PRIVATE BILLS INTRODUCED.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 58, respecting the Casualty Company of Canada.-Mr. Macdonell.
Bill No. 59, respecting the Empire Life Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Macdonell.
Bill No. 60, to incorporate Entwhistle and Alberta Southern Railway Company.-Mr. R. B. Bennett.	.
Bill No. 61, respecting the Simeoe, Grey and Bruce Railway Company.-Mr. Middle-bro.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE moved:: That it be an instruction to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, if it thinks fit, to divide Bill No. 17, an Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, into two Bills.


Mr. SPEAKER:: With reference to this motion I have the honour to submit the following:
The motion referred to asks the House to give power-by instruction-to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, to divide Bill No. 17 into two Bids.
This Bill was referred to that committee on February the 15th instant, and is con-

sequently in the possession of the committee and is not on the Orders of the House.
On the subject of instruction to committees, May (11th edition, page 48), states that an instruction is necessary to enable a committee to divide a Bill into two Bills; but (see page 481) he further states that:
A motion for an instruction which seeks to confer upon a committee of the Whole House power to make amendments in a Bill that is already possessed by the committee is out of order and this rule applies to instructions to standing' or joint committees.
Bourinot iiiferentially sustains this position on page 651, 3rd edition, where it is * observed that an instruction to a committee should be moved as soon as the Order for the committee has been read by the Clerk, showing that the Bill must then be in possession of the House when instruction is given.
In the case of Bill 17, now that it is in the possession of the committee and not of the House, it is not in order to entertain this motion. This Bill being in the possession of the committee, it would be in order for the committee to report the Bill back to the House with such recommendations as are thought desirable, including that of receiving power to divide the Bill into two Bills. The House could then take such action in the premises as it considers advisable.
A resolution of a similar character to the present appears, however, to have passed the House in 1888, the Bill in question being then in the possession of the committee and no notice of motion having been previously given. There was no ruling given by the Speaker on the propriety of the action taken: indeed, the question was not raised.
I do not think that case constitutes a precedent and consequently I have ruled as above.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that your ruling is that the Railway Committee, which is possessed of the Bill, should send it back to the House for instructions?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 

QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]

Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Who was in charge of the purchase of horses for military purposes in the province of Nova Scotia in 1914?
2.	How many horses were purchased?
3.	In what counties and how many in each county?
4.	How much was paid for these horses?
5.	How many of them were sent to Val-cartier?
Major-General HUGHES:
1.	The Principal Veterinary Officer for Canada and his assistants.
2.	428 horses were so purchased.
3.	Kings County, 224; Hants, 29; Halifax, 70; Colchester, 27; Pictou, 40; Annapolis, 38.
4.	$72,994.
5.	428 horses.


*Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Did Sir Adam Beck act as purchaser of remounts for the first contingent?
2.	If so, how many remounts were purchased by him and what was the average price paid per horse?
3.	What was the average per horse to cover all expenses in purchasing the said horses?
4.	Were the owners from whom the said horses were purchased paid by Government cheque, or were they paid for by Sir Adam Beck, by his own personal cheque and he afterwards reimbursed?
5.	Were the said horses branded at time of purchase or only after arrival at Valcartier?
6.	If the latter, why were the regulations laid down in mobilization orders 1913 not complied with?"
Major-General HUGHES:
1.	Yes.
2.	334; $166.08.
3.	$7.50 per horse.
4.	Paid by order on Bank of Montreal, signed by Sir Adam Beck and the Veterinary Inspecting Officer, and endorsed by the seller of the horse.
5.	Horses were branded at the time of purchase.
6.	Answered by No. 5.


Mr. NEELY:: 
WAR SUPPLIES-SLIPPERS.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	From how many firms has the Government ordered slippers for the various contingents now being equipped for service?
2.	What are the names of these Arms?
3.	How many slippers have been ordered from each Arm?
4.	How many slippers have each firm delivered up to date?
5.	How many slippers have each firm yet to deliver?
6.	What is the price that each firm are receiving for these slippers?
Major-General HUGHES:
1.	One.
2.	Ames, Holden, McCready, Ltd.
3.	2,350 pairs.
4.	2,348 pairs.
5.	2 pairs.
6.	$1.50 per pair.


AMHERST ARMOURY.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	What was the amount of the tender by Rhodes, Curry and Company, Ltd., for building the armoury at Amherst, N.S.?
2.	Has any extra amount been allowed the ' contractors for the completion of the building?
If so, how much?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	$81,100.


WAR SUPPLIES-CANVAS SHOES.
[Stage Direction]
*Mr. LEMIEUX.
1.	From how many firms have the Government ordered canvas shoes for the various contingents now being equipped for service??
2.	What are the names of these firms?
3.	How many canvas shoes have been ordered from each firm?
4.	How many canvas shoes have each firm delivered up to date?
5.	How many canvas shoes have each firm yet to deliver?
6.	What is the price that each firm is receiving for these canvas shoes?
Major-General HUGHES:
1.	Seven.
2,	3, 4, 5 and 6: -
No. ordered.	No. deliv ered to date.	No. still to be delivered.	Price per pair.Prs.	Prs.	Pre.	$ cts.5,000	5,000	Nil.	2 005,000	4,639	361	2 0010,000	9,748	252	2 0010,000	9,961	39	2 005,000	4,910	90	2 005,000	4,797	203	2 005,000	4,639	361	2 002.	$14,639, of which $125 was for a bevelled strip on floor, and $14,514 for strengthening foundation and increasing thickness of external brick walls and walls of tower; the substitution of brick walls for wooden partitions at end of main hall; substituting brick partitions for lath and plaster in basement, and changing the hot-air heating system to steam heating.

Mr. LAW:: 1.	Were tenders called for the repairs to or the construction of the fog whistle at Cape Roseway, Shelburne harbour?
2.	If so, who are the tenderers, and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	Was the work done by tender and contract? If so, by whom? If not, why not?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes, tenders were publicly invited in July, 1913, for the construction of a wooden fog-alarm building at Cape Roseway, N.S., and one offer was received, namely, from L. Mury & Son, of West Arichat, for the sum of $2,368. This was accepted, but the con* tractor declined to proceed with the work
unless the department allowed an increase of $800 over his tender price. New tenders were invited in the spring of 1914,
2.	In 1914 the following tenders were re-

ceived, namely, Maynard C. Denton & Maurice A. Condon, of Digby, N.S., $3,490; Oliphant J. O'Brien, of Digby, N.S., $3,930; Howard de Champ, of Shelburne, N.S., $4,100.
3.	Owing to the fact that the lowest tender was considerably higher than the estimate of the departmental officials, the department decided to have the work performed by day labour, under the supervision of the resident engineer in Nova Scotia.


JORDAN EAST BREAKWATER.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	Did the Government receive any complaint from any person or persons in respect to any irregularities alleged or otherwise, in the pay-rolls or endorsements on cheques in connection with the repairs to Jordan East breakwater, either in 1913 or 1914?
2.	If so, did the Government investigate the matter and give the person or persons making charges or irregularities an opportunity of proving the charges?
3.	If so, what was the result of said investigation ?
4.	Will the Government lay on the table of the House a copy of all correspondence in relation to the matter?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, investigated by an officer of the Department of Public Works.
3.	That there was no foundation for the charges made.
4.	Yes.


SOLDIERS' INSURANCE.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	Is the Government aware that life insurance companies generally are charging additional premiums on men who have enlisted, amounting to $50 on the first $1,000 of insurance, and $200 on the second $1,000 of insurance?
2.	Has the Government taken any steps to regulate the additional premiums which may be charged in case of enlistment?


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: 1.	The Government is aware that on policies issued since the outbreak of the war life insurance companies generally are charging additional premiums on men who have enlisted, of $50 per $1,000 of insurance. In the case of a few companies, larger additional premiums are charged in respect of insurance in excess of $2,000, the additional premium on such excess amount being in some cases as high as $200 per $1,000.
2.	The Government has taken steps to see that the provisions of the Insurance Act with respect to military service are complied with. The Act, however, does not provide for the regulation of the amount of additional premium which may be charged in case of enlistment.


CARLETON RETAINING WALL.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has any application been received by the Government or any of its members, from the mayor or municipal council of Carleton, Quebec, or from the citizens thereof, for a grant for the retaining wall, consequent upon the damage caused by the high tides of last fall?
2.	If so, has any action been taken, and what was that action?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes, application was received under date of December 18, 1914, from Mr. H. J. Martin.
2.	No action was taken, as there was no provision made by Parliament to do this work.


STONEY MOUNTAIN PENITENTIARY.
Mr. EDWARDS:: (a) Is the wardenship of Stoney Mountain Penitentiary vacant? (b) If so, how long has ic been vacant, and Cc) who has been performing the duties of the said office?


Mr. DOHERTY:: (a) Yes. (b) Since
March 25, 1914.	(c) The deputy warden.


EMPLOYMENT OF CHAS. GAUVREAU.
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Is Mr. Chas. Gauvreau, of Rimouski, employed by the federal Government? If so, since when?
2.	What salary does the said Chas. Gauvreau receive, and what is his occupation?
3.	By whom was he recommended for appointment?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Yes, since July 14, 1914.
2.	He is paid at the rate of $2 a day as a mail transfer agent.
3.	He was recommended for appointment by Mr. H. Boulay, M.P.


RIVER RIGAUD DREDGING.
Mr. BOYER:: (a) Is it the intention of the Government to dredge river Rigaud, this year? (b) If so, by whom was such dredging recommended, and (c) what is the aim sought thereby?


Mr. ROGERS:: (a) The matter is under
consideration, (b) Mr. De Lery Macdonald, (c) To obtain a uniform depth of 8 feet by a width of 75 feet.


ST. ZOTIQUE WHARF.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to repair during the coming season the wharf at St. Zotique, county of Soulanges?
2.	Does the report of the engineer in charge of wharfs show that said wharf is totally unserviceable, in its present condition, to navigation?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	The question will be taken into consideration.
2.	No.


WALLACE SPUR LINE.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What amount was voted for the construction of a spur line of railway in Wallace, N.S.?
2.	When was this amount first voted?
3.	Has any part of the amount been spent in construction? If so, how much?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	$60,000.
2.	Fiscal year 1912-13.
3.	No.


PUGWASH SPUR LINE.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What has been the cost of the railway spur line or siding to the brickyard at Pugwash, N.S.?
2.	What have been the receipts?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	$74,568.84 to date.
2.	Spur is not yet completed.


TRANSPORT OF PRINCESS PATRICIA REGIMENT.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Was the SS. Megantic chartered to convey the Princess Patricia Regiment to England? If so, at what date, and upon what terms?
2.	Did the regiment embark at Montreal, disembark at Quebec, and remain at or near the latter city until the date of sailing of all the troops comprising the first Canadian expeditionary force?
3.	Was the detention of the said regiment due to the fact that a convoy could not be provided to escort the SS. Megantic on a special trip distant from the voyage of the other vessels hired to transport the rest of the troops?
4.	If so, why was the Megantic hired, and the said regiment embarked before arrangements for a convoy had been made?
5.	Were the owners of the Megantic paid for the interrupted trip across the Atlantic? If so, what amount was paid, and when?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	No, she was not chartered. On the 25th August, 1914, the Oceanic Steamship Navigation Company agreed to convey the Princess Patricias Light Infantry from Montreal to Liverpool on the steamship Megantic, sailing August 29. The rates to be charged were the usual passenger rates.
2.	The regiment did embark at Montreal and disembarked at Quebec. They were placed under canvas at Levis until the first contingent sailed for England.
3	and 4. These questions relate to matters which are the subject of secret communications, and with regard thereto we have the distinct request of the War Office and of the Admiralty, expressed in a very earnest manner, that such communications should not be brought down to Parliament at the present time.
5.	The owners were paid $54,754.25 on 28th November, 1914.


THE FARMERS BANK.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: Is it the intention of the Government to introduce legislation during the present session with a view to reimburse the depositors of the defunct Farmers Bank?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: It is not the
intention to introduce legislation during the present session for the purpose mentioned.


CANADIAN HIGH COMMISSIONERSHIP.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Is it the intention of the Government to appoint a successor to Lord Strathcona as High Commissioner? If so, when?


Robert Laird Borden: Some months
previous to the outbreak of war Sir George Perley, who is a member of the Government without portfolio, had proceeded to London under authority of an Order in Council for the purpose of discharging the duties of High Commissioner. He remained in the discharge of these functions up to the time of the outbreak of war, and since then he has so continued. His service during that time has been of vgry great advantage to the whole country, as it has afforded a means of co-operation between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Canada which otherwise would not have been possible. At the time when Mr. Perley proceeded to London it was in order to consider the status of the High Commissioner's office with a view of possibly making certain modifications or changes therein. Until his colleagues, and especially myself, have had an opportunity of discussing that subject with him, the arrangements which have continued since last April or May will still continue.


WAGES AT VALCARTIER.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Has the Department of Labour made an investigation in respect of work done in Val-cartier respecting the fair wage clause?
2.	If so, of what nature was the report?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


RECRUITING AT NEW WATERFORD.
Mr. CARROLL:: 1.	When was Dr. J. C. Morrison appointed examining physician for recruits at New Waterford, Cape Breton South, Nova Scotia?
2.	When was he dismissed?
3.	Why was he dismissed?
Major-General HUGHES:
1.	February 8, 1915.
2.	He was relieved from duty on the 15th February, 1915.
3.	Dr. Morrison was not a member of the Army Medical Corps, and another medical officer, Dr. Macleod, had been nominated before Dr. Morrison.


WINNIPEG IMMIGRATION OFFICE DISMISSALS.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	How many officials have been dismissed from the immigration service at Winnipeg, since August 1, 1914?
2.	What are the names of those dismissed, their nationality and their length of service?
3.	What others have been appointed in place of those dismissed, and what is the nationality of each?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Two dismissed and six indefinitely suspended, of whom four since have been reinstated.
2.	Mary Ann Walsh, British, in service since September 1, 1906. Ivan Petrushevich, Ruthenian, in service since June 15, 1914.
3.	None.


TEMISCOUATA RURAL MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	How many tenders for the rural mail service at St. Jean-de-Dieu, Temiscouata, did the Post Office Department receive?
2.	What was the amount stipulated in each tender?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded?
4.	Was it the lowest tender?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Nine tenders were received.
2.	Joseph Ouellet, $400, reduced to $345; Joseph Jean, $350; Jean Rosseau, $350; Cyrille Rioux, $448; Joseph D'Aut-euil, $450; Timothe Rioux, $450; Theophile Sirois, $500; Pierre Deschenes, $500 ; Joseph Dumas, $525.
3.	Joseph Ouellet, at the rate of his reduced tender.
4.	It was the lowest offer received.


FRASERVILLE HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: For what reason was the sum of $50,000, contained in the estimates of 1913-14 in connection with proposed improvements of the Fraserville harbour, River du Loup, not expended last year??


Robert Rogers: The cost of the work was so much greater than was anticipated that it was deemed advisable to again inquire into the matter before calling for tenders.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Law : For a copy of all correspondence, petitions and documents since the 31st of October, 1912, relating in any way whatever to the proposed public wharf at Lower Woods Harbour?
Mr. Law: For a copy of pay-rolls and all correspondence and vouchers "in connection with the repairs of Jordan breakwater, Shelburne county, for which Leander McKenzie was contractor of works or foreman.
Mr. Law:	For a copy of all correspondence,
petitions, documents, etc., in connection with a petition of Donald Williams and others in respect to the regulation of fish traps in Green harbour and vicinity.
Mr. Law:	For a copy of all pay-rolls, vouchers in detail, correspondence and all other documents in connection with the following public works in Shelburne:	Breakwater or
wharf at East Green harbour; shed on public wharf at Shelburne, and repairs to Gunning Cove wharf.
Mr. Law:	For a copy of all letters, papers
and documents relating to the dismissal of the following officers in Shelburne county, N.S.: Wm. L. Smith, lightkeeper, Baccaro, N.S. ; J. A. Arechia, harbour master, Lowerwoods harbour, and J. C. Morrison, harbour master, Shelburne, N.S.
Mr. Law : For a copy of all tenders, contracts, pay-rolls, vouchers, letters, * correspondence papers and documents, relating to the following public works in Sheiburne county: breakwater and wharf at Frudes pont; breakwater and wharf at Jordan east; wharf at Shelburne; wharf at Port Clyde; breakwater at Blanche Point; wharf at Centreville; wharf at West Head ; cribwork at Mathews lake, and clearing channel at Round bay.
Mr. Law : For a return showing the amounts in detail paid to Ward Fisher, of Shelburne, N.S., fishery inspector, for the years 1912 and
1913,	for salary, office expenses, travelling expenses, and all other expenses.
Mr. Kyte : For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and petitions relating to the appointment of Alfred Bishop as farm foreman, or in any other capacity at the experimental station at Kemptville, Nova Scotia.
Mr. Law : For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and pay-rolls in connec-nection with the repairs and other work on the breakwater at Sandford, Yarmouth county, N.S., during the year 1914.
Mr. Law : For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and pay-rolls in connection with repars and extension of breakwater at Bluff Head, Yarmouth county, N.S., during year
1914.
Mr. German:	For a copy of all correspondence between the Government, or any member or department thereof, and P. W. Ellis and Company of Toronto, for the purchase of supplies for the Militia Department since the 1st of August, 1914. the amount of commission paid or agreed to be paid to the said P. W. Ellis and Company on the purchase of supplies for the Militia Department of Canada since the 1st of August, 1914, and the nature of all supplies furnished the Department of Militia by said

P. W. Ellis and Company either by themselves or through them on commission, and from whom purchased.
Mr. Lemieux : For a return showing:
1.	Who the remount commissioners are for Western and Eastern Canada respectively.
2.	When and by whom they were appointed, and what their general instructions were. _
3.	Why were the mobilization orders 1913, which provide for the purchase of remounts, ignored and civilians put in charge of the purchase of remounts.
4.	The names of the purchasers and inspecting veterinary officers appointed by the remount commissioner for Eastern Canada, in the various remount divisions.
5.	If any of the purchasers and inspecting veterinary officers have been stopped buying. If so, what their names are, and the reasons given by the remount commissioner for his aetion.	,	.
6.	How many horses have been purchased between December 1 and January 21, In each remount division in Eastern Canada, and the average price paid per horse.
7.	What the average cost per horse is in each remount division to cover the expenses, including pay or allowances and all travelling and other expenses, between the said dates.
Mr. Law : For a return showing:
1.	If the Government ever leased any land at or near Shelburne, Nova Scotia, known as the Barracks property, to the town of Shelburne.
2.	If so, when, at what rental, and for how long.
3.	If said lease is now in force?
4.	If the Government has sold any of the standing timber on this property.
5.	If so, when, to whom, and at what price.
6.	How long the purchaser has to remove it.
7.	What is the minimum size at the stump, sold.
8.	If the Government has ever had the property cruised by competent timber cruiser.
9.	If so, by whom, and when.
10.	If the timber on said property was advertised for sale, and tenders were asked for, or any opportunity afforded to other prospective buyers to bid for this timber.
11.	If any other offers were received.
12.	If the town of Shelburne was notified before the sale took place. If so, on what date?
13.	How much timber the Government estimates to be on this property.
14.	What steps the Government intends to take to compute the quantity of timber cut from this property.
15.	If the Government is aware that timber is now being cut from this property by a person or firm who are cutting timber from private property adjoining said Barracks property.
16.	What steps are being taken by the Government to be sure that in the case the logs are kept separate from those coming from the adjoining lot, for the purpose of having accurate count and scale.
17.	If the Government will bring down a copy if all correspondence, cruisers' reports and contracts in relation to the sale of this timber.
Mr. Lemieux: For a return showing:
1.	From how many firms the Government have ordered ankle boots for the various contingents now being equipped for service.
2.	The names of these firms.
3.	How many ankle boots have been ordered from each firm.
4.	How many ankle boots each firm have delivered up to date.
5.	How many ankle boots each firm have yet
to deliver.	. ,
6.	The price that each firm is receiving for these ankle boots.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 39, to amend the Canadian Patriotic Fund Act, 1914.-Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice)-read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I might just repeat the formal explanation I gave in introducing this Bill. The provisions of this amendment empower the corporation to assist incapacitated soldiers who may return from the war, and widows, children and dependent relatives of men who may he killed on active service. It also empowers the corporation to give assistance to the wives, children and dependent relatives of residents of Newfoundland who are engaged on active service in the military or naval forces of Canada. As the Act now stands, the powers of the corporation are limited to assisting the wives, children and dependent relatives of men on active service, so that an incapacitated man is not provided for, nor are the widows and children of the men who may he killed. Furthermore, under the present Act the powers of the corporation are limited to assisting the wives, children and dependent relatives of residents of Canada only.
Mr. CARROLL. Will the relatives of men on active service at the front, who are partially dependent upon the wages of these men, get anything from the patriotic fund?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Act says that dependent relatives may be assisted. I do nor think that the Act makes any express provision for those who are partially dependent.


