[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]
EXPENDITURE, 1912, 1913 and 1914.

Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	When was Major W. S. Hughes appointed inspector of penitentiaries?
2.	What salary does he receive as such?
3.	Does Inspector Hughes hold any other office or position from which he receives pay from the Federal Government? . If so, when was he appointed to such office or position, and what is the amount of his remuneration?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	March 4, 1913.
2.	$3,700 per annum.
3.	Major Hughes is the officer commanding the 21st Battalion, Canadian Expeditionary Force. He was appointed October 20, 1914, and receives the pay of a lieutenant colonel commanding a regiment, viz.: $5 per diem with $1.25 field allowance per diem and $1 command pay per diem; *in all $7.25 per diem.


AMHERST POST OFFICE SITE.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	What amount did the Government pay for the site of the proposed new post office at Amherst, N.S., and when?
2.	What Is the size of the site?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	On 21st October, 1914, the Exchequer Court awarded the sum of $30,000. A cheque for $20,000 was paid at Amherst on or about the 12th November, 1913, and another cheque for $10,000, balance due, was paid on 23rd December, 1914.
2.	95 by 93 feet, with the use of a right of way 12 feet wide.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	How many miles of the Hudson Bay railway are completed?
2.	How many miles of steel have been laid?
3.	When will the railway be completed?
4.	When is it anticipated that the harbours and terminals will be completed, including the elevator??


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	The road bed is completed and fully ballasted to mile 56, and partially ballasted to mile 175.
2.	214 miles of main line.
.3. Autumn of 1917.
4.	It is anticipated that works will be in position to ship grain before close of 1917; but a couple of years further work will be required before terminals can be regarded as completed.


Mr. LANCTOT:: What has been the expenditure on the Hudson Bay Railway construction since 1912?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1. Expenditure on Hudson Bay Railway
construction since 1912:
1912- 13	$1,009,063.15
1913- 14	 4,498,717.25
1914-	15 to January 31, 1915 .. 4,261,088.83
Total	$9,768,869.23


THE MARRIAGE LAWS.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Has the Government, or any member thereof, communicated with any provincial government with regard to revising or amending the Marriage Laws?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the Government to do so?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	No.
2.	No.	.


DISMISSALS.
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: 1.	Is Mr. L. O Vallge, of Rimouski employed by the Federal Government at the present time? If not, has he resigned or been dismissed, and for what reason?
2 Who is his successor, and what Is his salary.
3.	What salary did Mr. L. O. Vallde receive?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	No. Services dispensed with on account of absenting himself from duty without leave.
2.	J. A. Tremblav. $400.
3.	$400.


Mr. THOMSON:: 1.	Has W. M. Thomson been dismissed from the postmastership at Fort Qu'Appelle?
2 If so, what was the reason for his dismissal?
3.	Who has been appointed in his stead, and on whose recommendation has such appointment been made?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	For distributing his private correspondence and accounts through the post office without prepayment of postage, thus defrauding the public revenue.
3.	Mr. John R. Hamilton, oh recommendation of Mr. A. B. Gillis.	.


Mr. THOMSON:: What are the names of the postmasters dismissed from office since 10th October, 1911, in the constituency of Qu'Appelle and what are the names of the respective post offices in which they acted?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: The names of the postmasters removed from office since the 10th October, 1911, in the electoral district of Qu'Appelle, and the names of the post offices, are as follows:
Broadview, A. L. Brown; Fleming, R. C. Chappell; Fort Qu'Appelle, W. M_. Thomson; Golden Plain, Thomas Kivel'l; Grenfell, Harvey Ooy; Kipling Station, P. M. Dern^ody; Montmartre, J. A. Gouin; Qu'Appelle, Chas. L. Bailey; Red Jacket, Charles Wilkins.


MONTREAL, DISTRICT PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEER.
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Has Mr. L. Michaud, Public Works engineer for the Montreal district, been dismissed? If so, has a successor been appointed, and what is his name?
2.	If dismissed, does the said L. Michaud receive a pension allowance?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1 and 2. No; on the 16th ultimo Mr. Michaud was appointed consulting engineer for the Montreal district at the same salary he received as district engineer; on the same date Mr. J. L. Dansereau was appointed as acting district engineer.


WAR SUPPLIES-SHOVEL-SHIELDS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOiVIN:
1.	Were any combination shovels and shields ordered by the Government at the time of the mobilization of the first Canadian contingent? If so, how many?
2.	What was the price paid for each shovel?
3.	By whom were these shovels manufactured, and where?
4.	To whom did the manufacturer ship them, and to what point?
, 5. How were they brought into Canada?
6.	Who is the patentee of this combination shovel ?
7.	Does the patentee hold any position in the Department of Militia and Defence? If so, what position?
8.	Did the patentee receive any royalty as the inventor of this combination shovel?
9.	Were samples or specifications of this combination shovel submitted to the British war office for report as to its suitability for war purposes?
10.	If so, did the war office make a report, and was it favourable or unfavourable?
Major-General HUGHES:
1.	Yes, 25,000.
2.	$1.35 each.
3.	Midvale Steel Company, Philadelphia, Pa.
4.	William Price, Quebec.
5.	Via Grand Trunk railway system.
6.	Miss Ena MacAdam.
7.	Yes; private secretary to minister.
8.	No.
9.	No; such submission is not necessary, but all the other nations engaged in the war are now adopting similar devices.
10.	Answered by No. 9.
Mr. BOIVIN:: 1.	Was there a Canadian patent issued on or about the 25th of August, 1914, for a combination shovel and shield?
2.	If so. who is the patentee?
3.	On what date was the application for this patent filed?
4.	Were any special instructions given the examiner in charge in regard to expediting the issuance of this patent?
5.	If so, at whose request was this special rush order given?
6.	Did the Minister of Militia write the
Minister of Agriculture in regard to this patent for a combination shovel, requesting that it be given special consideration?
7.	Is there a provision in the Patent Act giving the Government permission to use, without paying compensation, any patent or invention ?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Ena MacAdam.
3.	17th August, 1914.
4.	Yes, as the invention was required for use in connection with the war.
5.	The examiner in charge of the application was instructed to expedite its examination by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture.
6.	No.
7.	No.


