also what they call war taxes. Then the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, goes on:
In 1890 we spent $11,770,332.
In 1891 we spent $40,793,208.
In the five years succeeding we spent on an average in round figures $42,000,000 a year. So that by this economy in expenditure we thereby saved to the country money wrhicli we would have had to have borrowed and the burden of carrying which would have laid upon the people. As showing the reduction in this respect, in 1891 $41,702,383 -was expended as against $43,518,198 .in 18S9. In these two ways the country was helped to go through the period of stress and by that help it came out all the better.
I am sure that if the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government had placed the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce in the position occupied by the hon. Minister of Finance the country would not find itself in the position that it is in to-day. He be-
[ Mr. Law.]
lieved, as many in this House and out of it believe, that when times are hard it is not wise to increase the expenditure but rather to economize and thus relieve the burdens of the people. I am sure that when I give the next authority that I am going to refer to on the condition of affairs, namely, that of Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, the expression of opinion will be taken *s coming from a man who probably understands the conditions in Canada as well as, if not better than, any one else. Sir Thomas Shaughnessy says:
" The individual, the community, the nation, fully understand," says Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, " that in war times sacrifices have to be made. These they are willing to undertake, as they are necessary for the integrity of the Empire. At the same time they will accept the extra burdens with the better grace if they are well convinced that proper caution and economy are exercised in the disbursement of the extra taxes and the administration of affairs." Our cursory examination of the Estimates does not make it evident that the same drastic cut has been made in the cost of administering our public offices as have, been made by the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other well conducted business establishment in the Dominion.
The Financial Post of February 20 says.:
We are in full accord with Sir Thomas Shaughnessy when he says that the country cheerfully assumes its special Imperial burdens at this time but the task would be less onerous if accompanied by a public conviction that the administration of public affairs was being adjusted to a war basis as done in industry and commerce generally.
The plain fact seems to be that the Government have decided to continue all public works already started and to maintain current expenditure on a normal basis. No railway, business or any undertaking of a private character is at present on a normal basis. All have had to economize; the Administration should not hesitate to act as the people it represents have had to do. Every department practically asks for more money than it did a year ago, although the taxpayer who furnishes it has extraordinary private difficulties to face, as well as the provision of the sinews of war.
These authorities, I am sure, will not be questioned.
Now, Sir, I wish to say this, if I thought for one moment the increased tariff was for war purposes, and would be kept on only during the present war and its consequences it would receive my hearty approval, with some exceptions and prominent among them the lessening of the British preference. But to my mind it is a tariff for the manufacturers to increase the cost of every article of clothing and food worn and used by the already over-taxed and burdened labouring and poor man as well as the farmers and fishermen, even down to the fertilizers, which is a necessity for every farmer to use in the lower provinces at all events,