Mr. CARROLL:: I understand that applications have been made to certain local committees in different parts of the country for relief from this fund and that the best the applicants could do was to give evidence that they were partially dependent on the wages of their sons and they were refused any assistance.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not very familiar with the actual operation of the Act, but perhaps my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), will explain how the work is carried on.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Perhaps it might be well if the hon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine, would take this opportunity of making a statement of what has been done with the patriotic fund up to date.


Mr. AMES:: If the House desires to have a statement of that character, in my capacity as honorary secretary of the fund, I shall be very glad to give it. The House will remember that towards the end of the last session held in August authority for the creation of this fund was given. At the present time probably ninety per cent of the Dominion of Canada is covered either by branches of the patriotic fund or by auxiliary organizations run on the same lines. We	have an office	in Ottawa	whichacts as a clearing house, and all cases that	are referred to	us are sent	on	tothe	proper organization which	is	abranch of our own	organization	or	an
affiliated association. We adopt, generally speaking, a uniform system in dealing with all these cases and we are constantly sending out from the head office memoranda for the guidance of the various branches. I shall be very glad to deal with any question which any hon. gentleman desires to raise. The story in detail would be a very long one but any questions that any hon. gentleman may wish to bring up I shall be most happy to deal with. The hon. member for Cape Breton, South (Mr. Carroll), raised a point a moment ago. In reply to his question I would say that generally speaking, the local committee of each branch is, within certain limits, a law unto itself dealing with applications for relief. We issue suggestions from the head office to them and we tell them how other branches are operating their relief funds. The principles upon which relief is given are these: The first question that is always asked is " Is the family in need, or would the family be in need if there was no patriotic fund?" If it is found that the fa nily are getting along very well there would be no claim upon the fund. But if it is the case that in consequence of the departure of soldiers for the war a family is falling below the scale of decent subsistence then that family would have a claim upon the fund. The next question which would be asked is: Was the family dependent on the soldier? If a wife and children have been wholly dependent upon a man who has gone to the front there would be no question. If it is a widowed mother who is entirely dependent upon the soldier son who has enlisted there would be no question; she would rank both with the Gov-
ernment and with us the same as the wife and children. But we have a certain number of complicated cases of what you might call partial dependency that are dealt with usually by the local branch committee upon suggestions from the head office. In a case of partial dependency where a son has gone to the war, the question usually asked is: How much does the family fall below the scale of decent subsistence in consequence of this boy having gone to the war? If he has turned in $5 a week and his own board was worth $3 the fund would make up the other $2 and put the family in the same position as they would have been in if the boy had not gone to the front. These cases of partial dependency are rather difficult to deal with, and they are usually taken up by the local committees along some such lines as I have indicated.


George Perry Graham: How much has been collected and expended?
Mr. AMESj As nearly as we can judge at present, in round figures, there is at the disposition of our honorary treasurer about $2,700,000, and there has been expended to date about $800,000, leaving a net cash balance on hand of about $1,900,000. We have resources which we expect will produce about as much more. Consequently, the fund will probably be self-sustaining to the end of the present year, and it is now mainly a question of securing the co-operation of a few communities that have not as yet contributed, on the basis that all take part in the burden before any are asked for the second time to contribute.


Mr. OLIVER:: What is the proportion received by dependents of soldiers from the Government in the way of separation allowance, or assigned pay, and that received from the patriotic fund?


Herbert Brown Ames: In order to answer that question adequately it would be necessary to classify the soldiers' families in this way: first, families of British reservists; second, French reservists; third, Belgian reservists; then Canadian Overseas contingents, and, finally, Canadians who are called out for home service whether they volunteer to go or not. Besides these there are men in the naval service. The Government, in the case of overseas service, gives a separation allowance of $20 a month to every wife or widowed mother. We take a family and consider the question with a view to the cost of living in a particular neighbourhood. We

wo-uld consider that in Montreal a woman with three children, one twelve years of age, one eight, and one four, was entitled to $45 a month from all sources in order to maintain a decent scale of living. The Government gives $20 and the patriotic fund would give her $25. When we get to the western provinces we authorized a scale which is about 25 per cent higher because we found by accurate comparison that the cost of living in Saskatchewan and British Columbia-not so much in Alberta-was about twenty or twenty-five per cent higher than in the large cities in the east.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where do you draw the line?


Herbert Brown Ames: At Lake Superior. As a general thing, the rule we have with the local committees is this: Our committees are composed of soipe of the best men in each province, and we say to the committee: determine what you consider to be the amount necessary for a typical family to decently live upon in your province; you can do it better than we can; decide this; fix the amount at $50 or $40 or whatever you may decide upon. The Government gives Canadians $20, the Imperial Government gives Reservists about $15, the French Government about $12, and the Belgian Government gives nothing at all. We make up the difference in each of these cases in order that a family may be enabled to maintain a decent scale of living.


Frank Oliver: As it appears to me the responsibility of caring for the dependents of men who are serving the country in a military way at the present time rests primarily upon the State and private efforts should not be called upon to more than supplement the provision made by the State. Does the State at the present time undertake the major provision for the dependents of soldiers, or has the major provision to be made up by subscriptions of citizens5 I think it is entirely desirable from every point of view that it should be distinctly understood on all hands that the obligation of maintenance of soldiers' dependents is an obligation Of the state, and that private generosity should not be drawn upon except to a supplementary extent and for supplementary purposes.


Robert Laird Borden: The separation
allowance established in this country was fixed by reference to that of the United Kingdom, but it was made somewhat larger here than in the United Kingdom by reason
of the fact that the conditions here as compared with those in the old country would justify it. In addition to that, the soldiers in some cases assign a portion of their pay. If I remember correctly, an Order in Council was subsequently passed to deal with cases in which pay was not assigned, providing that a certain proportion of the pay should be appropriated for the support of the soldier's dependents in cases of the character to which my hon. friend has referred.
I shall be glad later on to lay a copy of the Order in Council on the table. It was passed purely for the reason that in a proportion of cases, I think not a large proportion, no portion of the pay was being assigned, and therefore the depend nts were left to be taken care of by the separation allowances, supplemented by the Canadian patriotic fund. It was felt that as the great majority of the soldiers did assign a portion of their pay, and as that seemed the proper course to pursue, an order should be made in regard to it, and an order was so made.


Frank Oliver: Was the order made to
divert a portion of the soldier's pay to his family?	-


Robert Laird Borden: It was made so that a portion of the soldier's pay could be appropriated for the support of his family during his absence.


Frank Oliver: I have no desire to delay the committee, nor have I any desire to press unduly for information that I am quite aware it would be difficult to get; but this is a far-reaching matter, and I think that here and now is as good a place as any to get a fairly good general understanding as to what are to be considered the obligations of the state and the obligations of private citizens. I do not wish to criticise the Government or the gentlemen who are interested in the patriotic fund to any degree, but I take this opportunity of stating that within the range of my knowledge, and according to my judgment, the conditions of life from which our soldiers have enlisted differ materially from the conditions of life from which were enlisted the soldiers of the United Kingdom, to whose case the separation allowance which was used as the basis of calculation in fixing our separation allowance applied. I do not think that the fact that the present separation allowance was considered a proper allowance in the United Kingdom, under the circumstances existing before this war occurred, was a sufficient ground for believing that a certain percentage of advance

upon that allowance was a proper allowance in Canada when and where the extraordinary circumstances surrounding this war were taking place. The proof that the view I express is correct, is, that the British Government has found it necessary to recognize the new conditions surrounding enlistment in the army for the present war, and have seen fit-and no doubt not without the greatest necessity for it-to revise their provisions in regard to separation allowance. We could not tell beforehand- I do not expect even this Government to know everything in advance-but the war has been in progress for six months; we have had the separation allowance in operation, we have had the assignment of men's pay, we have had the patriotic fund raised generously throughout the country and administered I am sure with the very best of intentions, and I have no doubt capably administered, so that to-day we must know a great deal more about this matter of taking care of the dependents of those who are fighting our battles than we did in August last. While I quite readily accept the amendments to the Bill which we are now considering, I still think that there is necessary a very considerable revision of the provisions which have been made for the maintenance of the dependents of soldiers who are now serving their country, or who may be hereafter expected to serve their country. While I am quite aware that this legislation is not legislation providing for separation allowances from the treasury, I think this is a proper time to put on record the views I hold, and hold very strongly, that time having elapsed, and conditions having become known, it is in order that there should be a readjustment of the statutory arrangements for the maintenance of dependents of soldiers in the service of their country, that would render the efforts of the patriotic fund and those who are interested in it a supplementary source and not, as they appear to me at the present time to be, the principal source of support of the dependents of the soldiers who are at the front. I wish to say, as strongly as I can, that the support of these dependents is the duty of the state, and that the interests of the state require that that duty shall be discharged freely and generously, with, of course, good judgment and care. I hope that there will be legislation both in regard to separation allowances and maintenance of dependents, and that it will be based on conditions as they exist in this country, and as they have been found to exist in the operation of our laws in this matter up to 
the present time, rather than upon the legislation and regulations prevailing in the United Kingdom which were based on a totally different condition of affairs.


Herbert Brown Ames: It appears to me that the
Government has acted very generously in the matter of separation allowances. As I understand the Government is to-day paying 20,000 separation allowances, while the Canadian patriotic fund is carrying between 10,000 and 11,000 families, so that about half of the dependent families of the soldiers are not coming to the patriotic fund at all. That would go to prove that the Government, in making the basic appropriation of $20 applicable everywhere, was covering pretty nearly half of the cases. To overpay that half would be as bad as to underpay the other half. The Government, moreover, has no flexibility. It would have to pay $20 to a soldier's wife just the same, whether she lived in a rich rural community in the East where the cost of living .was low, or in the Yukon or in a mining district in British Columbia where the cost of living was very high. The Government can not discriminate and say that for this area the separation allowance shall be $20, for that area $25, for that $30, and so on. The patriotic fund comes on afterwards and acts with a great deal of flexibility, on the best local advice that can be secured. It takes each family by itself and asks the simple question: Considering that the family gets $20 from the Government, how much more is needed to bring your family up to a decent scale of existence? One wife may have no family, and $10 added to the $20 separation allowance may be all that she requires. Another wife may have ten children, and the patriotic fund takes into consideration the fact that this woman needs a great deal more to support her than the first, although the Government gives both the same separation allowance. The Government has acted very wisely in giving a basic $20 to each dependent family whether it needs it or not, and the patriotic fund follows only in cases where further assistance is required.
You have only to read the casualty lists to see how many of our soldiers have their next of kin in the old country. For those families probably $20 is enough, and we do not send any money to England from the patriotic fund, because it is apparently not necessary to do so. The few cases of hardship that we hear of in England are pro-

vided for by reciprocal arrangement with the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Association. We care for the wives and dependents of old country reservists here, and that Association cares for our soldiers' wives and dependents in the old country in cases where $20 is not quite sufficient.
This combination of Government effort and local philanthropy works extremely well. It has been a great blessing to many people in Canada to have an opportunity to contribute to the patriotic fund. It has done many people a world of good, because many a one who could not fight wanted to have an opportunity of helping in some way. Many a man, who is saving from month to month and making a monthly contribution, has the satisfaction of knowing that, while he does not go to the front himself, he is providing for the wife and family of some other fellow who has joined.
Mr. W.H. BENNETT: This discussion will perhaps clear the air a little in the province of Ontario. The Toronto evening papers, which as a rule are very widely
4	p.m. read bf the working classes, have been filled with letters in regard to what is being paid in the way of separation allowances. I regret that a great many of these letters have been anonymous, but I am sure a full statement has not yet been placed before the people of this country as to how the different funds stand.
According to my information, the amounts payable to-day to officers and privates are as follows. A major is paid $150 a month as pay, and receives in addition a separation allowance of $60, making a total of $210 a month. A captain is paid $105 a month, plus a separation allowance of $20 a month. A lieutenant is paid $75 a month with a separation allowance of $40 a month. A private draws about $35 a month, with a separation allowance of $20 a month. If these men hand over all their Wages to their families, it means that the family of a major receives $210 a month, the family of a captain $155 a month, the family of a lieutenant $150, and the family of the man behind the gun $55. In my town, and in many other towns, tho admirers of the man behind the gun consider it unfair that the wife of a major should be drawing $210 a month foT pay and separation allowance, while the family of the poor private gets only a total of $55. I would ask the bon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) wiiat proportion of this fund so far has gone to the families of officers, and what amount
approximately to the families of privates, and also, if the statement is correct-because I have seen it so stated in the newspapers- that in any town where no contribution has been made to the patriotic fund, any person being the relative either of a private or of an officer who makes application to the patriotic fund is told: As your town has not contributed to this patriotic fund, you are stopped from participation in it. If such is the case, it is unfair, in view of the fact that the Government has paid a considerable amount towards this fund.


Herbert Brown Ames: It has paid nothing.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: I understood there was a vote last session, but I am in error as to that. The wife and family of the private should get more money from the separation allowance, because his pay is so small as compared with the pay of an officer.


Mr. NESBITT:: Was the hon. gentleman right in stating that the Government had paid something towards the patriotic fund?


William Humphrey Bennett: I was in error as to
that. I thought that it had contributed $1,000,000 last session.


Herbert Brown Ames: The Government has contributed nothing whatever to the patriotic fund. Many municipalities and towns have been extremely generous, and so have individuals.
I do not think we have on our list a single case of a major or any one of higher rank than a major receiving assistance from the patriotic fund. A case might arise_of some sudden call being made on the wife of a major, in his absence, for an insurance premium or something of that 'Sort. In such a case the patriotic fund might make a special grant. Generally speaking, we have assisted very few officers. Some captains' and lieutenants' families have been assisted; but every case in which an officer's family has been assisted has been made the subject of inquiry by a special committee at Ottawa. It has been said that, if persons write from a community that has given no subscription to the patriotic fund, they are likely to get a reply to the effect that the fund refuses to assist them. That is putting the matter rather baldly, but there is a germ of truth in it. Where a community, like the county of Simcoe, for example, has through its county council set -apart a vote of $25,000 for the patriotic fund, $4,000 of which has been distributed and $21,000 of which is not being distributed as yet in any way, if that community writes asking us to

take eare of some of its cases, we are very liable to reply: " Take care of your own." Wherever it has been impossible to create a local organization-and there are two towns in Canada, so far, that have absolutely refused to do anything for their people-we have selected a leading patriotic citizen in the town and asked him to administer our fund, and we send him each week all that is needed for the soldiers' wives there, even though these towns have never given a dollar and never will.


William Humphrey Bennett: I forgot, while on my feet, to make a statement regarding my own town. Before this patriotic fund was launched and circulars sent out, an appeal was made-as I recollect it-for the Hospital Ship Fund. In my own town that was resoonded to very liberally-I think nearly $1,000 was subscribed. Then came the Belgian fund, and I think that upwards of $700 was subscribed for that; so the town was not doing badly. When the further appeal was made for the patriotic fund, in view of the fact which was well-known, that the officers and soldiers were going along the line of the figures I have given and they, the soldiers, had, in the main, given their pay to their families, it was thought it would be difficult to launch a third contribution for the patriotic fund. For that reason the town of Midland did not make any grant to the patriotic fund. As to the grant of the County Council of Simcoe, I have not the details of that grant before me, but I understand that' it was apportioned so much to the patriotic fund, so much to the Belgian relief fund and so much for these other funds, all of which have in view the laudable purpose of assisting those engaged and who have suffered in the war.
Mr. MARCIL; Could the hon. member for St. Antoine give us the figures by provinces?


Herbert Brown Ames: I could not give that exactly up to date. But up to the 1st of February, the cash actually received here amounted to about $1,035,000 for Quebec, $1,010,000 for Ontario, and contributions from the other provinces the amounts of which I do not recollect, making a total of about $2,500,000. Since then we have been in receipt of very large subscriptions from many places in Ontario, and to-day Ontario has probably subscribed $1,250,000 and Quebec about the same.


Mr. MARCIL:: There is a very laudable
emulation between the two provinces in this matter.


Herbert Brown Ames: There is.


Charles Marcil: Could the hon. gentleman also give us the amounts subscribed to the other funds by Quebec and the other provinces?	*


Mr. MACDONALD:: I see in the press at various times statements as to aid being refused from the patriotic fund to wives of men who have gone to the front if the marriage took place after enlistment and after a certain date. I would like to know if there has been any such refusal, and what the position of the fund is in regard to a soldier who has married, no matter what date.


Herbert Brown Ames: The fund has followed exactly the path blazed by the Government in that respect. The Government gave notice, about the middle of January, that after the 28th of January, it would not recognize marriages which took place after enlistment, except in special cases certified to as having taken place with the consent of the colonel commanding. We recognize the family as the Government recognizes it for separation allowance.


William John Macdonald: Looking at the statute passed in August last, 1 do not find in section 3 any power to discriminate in the matter :
The object of the fund is to assist in case of need the wives, children and dependent relatives of officers and men who may be in active service.
I very much doubt the wisdom of the patriotic fund declining to assist a woman who may become the wife of a soldier at any time previous to his leaving this country and going abroad. I can see that, from a military standpoint, it may be necessary to make regulations with regard to the marriage of soldiers, as to the consent of the colonel or officers of the regiment. But the idea of the patriotic fund is to assist cases of actual need, and one can readily imagine conditions under which any soldier's wife would oe justified in coming forward for assistance and in expecting that assistance from the patriotic fund.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as the general rule is concerned, my hon. friend doubtless knows that in the British army a certain number of men in each regiment are allowed to marry, and those who marry with the consent of the commanding officer-


William John Macdonald: Marry "on the
strength of the regiment."


Robert Laird Borden: For those that marry on the strength of the regiment provision is made for the support of their family. But a man who marries without leave is said to marry not on the strength of the regiment, and no provision is made for the support of his wife and family. I know that in garrison towns distressing conditions often arise because women have married soldiers and no provision is made for them under the regulations. I should be glad to lay on the table the Order in Council to which my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) has alluded. I appreciate the force of what my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has said, and I hope he will also appreciate the consideration that there has been some apprehension that marriages might be rather hurriedly contracted, especially abroad, and a soldier might occasionally be made a victim in an undesirable way. Some intimation of that was given to the Government, and the Order in Council was passed, I think, by reason of the desire to protect and assist the soldier by some such regulation.


William John Macdonald: I apprehend that
what my right hon. friend says is that the Order in Council provides for aid being given to the wife where the marriage took place with the consent of the commanding officer.