THE QUEBEC BRIDGE.
Roch Lanctôt: What has been the expenditure for the Quebec bridge since 1912?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Expenditure on Quebec bridge since
March 31, 1912:
1912- 13	$1,512,825.96
1913- 14	 2,604,105.61
1914-	15 to January 31, 1915 .. 2,964,911.40
Total	$7,081,842.97


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC EXPENDITURE.
Roch Lanctôt: What has been the amount of expenditure charged to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway for each of the year 1911-12, 1912-13, 1913-14 and 1914-15?


Mr. COCHRANE:: The following information has been received from the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, Montreal:
Prairie section-
Year 1911-12		. .. $1,051,330.78
" 1912-13 		.. .. 1,966,847.18
" 1913-14 		
" 1914-15		
Total		
Mountain division- Year 1911-12		. ..$12,275,403.44
" 1912-13 		.. .. 15,896,287.80
" 1913-14		.. .. 23,990,160.64
" 1914-15		.. .. 16,726,213.36
Total


LAPRAIRIE RETAINING WALL.
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	How much money has been paid to Messrs. Duranceau and Poupart, to this date, for the construction of the retaining wall at Laprairie?
2.	What amount is required to complete the said construction?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	$49,300.
2.	About $27,379, exclusive of cost of inspection.


DEPUTY MINISTER OP INLAND REVENUE.
*Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	At the time of his appointment in the Inland Revenue Department was Mr. J. U. Vincent, now Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue, a shareholder in the Ottawa Wine Vault Company?
2.	Does Deputy Minister Vincent still hold shares in his own name in the said company?
3.	If not, are any shares of the said company held for him in the name of some other person or persons, in trust?
4.	Has the Ottawa Wine Vault Company a bonded warehouse?
5.	Are there any official or business relations between the Ottawa Wine Vault Company and the Department of Inland Revenue? If so, what are they?


Mr. BLONDIN:: 1.	No, and was never a shareholder, directly or indirectly.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes. Hold license as bonding warehousemen and purchase of Tally-Ho spring water.


DREDGING AT LONGUEUIL.
*Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	Has the attention of the Government been drawn to the reports published in the Montreal Gazette and the Montreal Star of December 14, 1914, of the proceedings at the opening of the new plant at Dongueuil of the Armstrong-Whitworth Company of Canada, in which the following paragraph appears:
" The function was also notable for an announcement from J. II. Rainville, M.P., for Chambly-VerchSres, that before a month borings would be commenced for extensive dredging on the south shore to provide better transportation facilites for the huge new industry. This dredging work would be started in the spring and would involve an expenditure of $1,250,000."
2.	What authority had Mr. J. H. Rainville
for making the announcement mentioned?
3.	Has the Government any interest, direct or indirect, in the Armstrong-Whitworth Company of Canada?
4.	If not, is it the policy of the Government to do dredging at the public expense for the private benefit of such a company as the Armstrong-Whitworth Company?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	This matter has not been brought to the attention of the Government.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Turriff: For a return showing the cost of furnishing the Government offices in each of

the said buildings referred to in the answer to question No. 6 of February 9, and answered February 15, as per page 161 of unrevised " Hansard."
Mr. German:	For a return showing:
1.	Whether the Government purchased from the Canada Cycle and Motor Company tires for motor trucks for the first Canadian contingent ; if so, at what price per set such tires were purchased, and how many.
2.	Whether prices have been obtained by the Government for tires for motor trucks for the second contingent, and if so, what price per set has been so obtained.
Mr. Michaud: For a return showing:
1.	How much money was collected by subcollectors of customs at Edmundston, N.B., at Clair, N.B., at St. Leonards, N.B., and at Green River, N.B., each and every year for the last five fiscal years.
2.	What salaries are paid in connection with each of said ports each year.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM:	Reports
are printed in the newspapers as to the recruiting not being satisfactory. I have been assured privately that the recruiting is satisfactory to the Government. Does the Government care to make a statement to the House and to the country as to whether the recruiting at present is satisfactory to them?
Major-General HUGHES (Minister of Militia): So far as my department is concerned, and that is the one chiefly interested, I shall reply to the hon. gentleman's question by giving a number of instances. A few weeks ago, in six hours, 650 men were raised for a cavalry regiment. In some towns in Eastern Ontario, within 24 hours after the call of the third contingent, we had far more men than the quota desired. In places where the men have not responded it has been due to the fact that the corps have not been encouraged, or that we have not had accommodation wherein to place the men just at the time. We have now every regiment in Canada up to full strength. Edmonton recruited in twelve days up to full strength. The Nova Scotia cavalry regiment is over strength to-day.	I could
raise a regiment in Cape Breton in four hours if I wanted to. I am now speaking from returns that I have received. In short, at the present moment, according to the returns we have got, I could raise three more contingents inside of three weeks, if necessary.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Major-General HUGHES:	In answer to
some questions asked by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) a day or so ago regarding the " discarding in great quantities at Salisbury Plains of wagons, harness, Ross rifles, etc.," inquiry reveals that the wagons and harness have been subjected to four months of extremely hard usage, very bad weather, hauling very heavy loads over very rough roads and through deep mud. Naturally, the wear and tear was great. New wagons from Canada were not available, therefore it was deemed wise and proper to outfit the Canadians on going into the field in this great struggle with the best wagons on hand. Accordingly, they were	supplied with the
new wagons from the British stores. Regarding the harness the same holds good. The harness had been in use all winter and it was not deemed advisable to send the boys to the front with the old harness so they wrere equipped when leaving for France with the best harness available at the time. In so far as the rumour concerning the discarding of the Ross rifle is concerned, immediately after the hon. gentleman brought up the matter, the following cablegram was sent:
Ottawa, Ont., February 22, 1915. Earl Kitchener,
War Office,
London.
Rumour that Canadian cavalry are to discard Long Ross and use short rifle. We are preparing a new rifle carrier which is most perfect and removes any Inconvenience to rider in carrying a long rifle. I respectfully request that Long Ross rifle should not be discarded.
Sam. Hughes.
In reply to this I received the following cablegram:
London, February 23, 1915. Major General Hughes,
Ottawa.
Your telegram about Canadian cavalry rifles. There is no such intention.
Kitchener.
Further comment is unnecessary.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: I would ask the Minister of Militia if there is anything in the rumour that he intends to accompany one of the contingents to the other side.
Major-General HUGHES: I hope the hon. gentleman will not hold me down to answer all the rumours that are in circulation. Much as I might have in my own heart the desire to go, there are other duties to which I have to attend, and possibly other men can attend to going with the contingent just as well as I could.