and the coal oil, lard, beef, pork, beans and many other articles, which I do not wish to take up the time of the House in enumerating, and which our hardy fishermen use, even to cork which is used only and entirely by them. I maintain, Sir, that our fishermen who are habitually risking their lives in the prosecution of their daily duties should not be further burdened with increased taxation, while the rich and affluent who wear silks and satins are not paying any increased duty on these articles. I say, Sir, this is discrimination with a vengeance, but like all protective tariffs it always bears harder on the poor man than on the rich.
1 was somewhat amused to hear the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) telling the people of this country that the manufacturers of Canada would not increase prices [DOT]on their goods, and I shall be glad if such is the case, but I must be allowed to say that I doubt the statement because in many cases the manufacturers do not require much of an excuse to do so. I think this is a time when they will take advantage of their opportunity.
Let me deal for a moment with the reduction of five per cent in the British preference. To my mind this is a part of the tariff that should not have been touched, but if touched at all, it should be to increase it rather than to decrease it. May I ask are [DOT] these gentlemen who propose this reduction, the same and belonging to the same party, who in 1911 went up and down this country waving the flag and advertising their loyalty from house tops! Can it be possible it is they who intend to borrow from England millions of dollars; in fact every dollar which our participation in this war will cost and thus show their gratitude to the Motherland in this her hour of deepest affliction, when she is sacrificing her best blood; yea her life almost to preserve justice and liberty and to defeat and overthrow forever despotic militarism. I have only to answer that in my humble opinion this is the basest ingratitude. This is not the time to lower the British preference, but rather it is the time to increase it. I believe it would have received the cordial support of the people of this country had the Government decided on that policy. Let me read for a moment an article taken from the Winnipeg Tribune which puts the case in a nutshell. The Tribune is, I am told, an independent paper, and in its issue of February 6, 1915, it very nicely heads this article, " A Trick on the People ", The Tribune says:
"Canadian" writes to the Tribune to the effect that he supports a family of five, on a moderate salary, and contributes regularly from his wages " the sum of $5 per month to the Patriotic Fund-$60 per year, which I give _ cheerfully-and I am ready to give more, if called upon. But," he adds, " my blood fairly boils at the intrigue and the trickery of our politicians. The imposition of a tax of 425 per cent on the clothing of our soldiers' children, and 37J per cent, on the shoes to protect their feet, arouses the deepest anger and resentment within the breast of any full-blooded man born with the instincts of British liberty in his make-up. The tax is a disgrace and a humiliation to Canada. It is not a revenue or a war tax as you have well said in your journal. Surely our manufacturers of clothing and blankets are not cripples that they require a tax of 425 per cent as a bonus ; because, as we all know, prices are governed by the tariff. Competition at home is a mytji if the Government only stands in and shuts its eyes to the combinations that are formed right and left to bleed us. as our notorious un-British tariff permits."
" Canadian's " feelings are those of ninety-five out of every hundred men in -western Canada. Premier Borden and the Hon. Mr. White, have evidently played sharp with the people in raising the tariff on clothing, woollens, and articles previously taxed beyond the highest revenue producing point. It is plainly a protective move, because it is taking, by legislation or by force, money out of the pockets of the vast majority of our citizens and placing it ir. the pockets of a few. To think that under the guise of " war taxes '' such a trick should have been played on the people is enough to arouse the justifiable indignation manifested in the letter of " Canadian.''	^
It will be found that there are a good many people in this country who endorse the views expressed by this writer.
As to the duty on cotton-seed meal, which is not made in Canada, I find that the new tariff will increase the cost to the farmers from $2.40 to $3 per ton. This article is used very extensively in the maritime provinces, and probably in the upper provinces as well. It has to be imported from the United States and the 7i per cent increase will largely increase the cost of this product, which the farmers cannot do without.
I maintain that the increased cost of fertilizers and feed, which are fundamental to the success of our farmers, may lead to their not using the quantity they might and ought to otherwise use. Just a word as to the tax on fertilizers and feeds used by the farmers. If my information is correct, Great Britain has no duty on plant food. Australia goes so far as to give financial aid to farmers to purchase fertilizers, and even the United States, a highly protective country, does not charge any duty on fertilizers used by farmers. The Farmers' Advocate of London, Ontario, puts the case very well when it says:


Mr. H. B. TEEMAIN (Hants):: Mr. Speaker, the question which is now before us has occupied the attention of the House for some time; yet I ask your indulgence and that of the House while I offer, in support of the Budget, a few observations which appear to me to be pertinent. I have listened attentively to the criticisms made by hon. gentlemen opposite to the financial statement presented by my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance; and while they are varied and lengthy, they do not appear particularly helpful, since no serious alternative solution of the problem has been advanced from the Opposition benches, for the purpose of making up the deficit created largely through war conditions. It is undoubtedly true that, before war was declared, Canada with all other world communities, was suffering the consequent reaction caused by a period covering some ten or fifteen years of speculation, extravagance and over-development in many lines, brought about largely through unreasoning optimism and the more or less greed of the individual which lures one on to reap a speculative gain where one has not sown the productive crop of earnest, sustained work and endeavour.
We all hear it frequently advanced in a more or less jocular vein, always with an apparent undercurrent of earnestness, that during the administration of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, Providence smiled on his administration and provided large crops and good times for a country apparently governed in accordance with the beneficent plan of the Deity. If this is so, it might logically be expected that the Opposition should also assume responsibility for any unfortunate factors resulting from the policy pursued by them while in power, especially as the seed of speculation sown during that period was nurtured and developed by a lavish capital expenditure in this country on transportation facilities furnished, in my opinion, for years in advance of the present needs of even a country of Canada's potential possibilities, thus materially assisting through these vast expenditures to create in this country an era of extravagance and speculation, the effects of which confront us to-day, making the acute con-