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot remember the exact terms. It was brought to us on the recommendation of the officers of the department, by whom it had been considered very carefully. We also gave it very careful consideration. If I remember it well, it amounted to this, that up to the time the Order in Council was passed all marriages that had been contracted were to be recognized and the families provided for. But after that date there were certain restrictions which we thought reasonable and in the interest of the soldier himself. However, I will bring down the Order in Council, that its exact terms may be brought to the attention of every hon. member of the House.


Mr. KYTE:: Will the hon. member for St. Antoine be good enough to explain what course an application for separation allowance has to take? The municipalities of Nova Scotia were asked to forward their contributions to the treasurer of the fund at Halifax, who is the general manager of one of the banks. Applications have been made to the local committee in the town in
which I live. After such an application has been passed upon, is it proper to send it to Halifax, or should it be sent to the central committee of the fund at Ottawa?


Herbert Brown Ames: So far as Nova Scotia is concerned, we have a provincial organization which has a branch in every one of the eighteen counties. Moneys raised in Nova Scotia are all placed in the bank at Halifax, where they are under the control of the Hon. W. T. White, our treasurer. Halifax once a month makes an estimate of the amount required by the eighteen branches. That is released for distribution, and is sent in bulk sums to the eighteen counties. It is then distributed by the local relief committee, and at the end of the month each local relief committee is expected to give a detailed statement on forms furnished by us. These returns are checked by our accountant and if they are correct then an advance is made for the next month and we again receive a detailed statement.


George William Kyte: Have the contributions to
the fund made in Nova Scotia been forwarded to Ottawa?


Herbert Brown Ames: No, $50,000 is now at Halifax under the control of Mr. White, and it may be either left there or brought here, whichever he wishes to do. We usually leave them a working balance and send each month what they need for any one province. The underlying principle of the patriotic fund is for every community to make a general subscription and to put it all in the common fund. After that every community has a right to draw on the fund so long as there is a dollar there in proportion to their needs. We do not feel that the ability of communities to give in money or in men is always the same. One community may be able to send a large number of men but may not be able to contribute largely to the fund. We do not feel that a community which contributes $5,000 to the fund and draws $10,000 from it is in the slightest degree inferior to a community that gives $10,000 to the fund and draws $5,000.


Mr. WILCOX:: What arrangement is made as to assistance to wives and families of soldiers when they live in the United States? I think about nine hundred have enlisted from Windsor of whom some two or three hundred come from the United States and their families reside in the United States. They are British subjects and I would like to know if the families of those who reside in the United States are receiving that assistance,' and if so, by what means the assistance is contributed.
40C


Herbert Brown Ames: There are funds similar to
ours in Great Britain, in Newfoundland and in the United States and we have a reciprocity of exchange between them. For example, we look after all the wives of British reservists here in Canada and the British Association looks after the wives of Canadian volunteers who have been leifjt in their country. We have a similar arrangement in the United States. The Canadian Society of New York has collected a considerable sum of money in the United States and so likewise has the British Imperial Relief Fund of New England in Boston, where I imderstand our Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) speaks tomorrow night for the benefit of that fund. These organizations take care of all families left in the United States of men who enlist in our Canadian forces and besides that they have, in some cases sent us of their surplus funds as well. So the people referred to in Detroit can be all cared for through the American corresponding agency with which we deal.


Mr. TURRIFF:: Has the separation
allowance been paid to the families of men who did not go with the first contingent? I have heard it repeated on several occasions that a number of men who joined the service when the first contingent was raised, expecting to go to the front, did not pass the final medical examination and were therefore not sent; but in the meantime the names of their wives or families had been handed in for the separation allowance and in a number of cases the separation allowance has been paid. The report I heard was that after the first contingent lelt, for a considerable time, there was no complete list of those who had gone. Matters a'-e being cleared up here in connection with the patriotic fund and I think it well, if that has not taken place, that a statement to that effect should be made.


Robert Laird Borden: I could not tell my hon. friend at the moment whether any eases of that kind have occurred. Of course if the money was paid under such circumstances it would be through inadvertence and in the belief that the men had gone to the front. I heard some rumour of it myself but was not able to verify it. I shall be very glad to make inquiry and let my hon. friend know later whetner any such instance had actually occurred.


Frank Oliver: I wish to make a further remark in reply to my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames). I hold that the respons-
[Mr. Wilcox !
ibility for the maintenance of dependents of soldiers on service is a responsibility of 'the State and should be discharged by the State. My hon. friend says that the Government cannot grade its aid according to conditions and circumstances as can the committee of the patriotic fund. I think my hon. friend is placing a limitation upon the Government which I would not like to place on it. I do not know why a committee of the Government cannot use at least as good judgment with such a fund as this as a committee organized under the terms of this statute. The main point that I want to bring to the attention of the House is that the very fact that these allowances from the patriotic fund are raised or lowered, are given or withheld, according to the judgment of private individuals, puts the fact of the receipt of aid from the patriotic fund on a different basis from an allowance from the State. I do not intend to suggest that it is the intention of the Government to continue to deal with the matter in that way, but if the Government should take such a stand; which is virtually equivalent to saying that the dependents of those who have sacrificed themselves and their prospects for the benefit of the country shall be left as dependents on charity, they are certainly not doing credit to either themselves or the country. The conditions of enlistment for this war are different from the conditions of enlistment under ordinary occasions in military service. We have need to-day of every man who can give his services, whatever rank of life he may be in, We are looking for the best and are not content with anything but the best.


Oliver James Wilcox: The county council of the county of Essex appropriated $20,000 for this fund. In what way would that constitute charity more than if it had been given by the Government of Canada, to be applied absolutely to the same use?


Frank Oliver: That is not the point in question. If the County Council of Essex raises $40,000 by taxation, to be applied to the support of soldiers' dependents in that or any other county, it is exactly the same as if the money had been raised by this Government or by a provincial government. But the intent of the patriotic fund is that it shall represent private contributions. I agree with everything my hon. friend has said as to the desirability of there being such a fund, which confers not only a benefit on soldiers' dependents, but affords to

those who are neither soldiers nor dependents the privilege of contributing to the fund for the good of their own souls. But the point is that when that fund comes to be the larger part of the support of the dependents, they are then in the position of being receivers of charity rather than in the position" of receiving payment of a debt which the country owes to them. I want to see the dependents of the soldiers who have gone to the front receive on the responsibility of the state to whom they are giving their services whatever consideration they are entitled to, according to the circumstances of the country and their own circumstances. If over and above that, private individuals or organizations see fit to come forward and supplement what has been done, well and good; it is entirely to their credit to do so. But I still say that the obligation of taking care of dependents of soldiers at the front rests primarily on the state, and that that duty should be discharged by the state as a sacred obligation and, with reasonable limitations, discharged to the full. I have seen it stated in the papers that in some parts of Canada recruiting for our contingents is not as rapid as is desirable. No one need go far to believe that one of the reasons for that is the fact that the dependents of men who have enlisted are not being provided for by the state as an obligation, but are dependent upon the good will and good offices of Mr. Smith or Mr. Jones or Mr. Robertson who holds the position of distributor of the patriotic fund. They do not like that, and we cannot expect them to. We are not enlisting ordinary soldiers for ordinary military service. We are facing a most extraordinary condition, and we must face it accordingly. It is not a time to quibble or to count cents. It is a time when we who ask our fellow citizens to take the risks or make the sacrifices of military service should take upon ourselves the responsibility of saying: The state is behind you, for you are doing the service of the state.


Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston):: Coming as I do from a riding that has been liberal in its contribution of men for this cause, and not illiberal in its contribution of money towards the patriotic fund, I regret exceedingly that the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has let it go to the country through this House that those who are receiving advantage from the patriotic fund are the recipients of charity. If it is charity that the dependents of the men at 26
the front are receiving from the Canadian patriotic fund, it follows inevitably that [DOT] it is given not as a bounty, but as a dole to those who are poor and needy. If I catch the meaning of the patriotic fund at al1, it is this: the movers behind the scheme recognized that the state owed to the dependents at home an adequate remuneration in the ordinary conditions of life, but that upon those who were able 'to give and were not able to go there devolved the duty of supplementing this amount in the extraordinary and unusual case. I therefore say that the money that is going to the dependents of our soldiers is not going as a charity. It is going as philanthropy; it may be going as a benevolence; but it is going as the grateful gift of the people of the community, who feel that those who have gone to the front have given much in the cause of the community and of the Empire, and that those who have means and stay at home should contribute to this national fund. In the riding I have the honour to represent, the patriotic fund has never been regarded as a charity. When we made solicitation of the people of Kingston, it was clearly put before them that it was their duty to give, and that we wanted the fund to be the spontaneous gift of a grateful people. And in that city of some twenty thousand people, $50,000, or $2.50 a head, was raised for this fund. As the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) has said, through its elasticity the fund has relieved very much distress. It has a tremendous advantage in that what is being done is not done as the hon. member for Edmonton says, through the good offices of the local organizations, but through a body which acts judicially and in such a way that the needs and requirements of those who receive are not known to the general public. Through the elasticity of the compassionate allowance much has been done to relieve the distress of delicate women and delicate children. Speaking for my own community-if I may be permitted to speak for them, and possibly I should speak for them alone, as my experience in connection with the fund is practi- ' cally confined to Kingston-I may say that the patriotic fund has been a God-send to numbers of people who have been relieved in a most trying time and in such a way that only a few knew their need, and those of us who gave to the fund had the tremendous satisfaction of feeling that we were doing something in the cause of the community and of the Empire.

4M2


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: I feel that there is a good deal of common sense and sound reasoning in the argument of my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). There is undoubtedly a good deal of dissatisfaction in the country over the distribution of the Canadian patriotic fund. There is a feeling that it is being done by favour, and that those counties which have contributed most generously towards it are securing the best treatment. Some other hon. member has mentioned that help from the fund for the dependents of any man on foreign service, depends entirely on whether his county has sufficiently responded. I might also give a case in point. Some time ago I wrote the secretary of the patriotic fund regarding the case of three English reservists who had enlisted from my riding. They had lived in the county only a short time and were practically unknown there, although they had been in Canada for a considerable period. They left an aged father and mother entirely dependent upon the community. The community did its best for them, and I think has supported them up to the present. I felt that if this fund was to be of any use to the people entitled to be relieved by it, this aged couple had a perfectly good claim against it. I wrote to the secretary of the patriotic fund, and the answer 1 received was that the district of Parry Sound as a whole had not contributed to the fund, and that it was up to me to get busy. The district which I have the honour to represent has contributed, not necessarily to this fund, but to almost every movement along this line and very generously. It has also a fund of its own raised in the district for those members of the regiment who have gone from there, numbering from 150 to 200 men. This fund has been raised locally, and it is kept in case of need for the dependants of those who have gone to the front. It has not, as far as I know, been transferred to the patriotic fund; but be that as it may, the point I raise is that people such as I have instanced, especially English reservists, have gone, leaving families totally without means, and these people ought to receive that money from the patriotic fund, which is due to them regardless entirely of the question whether this or that municipality or district has contributed anything towards this fund.


Herbert Brown Ames: I want to record my protest against the use of the word "charity." There is absolutely no charity in the patriotic fund from start to finish. When we hear of a branch that is trying to run

it as a charitable organization, we ask them not to do so. Every man throughout this country has two choices-either to fight or to pay. If a man fights, we say to him: "Go, God bless you, and may you return safely." If he does not fight, we say: "Pay; make it possible for some one else to go and fight in your place." The man who goes to the front leaving a wife and child behind him, goes because he has confidence that the people of Canada will care for his wife and child while he is gone. He does not bring home the pay envelope on Saturday night, but it comes all the same, because it is filled with the money that other people are ready and willing to put into that envelope, seeing that that man is fighting the battle for the other man who ought to fight. Every man will not be able to go to the front, but he should be quite satisfied to contribute to the burden of those who do. In the American Civil War it was customary for men to buy other men to take their places in the fighting line. I know a man who bought two other pien to go to the front for him, and paid each man $500 for that purpose. We call for recruits, and when a recruit presents himself, we say: "Do not be anxious about your wife and children; they will be well cared for while you are gone." The Government makes a flat rate allowance, so to speak, for every family and dependent such as I have mentioned. The Government, as a rule, gives the larger part of the amount that the family receive. The average supplementary assistance from the patriotic fund generally runs about $18 per family, taking it for the older parts of the country, and a little more in the northwest provinces. A great many families get only $10 or $15, and some get $20 per month.


Robert Laird Borden: You are speaking of the patriotic fund?


Herbert Brown Ames: I am speaking of the patriotic fund. What brings up the average is the fact that we have to give larger assistance to the French and Belgium reservists, who get very little from their own Governments. Wherever we can bring any influence to bear upon those in charge of private patriotic funds, we tell them to eliminate everything that may give this work an appearance of charity in dealing with the people. We say: "Tell them that they are getting their 'dividend cheques,' if you like; send the cheques out from the head office; do not make it necessary for the woman ever to come to the head office, except the first time; see that she gets her cheque every month, or oftener because it is just as

much due to her as is the separation allowance cheque which the Government sends." Contented soldiers' wives distributed throughout Canada, living comfortably on what the Government gives and what the patriotic fund adds thereto constitute the best recruiting agencies we can have in Canada to-day. When it becomes necessary to appeal to the people for the third, the fourth and the fifth contingents, the fact that these women have been comfortable all winter and have learned to feel that they can trust the people of Canada to look after them, is going to help to get the remaining men that we so much need.
I want to say one more word and it is for the benefit of my hon) friend from Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs). It has always been our endeavour to organize committees either in towns or counties, and there are very few counties throughout Canada to-day which have not been thoroughly organized. Parry Sound is one of the few backward counties. The great province of Saskatchewan has 310 branches and so well organized is it that I understand there are but six municipal corporations in the whole province which are not connected with the fund in some way. If they can organize Saskatchewan they can organize Parry Sound. If the people of Parry Sound would create a local organization or would apply to become a branch of the Canadian patriotic fund, even if they only contributed $10 and drew $10,000, we would give them that $10,000 if we felt that $10 was all they could raise, provided we had a medium of distribution that could be recognized and controlled. We could not deal with any organization whose accounts we could not check, because we could not become responsible for them. If Parry Sound will become a branch of the Canadian patriotic fund, the matter of how much money they may send in is of minor importance. Let them send us what they can. The moment they become a branch of the Canadian patriotic fund, we will try to see that they get all the money they, need, but until they do so, and while they take the position that they are going to look after their own people, I do not think we can interfere. The office here does not send out cheques to individual families. It is a clearing house, an organizing force that deals with the branches, and through these branches with the local situation. It stands behind them all, makes up the deficiency whatever it may be, and it is glad and willing to make up that deficiency and to endeavour to carry the gospel of giving into 26i
places that have not yet been covered. We are the central organizing clearing 'house here at Ottawa. We do not pay families, we do not determine how much families should get, we do not send out cheques to Smith, Brown and Robinson in Parry Sound, but we expect the people of Parry Sound to form a local organization there, and if they want $100 or $500 or $5,000 .to care for cases in that county, they will get it.


Frank Oliver: We have heard enough to date to substantiate the view I hold that this is a question that is not only of national but of Imperial significance; and yet my hon. friend stands up in his place and dictates as to the terms and conditions upon which dependents of men who are serving the country and the Empire shall receive assistance from this legislatively authorized fund. We have a Government in Canada whose business it is to look after these things, to stand in the place of the people of Canada in dealing with the interests of Canada, and it certainly grates on my ear to hear any private individual, ' or any member of Parliament, even the hon. member for St. Antoine, say whether or not dependents of people who have gladly given their services to the country shall or shall not receive aid from this fund. We have been told that in Parry Sound they must look after their own people because they have not formed some organization. In Midland they must do the same because they have not made some subscription. This is not a question of whether they have formed some organization or given a subscription; it is a question of whether the men are serving the country and the Empire. But that is not the question with my hon. friend. It is whether they have gone through some sort of procedure that will be satisfactory to him, and if they satisfy him as to that they may come under the rule.


Herbert Brown Ames: If a case should be reported in an outlying district of Parry Sound away from Ottawa, how could you tell whether that case was genuine and entitled to receive consideration unless we got assistance from the local authorities?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend can answer his own question. My point is that a man who is rendering _ service to the State is entitled to the consideration and compensation of the State for that service and that neither he nor his dependents should be dependent upon my hon. friend or upon any other private individual.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: Perhaps the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) is scarcely just to the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames). I think he overlooks the fact that the patriotic fund ivas established by an Act in the War session and that practically speaking the patriotic fund and the work done under the patriotic fund, being an Act of this Parliament, is an Act of the State. I venture to say that to my hon. friend in all good nature. I have a feeling that the House is indebted to my hon. friend from St. Antoine for his explanation of what has been done, and I think the country is indebted to him for what we know to be the very painstaking effort he is bringing to hear upon making the patriotic fund a success, in so far as he can do it in his position as secretary, which I presume has been given to him under the Act of Parliament passed at the War session. I say this in a spirit of fairness and as expressing what I really feel is due to my hon. friend in this matter. Unfortunately, imperfection is a mark of humanity, and it would be difficult to invent any machinery which would work with absolute precision. So far from detecting anything dictatorial in what my hon. friend has said, I feel personally indebted to him, ' and I am very pleased to express my opinion.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
- THE BUDGET.