STATUS OF OVERSEAS DOMINIONS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Charles Murphy: In the absence of the Prime Minister, I wish to bring to the attention of the minister who is leading the House a paragraph in a cabled report of a speech delivered by Sir George Perley before the Victorian League in London, two days ago, in which he is reported to have said:
Canada and the other dominions were fighting, he pointed out, because they were part and parcel of the empire. The time had now arrived when something more than autonomy must be given the dominions. They must be given a voice not only in the foreign policy but in issues of war and peace and all matters vitally affecting the Empire as a whole.
In view of the information given to the House on this subject a few weeks ago by the Prime Minister, I desire to know whether in making the statement I have just quoted Sir George Perley was voicing merely his own opinions or was acting under instructions from or with the authority of the Government.


Robert Rogers: The Government do not take any notice of newspaper reports such as the one just read by my hon. friend. The statement made by the Prime Minister a short time ago in this House still stands.


SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), Bill No. 57, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
On section 1-Persons on active service in military forces during war not inelligible
for members:
Mr. GRAHAM:: I desire to ask a question relating to the representation in this House, which may or may not come within the scope of the amendment now proposed. Of course we are all anxious that the war should be over before there is an election,

or rather that there should be no election until the war is over. But in case the Government changes its mind would the present law enable a man at the front to be a candidate in his absence from this country?


Mr. DOHERTY:: There may be doubt
whether the receipt of his pay as an officer in the expeditionary force would disqualify him from being elected, blit when this Bill is passed there can be no question based on the fact that he receives such pay, and I do not know of any other ground on which he could be disqualified. In the Election Act as it now stands, I think there are provisions whereby a man absent from the country may be nominated without his express consent being obtained. I do not remember the exact provisions, but I am satisfied that that is covered by the present Act. It might be that under the Act sought to be amended by this Bill, a man with the expeditionary forces would be ineligible for election by the fact of his receiving pay, but this Bill will remedy that. In the law as it now stands there is a provision to exempt miliua officers, but the men with the expeditionary forces are not serving in the capacity of officers of the militia of Canada.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: I have not the
statute here, but I think it is necessary for the candidate to sign on the day of his nomination.


George Perry Graham: That is what I wanted
made clear.


Mr. OLIVER:: Does it apply only to
officers on service overseas, or to any officers who have enlisted for service whether they are on this side of the water or not?	.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The proposal wouid
cover both. The first section of the Act makes that quite clear:
Nothing shall render ineligible, as aforesaid, any person serving in the naval or military forces of Canada, or in any other of the naval oi military forces of the Crown, while such forces are on active service in consequence of any war, and receiving salary, pay or allowance as a member of such forces while on such active service.
I think that would cover anybody on active service in the war. Section 19 of the present Act covers' the case of militia officers on active service. It says that the Act shall not disqualify :
(<3) An officer of the militia, or militiaman, not receiving any salary or emolument out of the public money of Canada, except his daily pay when called out for drill or active service, or annual or oth^r allowances of any kind prescribed by the Militia Act-

So that any man receiving pay or an allowance under the Militia Act is protected by the present law. But the purpose of this Act is to protect those who would not otherwise be protected; those for instance, who might be rendering military or naval service to the State in a capacity other than as officers or men of the Canadian militia.


George Perry Graham: But this point might
arise. As I understand the present statute, any person out of the country can be eligible as a candidate without having to formally accept nomination. But supposing a man serving in the militia had not yet gone out of the country, but could not possibly get to his constituency to accept nomination as prescribed by the Act. a man who might be at Halifax, for instance, en route to Europe, would it not be possible to provide that any soldier on active service could be eligible as a candidate, and be excused from coming to accept nomination.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If it should be found that the difficulty which the hon. member apprehends might arise, I think it would be more proper to amend the Elections Act in that regard. The present Bill amends the Senate and House of Commons Act. I will look into the matter, and if such a case might arise, I think we ought to provide for it.