ditions that we are facing through the war and the consequent interruption of trade even more acute. As I have said, it might logically be expected, since the Opposition eagerly point out and take credit for the favourable factors of the situation just outlined, that they should also assume the responsibilities for the consequences of the policy pursued by the late Liberal Administration.
If this point is well taken, as I believe it to be, no doubt the hon. gentlemen opposite might pertinently ask why the expenditure on capital and revenue account shows an increase rather than a decrease since the present Administration took office; but when it is remembered that heavy capital expenditures made by the present Administration were largely placed on their shoulders by the late Liberal Administ 'ation, whose committments in connection with the National Transcontinental railway and whose policy with reference to guarantees and bonuses to the Canadian Northern railway, made it imperative that the national credit of Canada be maintained in the money markets of the world, and in accordance with this necessity that these enterprises be carried through to a successful termination. With these facts in view, the criticism of increased expenditure by the present Government on capital account is more or less of a boomerang, if made for the purpose of showing, in comparison, the economy and superior business methods of the late Administration.
My hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) in the role of financial critic of the Opposition, made a speech in his customary good taste; and considering the exigencies of the times and the necessity of providing campaign material to the followers of his party in the country, he carried out with skill and address the task of making the best of the situation in an effort to impress on the electors that the large deficit faced by this country was not created through war conditions, but was resultant from the reckless expenditures of the present Government.
When quoting figures to justify this contention, he, of course, carefully, as becomes an experienced parliamentarian, avoided any reference to the large committments inherited from a Government of which he was a strong and consistent supporter. He points out the necessity of economizing in expenditure-we all agree that this is necessary- but does he particularize as to what public works should be discontinued? I think not. In any event, he does not furnish a comprehensive list of such. He no doubt fully realizes the safety of the policy of dealing in generalities in this respect as opposed to that of particularizing those unnecessary works at present, in his judgment, being carried on in opposition to the dictates of prudence and economy.
He dwells on the amount of money expended on the Civil Service, but does not apparently favour an arbitrary reduction of say ten per cent in salaries. He believes the number of Government employees excessive; but does he advocate dismissals of a large number from the service? It seems to me that in the remarks of my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax, he furnishes us with a shining example of destructive criticism, effective, no doubt, from the standpoint of an Opposition member, who is not obliged to lay down a constructive policy to replace that which he endeavours to discredit, a policy necessitated by the present situation, brought about largely through conditions arising from the war now raging in Europe.
I might also point out that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) in ail interesting speech dwells on the fact, and complains somewhat bitterly of it, that in laying down a policy to increase the revenue of the country, the manufacturers are benefited through increased protection. I believe in the principal of protection for a country in Canada's present stage of development, situated as we are adjacent to a great manufacturing country like the United States, whose industries are highly developed and efficient in the production of their output; but at the same time I am not an unreasoning protectionist, and would not personally advocate, save for revenue purposes or to assist in the solution of the grave and acute problem of the unemployed, any further general revision of the tariff upward at present.
But it seems to me somewhat unreasonable to oppose a policy which seeks to increase the revenue necessary to provide fixed charges in the way of interest on our war loan, and also to provide for the carrying on of necessary public works, merely on the ground that at the same time, through some additional protection, it will enable many industries running on half time, or closed down temporarily, to operate profitably, thus re-employing labour, and in this way alleviating the problem of the

unemployed, which problem is causing the greatest anxiety 'to thoughtful students of conditions in industrial centres. Even in the maritime province, which have not been as seriously affected as other parts of the country, only large orders for war supplies, and munitions, prevented the situation at many points from becoming indeed serious. The horn, member from Assiniboia complains that the burden of taxation rests on the farmer. Does it not rest to as great an extent on the salaried classes-on the inhabitants of cities and small towns?- and on all classes alike? Apart from a policy nearly approaching confiscation, how can the moneyed classes be made to bear anything save a similar percentage of taxation on their purchases, to that borne by the farmer, or the working classes, when such revenue is raised through excise or by an indirect tariff tax? The only way to make men of large means contribute in a greater volume to the revenues of the country seems to us to be through the levying of a direct tax on large incomes, say over $20,000 or $25,000 per annum. I am personally not averse to any such methods, but if the. burden of taxation is inequitable and does not rest as heavily on the wealthy as my hon. friend from Assiniboia thinks it should, I might point out that the party which he supports, and which, in my opinion somewhat hypocritically, poses as the special friend of the working classes, appears to have made little if any effective effort to solve the problem during the period from 1896 to 1911, while they had the power to do so.
The Liberals were returned on a policy opposed to protection, but the percentage in general decrease of the tariff during their term of office was trifling when considered in the aggregate, as my friends opposite well know.
The difference in the theory of government held by individual members opposite and their putting into practice of these economic theories, dear to the hearts of many of our Opposition friends, is indeed startling, and impresses the thoughtful throughout the country with the fact that the Liberal party out of office were prodigal in promise and in power furnished the country with a striking example of being bankrupt in fulfilment of the promises so prodigally made.
My hon. friend from Assiniboia knows that this Government is rightfully assisting in every way the farmers in the West, by 
providing a large sum for the purchase of seed grain, a policy in which we all concur. No one appreciates more than I do the economic importance of the farmer, or is more ready to concede that the basic economic prosperity of Canada rests primarily on the development of natural resources, the greatest of which, in this country, is agriculture. But surely, my hon. friend does not contend at the present time, that the farmer wishes to avoid his proportion of the increased taxation which the existing grave situation necessitates levying on this country. I think the farmer of this country is not surpassed by any class in devotion to the democratic principles for which this great Empire of ours is engaged in a life and death struggle, and that he does not ask that he be relieved of his share of the burden which it is our duty to shoulder, so that we in this country may render effective aid to the Empire of which we form no unimportant part.
It appears to me unfortunate that many politicians, in an effort to make capital for their party, frequently engage in an attempt to place manufacturer against farmer, when both are so necessary to the development of an evenly balanced and prosperous nation. The growth of industrial centers means the prosperity of the farmers adjacent to those centers who are engaged in mixed farming, and I hope and believe that the continued growth and development of large manufacturing centers in the West may eventually lead to that large measure of co-operation existing between the majority of farmers in Ontario, Quebec, and the maritime province and the industrial classes in the manufacturing centers.
It is unfortunate that at times in this great country of ours, apparently, designing demagogues for political advantage attempt to place class against class and creed against creed, and thus create jealousies and mutual recrimination that sometimes threatens to bring about sectional divisions of thought on geographical lines. This appears to me not only reprehensible but dangerous. And it is the sincere hope of many people of independent thought in this Dominion of ours, that as years go on. the force of public opinion will prevent this policy being carried out to as great an extent in the future as it has been carried out in the past. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place myself on record as being opposed to the breaking of the party truce. Mutual recrimination on both sides seems to be largely responsible for this. I do not think that the majority