PROPOSED WAR TAXATION.
[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Hon. W. T. White, (Minister of Finance) for Committee of Ways and Means, resumed from February 23..
Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough) :: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to follow the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) in this debate. Before beginning my remarks in reply to him, I should like to pay the Minister of Finance the best compliment I can, in view of his magnificent handling of his great historic Budget in a masterly, comprehensive,' and entirely satisfactory manner. It is true, it is possible to find fault; it is indeed only too easy to find fault anywhere. I have been rather surprised therefore by the remarks, although I enjoyed the speech as a whole, of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), because he has expressed the policy largely of dissatisfaction at large, and in crystallizing his views he has laid down what may be called two main principles of dissatisfaction, to one of which I shall pro-
[Mr, Oliver |
ceed to refer. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) said:
But it is surely elementary, if our revenues are declining and if there is no other prospect than that they will continue to decline for an indefinite period, that it is the part of wisdom
to introduce measures of economy of a substantial nature.
That meaijs, if it means anything, that instead of spending money during this trying time to enable the people of this country to earn their daily bread on public works, when they cannot earn it on private works, he would prefer to see them tramping the streets in unemployment. I know perfectly well that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) does not mean that, but that is what he has said, and it shows how dangerous it is-if I may be permitted to judge so eminent a man as the hon. member for Edmonton-simply to oppose because you are in opposition. It would be far better for him, and better also for the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) to have taken the Minister of Finance and the rest of the Government party into their confidence, and told them how to construct this Budget, and wherein they are in error, and then supply details of reconstruction. They have done nothing of the sort; they have simply found fault. As I have said, it is easy to find fault-look at the weather; if they want scope for their feelings, let them turn their invective on the weather. Look also, if you will, at the universe-we find a lot of serious things happening, such as the earthquakes in Italy, for which we are in no way responsible. If these gentlemen want simply to find fault why not find fault there. It is very possible to find fault in such case, because it would seem according to the natural forces which work themselves out under Divine guidance, but these are things that pass our understanding, and if we cannot do better the least we should do is to keep quiet.
I would like also to pay a little attention to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean). He made a tremendous deliverance in its way, but it was fired almost altogether in the wrong direction; but he was not firing at the enemy, he was shooting up in the air. The question was asked by Mr. Wilcox:
Does my hon. friend think there ought to be a duty on tea?
Mr. Maclean: I do not think there ought to be any special duty or stamp tax on anything.
Immediately afterwards Mr. Maclean goes on to say:
Now, what should* be the main features of a war revenue tax? It should be made as much

as possible on articles relatively cheap and of universal consumption.
Do I understand that tea is not of universal consumption? Perhaps the hon. gentleman refers to water. In any event, he has not made himself clear, nor has he taken us into his confidence and provided us with the details of a better Budget. Mr. Middlebro asked, very pertinently, I thought:
Will the hon. gentleman give us his method of raising the taxation, which will measure up to the test which he has just suggested?
Mr. Gauvreau sprang into the breach and said:
It is your duty to give it to us.
That is his idea of fulfilling his duty as a member of Parliament. If you cannot make any capital for your party, try to throw the other side into confusion; but do not remember that you were sent here by a grateful country to do the best you can for it. Raise a row; make a disturbance; split the whole affair up, and then when asked for an opinion say: Oh, you go on and give it; I do not know anything about it at all. That is the purpose which the hon. member served in making that statement. Mr. Maclean, however, said:
My contention is that there is no necessity for any tariff increases. Surely the hon. gentleman must admit that, if the Government which he supports had administered properly the financial affairs of this country, we would not have had a $60,000,000 deficit this year, and there would not have been an estimated deficit of $80,000,000 for next year.
Mr. Middlebro:	The same would apply to
every country in Europe.
Mr. Maclean: Some time, when I have nothing else to do, and the hon. gentleman wants to know how I would arrange a tariff that would yield additional revenue under the circumstances prevailing to-day, I might do so, but I am not inclined to do so at the present moment.
Nor did he at any other time. Surely that is a fair question. We are living under conditions which the hon. member helped to create; and yet when he is fairly asked how he would construct a Budget or a war tariff under these circumstances, at the very moment of his criticism he absolutely declines to give us any consolation whatever, and takes his seat amidst the general confusion which he-has created.
To my mind the most important reference in the Budget was to unemployment. Wars may come and wars may go, but the great war against unemployment continues with us at all times; it is perennial. I am not referring, of course, to shiftlessness or incapacity, to insanity or any other weakness of that nature. I am referring to economic unemployment; and I maintain that it is the great break-down of modern civilization, to which it is our duty, as indicated by the Minister of Finance in his Budget, to turn our im meal ate attention and to let it be no longer a reproach to our twentieth century civilization.
In the thirteenth century the people were in the midst of no such economic difficulties. Every man was his own manufacturer, his own farmer and his own consumer. He lived upon the land; he worked it; he was beholden to no man. He contributed, even though he were a serf, a slave, to the general fund of the little settlement or to the lord of the manor, but he had his indefeasible rights. He paid no rent and he owed no tax further than that to any man. There was never any unemployment.
5	p.m. When he wanted wood, he went out and gathered it. When he wanted food, he went out and raised it. If he, by good fortune, had cattle, he had plenty of meat, milk and cheese. During his spare hours he did a little work perhaps as a smith. He was occasionally a carpenter or a stonemason or something of that sort. Every one was free to do as he liked. The consequence was that, except for those people who were perhaps shiftless-and they were very few-there was no economic unemployment. But later on there arose a different condition. People became divorced from the land by reason largely of the great plague of 1347, when nearly half of the people of Great Britain died. The consequence was that labourers were few. The harvest was naturally still great and the labourers chose to assess the value of their services at a higher rate, and the famous statute of labourers preventing them from doing any such thing was brought in by an alleged parliament of landlords and monopolists. This scattered the labouring class throughout the country in confusion. They were no longer upon the land or off the land. They had no standing, and to this day the great class of labourers has no particular standing in the country except what it is forcing from time to time upon the Government. There was no recognition of an economic standing. Why is it that there has been so much trouble? Why is it that in the midst of plenty, in the midst of a great and rich country where there ought to be such profusion, there is so much need? The taking of profit and the desire to take profit are, in my opinion, the sole

cause of economic unemployment. What is profit? Profit is the taking of that for which we give no true equivalent. If we gave a true equivalent there would be no profit. Take the case of ' making money.' A man makes money when he takes out money that he has not put in. If he takes out only what he puts in, counting his own labour, he will be extremely dissatisfied. The mote he takes out the better pleased he is. If by putting in $5,000, a man can take out $50,000, he is considered a genius; whereas what he has done is he has robbed some one else of that money, because it is a mathematical impossibility that he can put in $5,000 and take out $50,000 without taking the difference from some one else. The alleged stimulus to modern industry has been the taking of profit. This is what the whole system of modern industry has been built upon; and the consequence of its being so large a factor in modern industry and a direct cause of economic unemployment, is that the whole modern system in regard to labour and economic unemployment is mere anarchy-and so it is.
What is the source of value? There is but one source of value-labour cost. Sometimes it is hinted that there is another- monopoly. But, of course, monopoly is not an economic source of value. If the people choose to allow monopolists to take possession of that which they did not earn, if they choose to allow these monopolists to place themselves in the position of lording it over the whole community and so exact tribute, they may. But it is unscientific, it is uneconomic, it is not sensible. Monopoly is in no sense a cause of value. Labour-cost and labour-cost alone, is the cause of value.	Labour produces"
all wealth.	Wealth includes capital,
which, of course, is wealth in the form of money and money only. Labour, the working world, as we know, can produce in two days a week of eight hours each, enough and to spare for everybody in the world. These calculations have been made by statisticians; they are no guesswork and no dream. But the people who desire to take profit know that if they are to have profit they must create profit, and to create profit it is necessary to make things dear; and they proceed to do this in the only way in which it can be done- by limiting the supply. And by limiting supply you cause economic unemployment. Is not that clear? I think it is. So, we have the taking of profits linked up with economic unemployment and shown to be its sole cause. There should be no 
anxiety in the minds of the human race for food or raiment. There is enough and to spare; there is profusion, even luxury. But we are like a man stooping down to drink at a little stream flowing from a great lake. He thinks there is plenty and to spare; but some one comes along and says: I will take possession of the lake and charge you so much a cup for the water. The moment it is sought, by monopoly, and by means of taking profit, to make others pay, the troubles begin and one man becomes practically the slave of the other.
You see, the disposition always is for profit to limit supply. If it he urged that sometimes mills shut down in order to avoid loss and not to limit supply, it may well be replied that this is true under present conditions. But if we were to begin production all over again, no capital would be employed except where it is needed, none would be employed where it would be imperilled in any way, but it would be used entirely for the purpose of production. So, shutting down to avoid loss, like shutting down to make a profit, would be eliminated.
That part of price which is unearned means a profit that is wrongly taken. I admit that it is taken; I admit that there is practically no hope of anybody giving it up. But I do say, and I say it here because this is the proper place to say it, with reference to unemployment, there is no use of discussing free trade, protection or any
o.ther abstract question unless you come to the fundamental principle and see to it that people give a fair equivalent for what they get.
The theory of Ricardo, the founder of modern political economy, was altogether an assumption that political economy depended upon the theory of rent. Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, argued that the wealth of nations would depend altogether upon freedom of trade and upon its twin monster, freedom of labour competition, which is absolutely essential to free trade and which must accompany it as its shadow must accompany any substance. Free labour competition is the basis, the source, the vital cause of distress. It has followed necessarily in the wake of free trade; and if free trade were deliberately, truly and correctly carried out, it would absolutely put the world in the power of money and make slaves of the labour market.
Thorold Rogers and men of that description gathered a priceless treasure of records from the vestries and other storehouses of records of life in England, records of the accounts and work of the people of England

for six centuries. And it was upon such records that Herbert Spencer was enabled to base his tremendous generalizations. Herbert Spencer, however, makes human progress depend upon natural evolution, which is a reversal; it takes it out of our hands altogether except as a normal outcome of our everyday proceedings. Karl Marx, the author of Capital-and I would commend the reading of that work to anybody who has not read it; it will take him three months night and day to read it; it is almost like a work on algebra; but it is worth all the trouble; Karl Marx has analysed, dissected and described every known economic phrase. But, strange to say, he has left them at that. Then, we have the French school-Fourier, Saint Simon and others-who insisted that the remedy for all this trouble is in the socialistic state and who declared that until we have the socialistic state as the owner of the machinery of production, exchange and transportation, there is no way out of the difficulty in which we find ourselves. Then come the Germans. The Germans believe in matter and force-gross modern materialism. They are the apostles of the strictly modern propaganda. Believing in matter and force, they have given an exhibition of it at the present time such as ought to satisfy anybody who likes that sort of thing.
Modern unemployment dates from the time when England invented, monopolized, and patented practically all the modern means of economic invention. Great Britain had a monopoly of this sort of thing. The consequence was that slje wanted the rest of the world to give her the means of gratifying her desire to extend her trade in these particular goods. The rest of the world was then just awakening to the necessity of modern industrialism, but had no means of gratifying it. Great Britain had the whip hand with her system of patent rights, with her knowledge of the inventions which .she herself had made. It was this monopoly that gave her that place of pre-eminence which she has so long enjoyed. She had the Corn laws. In 1846 it was decided to give up the Corn laws, and very rightly so, because the Corn laws were making labour in England expensive, and yet the landlords were getting all the benefit, while doing no good to themselves or to anybody else. So when the Corn laws were done away with food poured in from outside, food became cheap. The agricultural industry necessarily went down and out, but food became cheap, and great industrial organizations were soon in a position, as I say, to
dominate the world. Then began that era of industrial slavery when men and women worked up to seventeen hours a day, and it has taken all the time from that early date to the present to get the day's labour down to nine and ten hours. This shows what a tremendous struggle there has to be in the world on behalf of life and labour against machinery and the desire to make profit. It is a very singular thing, but it shows a philosophic antagonism on the part of many people, it shows a callousness thalt is to be greatly deplored. It will work itself out, it is working itself out in the United States by means of a financial revolution; it worked itself out in France by means of a revolution that tore the country to pieces. These things were foretold, but nobody paid any attention. Why? Because they would rather take profit than listen to the truth. No doubt they will continue so to do, but,' as I have said in reply to the hon. member for Edmonton, it is useless to lament the fact that the incidence of taxation under free trade or under protection goes here, there and everywhere, frequently not to the place's which it should go. It is useless to lament that fact because what I have referred To are the underlying causes of the whole trouble. Manufacturing and money replaced the agricultural landlord and became the new landlord of the modern era. Labour looked back to the land, and the only solution that is proposed of the whole situation at the present time is: " Back to the land! Back to where we were in the thirteenth century." It is made a joke of, people laugh about it because they are insincere about it and frequently do not understand it, but it is a far atavistic cry to something six centuries back, which tells the people instinctively what is the matter; put them back on the land and they will be free, they will be liberated once more.
You take the grandest of all professions, the medical profession, that has conferred more great benefits on mankind by far than all others put together; would there not be a mighty howl of lament and anger if the medical men patented their remedies? Medical men are supposed to make these great sacrifices, to make these great discoveries and inventions which require the profoundest knowledge of science and of the fundamental laws of chemical motion and construction, even the sacrifice of life, yet no one expects the medical profession to patent their rights, because if they did place themselves in the position of the patentee of mechanical rights, the world's last hope would be gone. Surely, if that be
40S

so with regard to the medical profession, it should be none the less so with regard to the feeding and clothing of mankind. If it be so with regard to the curing of mankind, it should be none the less so with regard to the feeding of mankind. Therefore, I say there should be no method of exacting tribute on the cost of food production or the production of clothes that goes on from day to day; it should be absolutely clear of that. People think that unless they are making profit there is nothing in the world, that nobody will do anything. Well, if that is the impelling spirit of any man, all I can say is, God help the man. If he has no more patience, no more unselfishness and no more nobility of character than to throw up his hands when he cannot make profit out of any transaction, then he is fit for Golgotha or some other place of that description, for certainly he is not fit for heaven. Protection is merely control. No one supposes for one moment that protection, which is restriction, is valuable in any other particular, except as a means of control. What is the history of free trade and protection? It is simply this: In the early days, twenty odd centuries ago, when the merchants of Tyre and Sidon, of ancient Greece, of Sicily and Alexandria and Bagdad and Damascus and the East, went about . over the then known world with their Tyrian purple or their finished products, whatever they might be, there was no necessity of discussing free trade or protection, because the people in the countries from which they came fed and clothed themselves. These men were but adventurers, excursionists who went out on .what might be called a side issue. Later on came modern inventions, came the means of making food in profusion, of making clothes in profusion, of wholesale transportation. The danger immediately arose, not that there would be a partial making of goods in one country for another, but that whole mountains of food would be transferred from one country to another, as, for example, from America to France, whole mountains of wools, whole mountains of everything of consequence, so that France would be put out of business by cheapness. The French could go to America and live and buy their food there; but French life and French civilization would disappear; the French people realized this and would not have it, and went back to protection. After 1846 it was felt that the influence of England upon France would result in France adopting free trade. France did so, but she found out, just as I have said, that the result was that her people were being stripped. Take 
China silk. The people of Cevennes used to make silk; they had the silk worms, the mulberry and everything else, and had established a great and prosperous industry. China silk began to come in under free trade, and the people had to stop making silk and fled to the towns. That is what happeed in France; and of necessity they had to stop it by protection, and they put on protection. To-day we must give our people employment. We must keep them at home and make Canada a well-balanced country; otherwise she will be ruined. You say Canadians could get things more cheaply where things are made by cheaper labour or grown more cheaply? So can anybody. But if we are to depend upon cheap labour and cheap production rather than upon the balance of life and production within the country in which we live, we shall become an effete instead of a progressive civilization, and shall soon disappear. From that it follows that this new theory of profit-sharing also is impossible. It might do for a while, but under it men put more money into their pockets than they earn, as I have pointed out. But the idea will remain I suppose, until the people are inspired with some new idea. It is not as in the old Athenian days. Did Socrates teach for gain, did Plato, did Aristotle, did even the Sophists? Not one. It is true that when the jeunesse doree wished to take advantage of their generosity it was necessary for them to adopt means of protection, and they did make a charge.
We have then, if I am right, an exchange of work for goods, for wealth, for food and clothing. Now let us see how this works out. Everything will remain as it is to-day except what? The hours. If you have two days a week with short hours you still have everybody working in the same grade, in the same class, under the same conditions as to-day. Money is still utilized in the same way, and there is no change in exchange or creation or production. There is simply a limiting of the hours of labour in order that all may work. Then all will be able to get work, and there will be still plenty of time left. This is not a Utopian scheme; it is entirely mathematical; you can work it out with a pencil and paper. It is based on economic science, and can be proved or disproved in five minutes, and I therefore ask the Finance Minister's attention to it in the further consideration of his Budget.
I will now touch upon the most extraordinary measure that was ever placed before any country: the British preference.

The British preference is a trade advantage which Canada gives to Great Britain in the Canadian market by means of the the operation of a protective tariff, and without that tariff it could not exist. That means that the Opposition in advocating a preference, British' or any other, are guilty of the wildest stretch of heresy that they could possibly indulge in, because Britain could not get a preference in our market for one minute without a protective tariff. The British prefeienee or any other sort of preference has all the evils of protection, but none of its good points. Why? Because it sends the work out of this country; it sends money out of this country when we import goods; and it leaves the tax-paying to us. That is all. It is a confession that a preference can be given to people by means of a protective tariff, and that is the whole end and aim of protection, which in Conservative hands aims to give that preference to the people at home in Canada. The adoption of the principle of protection is a confession-notwithstanding any arguments to the contrary-that by means of protection you can confer a favour upon a friend; and they propose to confer it upon the British friend. We propose to confer it upon the Canadian friend. That is the only difference. What is the British preference? It is the most un, British thing that ever was concocted-the most absolutely un-British.
There is not a man in England who is not ashamed of the British preference. If is absolutely contrary to the principles of free trade, because absolute freedom of exchange without any preference is the basis of modern British economics. If that is so, you are injuring instead of helping the cause of free trade by giving a preference. You are saying to the British people that in order to establish trade relations with them it is necessary that they should have 'some little by-way or alley, and this you christen the British preference. I do not think there is any excuse for such a thing as a preference. I would sooner see honest square free trade, for a British preference is absolutely unBritish; it is certainly un-Canadian; it is inconsistent and unreasonable. Great Britain gives Canada no preference. Why? Because it is absurd. It is against her idea of economic freedom. She would say that it would be injurious to Canada. And yet for some strange reason we plume ourselves on giving this mighty country of England a preference. We send our work and our money away, and retain the privilege of paying the taxes. If a member of the Liberal party had said that they had to
adopt the preference and not free trade because protection had placed them in an awkward box, they would have had some excuse. But for years they had nothing but a long record of surpluses, and the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) particularly refers to this. He has now turned the tables on us. He says, why do you have these great surpluses taking money out of the pockets of the people? I ask the hon. member for St. John why when he had such big surpluses, he did not adopt free trade instead of giving a British preference? But these gentlemen dared not adopt free trade. The British preference is a two-faced affiair. It is a pretended exhibition of loyalty, and it is a sop to free-traders. It is an apology for having adopted a system of protection instead of free trade. I say that in all kindness and not abusively, but it is nevertheless true and cannot be contradicted. We cannot hope to keep our people employed if on any pretence we send our work out of the country.
The next point I wish to take up is even more practical in its application. I refer to the Eastern peril. Missionaries returning from India and China say that the awakening of those countries to industrial life has been marvelous. China which for 6,000, or at least 3,000 years, has been embedded in a matrix of granite, has changed her whole system of government in practically a day, and she is now a modern republic and ready for the most advanced ideas. Capital (is now pouring in there. They lacked capital, and capital is now pouring in. It is now taking advantage of cheap oriental labour. The capitalist now is asking us to lower the tariff. He asks the Americans to lower their tariff so that he can go to China, erect enormous steel mills and other works and produce cheap goods for the markets of the United States and Canada. Do you imagine that we would be silly enough to allow him to do that? Eight hundred million people are now awaiting to be exploited. They were agriculturists, they dug away with a wooden stick or something of that kind for many years and earned a precarious livelihood. They have learned by means of the missionaries and in other ways the advantage it would be to them to take their place in the van of progress. Railways have disseminated information and established means of interchange and communication. The consequence is that with all these facilities and great natural resources the centre of gravity of modern industrial civilization will be in the Orient as sure as can be unless we keep it in

the West. That is something we cannot impress too strongly upon our people. In this connection I wish to read an article from that intellectual journal, The Globe, which has always seemed to me to be the brains of the Liberal party, with a few exceptions, of course. It says, in an editorial in its issue of January 22:
Terror of good things is one of the peculiar results of distorted economic. A Consul has * warned ' the American Republic that an underwear mill in Hong Kong sells one-half ts entire product in New Work city, that steel rails are being produced in a Chinese modern steel mill with labour that commands only thirty cents a day for ten and a half hours, that Shantung province, with a population of more than 30,000,000, is building modern railways, that in the city of Tsingchau Chinese capital is building a modern steel mill with $10,000,000 invested, and employing labour at twenty cents a day. Instead of rejoicing at the resultant prospect of getting underwear, steel rails, and other products with much less effort than formerly, the reporting Consul regards these things as portentous and even terrible.
This capacity of China to shower blessings or the world is regarded with terror because the reporting Consul has forgotten that the object of industry and commerce is to get underclothing, steel rails, and other products. He thinks the object is to throw obstacles in the way of getting these things and to make it more difficult to supply ordinary wants. The heathen Chinese may be peculiar, but he will not send one single suit or half-suit of underclothing from his gigantic factory or so much as a single knife-blade from his vast rolling mills to the United States unless the people of that republic make something more satisfactory to give him in payment.
Pray, what will they make?
He will do no Zeppelin act to ruin American industry. He will distrbute only as American industry continues able to reciprocate. The more freely he is able to distribute and the more he gives in return for what he receives the more he will lessen the difficulties that make it so hard to produce a living by work in the Republic. The Consul's theory that it is a good thing to make good things hard to get has received a rude jolt by the present belligerent obstruction of trade.
The Globe of January 27 gives further consideration to this question. It says:
The primary purpose of all economic effort, all industry, and all commerce is to obtain things to use and enjoy, not to create difficulties which prevent the accomplishing of that purpose. We must pay for goods from China with our own goods.
What would the Americans pay with, I
ask again? .
The Chinamen's object in manufacturing is not to give, but to get. They want to get our goods. This shows how delusive is the notion that imports or purchases deprive us of work.
It is only as we work that we can purchase.
That is true, and if the Chinese do the work, how are we going to purchase?