Charles Murphy: The amendment my hon. friend suggests to the Elections Act would certainly be necessary, because by the present Act the candidate is required to do a number of things which he could not possibly do if he was out of the country.
* Mr. PROULX:	Would the case of the
hon. member of Beauce (Mr. Beland) be covered by this Bill? He is serving in the cause of the Allies, but not with the British forces; so it could not be kaid that he is serving under the Crown.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Act apparently applies to persons serving in the naval or military forces of Canada. But I might point out that the purpose of the Act is only to relieve a person who is receiving pay for serving in the naval or military forces of Canada, frfim any disability that might arise from the fact of his receiving such pay. The absence of the hon. member for Beauce under the present circumstances does not affect his eligibity in any way. If he is serving in the forces of any of the Allied nations, and even receiving remuneration therefor, which as I

understand lie is not, there can be no possible suggestion that that would affect his right to be elected and to sit in this House.


Mr. PROULX:: I was thinking of his
right to draw his indemnity.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We shall be glad to consider any amendment the hon. member may suggest to enable the hon. member for Beauce to draw his indemnity.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: We are making
provision to maintain the rights of members of Parliament who may be abroad. Is any provision to be made to maintain the rights of a voter of this country who is serving abroad?


Charles Joseph Doherty: A committee of this
House has been constituted to consider possible amendments to the Elections Act or to the Controverted Elections Act, and of that committee 1 have the honour to be chairman. The point the hon. member raises has already been brought to my attention; in fact we had a discussion on it the other * evening on the motion of the hon. member for the city of Ottawa (Mr. Fripp). We have been considering possible methods for enabling a man who is out of the country on active service to register his vote, but a satisfactory method is not an absolutely easy thing to find. I have asked the Parliamentary counsel to draft a tentative measure for submission to the committee, and we shall deal with that when it comes before us and report the result of our deliberations to the House.


Mr. MACDONALD:: I see by the
Act that a person can be nominated in his absence from the province. Section 96 of the Dominion Elections Act says:
No nomination paper shall be valid or acted upon by the returning officer unless it is accompanied by,-
(a) the consent in writing of the person therein nominated, except where such person is absent from the province in which the election is to be held, when such absence shall be stated in the nomination paper;


George Perry Graham: He might be absent on
active service.


William John Macdonald: That would make no difference so long as, under the law, it was absence from the province. That has always been the practice. You may recall numerous cases where men have been [DOT] elected in their absence, and the law provides for simply stating that fact in the document and dispenses with the necessity of legal consent.
On section 3-no deduction from indemnity for absence on active service during war:


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would be glad to move an amendment to meet the suggestion of the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx).
I beg to move that the section be amended by adding, after the word " Crown in the second last line, the words " or in any forces of any allied nation."
Mr. MaRCIL: That would not apply to the case of the hon. member for Beauce. He was not actually serving in the Belgian forces and he is now a prisoner of war.


Charles Joseph Doherty: These are exceptional circumstances. Perhaps I might suggest that the House could proceed to deal with the case of the hon. member for Beauce as it has dealt with other cases where there have been satisfactory reasons to explain absence. It is a little difficult to find proper words to apply to all cases.


William John Macdonald: At no time was the hon. member for Beauce serving in any of the allied forces. He attached himself, by consent of the Red Cross Society to the Red Cross service in Antwerp, and his assistance in the war was rendered by virtue of his being a part of toe Red Cross organization. He had been appointed by the hon. the Minister of Militia of Canada to be a major in the Army Service Corps of Canada, but be was never able to leave Belgium in order to take up that position. His services therefore were of that character, but I think the proposition of the Minister of Justice to deal with the case by special resolution at the conclusion of the session is an ample and sufficient way of dealing with the matter.
Sesction as amended agreed to.


Charles Joseph Doherty: 1 desire to move to amend the Bill by adding a section. It occurred to me alter the Bill was- drafted that there are officers actually in the service at present who have been there for a number of months and that toe Bil-l as now drafted coming into force would not cover their cases. I beg to move:
That the Bill be amended by adding thereto the following section: " This Act shall be const: ued as having come into force the 4th day of August, 1914."