of unbiased Canadians wish to see this country, during the war, engaged in undignified strife and the consequent turmoil of a political campaign. This surely would not be a very creditable procedure on the part of Canada and Canadians until absolutely necessary through lapse of time. Even then, in my opinion, Canada might well see what course is pursued in Britain with reference to an election, before embarking in the bitterness of party strife engendered by the widely divergent views held by the two great parties on the N'aval policy alone.
It seems to me that some of my hon. friends have been unfair to Hie hon. the Minister of Militia, even after making the broadest allowance for party feeling. I have no doubt some mistakes may have been made in the Militia Department; the man who does nothing' never makes a mistake, but I think that the prompt despatch of 30,000 Canadian troops now gallantly engaged in battling for those principles dear to us, a fitting tribute to the energy and driving power of the Minister of Militia, on whose shoulders has rested a burden far too heavy for the shoulders of many of his uncharitable critics.
In conclusion, I would appeal for a greater measure of co-operation between the two great parties during the grave crisis through which our Empire is passing. When the victory of democratic communities is achieved, over the forces of autocratic despotism, represented by Kaiserism, then and not till then, let our political warfare again be waged, and when the efforts of our Empire and her Allies have resulted in victory, crowning the forces of righteousness, it should be time enough to re-engage in party recrimination and strife in this country.
At the next election the supposed misdeeds of an Administration faced by a gigantic task such as no Government in the history of Canada has coped with in the past, or will likely be called upon to face in the future, can then be brought to the attention of the electorate for a favourable or unfavourable verdict,-until then the interests of (the country should be placed above politics, and would seem to me to demand a temporary cessation from petty political bickering and strife.
On motion of Mr. Douglas (for Sir Wilfrid Laurier), the debate was adjourned.



DEATH OF JAMES W. RICHARDS, ESQ., M.P.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J, D. Reid for the adjournment of the House:
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM: Mr. Speaker, I think it but fitting that reference should be made to the passing of one of our colleagues in this House; I refer to the Hon. Mr. Richards, of Prince county, P.E.I., who passed to the great majority in this city some two hours ago. Mr. Richards was a man who had a great many friends in this House. He came here with a ripe experience of public life, a man horn, I think, but certainly educated as a boy in Prince Edward Island; he grew up to be honoured and respected by his fellows and was elected to the legislature there, occupying continuously a seat in the Legislature of Prince Edward Island as the representative from Prince county for some thirty years. He was promoted to be a member of the Government of his province, and, after serving his province well in that capacity, he was elected in 1908 to a seat in this House. He was not a man who was aggressive; it was a little difficult, perhaps to become acquainted with him; but those who know him best esteem him most. He came to us with a ripe experience, and he has gone from us full of years, having given a full life to the service of his province and of the Dominion of Canada. He brought to us, as I have Said, diffidence; but he had an unobtrusive ability which was esteemed and recognized by all who knew him. I am sure the House will be unanimous in expressing regret at the loss of so valuable a member and in expressing sympathy with his family.
John Dowsley Reid: I had not heard of
the death of our esteemed friend Mr. Richards, and we on this side of the House join in expressing our sympathy with the family and friends of the deceased member. I certainly am expressing the feelings of every member on this side of the House in endorsing all that my hon. friend has said. Mr. Richards was a faithful member Of the House of Commons, always very attentive, and he was respected by every member. I have had the pleasure of sitting in the House with the late Mr. Richards ever since he became a member. I came to know him very well, and found him to be a very genial, kind-hearted man. We join with the hon. member for South Renfrew in expressing our deep sympathy with the family of the late Mr. Richards in their bereavement.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 12 o'clock midnight.
[Stage Direction]


Speaker: Hon. Thomas Simpson Sproule.
Wednesday, March 10, 1915.