The delusion about money leaving the country comes in here, but that is another story. Lvery industral expansion in China or elsewhere is a blessing to the world at large, and especially to the industrial workers. When this is understood and acted upon we will no longer have the paradox of want through an excess of producing capacity and efficiency.
There is the whole question of f^ee trade and the problem of Oriental competition. I thought it wise to submit this to a labour body and I picked out the Peterborough labour body for the reason that the president is the president of the Liberal Association of West Peterborough, the secretary is a Liberal and several members of the executive are also Liberals. It is a large and influential body, it keeps in touch with Toronto, fairly represents the district, and is a very intelligent body as you will presently see. I submitted my course in the House of Commons on the Oriental question to them because, although some hon. members may not remember, I have spoken upon this subject on several occasions. I asked them what they thought of this whole question, and here is what they say:
Peterborough, Peb. 5, 1915. Mr. J. H. Burnham,
M.P. for West Peterborough.
Dear sir,-We, the undersigned, a committee appointed by the Trades and Labour Council of Peterborough to express to you on their behalf the stand taken by them on receipt of your letters of the 22nd and 27th January, do hereby convey to you their wholehearted support of the proposals regarding Oriental labour you are seeking to place before the House.
With the resources of the country developed by intelligent and representative administrations, there is no need for any working man in Canada to be cheap-we have no sympathy with ' Celestial ' ideals of labour.
Tours sincerely,
G. A. Hamon,
Thos. Palmer,
Hugh Robertson,
J. Arthur Sharp.
This, I think, is fairly clear and reasonable. Some little time ago when the British preference first came in, the potters of St. Johns, Que., suffered a serious reverse because they were placed at the mercy of the competition of the potters in the south of Scotland and the north of England. It was from these places in England and Scotland that most of the potters had come to St. Johns, Que. They would go back to the old country but for two things: one is that they have not money enough to go back; the other is that if they did get back they say the prospects are gloomy and they do not want to live as the potters live in Great Britain. I said to these men: " What were you in England-Tories or Liberals?" They said: " Most of us were Liberals." Not hav-

ing an a priori theory, and not being like the man in the fable of ancient Greece who, if he did not fit the bed, had to be made to fit it, they betook themselves to their common sense. They said to us: " If you will raise the protective tariff on sanitary ware in St. Johns, you will give us relief and enable us to go on with our work and live our life and have our being in this country. Here is where we want to live; we like the country, we like the people, we like the climate and we like the prospects. According to his promise not to discuss the tariff, the Minister of Finance could last year give no consideration. He is not at all presenting, as I understood him to say, the war tariff as a protective measure, although it might have that effect. And when the war tariff came forward what do they say? George Smith, as the spokesman of the sanitary ware men in St. Johns, said:
The 5 per cent we have gained should make a difference although the manufacturers are trying to belittle it. I can assure you the operatives recognize that it will help materially, and I myself think it will do so; also the 7 t per cent against the States, even if there "is not so much from these of our own class of works.
There is a concrete case. Here are men not brought up with any protectionist ideas, men brought up with free trade ideas, men confessing that formerly they had been greatly prejudiced in favour of free trade and who now say they do not want free trade; they want to stay in Canada and they want to stay here under a protective tariff, because clearly a protective tariff is good if evenly balanced-I do not for one moment say that a protective tariff which makes a country tight for the manufacturer and the farmer and leaves it wide open for labour is a beneficial protective tariff all around by any means; it is a humbug. You cannot leave it tight for certain things and open for other things and call it an even distribution; that is not an honest distribution. To invite labour from the old country or from anywhere else in here and yet keep the people locked in protection is an iniquity which no one will for a moment stand for. That would not be protection; it would be robbery.
I wish to consider for a moment another very threatening thing known as the menace. I would not have referred to it were it not for the fact that a good deal has been said about it, and I trust I am within the rules of the House in speaking of it now. I wish to confute the statement of the Opposition that there was no menace, or
that we on this side of the House did not know anything about it, and I wish to confute it by the words of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark). The hon. member for Red Deer is a practical thinker, a philosopher, the very Cobden of the Opposition, and in Hansard, 1912-13, page 1200, volume 1, he says:
X personally am rather in a position to plume myself on this naval question.
So that he offers no apology for the opinion he gives.
The fact of the matter is that this German scare has become so attenuated a thing-
-if you please.


Michael Clark: What date was that?


John Hampden Burnham: December 16, 1912.


Michael Clark: That is some years ago.


John Hampden Burnham: The hon. gentleman
said:
The fact of the matter is that this German scare has become so attenuated a thing that it only finds a resting-place in such comparatively disordered minds as we have had an example of this afternoon.
And then the hon. gentleman spoke after recess, and during recess he does not seem to have considered the matter at all in the way of correcting it, for he says.
Mr. Speaker, when the. House rose at six o'clock X had pointed out that just as in the middle of the last century the French scare passed away without there having been the smell of gunpowder between the two great nations of France and Great Britain from that time, and as the Russian scare in the seventies passed away likewise without there hav-' ing been a trigger pulled then or since; so . happily for humanity and civilization the German scare of yesterday is vanishing. I think I shall be able to offer proof from the best possible sources that a generation from now we shall be looking back upon this scare as another of the human follies and upon the historical fact that following it there was not the firing of a shot by the one or the other of these two great Christian nations.
A little further on in the same speech he says:
There is no emergency. But the extraordinary political situation we are in in Canada is this: that although there is no emergency we have a government which comes cooly forward for its only naval policy with an emergency contribution.
Thus he confessed that the Government must have thought there was an emergency, must have thought that there was a reason for action, but he could tell them there was none. How disturbing it must be to mem-

bers of the Opposition these days, responsible and irresponsible, to think that they told us there was no menace and that we did not know anything about it, and that we did not know what we were doing, and that we were just as much in the dark as they.


Michael Clark: May I ask a question?


John Hampden Burnham: Yes.


Michael Clark: May I say that I ask the question with very great reluctance. I do not see the connection between what my hon. friend is saying and the tariff, but he has given me permission to ask a question, and it is this: If he and the Government he supports knew there was a menace, why did they for fourteen months sit on their oars and do nothing, after the Senate rejected the Dreadnought proposal?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
IMr. BURNHAM: When the applause has died away, Mr. Speaker, I answer the question thus: It was because of the tremendous opposition which was offered by the Liberal party in this House and in the Senate; it was because of their lack of sympathy with the efforts being made by the Government; it was because we had been kept here the entire winter by the Liberals, who did not believe in doing anything in the circumstances. It is true that the menace has nothing to do with the tariff, but having spent forty-five minutes on the tariff I thought it was long enough, and that I would give you a treat by turning to something else. I find unfortunately that some don't appreciate my efforts in that direction. Let us refer for a moment to Imperialism, and I entirely agree with the Globe's stand in this particular. Here is what the Globe said in its issue of February 20th inst.:
Our imperialistic friends are now talking about rebuilding the Empire after the war. Has not the Empire just as it is proved reasonably efficient; why rebuild it?
That is what I say, hut I want to say more. The Naval Service Act of 1910, section 22, says:
The Governor in Council may place the naval forces, or any part thereof, on active service at any time that it appears advisable to do so, by reason of an emergency.
First of all, the Governor in Council may place the naval forces on active service, and I emphasize the word " may," and in the second place the Governor in Council can only do so if there is an emergency. So, if 
you prove there is no emergency, as in the present case of a war going on, you are in the soup, Mr. Speaker. We want it understood all the time that we belong to the Empire; that these forces are at the service of the Empire until such time as we say they are not; not as this Act, which says that they are not until we say they are. After that, if we want to meet and say that we cannot do this and that we cannot do that for various reasons, it is within our power to do so. That is consistent with the entire freedom and personal and practical independence of Canada. It is consistent with every ideal that we should like to have that we are managing our own affairs, but the proposition contained in the Naval Service Act is a practical declaration of independence.


Mr. PROULX:: Does the hon. member know that it is identical with the provisions of the Militia Act?


John Hampden Burnham: I have heard that certainly, but that does not defend it at all. If you think that is a confutation of my argument, you will have to think again.


Edmond Proulx: The Militia Act was passed when a Conservative Government was in power.


John Hampden Burnham: The Conservatives may have made lots of mistakes, but they are trying to repair them. Section 23 says:
In case of an emergency the Governor in Council may place at the disposal of His Majesty-
That means that he has not done so as yet.
-for general service in the Royal Navy, the Naval Service or any part thereof, any ships or vessels of the Naval Service, and the officers and seamen serving in such ships or vessels, or any officers or seamen belonging to the Naval Service.
Section 24 says:
Whenever the Governor in Council places the Naval Service or any part thereof on active service, as provided in the two preceding sections, if Parliament is then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire with ten days, a proclamation shall issue for a meeting of Parliament within fifteen days, and Parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by such proclamation, and shall continue to sit in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.
There is the gist of the Liberal opposition to an Empire. You stand out until such times as you say you are in; and if it suits your interest and your prejudices and your meanness, you will say you belong to

the Empire and that you are under the old mother's wing; hut if it does not suit you, you can stay out, and you provide for that contingency by being out, so that, if it is going to be expensive and not going to serve your immediate purpose, if it is not going to be a good vote catching measure, why then you are out and you will not instruct the Governor in Council at all. He must be instructed by his advisors and he will not be instructed; or at least it will be long before he is and then Parliament will have to be called, and when Parliament has been called together, the Liberals will begin with their " ifs " and their " ands ". This is the Liberal idea of loyalty to the Empire. I am not in favour of Imperial federation. Imperial federation with a central council would mean the dismemberment of the Empire in a week. I do not believe in that at all. I believe in Canada remaining as she is at the present time without the Naval Service Act. Repeal the Naval Service Act.


John Gillanders Turriff: That is what the Government promised to do and they did not do it. They did not dare to do it.
Mr. BURNllAM: They should have done it. I will concede that at any rate in my opinion.


Michael Clark: Suppose the
Naval Service Act had been repealed, what would my hon. friend have done with the Rainbow and Niobe?


John Hampden Burnham: I would have taken the Rainbow and the Niobe and put them on the end of a toothpick and have presented them to the first passer-by.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Hampden Burnham: I will not detain the House further at any length, but I wish to make a few further remarks to emphasize my observations on the subject of trade. There has been a serious misapprehension, I think, as to the doctrine laid down by Cobden. In the preface to an edition of his speeches, compiled by Thorold Rogers and John Bright, this observation is made, and it is one, I think, that should be borne in mind by those who severely criticise protection, especially with regard to the incidence of taxation:
He saw, for example, that no ultimate benefit would ensue to the mass of the people by the abolition of all taxes on food, unless what he called, by a pardonable metaphor, " free trade in la#id," were also established.
That, I think, is important, and has a very direct bearing, especially in the face of the somewhat violent attacks made upon the protective tariff with reference to food. Then, again, in this preface I find something of a still more profound nature, something that the protectionist particularly lays claim to have adopted as against the free trader who has absolutely defied it, and yet which is the foundation of Cobdenism:
A cautious student of political economy, he knew that this science, the difficulty of which he fully recognized, was, or ought to be, eminently inductive.
Now, free trade is founded wholly and solely upon a narrow a priori principle or statement, from which are deduced certain rules for the guidance of mankind. Free traders would make political economy the deductive science par excellence. As they expound it, political economy is not an inductive science; it pays no attention whatever to results, nor does it cite facts; but, beginning with a principle of free exchange, free labour-free everything-proceeds upon the belief that all else will follow. It is a good deal like the physicist with the Newtonian principle of gravitation, who, having solved that, looks for the explanation of everything else in the terms of this one great fact, except that it errs to begin with. But the protectionist looks to see what nature has afforded and what man has done, and seeks to apply the remedy from time to time applicable to the 9ases before him. It is useless to say that a certain principle must be assumed and that from that everything must proceed and that all mankind must conform, because it is this sort of thing that has landed free traders in such a pit of distress, and it is that which has left them without a single companion in the world except in Great Britain.
I find in one of Cobden's speeches, something that shows exactly what he meant when he advocated the abolition of the Corn Laws. He shows that the whole bearing of that agitation which resulted in the mighty revolution inaugurated by Sir Robert Peel and brought about by him was altogether relative to the prosperity of the manufacturers:
If I know anything, it means-
That is, the abolition of the Corn Laws means
-increased trade, and the claim of a right besides to exchange our manufactures with the corn of all other countries, by which we should very much increase the extent of our trade.
That, I submit, is the real basis of Cobdenism-an attempt to develop manufactur-

ing in Britain. On the abolition of the Corn Laws, with more cheaply fed labour, and, as I said before, with patent rights and a monopoly of inventions, Great Britain sprang into that pre-eminence which she enjoys to-day and which is represented by the capitalist manufacturer. Britain, to-day is represented in her immense wealth and power by the British manufacturer, and he owes his success to the prescience of Cobden who saw that England was too small to give free scope to her own powers of food production, and saw likewise that landlords were living in idleness upon a monopoly, and who said:	Do away with
these things and you will raise manufacture to tremendous prominence-and he succeeded in doing it.
I wish to refer for a moment also to a well-known newspaper published in Ottawa 

the Citizen-because of its attack upon the Budget. It says that our system of taxation showed last year that we were willing to pay $25,000,000 in taxes rather than let the work go to Great Britain. This newspaper, I frankly admit, is a journal of great influence and superior tone; although it indulges in the luxury of contradicting itself from time to time as the different writers present their views to the public. Its idea of prosperity, however, seems to be to send the work that we ought to do in Canada somewhere else. It says that we have penalized ourselves. Well, if we had the work, and kept the money fix the country, and paid the taxes into our own treasury, it is difficult to see where we have penalized ourselves. We may have penalized some people, some class in the country, but we cannot have penalized Canada as a whole. Therefore, I deprecate these reckless statements in these influential newspapers. They convey a wrong impression and mislead the unthinking public.
* The Citizen seems to he betrayed by catchwords-many good men are betrayed by catch-words. The catch-words to which I refer in this case are these: " Buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest."
It seems to be the impression that the typical free trader all his life dwells in a free trade terrestrial paradise and goes round chuckling over the fact that he bought in the cheapest market and sold in the dearest. That is the whole and soul of liberalism, to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest, a principle which in itself is a manifest absurdity because economically if you continue to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market how is the cheapest market going to pay for the goods in the long run? It can-

not be done, it is an impossibility, but as a catch word it is all right to those influenced by unnatural cupidity and to stay public criticism, while the moneyed man bags the market. It also appeals to a certain class of labour men who have not in the past had time to investigate, but who are now getting shorter hours under protection and are looking into the matter and seeing the falsity of this system. Free trade therefore is pre-eminently a doctrine of selfishness. It says: " Laissez faire, laissez passer, laissez aller, pay attention to nothing." Once a capitalist has got his money, then you have put the whole world in his power. Tou have made the only legal tender that which he possesses in abundance, and you ask him or he asks you to let everything else go just step to the one side and you will see the greatest fight you ever saw in your life. That is exactly what happens. He has the world at his finger tips, he is the master of the world, and therefore it is, I submit, pre-eminently a doctrine of selfishness. It reminds one a good deal of the case of "Lo, the poor Indian." The Indian brings in four beaver skins and trades them for a plug of tobacco. That is free trade. The capitalist is the man who furnishes the tobacco and his unsuspecting victim is the man who pays the four beaver skins. He has commanded, by reason of his superior acumen and capital, the immense labour of the poor Indian, who has probably journeyed hundreds of miles and sat up many nights to gain these beaver skins to buy his little plug of tobacco. The idea of letting the strong alone, the idea of inviting the strong to take care of the weak, the idea of putting the weaker part of the world in the custody of the strong on an economic non-sentimental basis and expecting them to be taken care of, is in itself an absurdity; you might just as well ask vice to take care of virtue. The truth of the matter is that the principle of control should govern and, in so far as protection means control, protection is good, but in so far as it means handing a monopoly to anybody, or an inequitable system of exchange, production or employment, it is of course absolutely bad.
I wish to refer briefly to the new cry of " Made in Canada," a most admirable motto for any people, the substitution of a request for a law. We ask the people of the country, although they may have established trade with other countries, to remember Canada, the land where they have been prosperous and happy, the land^ of noble

prospects, of health, prosperity and above all, the land of home. We ask them to remember that and not to sell their souls and their love of Canada for a little money; we ask them to remember, and rather than go outside of Canada, to be prepared to pay a greater labour cost for an article. It will come back to them, even on that low ground, but apart from that, let us remember that we cannot make of this country anything except by co-operation and consideration. We must remember that to keep the work in the country must be our supreme aim and object, and if we do not do that, ihow can we expect to make this country great? Let us be an independent, industrial Canada, let us feel and know that if the whole world was excluded, if there was a wall fifty feet high around Canada, that we ourselves, with our resources, our capabilities, our population, could go on and thrive, interchanging our products one. with the other, and so securing a prosperity that would be tantamount, to perfection and absolute balance. So much so indeed that it calls to mind a fact laid down and descanted upon by many economists, that foreign trade is a trap which beguiles people into the idea that they are extending their prosperity, whereas in the last analysis foreign trade should not exist because every country should manufacture and grow and produce for itself; every individual should have inherent in him the same quality. The minute the process is reversed and the individual extends out of himself, he makes himself depend on somebody else, he loses his free condition and becomes another man; the nation becomes another nation and becomes unsettled; labour becomes unsettled, and the whole involved system of exchange and interchange exposes the people of the country to the machinations of the unprincipled.
A great deal of the trouble arises, of course, from the altogether false position of gold. Gold, of course, is nothing more than wool .or timber or fish or beef. It so happens that, being a hanay thing to carry about and being universally appreciated, it is chosen as the one thing which will satisfy all parties and is used as a medium of exchange; but because of that there is attached to it a natural monopoly, and though we may have any quantity of timber, any quantity of wool, any quantity of mutton or of cattle, we can do nothing with them if people do not come along with the cash to enable us to transfer the products that we have to some other place. If they
do not they will remain where they are forever, or so long as they do not rot, showing that the placing of one commodity, namely gold, in such a pre-eminent and monopolistic position is wrong, it is dangerous, it is serious and it is the cause unquestionably of a great deal of our unhappiness.
Strange to say, it has been customary, for what reason I do not understand, to laugh and sneer at the balance of trade. You would think the balance of trade was some bogey or absurdity that was in the imagination of the ignorant and unlettered. We are told time and again that the balance of trade is against England or against France or against so and so, and that is followed by a peal of loud, reverberating laughter, and the fears of a place like Canada are supposed to be at once stilled. Of course that is an absolutely unfair, improper and incorrect statement of the balance of trade. The balance of trade, because of the use of the word trade, is made to refer to the exports and imports of commodities, whereas it properly refers to all the transactions that a country has- cash, goods, means of transportation and everything else; and we find that the balance of trade so far from being against England and France is, on account of the foreign interest that they receive, and on account of transportation and other things, immeas-ureably in their favour. This laughing at the balance of trade has a bad effect, for the people are lulled into a false sense of security. The balance of trade in its narrower and moie restricted meaning, referring to commodities, shows one thing; and that is, that unless the balance of trade in commodities is in your favour you are on the high road to immediate ruin. The capital which has given strength and pre-eminence to the nations to which I have referred was amassed by reason of the balance of trade in commodities being so long in their favour. If the United States continues to have a balance of trade of hundreds of millions m its favour against Canada, it is easily within our imaginations to grasp that the United States must be laying up a great store of prosperity and profit at our expense; and we must pay them for these things by borrowing money from England, and exhaust our resources in paying foreign interest. Is it any wonder then that the cry is raised from day to day, that our taxes are tiemendous and that our borrowing powers seem to be without limit? That is one of the peculiarities of the preference. We were told by an hon. gentleman yesterday that the preference
41G