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance), for Committee of Ways and Means, resumed from February 24. -
Mr. WILLIAM WEIGHT (Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, I was dealing with some criticisms of the Government made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). A few minutes before the adjournment I was dealing with the charge that he had made that the Government had advanced large sums of money, many millions of dollars, to Mackenzie and Mann. I think the hon. gentleman could not help but know that this Government have advanced no money to Mackenzie and Mann, nor have they advanced money to either Mackenzie or Mann. It is true they made a loan to the Canadian Northern railway system, a loan amply secured by mortgages intended to pay off certain liabilities and complete the work of that transcontinental railway. But the charge is made that the company will be unable to complete their work and that the whole railway system will 'be thrown on the hands of the Government. If it is, if the worst comes to the worst, and that should unfortunately happen, the Gove n-ment has amply secured the people of this country by seeing that the amount of money they have loaned shall go into the paying off of the liabilities of the railway as a system and for the completion of the road so that if they ever have to take it over as an entity it will represent not only the value of the road when they made the loan but the added value after the expenditure of that money upon it. Mackenzie and Mann did not benefit personally or as a corporation by the amount of money advanced by this Government. Under the peculiar circumstances that have arisen it was absolutely impossible for the Government to allow this work to go by default. It was near completion, it served a large stretch of country; to have allowed it to go by default would have damaged our interests in the monetary markets of the world, and there was no other course open to the Government than to 'See that the work was completed. I want to say again, that the Canadian Northern matter and the Grand Trunk Pacific matter were twins that were left destitute upon the Conservative doorstep and the Conservative party had to take charge of them, although they deny parentage.
I want now to deal with a few of the 
points raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). He seems to have a vast fund of sympathy for the western farmer. I am a farmer myself, but not one of those farmers who derive their information in regard to farming conditions in some lawyer's office or in some doctor's studio or in the sanctum of some printing office. I derive my knowledge of farming conditions out on the farm itself, where I go and throw off my coat and get to work just the same as the other men upon the farm.
Let me look at the representation from the West. I look at the representative for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), and I see the ex-Minister of the Interior, who derives his information with regard to farming conditions in the sanctum of his printing office. Then I go down to Medicine Hat and I- find that the representative for that constituency (Mr. Buchanan) also gets his knowledge of farming operations in his printing office. I now come to Moosejaw and I see that horny-handed son of the soil, the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles), whose knowledge of farming conditions enables him to conduct his business successfully as a lawyer. He issues writs against the farmers, occasionally charging them $5 per case for making out the papers. Then we have the genial member for Eegina (Mr. Martin), another farmer from the West, who also derives his information with regard to farming matters and his sympathy for the farmers in his lawyer's office. I go south a little to Assiniboia, and I see the hon. member for that constituency (Mr. Turriff), another robust farmer-ex-civil servant and retired wealthy gentleman. I come next to Qu'Appelle and there we have a gentleman (Mr. Thomson) who also occupies a lawyer's office; but I believe he has a farm and he has probably a little knowledge of actual farming conditions. I now go across to Humboldt, the hon. member for which (Mr. Neely) derives his knowledge and inspirations in regard to farming conditions in the West by feeling the pulses of his patients and looking at their tongues occasionally, and charging them so much in each case. I next go to Saskatoon where we have another farmer (Mr. McCraney) entering suits and collecting bills in the interest of the farmers of that section-another lawyer. It is quite right to have a proper criticism of the Government, to have many farmers sitting in Opposition and keeping the Government straight and bringing the case of the farmer to its attention from time to

time; but seriously, some time I would like to see some seat on the Opposition side occupied by a real farmer, one of those men who are actually suffering from the conditions that prevail in the West at the present time.
It will be conceded by those familiar with farming conditions in the West that the farmer has not everything that he would wish; that he has difficulties in his way. He has not those large centres of population that have been created in the East by large manufactories and institutions of that nature, and practically all the product of his toil must find a market a long distance away from the source of production. That is a handicap which ought to be taken into consideration by any Government. It is the duty of the Government to do everything possible to help out the western farmer. There are matters of transportation, assistance to railways, the making free or the cheapening as far as possible of these articles that must be purchased by the western as well as by the eastern farmer, but especially by the western farmer. There is also the providing of elevator facilities where they are lacking and for a proper inspection of the grain, and the ensuring that the farmer gets a just return for his produce and proper grading. These are matters that have engaged the attention of the present Government since it came into power, and it has done a great deal towards assisting the western farmer.
The principal product of the western soil, as we all know, is wheals and from time to time hon gentlemen opposite, since they have occupied the seats of the Opposition, have bewailed the position of the farmers in the West with regard to their great standard cereal. They say that we ought to have opened the markets of the United States; that we 'ought to have accepted the offer they made, Toy the acceptance of which they say we would have provided a wonderful market for the western farmer. I have given this matter a great deal of attention. For two years I have watched the markets of the United States and the markets of Canada as far as they have been reported in the press and during those two years there have not been more than two or three days on which the market price of wheat at Winnipeg has not been greater than the market price for the same grade of wheat at Minneapolis. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and other hon. gentlemen
who usually follow his lead with regard to this matter, have from time to time stated in this House that the price received by the western farmer for his wheat has been reduced by the amount of duty charged on it when it goes into the United States, and they have figured out tables to show the tremendous loss sustained by the western farmers in that way. Therefore, when the proposition was made in the fall of 1913 by the American Government to reduce the duty upon wheat, a proposition which finally carried reducing the duty by fifteen cents per bushel, naturally the western farmer, if he believed the teaching of the hon. member for Edmonton, would expect that the price of his wheat would be increased by fifteen cents per bushel. As a farmer in the West and at that time having wheat in my granary and being busily engaged in teaming it to the elevator in town, and believing that this reduction would not make a cent of difference in the price of the wheat that the farmers of the West had to sell, I went right on disposing of my wheat, knowing that in one or two or three weeks the Bill before the United States Congress would pass and become law.
I expected no advantage from the reduction in the duty. In course of time the Bill providing for that reduction was put on the statute book of the United States. I still had wheat to sell, and I went on selling it. And I am here to say that the farmers of the West do not benefit by the fraction of a cent by that reauction of fifteen cents in the duty on wheat.
As I have said, the price of wheat in Minneapolis has been almost steadily lower than the price in Winnipeg. I speak especially of No. I Northern which is the grade that is quoted in tne press daily. Let me read the report as given in the Citizen of this morning, showing the market conditions in Minneapolis and Winnipeg. In Winnipeg, No. 1 Northern is quoted- at I1.53J; in Minneapolis, No. 1 Northern is quoted at from $1.47J to $ 1.511, an average of $1.49, or a fraction over four cents higher in Winnipeg than in Minneapolis.
But my hon. friend may meet me with the statement that the grading under the State Grading Act in Minnesota is lower than on our side. True, the standard is not so highi But let me point out that the cash price of wheat as quoted in Minneapolis has very little to do with the State grade. In only four of the States of the American Union have they a State Grain Inspection Act, and even in those States