enabled us to borrow more money from England, and yet the very same gentleman told us that thi-s country was going to perdition because of its extravagance in borrowing-another nail in the coffin of preference. Therefore, it seems to me that Finance Ministers in making up their annual budgets might very well give for the information of the people a complete analysis of all the receipts and liabilities of the nation so that we should know exactly how we stand. Then we should see that although the balance of trade was in our favour with respect to commodities and production, actually it would be vastly against us when we took into account the foreign interest that we pay and the other liabilities; and we should see that our resources would be ultimately exhausted if we did not do our own work in Canada. If we send the money and the profit out of this country we'are bound to pay for it in the long run.
I wish to make one more reference before closing, and that is to what I may call the ethical standard of the present day. In that connection I wish to say that trades unions exist for the purpose of curbing internationalism, and controlling the labour market. Except by force, there can be no trades union, logically speaking, in a country that has free trade and free labour competition. Agriculture is of course in the same predicament. It is customary to say that agriculture is not of a manufacturing character; but as a matter of fact the farmer is a manufacturer. He puts his labour into the soil and gets it out again, and is just as much a manufacturer as the man who makes lumber out of timber or digs minerals and makes them into something else. I have often thought how profoundly true was the remark made by the right hon. leader of the Opposition in an address to -a large assembly of farmers near Toronto some three years ago. In discussing the conditions best suited to the farmer and their prospects for better trade and a superior development, the right hon. gentleman said: "Your best market is the home market." That is how he was reported in the Globe. I cut it out and have	treasured it ever	since.He	laid	particular emphasis on
that fact , and I admired the candour of the right hon. gentleman as much as the fact itself. He laid it down to the farmers that the home market was pre-eminently the best, and I am sure the Ontario farmer knows, now that he has the competition of the West, that without the home market he would be a ruined man.
In the old days people got along very

well without money. When they had anything to trade, they lugged it around to their neighbours until they got what they wanted in exchange. It occurred to a princess in the kingdom of Lydia that it would be a good idea to earmark the gifts to the goddesses in the temples, especially gold which was particularly an Asiatic product. The idea was good, because the ear mark not only indicated where the gifts came from, but was a guarantee of genuineness and from that sprang the idea of earmarking money. First of all, it had oniy a few earmarks such as a seal or mark of some peculiar weapon carried by an Asiatic prince. By-and-by the designs became more elaborate until finally the head of the Sovereign was used. As soon as that occurred and money became money, the financiers proceeded tr invent the science of money, and capitalists ever since have been dealing in it, not always I am sure to the advantage of those who in all other walks of life are absolutely dependent upon it. Cash money is at the outside only one-fiftieth of the wealth of the whole world. It would be impossible to transport cash in payment for all the goods bought, because in a very short time the country that did so would be left without any cash, and would be on its beam ends. So the system of bills of exchange was adopted, which is a good deal like our system of a clearing house for banks. This was necessary because no nation in the world would allow its gold reserve to sink below a certain level; and in times of war when distress is greatest nations take particular care that the gold reserve in the treasury is as big as possible; for it is admitted that the country that has most gold will win the fight.
In Greece, the ideal was superiority. She gave to the world great sculptors, great painters, tragedians, great writers of tragedies and comedies, great orators such as Demosthenes, and so on. All the countries together in the world have never produced their equal since for quality or quantity. Why? Because the Greeks were a highly imaginative and intellectual people. Their ideal was typified in the reward they gave to their great athletes at the Olympian games. The winners were crowned with a simple chaplet of wild olive, the olive tree being typical of Greece. Money they never dreamt of, gold they despised, and a rich man they suspected.
Nowhere, even in Homeric history, is there any reference to the riches of anybody. It is their fighting ability, or their eloquence.

or beauty or strength that is spoken of, but never their riches. It has remained for this age to glorify the idea of materialism as typified by the rich man.
I wish, therefore, in conclusion, to say that every one of us must realize that we have sold ourselves very largely to materialism, whereas in this age we should keep constantly before ourselves the Christian or ethical ideal as opposed to the materialistic ideal. But Christianity is practically at a discount, or, if not at a discount, it occupies an altogether secondary position in its influence. It is not prominent, it is not predominant, its ideals aTe laughed iat, and theology occupies about as much of a place in the public mind as political economy. What the people want is money, and it is very easy to glide from the wish for or want of capital into desiring to get it at any price and at the sacrifice of any principle. We see every day the mergers in this country, we see the banks that have gone up, we see the investigations, the disclosures, the horrible catas-trophies from time to time that are taking place. We see them increasing, and we see people vainly endeavouring to stem this tide of corruption by laws. It can not be done, Mr. Speaker. There are laws enough on the statute books to send all the people in the country to jail. Unless the people become good enough to do more without law, to rise superior to laws, the ideal of a nobler human being will never succeed in placing itself spiritually and ethically on that high plane which it ought to occupy in our minds, and where it would be worthy of those great Greek idealists who have so long preceded us.


John Gillanders Turriff: I think it will be conceded by everybody in this House, and also out of the House, that the propositions submitted by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) in his Budget speech are amongst the most important that have ever been submitted to this House. He comes to Parliament, as is usual, for the supply of money for the coming year, and the money he asks for is for the ordinary expenses of the country and for the continuance of the war. The money that he asks for naturally divides itself into two parts-that part that he asks for in connection with the war, and that part that he asks for in connection with the ordinary expenses of the country. I will, for a moment or two, deal with that portion of his Budget that asks for money in connection with the war. I want to say to my hon. friend that with reference to everything that he asks this House to vote in 27
connection with the carrying on of the war, he will have every man on this side of the House right behind him; we will support him to the limit, and vote anything that he says is necessary for the carrying on of this war. This war has been forced on Great Britain, and the other portions of the Empire. It is not of their own seeking. Great Britain has gone to war for self-preservation in one sense, and for the purpose of seeing that smaller nations are allowed to live and that treaties are kept.
When the war broke out the Government that happened to be in power at the time took, in my judgment, the proper and necessary steps. They called a special session of Parliament and asked for $50,000,000, which was voted without a word of criticism on this side. Now, they are asking for $100,000,000,	and we propose	to
vote that without a word of criticism from this side.	We think that the
Government took the proper course and that they are doing all right in carrying on the war and we say that Canada is with Great Britain in this war to the extent of her men and	her	money. If	my	hon.friend the Minister of Finance should find out at the end of the next fiscal year, March 31, 1916, that the $100,000,000 that he is	asking for	to-day isnot sufficient	for	the war,	the	voteshall be supplemented, all he has to do is to come before Parliament and ask for what is necessary and he will find that every Liberal,	and	I am satisfied	every
Conservative, in fact every man, will be right behind any proposition he makes and will not criticise the amount he asks for.
We naturally reserve to ourselves the right to expect that it shall be properly expended and to ask, if it is not properly expended, that the matter shall be looked into. I do not imagine for a moment that any Minister of Militia or any Government can look after every dollar of expenditure and see that everything is done rightly. We expect there will be mistakes, that there will be a certain amount of wrong-doing that the Government cannot stop, but whenever there is any very persistent course of wrong-doing, where contractors are charging two prices or contractors are putting in an inferior class of goods for our soldiers, we reserve the right to ask for an investigation of these matters. I think it is our duty to ourselves and to the country and I am satisfied that it is our duty to the Government and that the Government will be a great deal better in the end if matters are looked into and stopped in the beginning



instead of being allowed to run on for a year or two or to the extent of the duration [DOT] of the war. I do not think I need refer any further to that phase of the question.
We come now to consider that portion of my hon. friend's Budget which deals with the money required for the ordinary expenditure of the country and for the capital account expenditure. While we do not criticise the other portion of the Budget I feel that we are absolutely justified in thoroughly criticising that portion of the Budget where my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is asking for money to carry on the ordinary work of the country. It is just as much our duty and right to criticise and look into this matter at this session as at any other session that has ever been held. I think it is more necessary because we are in a very peculiar position at this time. We find that the country is in a most depressed condition, not on account of the war altogether. It may have had something to do with it, but the depression was on the country, conditions were bad, imports were falling, everything was largely at a standstill, the business of the country was going back day by day, month by month, year by year, and in face of all this the Minister of Finance comes down to this House and asks for a greater Budget than ever has been asked for in the history of Canada. My hon. friend tells us that his expenditures are going up so much and therefore he must have more revenue. There are two ways to equalize revenue and expenditure. One way is to do as my friend the Minister of Finance has attempted to do, increase the- revenue; another way is to decrease the expenditure. What is the better way, what is the sensible way, in what way would any common-sense man go about equalizing revenue and expenditure? Would it be in hard times to try to collect more taxes or would it be to take the common-sense view and reduce expenditure?
The Minister of Finance is a business man, and I venture to say if he had been allowed a free hand he would never have submitted such a Budget. No business man in Canada, no business man in the civilized world, under the conditions that obtain at present in the Dominion, would have come down with a proposal asking for an expenditure of $190,000,000, apart from the cost of the war, when he admits that the revenue will be about $120,000,000. And yet, that is what he has done. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Mac-[Mr. Turriff.J
lean) suggested that the expenditure should have been cut down, and I say without the slightest fear of successful contradiction that the expenditure could have been cut down, with the full consent of the people of Canada, to meet the revenue of 1915-16, which will be $120,000,000, and that is some $30,000,000 greater than the expenditure was in Canada when the present Government came into power three and a half years ago. There is absolutely no reason on earth for this great increase of expenditure, from $87,000,000 in 1911 to $140,000,000 at the present time. Suppose the Minister of Finance had submitted a ballot to every voter in Canada, asking: Are you in favour of reducing the public expenditure by $30,000,000 or are you in favour of raising that $30,000,000 partly by a direct tax and partly by the raising of the customs duties by which for every dollar you put into the treasury you put three dollars into the pockets of the manufacturers, how many of the voti rs of Canada do you think would have marked tnat ballot -against reducing expenditures? It is the people of Canada, who have the right to say whether expenditures shall be reduced or taxes increased.


Mr. BRADBURY:: Let us go to the people and find out.


John Gillanders Turriff: You cannot go to the people too quick for me. Gentlemep on tne other side of the House and their friends outside have been threatening us that if we do not behave ourselves and be good boys and keep quiet, they will dissolve the House and go to the country. I would tell these gentlemen that in view of this Budget they can dissolve the House if they dare and appeal to the people. My hon. friend from. Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) and the gentleman who sits beside him (Mr. Meighen) will have a good deal to explain when they go out to the western farmers.


George Henry Bradbury: It will not be hard.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend will have a good deal to explain, and he will have to use greater efforts than he did before to secure a majority.


George Henry Bradbury: There will be others.


George William Kyte: On that side of the House.


John Gillanders Turriff: I think I am looking at a good many hon. gentlemen opposite to whom the remarks of my hon. friend will apply. The Minister of Public Works said yesterday that he hoped there would be no election. I venture to think that there is not

a man on the other side of the House who does not know what to take out of that assertion. I notice that while the Minister of Public Works says he hopes there is not going to be an election until after the war, that he is mighty busy, and hon. gentlemen opposite are mighty busy, sending out party literature at the present moment.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: That is the way they
keep the truce.


John Gillanders Turriff: I can assure my hon.
friends opposite, that we, as well as they, know how to interpret the smooth words of the Minister of Public Works. We know the Minister of Public Works and we are not blinded one iota by anything he says about deferring the election. My hon. friend stated that when the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) was referring to cutting down expenditures, he did not show how this extra revenue that is needed could be raised if taxes were not levied. That is true, but the hon. member pointed out that it was not necessary to raise this extra revenue at all if the expenditure were cut down. My hon. friend asked if we would stop the public works in view of the fact that there is a great deal of unemployment in the country, but I ask him, who supplies the money for carrying on public works? It is the taxes paid by the people of Canada that provides that money. If the Minister of Finance spends $30,000,000 more this year than he needs to, it is the people of Canada who will have to supply that money, and I tell the Government that when they say they are benefiting the people of Canada by carrying on public- works, they are simply taking the money out of one pocket of the ratepayers of Canada and putting it into another. I say that the expenditure on public works could be cut in two and the good of the country would not suffer to the extent of one dollar.
The hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Mac-donell) took great credit to himself and to the Government of which he is a supporter that in the Estimates for public works this coming year there is a reduction of about $11,000,000 over the estimate of last year. But let me tell the hon. member that last year the Minister of Public Works put in an estimate of $.'13,000,000, not that he had the slightest intention of spending $33,000,000, but to hang it out as a bribe to the different constituencies of Canada, and for no other purpose. The Minister of Public Works did not spend that money and he had no idea of spending it when he put it in the Estimates. But, neverthless, when the Minister 274
of Public Works comes forward now and asks for $11,000,000 less than he did in the inflated estimates of last year, the hon. gentleman from Toronto points to what an economical government we have. What my hon. friend is asking for now is double what was expected on public works when his party came into power three years ago.


William Findlay Maclean: Is my hon. friend finding fault with the Minister of Public Works for not expending the whole of last year's vote?


John Gillanders Turriff: Certainly not. The sums were put in the Estimates of last year, not for the purpose of expending all of them, but as a bribe to the different,constituencies in case of an election and as nothing else. That is what I said, and that is what I stand by.


Oliver James Wilcox: There was no election.


John Gillanders Turriff: There was always the
prospect of an election last fall, and it would have looked very well to go through the different constituencies and say:	See
what this Government has done; it has voted tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars for public works. But the money was not expended, and this year my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works is asking for more than his expenditure of last year. Is it a time to go in for lavish expenditures when the revenue is falling away tremendously, and when my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has to borrow every dollar required for the war, every dollar for expenditure for public works on capital account, and, if he had not put on extra taxation, a considerable part of the ordinary expenditure on consolidated account?
What does the common-sense business man do when his revenue is partly cut off? Let us take the case of a workingman who for the last ten years until a year ago has been earning $2.50 a day. He is an industrious man and has an economical wife. He buys a lot on the outskirts of the city and builds a little house. As the years go by his house becomes worth say $4,000 to $5,000. Suddenly there comes depressed times throughout the Dominion, and he finds that instead of his wages being $2.50 a day they are cut down to $1.50 a day. What does he do if he is sensible and has succeeded, as the man I speak of has? Does he go to a loan company and borrow enough money to enable him to continue living at the rate of $2.50 a day, or does he cut his

living expenses from $2.50 to $1.50 a day? The latter is what the common-sense artisan does on every occasion.
Let me give my hon. friend the Minister of Finance another instance that will appeal more to him. As I said a moment ago, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is a business man first and foremost, and moreover, he is a good business man when he is left alone-a first-class business man. Formerly, he was always able to conduct his business in a good and prosperous way, never making his expenditures greater than his revenue. It is only when he is Minister of Finance in the company in which he finds himself that he is reduced to borrowing.


George Perry Graham: Inefficient.


John Gillanders Turriff: Supposing my hon. friend the Minister of Finance was the president of a company that for years past had been earning 8 per cent on its capital and had been paying an annual dividend of 6 per cent. As the years went on it gathered a nice rest account to give stability to the company to tide over any difficult time.
When hard times come along, 9 p.m. such as we are now experiencing, and the earnings of that company are reduced from 8 per cent to 5 per cent per annum, what would my hon. friend do? Would he continue to pay a dividend of 6 per cent if he saw hard times looming ahead with no prospect of better times for years to come, drawing out of the reserve account for it, and then, when the reserve account was eaten up, going to the banks and mortgaging the securities of his company to get money to continue paying that 6 per cent? Would he keep up the expenditure? Not for one moment. Would my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, countenance such a procedure; and if his board of directors insisted upon keeping up the expenditure he would resign the presidency of that company, just as any sensible man would do. If that is good business for an individual, industrial or financial company, why should it not be good business for the Dominion of Canada? The ministers of this Government are simply directors and the people of Canada shareholders, and the ministers should be actuated by the same principles and standards of honour and honesty in expenditure and revenue as the president and directors of any financial or industrial company. But have they been actuated by such priciples? No. We find the country brought to a state of depression by the extravagance of this

Government to a large extent; and instead of curtailing expenditure, my hon. friend says: No, clap on full sail; spend all the money you like on public works; spend all the money you like on all the other departments; and, although we have to mortgage the resources of this country, we will expend all the money that is -wanted. Is that a common-sense business view to take? Is that a common-sense way in which to handle the finances of this country? It is the very worst kind of financing that has ever been attempted in this country from Confederation down to the present time. If this proposition of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is made law in its present state, it will be the heaviest blow that has been given to the development and prosperity of Canada since Confederation, and it will take Canada many a long year to recover from the effects of it-.


Oliver James Wilcox: Cheer up.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am usually of a somewhat optimistic nature. I generally look at the bright side of things, and I would particularly like to be able to look at the bright side of this question to-night; but I certainly see that we are to be in for a long period of depression. It cannot be helped. Our main customers on the continent of Europe will not be in a good position to buy from us when this war is Over. We shall not be able to produce so as to sell to those countries as cheaply as in the past. Why? Because of the act of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance in heaping burdens upon the backs of the farmers.


Oliver James Wilcox: Terrible!


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend is right. He does not strike the nail on the head very often, but he has hit it right this time.


Oliver James Wilcox: I want to correct my hon. friend. I did not say "tariff "; I said " terrible."


John Gillanders Turriff: All right. The Minister of Finance tells the House and the country that a part of this taxation that he proposes to put on is a war tax-that it is a tax to help out the war. I say this Government is deliberately making an attempt to get money from the people under false pretenses. Not a dollar of what the minister proposes to raise by direct taxation or by the increased tariff duties is for the purposes of the war. I give the Minister of Finance and the members of the Government generally credit for this-that they have made the people of Canada to a certain extent believe

that this money is for the war. But I can tell them that, when the people of Canada realize that there is not a word of truth in the representations that they have made on this subject, when they realize that the Minister of Finance is borrowing all the money for the war and that all he has collected by taxation is to enable the Government to continue its course of reckless extravagance, the Government will not last five minutes after that question has, been fairly submitted to a vote of the people. It takes a good deal of work, a good deal of explanation by the newspapers and public men to get the facts home to the people. But they will learn it. They will learn that the increased taxation is raising the cost of living, and God knows it was high enough. But it is going to be higher because this Government taxes practically everything the poor man eats or wears. The people will understand that before long, because each man will feel it in his pocket. Every time a postcard is mailed there is a special tax of one cent- the cost is doubled. Every time a letter is mailed, a stamp printed " war tax " must be put on at the cost of an additional cent.
I wonder at the Government having the nerve to call this a war tax when they know it is nothing of the kind. If the Minister of Finance wanted to be exactly fair with the people of Canada, if he wanted the people to understand the reason for putting on the stamp marked " war tax " on each letter posted, he would proceed in a different way; in each post office there should be a little box, and when any person wished to mail a letter, instead of putting on the additional stamp, he would drop one cent in the box and on that box would be the inscription: " For two poor men: subscription for Mackenzie and Mann." How long would the people of Canada stand for a tax of that kind? And the same should be done in the case of every railway ticket or steamship ticket bought, every cheque going through a bank, every bill of exchange drawn-" For two poor men: Bill and Dan."
The Minister of Finance made the statement that he expected to get $8,000,000 or $10,000,000 out of the war taxes. What does he want it for? He wants it for the general revenue purposes of the country to pay back the money that the Government has given, during the past year, illegally to Mackenzie and Mann. Because we, a year ago in this Parliament, guaranteed $45,000,000 in bonds in the interest of these people, did that give the Government the right to hand over twelve and a half millions to Mackenzie and Mann? Why, the Minister of Finance
had no more right to hand over that money to Mackenzie and Mann than he had to give it to me or to give it to the first man he may meet on leaving this House. If the directors of a financial corporation had done such a thing, it would not be long before they would be cross-eyed looking out through iron bars. My information is that every minister in the Government is liable to impeachment for that very thing. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance will have to come down to this House and get remedial legislation to legalize that illegal transaction of handing over the money of the people of Canada to Mackenzie and Mann and the Grand Trunk Pacific. That is the exact state of the case-I am not overstating it by a hair's breadth; and no one knows that better than the Minister of Finance.
So that this, instead of being a direct tax for the war as the Government is trying dishonestly to make out, is a tax that Mackenzie and Mann have more interest in than anybody else, because they will get the greatest share of it-in fact, they have it already. The Government have the glad hand and the warm heart for the big railway corporations and the big manufacturers, because there are fat election subscriptions to be secured. But for the workingman and the farmer there is the cold hand: " What do you want? We will give you a seven and a half per cent increased duty. That is good enough for you. Go back to your work, and produce more. Patriotism and production."