tne inspection is not compulsory. Let us suppose that a farmer in the West, finding all obstacles* removed to his shipping grain to Minneapolis, sends down a car and follows it to put it on the market. It is graded No. 1 Northern under the State Grain Inspection Act. He goes to a dealer, tells him what he has to sell and asks for an offer. The dealer says he cannot make a bid as he has not seen the wheat. " But," says the owner, " you do not need to see it; it is No. 1 Northern."	But the dealer
insists that he must see it; and the owner finds that he cannot get a bid until the would-be purchaser has seen the wheat. A great deal of the wheat sent to Minneapolis is sold to the millers, for they have there the largest milling concerns perhaps in the world, and certainly the largest on the American continent. So, our friend the western farmer, goes down to the miller who is buying many carloads of wheat daily. The miller says, " I never buy wheat on state grades; I will send my man up and look over your wheat and will make you an offer for it." The man goes up and looks over our friend's car and over the cars offered by his neighbours. He may buy them all; and there may be a difference of as much as five cents a bushel in the price offered for the several cars, though all are graded No. 1 Northern. So, there is very little reliance to be 4 p.m. placed on the figures given as to the cash prices of wheat in Minneapolis. But in any event, grade for grade, quality for quality, the price in Winnipeg for the last two years during which I have been looking into the matter has been better than the price in Minneapolis. To my personal knowledge wheat has been taken across the line and sold to Canadian elevators within that time. I have no doubt that under certain conditions and at certain times wheat may be teamed across from Canada to the other side and sold. A great deal of the wheat as disposed of in Minneapolis is sold on its quality and not on its grade under the State Grain Inspection Act. Over the rest of the United States they have all kinds of inspection-complete lack of uniformity. There has been an effort in the United States Congress for the last twenty-five years to get the Government of the United States to adopt a law enforceable throughout the Union. Those who favour that measure point out that there has been a great deal of complaint in England, Germany, France, the Netherlands and other wheat-buying countries in Europe about the lack of uniform grading in the United. 
States. In the case of grain from the United States, the grade is not enforceable, and if the wheat does not come up to grade the buyer has no redess. On at least two occasions, as pointed out by Senator McCumber on the introduction of his Bill last year, the grainimporting countries of Europe have met and, after athorough discussion of this matter, have passed resolutions appealing to the Government of the United States to have a law enacted that shall apply to that whole country. And Senator McCumber in his various addresses touching this matter when it was up for discussion last year, dealt exhaustively with the subject, and pointed out numberless resolutions passed by farmers' institutes and associations and by boards of trade in many localities, urging the United States to follow the example of Canada and have a uniform grade that would apply to the whole country. And it has been declared in many of the petitions sent in that the condition of the farmer in the Canadian west is vastly superior to that of the farmer of the western states in regard to the disposal of his wheat. Whether they are right in that or not I am not in a position to say. But I should think, taking the country over, there would be little difference in the condition of the western farmers on either side of the line. Both have the same disabilities arising out of the long haul to the seaboard. This great vexed question of transportation affects them as it affects us. The charges by the elevator men, by the insurance companies, by the transportation companies for ocean freights-all these things stand in their way as they stand in the way of the farmer of our West.
So that the adoption of any policy that would allow the free exchange of wheat between the two countries would fail to provide any remedy for the farmers of Western Canada. I am quite satisfied in regard to that matter. And the farmer in the Canadian west would lose the advantage he has to-day in the guarantees that go with his wheat by reason of the official inspection at Winnipeg as it passes through on its way to the ocean.
If American wheat could come across to Winnipeg, becomh merged with our wheat and find its way further east, our wheat would lose its individuality; it would practically become American wheat, and we would lose all the advantages that we now derive from our present system of grain inspection.
Permit me to call attention to another consideration that would militate against

the farmer of the West. When a good farmer happens to need money, he hurries his grain into the cars when the new crop comes in, in order that he may be among the first shippers, for if he succeeds in getting his wheat out early, he will get a better price than he would receive later. I am not now - ref erring to present conditions, which have been so *seriously affected by the war during the last few months; I am speaking of conditions as they have prevailed in the West, and as they will again prevail when the war is over. If we remove all obstacles to free interchange of wheat, and the people of the Western States put their grain upon the market a week, two weeks *or three weeks earlier than our farmers do, they will at once swamp the Winnipeg market with their wheat and our farmers will lose the advantage which they have enjoyed in past years in that respec', But we are told that there will be a large demand for our wheat; that we grow bet' ter wheat than they grow in the United States; that our friends to the south want Canadian wheat to grind with their softer wheat and are willing to pay a large price for it. In that way, our friends say, the farmers of the West will benefit to a large extent. I want to point out that our American friends have a much larger surplus of wheat than we have in Canada and, just as we have to find a market for our surplus wheat, they have to find a market for theirs. Any wheat, therefore, going into American channels from Canada would increase that surplus, and that surplus must find its way to some foreign country. I have not the shadow of a doubt,' viewing the whole situation generally, that under a system of free exchange we would purchase just as much American wheat as the people of the United States would purchase from us.
But, our friends say, freight conditions would be better. Let us look at that phase of the question for a moment. They say that there would be additional competition, and that the American railways, bidding for the carrying trade of the West, would reduce the price the farmers now have to pay in order to get their wheat to the head of the lakes or to the seaboard. I have given a little attention to the subject of freight rates in the Western States and to the seaboard, and I find, according to the commission which governs freight rates in the United States, that the rates are much the same as those prevailing in
Canada. I would remind hon. gentlemen also that if any farmer in the West wishes to send his wheat through American channels to the seaboard and across the ocean, there is absolutely nothing to prevent his doing so, and he has been doing so for years. Nothing hinders his using any railway in the United States for the shipment of his wheat. There is practically no duty on grain going through the United States to other countries. As I have said, the United States has a much larger surplus of wheat than we have; that surplus must find its way across the ocean-and they might just as well export Canadian wheat as any other kind of wheat. Another reason why they wish to handle Canadian wheat is in order to keep their vessels busy. If the Canadian shipper can get a reduction in rates of one-sixteenth of a cent by sending his wheat through the United States, naturally he will take advantage of the reduction by routing his wheat southwards. There is nothing in the statute books either of this country or of the United States to prevent our wheat going through United States channels.
The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) said that during the last two years there lias been no increase in the acreage sown in the great western country. I have an intimate knowledge of conditions prevailing in the West, as I have travelled over it a good deal, and I take issue with the hon. member in that regard. Any one who is conversant with conditions prevailing in the West knows that when a farmer breaks the prairie he has to keep it under cultivation; otherwise it will lapse back into a condition worse than its original state, and he will be the loser to the extent of a very large amount of money. The farmer is forced, therefore, to keep under cultivation such areas as have been broken and cultivated. 1 know by personal investigation that large areas have been brought, under cultivation in the last few years. I believe that the acreage in 1914 was considerably larger than that of 1913, and that the acreage in 1913 was greater than that of 1912; the same is true, I think, of every year since the great western country was first opened up. It is true that the amount of wheat grown in the West last year was less than that grown in previous years, but a great drouth had prevailed, with the result that the farmers suffered severely. In many sections of the western country the farmers had only a short crop, and in some portions of it they had no crop at all. This accounts for the fact that on the last