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Will the hon. gentleman kindly let us know' what he thinks of the argument of his friend the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) that we should not have taxed bituminous coal because that tax is too hard on the railways?


John Gillanders Turriff: I will say to my hon. and hair-splitting friend that if he will wait for a few minutes and, when I get through the few remarks I have to make, will ask me that question or any other, I will endeavour, to the best of my poor ability, to give him an answer-and I have no doubt that I shall be able to give him an answer that will not be satisfactory to him.
There is the position that we are in. The Minister of Finance comes to the people of Canada, and says: We want you to give us , some twenty-two to twenty-five millions of extra taxes, and so we propose to raise the duties. It was well pointed out by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) last

night-and the idea had not occurred to me, 1 am free to confess, and had not occurred to a good many members on either side of the House-that last August, in the extra session, the Minister of Finance put on extra taxes. I do not remember at what he estimated them, but I think it was about $15,000,000 a year. I would ask the Finance1 Minister whether that estimate has been borne out. I imagine it would be much better borne out than his expectations of revenue from the tariff he is now putting on, simply because so much of it came from sugar, whisky and tobacco.


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: I stated in the Budget speech that the effect of the increase of August last had been to counteract the decrease which would otherwise have taken place in excise, but that until the end of the year it is impossible to state with any degree of accuracy what the precise effect of the changes of last August will be. The amount received will, in my judgment, owing to the very great interruption of general business last fall on account of the war, be less than I estimated.


John Gillanders Turriff: I thank the minister for the information; it is about as I would expect. Trade has not been good and it was to be expected that the revenue received would be somewhat less than any man would have been justified in estimating at that time. If that has occurred in connection with the taxes that were imposed last August then I am afraid that the Minister of Finance will fall very much short in his estimate of extra revenue from the taxes he is about to impose. There is a certain limit to which you can go in the raising of revenue from taxes by tariff. That limit, I think, has been reached and more than reached by the extra taxes now being imposed. If any judgment had been used in selecting certain articles which might bear the taxes, probably some extra revenue would have been received; but when you put on a horizontal tax, raising the tariff on everything without rhyme or reason, you are bound in many cases to put the tariff so high that instead of increasing the revenue you are bound to decrease it. I remember very well the discussion that took place a year or two ago, when the Minister of Finance cut the duty on cement. It was pointed out that the duty on cement was approximately 60 per cent ad valorem. Afterwards my hon. friend put the duty on cement back where it was and it has remained there ever since. Now my hon.
(Mr. Turriff.]
friend comes forward and puts an extra duty of 71 per cent on cement. Does any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House think for one moment that we are going to continue importing cement under these circumstances? This extra duty practically cuts out the importation of cement into Canada. How much revenue will it put into the treasury? The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) last night pointed out how much revenue had been received for duty on cement. The minister in putting extra duties on cement is not going to receive even the amount of revenue that is now being derived from that source. He is cutting off the revenue from cement altogether, and to whom has he given it? 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 of thousands of dollars to the greatest combine and merger that we have in Canada to-day. Not a dollar of increased revenue, but thousands of dollars of increased cost for the user of cement and increased profits for the cement merger. Will my hon. friend or the hon. member from South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell), who said last night that those who are able to pay are being taxed, that the big interests are being taxed, tell me how much the cement merger is paying of this tax? I do not think anybody will attempt to answer that question.


Mr. MACDONELL:: You had better guess it, you have been guessing a lot.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend was guessing all last night. He sat down guessing. My hon. friend was speaking for the manufacturers. He said he was a-


Angus Claude Macdonell: No my hon. friend is quite mistaken, and I do not think it is fair that he should say that. I did not say that or anything to that effect. I said I was a staunch protectionist.


John Gillanders Turriff: A strong protectionist,
yes. If that does not mean the same thing I do not know what it means. However, I . take hack the expression I used as I certainly would not wish to put wrong words in the mouth of my hon. friend; but I would ask my hon. friend the minister or my hon. friend from South Toronto how much the cement merger is being taxed in this direct tax. Every poor man who sends $5 home to

his wife in the Old Country has to put a stamp on his cheque and another on the envelope which carries it. The poor man has to pay. But does the cement merger pay? The man who sends a |5 cheque home to his mother in the Old Country pays exactly the same to carry that cheque and the same amount on that cheque as the cement merger or any other merger pays on a cheque for $250,000 for raw material or for anything else they purchase. That is treating everybody alike in a sense, but it is not making the man who has the money pay in proportion, it is putting the burden on the poor man and letting the rich man go free. As I said a moment ago, let the thing once come home to the people of Canada, let them once realize the position, and they will take care of my hon. friends across the floor of the House.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Hear, hear; they will.


John Gillanders Turriff: I have spoken of decreasing the public expenditure. I said that public works could be cut down. What about the officials in Canada? My hon. Mend from South Toronto last night asked my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) if he would be willing to cut down the civil service. Well, speaking for myself, I am prepared to answer that question, and I would say by all means cut down the Civil Service.


Angus Claude Macdonell: What percentage?


John Gillanders Turriff: I was a civil servant myself a good many years here in Ottawa-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. TURRIFFand I know something about the Civil Service. I know that when this Government came into power and when the old Government went out of power, the Civil Service was not undermanned to any extent. The Civil Service has never been undermanned in Canada, no matter which party was in power. Since my hon. friends opposite came into power they have dismissed some 2,000 odd, and they have taken on 10,500 up to a year ago, practically a difference of 8,000; and if the figures were brought up to date, the difference would probably be about 10,000. Are we doing any more work than we were three and a half yeaTs ago? The extra civil servants are not the only matter of expense. The other day I moved for a return as to the number of buildings rented by this Government since it came into power. The figures for Ottawa alone show that some $202,000 has been spent in rent
for offices to house these extra civil servants who were not required and are not required to-day. You cannot put on civil servants for less than $1,000 apiece per annum; and 10,000 civil servants at that rate mean $10,000,000 per annum. I say that the Civil Service could be cut down to what it was three and a half years ago, or even a great deal less than that, and the public service of Canada would not suffer to the extent of a five cent piece. So that if my hon. friend had wanted to cut down expenses, there was one way in which it could have been done. Take the public buildings being erected all over the country. I have looked through the Estimates, and I see that building after building costing $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 or $35,000 is being erected in places with less than 300 inhabitants.


William Humphrey Bennett: Where?


John Gillanders Turriff: All through Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Whereabouts in Prince Edward Island?


John Gillanders Turriff: Let my hon. friend look at the Estimates; no doubt he has them in his desk. He will find the figures there. I say that a saving of $10,000,000 could be made in this direction without the public suffering in the slightest degree. I do not say that the present Government is much more to blame than the old one. Time after time, when our own party was in power, I endeavoured to shut off these expenditures on public buildings in different places.


Arthur Meighen: Not in Parliament.


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Have you your "Hansard" with you?


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon- friend can find it in "Hansard" I advocated it both in the House and out of it. Take the Post Office Department for example. A small town wants a public building, and the Government puts one up at a cost for lot and building of say $25,000. When the building is UPj you have to pay interest on that money for all time to come; you have to heat the building and put in a caretaker, and you have a continual stream of repairs, as any one can see by looking at the Estimates. The building has to be kept in repair even from the time it is built, and will cost altogether about $3,000 a year. I have in my own constituency two post offices which are not in public buildings, but the accommodation given to the public is equal to that

provided in the city of Ottawa, or in Montreal or Toronto or in any other place in the Dominion. The buildings are of solid brick, of first-class workmanship, perfectly heated, and have tables and chairs and pens and ink for the use of the public. A farmer can come in five miles and get his letter, sit down in the post office and answer it, and I will venture to say that the rent does not amount to $600 a year-not $2,000 or $3,000. Does any one suggest that either of those towns are suffering because they have not a public building for a post office? Not for a moment. The time has come when this Dominion-I do not mean this as a reflection on hon. gentlemen opposite more than on ourselves-but I say the time has coma when we have got to get down to brass tacks in the matter of expenditure. We cannot go on as we have been doing for the last twenty-five years. It simply cannot be done. The Finance Minister stated the other day that the fixed charges for interest next year would be $21,500,000, if I remember correctly. When my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition came into power in 1896, the fixed charges for interest were some $10,000,000. When he went out of power in 1911 the fixed interest charges were in round figures $12,000,000, representing an increase of $2,000,000 in about sixteen years. -When my hon. friends came into power three and a half years ago the fixed interest charges were $12,000,000, and next year the Finance Minister tells us that they will be $20,500,000, or an increase of $8,500,000. The Finance Minister of course is not responsible for the increase caused by our borrowings on account of the war. He is not to blame for that any more than we are. But the interest on our borrowings on account of the war will not make up that $8,500,000, and to that extent the Finance Minister is responsible.	.
I say we have come to a time when there must be retrenchment. When is it going to begin? Should it not begin now? Dues my hon. friend the Minister of Finance think he is going to make prosperity by taxing the people of Canada? It is absurd to think that he can bring about prosperity by simply putting his hands in the pockets of the people and taking out the money, and the sooner the Government realize the position that Canada is in, the better it will be for the people of this country. We must make a change. We must live more economically. We must spend less money. How can we spend less money and do the least injury to the public service? We could reduce the number 
of officials, reduce them largely, and not interfere with the public service. We could cut the cost of public works in two and not interfere with the public service. My hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) was very anxious last night .to know whether my hon. frierid from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) was willing to see the expenditure on Halifax cut down. I understand that they are spending some $15,000,000 or $20,000,000 in Halifax. I venture the assertion that if the money was properly expended you could do all that is necessary for the development of trade in the city of Halifax for $5,000,000 instead of $2o,000,000, and I venture the further assertion that the city of Halifax under the present circumstances would be perfectly willing to accept their share of reduction until conditions are better and the people of this country have more money and until there is not so great a discrepancy as exists at present between the expenditure and the revenue of Canada. I do not suppose it is necessary for me to emphasize that' this so-called war tax is not a war tax, or that not one dollar of it is going to be spent in conducting the war. I have the " Hansard " report of the Minister's Budget speech here, in which he says half a dozen times that every dollar that is to be spent on the war will be borrowed. I. have no fault to find with that.


William Thomas White: How will the interest be met upon the $150,000,000 that will have been borrowed since the outbreak of war until the end of the fiscal year 1915-16? It amounts to about $7,000,000, and is in consolidated revenue expenditure. I should like to point out that according to my estimate the special taxes will raise an amount slightly in excess of that which will be required to pay the interest upon the amount that will he borrowed for our war expenditure.


John Gillanders Turriff: That is exactly what I
have been trying to make clear to my hon. friend all along. I am saying that this money that my hon. friend is proposing to raise by taxes and by the increased tariff is for the ordinary consolidated expenditure, and that interest on the public debt is part of the consolidated expenditure.


William Thomas White: And for war.


John Gillanders Turriff: Interest on our public
debt will be paid out of consolidated revenue. But granted that my hon. friend is correct in the suggestion he makes that it would take about $7,000,000, let me point out that he is asking for from between

$8,000,000 and $10,000,000 direct taxes and between $22,000,000 and $25,000,000 indirect taxes. That is not all for interest, even taking my hon. friend's own statement.


William Thomas White: How is the pension list to be taken care of?


John Gillanders Turriff: Has my hon. friend paid any pension list?


William Thomas White: No, but I am afraid we will have to.


John Gillanders Turriff: What I object to is that my hon. friend tries to make the people believe that these taxes are for the war, whereas they are not for the war at all.


William Thomas White: They are.


John Gillanders Turriff: I did not want to take
the time of the House to read my hon. friend's remarks, but I am afraid that I shall be obliged to. He is reported to have said-


Mr. MACD ON ELL:: What about the wai tax legislation of the United States? There is no war at all.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am delighted that the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Mac-donell) has asked me that question, Because it is a matter I had in my mind and I perhaps would have forgotten it if he had not mentioned it. My hon. friend brought that matter up last night. Did the United States put on an extra duty to raise that tax?


Angus Claude Macdonell: They did.


John Gillanders Turriff: What on?


Angus Claude Macdonell: They put it on a
very great number of articles. The list is quite as comprehensive as the list in the resolution before this House, and it contains additional matters, but the items that are taxed in our resolution are almost all included in the American Bill.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Not tariff taxation at all.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Yes.


John Gillanders Turriff: No, my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonell) is mistaken in that. The United States, on account of the falling revenue, put direct taxes largely on the line of the direct taxes suggested by the Minister of Finance.


Angus Claude Macdonell: And a stamp tax, too.


John Gillanders Turriff: A stamp tax, certainly, but they did not raise the tariff.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I did not say that
they did raise the tariff.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Angus Claude Macdonell: No, I never said so
and do not intend to say so to-night.


John Gillanders Turriff: That is just exactly what I wanted to tell my hon. friend that the United States put on direct taxes, a stamp tax, a tax on railway and steamship tickets, just along the line followed by the Minister of Finance, but every dollar that the United States levies goes direct into the treasury, whereas, as a result of what my hon. friend is doing in making a horizontal increase in the tariff, $1 goes into the treasury and from $4 to $5 into the pockets of the manufacturers. That suits the hon. member for South Toronto. He represents a constituency where they are all manufacturers and where there are no farmers. I do not object to him being pleased; I think he has got his way. The manufacturers have made this tariff or they might have made it. They could not have made it any better for themselves. I doubt if they made it, because if they had made it they never would have raised it as high.


An hon. MEMBER:: They would not have had the nerve.


John Gillanders Turriff: The manufacturers have considerable nerve, but I do not think that they would have had that much nerve. If my hon. friend had followed the example of the United States he would not have proposed to lhave increased the tariff at this time.


William Thomas White: But they are not at war.


John Gillanders Turriff: No, but there was a depression just the same as there is here, and it was before the war just as it was here before the war. My hon. friends opposite at least do not need to take the word of any hon. gentleman on this side of the House. Let them read the statement of Sir Edmund Osier, president of the Dominion Bank, and the statement of the general manager of the Bank of Nova Scotia, and see what they say. They say that the war might in some degree have aggravated it, but that the depression was 'here, that it had been coming, that they had foreseen it, that they had warned the people about it, and that it was not caused by the war. As far as we are concerned, speaking for the province I come from, and I know it applies to Manitoba and Alberta in the same way, from the money point of

view, the war is a godsend. Nothing finer from a financial point of view ever happened the West.


George Perry Graham: That is what Sir Edmund Osier says, too.


William Pugsley: Is that the member for Toronto?


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes, that is the same Sir Edmund Osier. Nothing better ever happened us. We had thousands and thousands of unemployed men in our cities there that we did not know what to do with. They have gone to the war, and they are earning good wages. If we want to sell wheat, oats, barley, horses, cattle, sheep or hogs we can sell them at good prices. Except. in that portion of the country where they had no crop at all, where they suffered from drouth, the farmers were better off last year than the year before. .This Government cannot put the blame of the hard times on the war. The war has been a godsend to them in many ways. This raising of the tariff that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is proposing is just simply carrying out the promise made by gentlemen on that side of the House to the manufacturers prior to the election of 1911 for the support and subscriptions that they then received. They are carrying out and fulfilling a promise that up to the present tune they did not dare to carry out, they did not dare to fulfil, and if it had not been for the war they would not have dared to fulfil it now. If there were no war, and if the Finance Minister came down with such a precious proposition as that which he has before the House today, why, they would be wiped out of existence. The Minister, notwithstanding the unfortunate position of Canada, has brought forward this measure to add burdens to the backs of the people in order to fulfil a promise made to the manufacturers in 1911.
_ I have been dealing with this question in a general way; now, I want to deal in a more concrete manner with one or two items. The hon. member for South Toronto said last night in his speech:
The proposed taxation does not fall on the farmer or on the working man, and both these classes are thoroughly satisfied with thexBudget as it stands at present. They ought to be satisfied.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Just read the next paragraph.


John Gillanders Turriff: 
Mr. BLAIN:: Cannot all axle grease
be made in Canada?


John Gillanders Turriff: It is possible that in
my hon. friend's part of the country they may make their butter poor enough so that it can be put into axle grease, and therefore it can be made in Canada.


Richard Blain: What about the real question: cannot the axle grease be made in Canada? Axle grease is largely used in nearly every part of the country, and is it not nearly all made in Canada now?


John Gillanders Turriff: If my hon. friend is
correct in that, - why does the Minister of Finance put an extra 5 per cent duty on for the benefit of the manufacturer. If all the axle grease is made in Canada now, is the increased duty going to give him any more revenue? But the farmer pays it all the same.
The following table which I have prepared will show the former British preference duty on articles largely used; the percentage of increase in the British preference under the proposal now made by the Finance Minister, as well as the former general tariff duty on these articles and the percentage of increase now proposed, and in every item it will be seen that the British preference gets the worst of it.


George Perry Graham: Their salaries are
better.
fMr. Turriff.]


John Gillanders Turriff: This table shows what
my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is doing to encourage trade with Great Britain. We had an example this afternoon from my hon. friend the member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham). He told us what hon. gentlemen on the other side think of the preference to Great Britain. He had no use for it. My hon. friend the member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) made the same statement a few years ago. " Give us," he said, " a majority in the House, and we will show you what we will do with the British prefer-

ence." My hon. friends opposite now have a majority and they have shown us what they propose to do with the British preference. This Government could have got along perfectly well without increasing the tariff; but not satisfied with increasing the general tariff, they have undertaken to increase the tariff on the goods that we are bringing in from Great Britain. My hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) stated yesterday that there was a great deal of difficulty in bring-
10 p.m. ing in goods from Great Britain, owing to the extra freight and shortage of boats.
My hon. friends opposite now propose an extra tax on British goods for the purpose of shutting off trade with Great Britain. The tax is put on for no other reason. If my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has to have more money, if the Government will not shut off expenditure, if it is bound to have an extra $30,000,000, impose the taxes on the outside world; and if you cannot do it in that way, impose a direct tax and take your $10,000,000; tax the banks and the trust companies and the insurance companies; tax every one, make them pay what money you want; but for Heaven's sake keep your unholy and disloyal hands off the British preference.
Three or four years ago we were told throughout the West that because we advocated a free market in the United States in which to sell our goods, we were hardly loyal.


Frank Oliver: Disloyal.


John Gillanders Turriff: That we were absolutely disloyal, as my hon. friend has remarked. Let us see what the position is now. I do not want to draw invidious comparisons between one part of the country and the *other; but many people down East called us disloyal because we wanted to sell our crops in the best market. I think I am justified in pointing out what has taken place in the last six months. Have our friends in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the three provinces that were picked out as holding many disloyal people because they wanted to sell their crops in [DOT]the best markets-have they shown themselves less loyal than others? Have they been less ready to volunteer for service on The firing line than people in any other part of Canada?


Herbert Brown Ames: Many of those who voted against reciprocity have gone to the front.


John Gillanders Turriff: I do not doubt that. I have said, time and again, in this House
that I have never met a disloyal Conservative nor a disloyal Liberal, so far as I know, in my life. I should be sorry to think that there were many disloyal people in Canada. There are many kinds of loyalty. One kind consists in supplying good goods for the use of the army.
Let me point out another thing that has taken place in the West. The Grain Growers' Association of Manitoba, the Grain Growers' Association of Saskatchewan, the United Farmers of Alberta have all, at their conventions, held during the past few months, carried unanimously resolutions calling on this Government to do away with the duties against Great Britain and to make up any lack of revenue that may follow by a direct tax on the land-on the farmers' land. And, remember, there is no politics in these organizations; they are composed of Liberals and Conservatives alike. And these are the people who a few years ago were accused of disloyalty by the very men who, now that Great Britain is in trouble, now that she is fighting the fight of her life, fighting for her national existence and ours, and when her success depends upon her commerce, come forward and say: We will help you by sending some, men, but with the other hand we wiV try to cut your throat by preventing your | oods from coming into Canada. And I say again, once let the people of Canada realize the position-


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


John Gillanders Turriff: Oh, I will speak loud enough for the people in the West to hear; don't you fear. I say, let the peop'e of Canada realize the position, and mj hon. friend the Solicitor General will be piping lower instead of louder than he is now.
I have another list here, a long one also, in which the increases against Great Britain and against the United States are exactly the same. I have another list in which the percentage of increase is somewhat larger against the United States and the rest of the world than it is against Great Britain. I have selected these items from the tariff because they particularly affect the settlers of the West.
There has been a good deal of talk in the last month or two about greater production. Our friends the manufacturers sent a delegation to Winnipeg to meet with the grain growers. They proposed that an extra million acres of wheat should be sown next spring-that new lands should be broken to the extent of a million acres and wheat sown. No farmer would ever have suggested

that. Any one who knows anything about farming in the West knows that you might just as well throw your seed away as sow it on the sod. You would not get a crop worth harvesting. The farmers showed that this was not practicable. Then it was proposed that $50,000,000 should be borrowed by this Government to place people on the land. The cry was " Back to t'he land." Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to borrow $50,000,000 to get people to go on the land. Nor is it necessary to tell the farmers to put in a million acres extra of wheat. The farmer is not a fool altogether. He will put in an extra crop if that crop is going to pay him. All you have to do to get the farmer to put in all the land possible, all you have to do in order to get the people back to the land, is to make, the conditions such that they can make a good living out of the land. But what is the Government doing? It is putting a load on the back of the farmer. The Grain Growers' Guide put it very well a month or so ago when it said: Just let the manufacturers get off the farmer's back and there will be no trouble about oack to the land and no trouble about production.
Just one word further about the effect of these extra taxes on the farmers. As soon as this war is over and the price of wheat goes down to normal again, and while this added burden remains, hundreds and thousands on the western plains will leave the land. Why? Because they cannot make a living on the land under the circumstances. The Minister of hnanee is putting on these extra duties. But will he take off these duties and put the tariff back where it was as soon as the war is over? He will do nothing of the kind. Those taxes are there to stay, as long as the hon. gentlemen opposite can keep them there. When the war is over the argument will be: We have created vested interests; you cannot now take off this protection, for it would mean failure among the manufacturers. So these burdens are added to the burdens of the farmers and artisans; living is made more expensive; conditions will be worse for workingman and farmer. And what are the compensating advantages? Practically there are none.
My hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham)-and I do not intend to follow him back for five thousand years and all over the face of the earth-said that unemployment was an issue at the present time. Yes, and it was an issue prior to 1896. But it was not an issue from 1896 to 1911. But hon. gentlemen opposite are back

in power, and unemployment is once more an issue. The hon. gentleman stated also that two days' work a week, at eight hours a day, should be sufficient, if everybody worked, to produce all that is being produced at this time. I do not blame my hon. friend for trying to bring the labour. ing classes to that point of view, because under this Government and under the tariff they have enacted, two days' work a week is about all that the working people are going to be able to get in the near future. So my hon. friend, I think, is quite right in bringing that forward. My hon. friend also stated that Great Britain had not been able to get one follower in the line of free trade; but he forgot to mention that to-day free trade Great Britain is financing the world. Where are all the protective nations getting their money to carry on the war? From Great Britain. Were it not for being able to get money in Great Britain we could not take part in the war, because the minister has to borrow every dollar to send our forces there-and $30,000,000 more. My hon. friend said that when British preference was introduced it came very near putting the pottery works at St. Johns right out of business. The preferential duty against Great Britain on pottery ware was 20 per cent. Now it is going to he 25 per cent. I say if the potteries in St. Johns, with a protection of 20 per cent . and with high rates of transportation on that class of goods, cannot live, in the name of common sense let them shut up business and go into something that can get on with 20 per cent protection and allow some revenue to come into the treasury of Canada. The business that cannot live under these circumstances is not worth preserving in Canada. It is out of place in Canada, where there are many factories that we are bolstering up with new protection, the money invested in which would be far better invested in something that would pay a reasonable return-and there are in Cafiada many opportunities for the investing of money.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend has not answered the question as to his opinion of the argument of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) that the tax on bituminous coal should not go on because it will be too hard on the railways that consume the coal.


John Gillanders Turriff: I agree that the tax on
bituminous coal should not go on. I do not believe that one of the taxes imposed should go on. An additional objection is that it will put an argument into the hands of the
/

railway companies for an increase in freight rates when they have to pay 10 cents a ton more for coal. Is my hon. friend satisfied to put on an extra 10 cents on coal for the railroads and have every one of the farmers he represents pay extra freight rates to make up the additional cost of coal to the railway companies?


Arthur Meighen: I have not said so. We are taxing the consumers of coal, but the hon. member for Halifax objects to that because the railways have to pay and argues that they cannot stand it. I am asking the opinion of my hon. friend who now has the Floor upon this point.


John Gillanders Turriff: If you are asking for the opinion of the hon. member for Halifax, he is able to express his own opinions.


Arthur Meighen: Your opinion.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am against the extra
taxes on coal and on everything else the minister is taxing. I would say not to put on any of the taxes, and then you would suit me and my hon. friend to the right (Mr. A. K. Maclean).
My hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) yesterday said that it was necessary for the Government to pay those cash subsidies to Mackenzie and Mann in order that the bonds guaranteed by this Government and by many of the provincial governments might not become a charge on the respective Governments that guaranteed them. If the Government are running away with the idea that by giving the cash subsidy they have given to the Canadian Northern railway they are going to relieve this Government or any other Provincial Government from the guarantees of bonds that they have made, they are making a great mistake. They are only putting off the evil day for a few years, and the day will come before very long when this Government, after having done what they did a year ago, will have to take over the Canadian Northern railway and will have to expend another $50,000,000 in making it fit to compete, and they will add another $300,000,000 to the debt of Canada. They are not obviating any of those results, they are simply putting off the evil day for a very few years.
I only trust that the l\finister of Finance may think better of some of these proposals that he has made and that he will give a little consideration to the view of the farmer and of, the poor man; that he will, if he has to raise money, so arrange his taxes that they will fall not evenly per capita of the
population, but evenly according to the ability of the men to pay. My hon. friend does not care to take up the matter of taxing incomes, or land; but I see by the press that the local government in his own province of Ontario to-day has come forward with a proposition to put a direct tax on all lands in the different municipalities, to raise $1,800,000. Could not the Minister of Finance adopt something on that line? Such a tax would have this advantage, that the man who has property worth $1,000 would only pay one-tenth as much as the man with $10,000 worth, whereas all I can say in favour of the proposition of the Minister of Finance is that he is following out one of the biblical rules that to him that hath shall be given and from him that hath not shall be taken even that which he hath.
Mr. WM. WRIGHT (Muskoka):	There
are many matters that come before this House which receive a measure of consideration, are dealt with by Parliament, are recorded in the statute-book, or pass into oblivion, and we hear no more of them in this House. But that hardy annual, the Budget speech, buds and blossoms and sheds its fragrance over this House once a year, and gentlemen on the Government side seem to be quite satisfied with the perfume; but gentlemen on the opposite side, for some reason, seem to become irritated. It is very peculiar how we differ with regard to these matters.
The Budget brings before us many matters for our consideration, among others the trade policy. How shall we raise the revenue? The people have come to be divided into three schools. We have those who believe that free trade should be the dominant consideration in any tariff. Then there are those who believe that protection should be kept to the front, and there are those who believe that we should attach more importance to a tariff for revenue. The Budget now before us is known- as the war Budget, and as far as I have been able to put my finger upon the pulse of public opinion I have found that the general opinion of this country favours the proposals of the Finance Minister. So far as I have been able to learn very little objection has been raised in the country. It is generally conceded that the tax has been laid upon the public in such a manner as to fall upon those best able to bear it. It is true the non. gentleman who has just taken his seat, and who usually sheds a lot of briny tears over the farmers of the West, objects strenuously, as he always has done

since I have had the pleasure of hearing his voice in this House. I hope the farmers of the West have better friends in this House than the hon. gentleman, for it is well within my recollection that when a move was made by some of us on this side of the House, then in Opposition, to lower the duties on farm implements, a boon we will suppose to the farmers of the West, we met with objections from the hon. gentleman and others associated with him, who were quite satisfied with the tariff as it was;. and as long as his friends were in power, he did not care how high the tariff was against the farmers of the West. I am just reminded by an hon. member that he even spoke against the proposal to lower the duties.
It must be conceded that there is room for honest difference of opinion with regard to the exigencies of tariff. Under the proposals before the House the duties generally are being raised 7J per cent, and the duties against Great Britain only 5 per cent. It is true that the hon. gentleman who preceded me, by figuring out on percentages, tried to show that the people of Great Britain were not favoured under the present proposals to the same extent as the manufacturers of the United States. I want to unqualifiedly deny that. The people of Great Britain have the advantage of a 5 per cent increase against a per cent increase against the United States and other countries. An effort is being made, and no doubt will be made, if we are to judge by what has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite and the press who support them, to fasten a charge of disloyalty upon the Conservative party for having slightly increased the duty on goods coming from Great Britain. I do not believe that any charge of disloyalty can. he laid against the Conservative party on that score. The people of Great Britain have a tariff that we will suppose suits themselves; they adjust it with a view to the needs of Great Britain, and the colonies have no preference whatever, not a particle, in the tariff arrangements of Great Britain. In fact when we look into the figures we find exactly the .opposite. While a great country like Germany is able to send practically all she produces into Great Britain duty free, some .of the colonies are taxed and taxed very heavily on their goods going into Great Britain. One would naturally think from listening to the discussion on free trade that Great Britain allows all goods to enter free of customs duty, but such is far indeed from being the case. Let me read some of the duties that are collected at the

ports of Great Britain annually on various articles:
Tobacco	$86,270,625
Tea	  30,759,395
Rum	 11,940,605
Brandy	 5,551,460
Other	spirits	 3,341,910
Wine	  5,549,785
Currants	 609,080
Raisins	 1,190,795
Coffee	 852,050
Cocoa	and chocolate. .	. .	1,658,455Sugar and glucose . .	. .	15,258,930Motor	spirit	
3,609,755Other	articles	
994,630Total	$167,587,475
These figures do not include what is collected by the Isle of Man, the figures for which were $466,690. I would point out that that sum is vastly in excess of the whole customs duties of the Dominion of Canada. By way of illustration, I will just refer to the item of tea. As I pointed out a moment ago, Germany has free access to Britain on practically every thing she produces, while a country that lives under the British flag and whose people recognize the King of England as their King is taxed $25,000,000 out of the $30,000,000 collected by Great Britain on tea. I am only pointing that out to show that the colonies get no favours from Great Britain with regard to tariff. In fact, it is just the opposite, but I am not charging Great Britain with disloyalty on that account. She makes her tariff to suit herself, and while the peculiar brand of free trade that prevails there may suit the British people, I do not believe that it would as well suit the people of Canada.


William Pugsley: I have listened with
much interest to the list which my hon. friend has just read. Let me ask him whether a single product of Canada pays a dollar of duty when it enters Great Britain?


Mr. WRIGHT:: I should not like to say, because I am not familiar with everything that is produced in Canada. I should imagine we produce some sugar and other articles in this country, but I do not know whether they are exported to Great Britain. What I was saying was that some of the articles in this list are produced in British colonies.


William Pugsley: I am speaking of
Canada.


William Wright: Let me point out that while this may suit the people of Great Britain-it is absolutely unsuited to the

people of Canada. Taking up for a moment that item of tea, I want to show how the duty is levied and the unfairness of it. Let us take some poor person in Great Britain, some washerwoman, or some people in poor circumstances, who wish to go and have their tea. They buy tea worth 20 cents a pound, but they pay five pence, or ten cents, a pound duty; so that the washerwoman pays a 100 per cent duty on her tea. The rich chocolate manufacturer, who is protected up to the hilt, the iron manufacturer, the lord of the manor, or the wealthy gentleman who uses tea that costs $4 or $5 a pound pays ten cents a pound duty; in other words, he pays ten per cent duty while the very poor pay a 100 per cent duty. That may be good enough for the people of Great Britain, but it is not good enough for the people of this country. I have no objection to this tariff so long as it is confined within the borders of Great Britain.
Are we in a position to follow the example of Great Britain in regard to trade matters? When Great Britain adopted the present policy she was then the greatest manufacturing- nation on earth; she had become so under a very strong protective tariff which had been kept upon the statute books for centuries. After they had become the greatest manufacturing nation upon earth, after they had found that they could not raise enough food to feed themselves, and after they found that they had to import immense quantities of raw material, they said: We are the greatest trading nation on earth; we have to buy and sell abroad and we believe that free trade would work out to our advantage. Are we in that position to-day? Have we ever been in that position? Have we ever been in such a position that we can call ourselves the greatest manufacturing nation on earth? Have we ever been in a position where we had to import nearly all of the food we consumed, or have we ever been in a position where we had to import all our raw materials from across the sea? We have never been in that position and I look over the pages of history and look in vain to see the name of a single country that ever started and became the biggest and foremost manufacturing nation and did it under free trade. It is true that Great Britain has a very great trade to-day, much greater than it had when she took up the policy of free trade. It is, true that the trade of Canada is much greater than when we first adopted the policy of protection, it is true that the United States have a much greater trade 28
than they had when they first adopted protection, and it is true that Germany and France are greater to-day than ever they were before. The thing is true of all the prominent nations of the earth; so that the fact that Great Britain's trade is greater tnan it was proves absolutely nothing in favour of free trade.
I think it is manifest to every man that the nation beginning at the bottom which wishes to build up its industries must from the very nature of things give a certain measure of protection to its industries for a time at least, and that is just what we are doing in Canada. That has been the policy followed by the Conservative party and that has been the policy followed by the Reform party. The only difference between us is that we practise what we preach and hon. gentlemen opposite preach one thing and when they get on the treasury benches they practise the very opposite. I fancy the people of this country have come to look upon the gentlemen, who now occupy the benches opposite as being absolutely unreliable in regard to any trade policy. They cannot fail to remember the claims that were made during the years they were in opposition, they cannot fail to remember how the manufacturers were described as robbers and thieves, they lacked adjectives to adequately describe the people who happened to be engaged in manufacturing. We can remember that old knight of blue ruin who used to go up and down the concessions and side roads and picture to the farmers the awful conditions under which they lived. These hon. gentlemen said: Just let us into power and we will do away with every vestige of protection. The right hon. gentleman who now leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), on the platform in Winnipeg, when looking out on those vast prairies of the West, said: Put us in power and we will give you free trade as they have it in Britain. At that very time, Mr. Speaker, they had a hard-and-fast bargain with the big manufacturers that they should keep the protection that they had if they only helped them to get into power. On the strength of that bargain these big manufacturers stood behind them and helped them into power, and they got the advantage when these hon. gentlemen got into office. They put the duties into such shape as to help the large manufacturers. When it was pointed out that in raising these duties they were hurting the farmers of the country, they said: So much the worse for the farmers; the manufacturers are something tangible, we



can keep hold of them and we propose to keep them. Then they made an effort to hoodoo the farmers into the belief that they were doing something for them. The present Government has done more to reduce the duties in two or three years than was done by these hon. gentlemen during the fifteen years that they were in power.
A great deal has been said as to the assistance that was given to Great Britain by what is termed the British preference. I am willing to concede everything to hon. gentlemen opposite that they are entitled to, and to admit that they did put a British preference upon the statute books, which before the introduction of the present Budget amounted to 33J per cent. Let us give hon. gentlemen opposite credit for whatever they did in that regard. But, before they adopted the preference, they raised the duties on a large number of articles we import from Britain, and they lowered the duties upon, or made free, a large number of articles coming from the	United	States, so thatwhen the preference went into effect people in Great Britain who wanted to get into our markets were in as bad a position as before the preference went on. Looking it over and figuring it out, Mr. Speaker, you will find that for every $100 worth of goods that came in from Great Britain, $25 worth came in free under the Tariff Act. You will find that under that beautiful arrangement 45 per cent of goods from the United States were brought into this country free. This is what these hon. gentlemen were doing for England. In the two or three years since the present Government came into power, the percentage has remained about the same, namely, about 25 per cent coming in free from Great Britain; but there are only 37 per cent of goods coming in free from the United States. Britain has received an advantage equivalent to 8 per cent in her favour since the present Government came	into	power	in	respect to	thefree	list. That	is something	wehave done for the people of Great Britain or for the people of this country, because I have always been at a loss to follow the reasoning of our free trade friends. They tell us that the consumer always pays the duty, and yet they said they were doing a great	deal for Great
Britain, they lowered the duty to some extent on goods coming from there. How the preference could be of any particular advantage to Great Britain, if the people of Canada got the whole benefit of it, is one of these things that it is very difficult to understand, but hon. gentlemen

opposite are always arguing on both sides of the question.
I will follow the hon. member (Mr. Turriff) for a few minutes in some of the claims he has put forward. He told us that he would lower the expenditure so that it would equal the revenue, but what he means by that I do not quite understand. The present Government takes the ground that it would not be in the interests of the people of Canada to cut down the expenditure to a very large extent suddenly. They have cut down all the controllable expenditure that they could, and they have taken what I consider fair and just means to increase the revenue. I think we can safely leave it to the people of Canada as to whether the proposition advanced by the hon. member or the policy of the Government is the wiser. The hon. gentleman told us that the Government had been paying huge sums to Mackenzie and Mann and to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, but I would remind him that the present Government is not responsible for either of these great enterprises, both of which were carried forward to such an advanced stage by the late Government that it would have been against the interests of the country to stop them now. The hon. gentlemen opposite are responsible for the initiation of these two transcontinental enterprises which were designed to be completed about the same time. When they are completed there will be two transcontinental roads in competition with the Canadian Pacific railway, or three transcontinental roads competing for the business that had up to the present time been done by one road. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal Government ought not to have given the assistance they gave to either one of these roads, or that they should have forced the two to amalgamate, and thus give us one great trunk transcontinental line in competition with the Canadian Pacific railway, which, I think, would be sufficient. I believe an arrangement could have been entered into, between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern railway, by which one of these lines would have answered every purpose. At all events the present Government is not responsible for the undertaking of these two railroads. The hon. gentleman told us that a large number of buildings had been erected during the last year in little villages and town all over Canada, but my information is that there were only two or three public buildings erected during the whole course of last summer in comparatively small places, and none of these were erected in places of 300

population as the hon. gentleman said. If there is such a ease it certainly has never come to my knowledge and it does not exist, as the hon. gentleman said it did, in the province of Ontario. As the hour is late, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Hon. W. T. White, the House adjourned at 10.53 p.m.
Thursday, February 25, 1915.