day of December, 1914, the amount of wheat shipped through Winnipeg was not half as large as it was on the same day of the previous year. The conditions for getting wheat out were infinitely better in 1914 than they were in 1913, inasmuch as threshing commenced much earlier, and the weather was favourable for cutting and threshing and for getting the grain to market.
Some people in the East, in discussing the subject of farming conditions in the West, are disposed to belittle the difficulties of the western farmer. They say that he does not deserve any special consideration; that he gets his land for nothing; that it is all ready to be worked, and that he is doing [DOT]better than the farmer of any other section of the country. My experience in the West, however, is that the western farmer has a pretty hard row to hoe. As a rule he goes out there as a poor man, without any money. He takes up his homestead, and in order to provide an equipment to work that 160 acies he is at the expense of approximately $2,000. Having no money he has to work for his neighbours. He finally succeeds in getting a little breakng done, he gets up a little shanty and works along as best he can under exceedingly great difficulties, because before he can plough a furrow or buy an outfit of his own, he must have at least four horses which would cost approximately $1,000. He has to have the harness and other attachments, he must have a plough, a spread harrow, a disc harrow, a seeder, and if he takes off his crop he must have a binder. He may succeed in purchasing some of these things on credit and finally, at the end of three years, he may be enabled to take out his patent. Usually he then rushes off to some mortgage company and borrows a large sum of money to pay off some of his debts and perhaps secure a few more implements; and this mortgage is for many years a heavy burden on him. That is a condition of affairs which no legislation that can be passed by either party in this House can remedy. That is a natural condition with men going into a country like that without capital, and our first duty should be to make it as easy as possible for them to secure some capital with which to go on. I think the Government of the country might well direct their energies in that direction. If they could find a solution of that difficulty they would do a great deal more for the farmer of the West than by finding markets for him that are already full, because finding a market for him across the border would be like find-
ing a market with his next neighbour who has 20,000 bushels of wheat himself and says: I do not need your wheat, I have wheat of my own and I will only buy your wheat in order that I may sell it again at an advance. That will be exactly the condition if our farmers try to find a market in the United States. I believe the Government have done something towards providing elevators in the West. I think they, might well work along in that direction in order that the farmer may be able to get his grain graded and raise money on it without having to dispose of it in a great hurry immediately after harvest, because it must be evident that every farmer there who has had to run nearly twelve months without money, finds that he must dispose of his grain as quickly as he cp.n; his creditors are crowding him, he has to pay off his bills for machinery, he has to give something to the blacksmith, the grocer, the harness-maker and many others, and he simply must have the cash. As time goes on and men get into better circumstances in the West, they are able to hold their grain. That would adequately describe the position of a number of people in the West to-day, perhaps more particularly in Manitoba and the older settled sections of Saskatchewan; but there are large areas dn Saskatchewan and Alberta where there are still many poor homesteaders struggling very hard to get a foothold in the country. There are many other ways in which we might be able to assist the settler in the West. My sympathies naturally go out to him because I have been there and I know something of his difficulties. When I am there, actually living out on the farm side by side with these men, going into their shanties, talking with them, working with them, exchanging work with them, attending their threshings and having them attend mine, knowing all about what they are doing, I feel that they deserve the very greatest consideration that can possibly be given them by the Government of this country. I do not know whether anything could be done in the way of rearranging our banking system so as to assist these people to get money when they need it, but I say this matter should be considered and I have no doubt it will receive consideration at the hands of the Government.
Referring to the charge that has been made that the Government has been letting the trade of this country go to the bow wows, I believe the Toronto Globe,-or some neighbour of the Globe politically, has made the charge that the whole trade policy of the

Government has gone to smash. That is the irresponsible utterance of the irresponsible editor of an irresponsible newspaper. Hon. gentlemen opposite have always been disposed in the past to measure up the prosperity of the country by the total of its exports and imports, and I want, just for a moment, to make a little comparison with regard to that matter. In 1910 we had imports coming into this country of $241,961,556, of dutiable goods; and of free goods, $143,873,547 or a total, dutiable and free, of $385,835,103. In 1914 we had an importation of dutiable goods of $425,324,576 and of free goods of $210,186,916, a total dutiable and free, of $635,511,492 or an increase of $249,676,389. The same would be measurably true with regard to our exports. I find that they also have increased by a very large amount. The total exports in 1910 were $279,247,551. In 1914 they were $431,588,439, or a balance in favour of the present Government of $152,340,888. I do not believe that the total amount of our exports and the total amount of our imports is an infallible barometer giving an unfailing index of the prosperity of a country, but that is the favourite argument of the hon. gentlemen opposite, and if there is anything in it the comparison is certainly largely in favour of the Government now occupying the Treasury Benches. Personally I think we might very largely decrease both our imports and exports, and yet be just as well off as we are to-day.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: A great deal better off.


William Wright: ture has declined, and declined enormously in Great Britain. They find that they cannot exist under the free trade conditions of that country. The farmer in Great Britain has all the advantages of great manufacturing centres right at his door. He can hitch up his team on the farm and find a market for everything he produces in the nearest market town, which will not be more than two or three miles away. If he wishes to buy, he can buy at his very door, where the goods are manufactured. He caii buy and sell at first hand. There are no transportation charges in either case. If farming can be benefited by free trade, surely under those conditions the farmers of Great Britain would be the wealthiest people in the face of the earth. But we find the agricultural industry there has declined and declined enormously. Would not free trade have an immeasurably worse effect in this country? I think it would.
Let us suppose we adopted the principle laid down by some hon. gentlemen opposite and did away with our customs duties in large measure, or altogether. That would have the effect of shutting up our factories and of throwing, a large number of men out of work. These men would naturally have to crowd out to the farms, or go to some other country. If they crowded out into the rural sections and became farmers, the production of the farms would largely increase; hut there would be a much less number of people to consume those products, and a vastly larger percentage of those products would have to find its way across the ocean to a foreign market, under all the disabilities I outlined a moment ago. The result would inevitably be that they would have to take less money for their products, and what advantage would that be? Then for manufactured articles, as there would be no competition in Canada, they would have to pay to foreign countries whatever they asked. They would certainly j>ay a larger sum than they pay today. I ask myself would the agriculturist be better off under such conditions? I say no, most emphatically no. For these reasons I feel that a reasonable measure of protection is absolutely indispensable to this country in its present condition. I believe we should have a protective tariff, not a tariff as high as Haman's gallows, but one giving a reasonable measure of protection. We in Canada to-day under our tariff policy recognize to some extent, the principle of free trade; we recognize the principle of tariff for revenue, and the prin-

ciple of protection. That is as true of the parties who occupied the treasury benches in years gone by as it is of the parties that occupies them to-day. Perhaps the only difference between us is as to the importance we attach to each of these various phases of policy. I think that tariff matters ought to be taken out of the political arena.	.
I believe there should be no party feeling in regard to it. We ought to have a tariff board which would deal with this matter independently of those who may be occupying the treasury benches. When such a proposition was laid before this House, discussed and carried in this House, the popular chamber which voices public opinion in this Dominion, the Bill was thrown out by the irresponsible body on the other side of this building.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would remind the hon. gentleman that such a remark is not permissible when referring to the other branch of this Parliament.


William Wright: It has been said by way of criticism by hon. gentlemen opposite that such a tariff board might under certain circumstances show favouritism. The tariff board should be outside of political control or at least should be devoid of party politics. The Government of the country, or Parliament, should be allowed to name one member of that board and the Opposition might be allowed to name a member to see that no injustice was done to any manufacturer who might have his affairs investigated by the board. A representative of the great agricultural interests should be placed upon that bo'ard; the great manufacturing and mercantile interests might very well claim a representative upon that board, and the mining, lumbering and fishing industries might also very properly be represented upon it. The very best men in Canada, such as we have on the railway board, should find a place upon the board which should have authority to look into all complaints that might be laid before it, such as overcharging the public, or in one way or another taking advantage of the people. Such a board as that would he essential to the proper investigation of all such charges, and I do not know any good reason why the leaders on the Government side and the leaders on the Opposition side could not get together and agree upon such a board. I do not believe that the power should be placed in the hands of any board

to go right into a man's office, take his books and make known all his private affairs to his competitors and to the world generally. All investigations of that nature should be private, and a man's business should not be disclosed, but I would have the board of such a nature that there would be absolute confidence that fair play would be done. It would be a deterrent upon individuals here and there who might take * advantage of certain conditions to overcharge the public.
Yet, when we come to deal, as we must, with trade treaties with other lands wc should put up a united front. We should not in this House be fighting proposals pTO and con and assisting those who are our competitors for the trade of the world by giving them information in that way that they would not otherwise get. We should put up an undivided front to them, and I believe that in the near future we shall have such a board as that which I have suggested to deal with matters that affect us as far as our foreign trade is concerned. In our domestic attairs this does not matter so much. We can meet together here and discuss, I hope in a friendly spirit, all these questions of domestic concern, we can present our views to the public in general. elections as they come around and whatever policy seems to suit the public best will prevail because representatives will be returned to support that policy. But I say again, in regard to our dealing with foreign matters, that we ought to stand shoulder to shoulder on both sides of the House and we ought not to be engaged in unseemly squabbles in regard to matters of very great concern to the people of vns country.
I have taken up the time of the House at much greater length than I had intended, and I have always laid down the doetrme that no individual member should occupy the time of the House at any very great length. I have criticised speeches of four, five, six, seven and eight hours' length that have been delivered in this House, and I hope that I will never be a sinner in that regard.


Mr. G. W. KYTE (Richmond, N.S.):: Mr. Speaker, while I am succeeding the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Wright) in this debate, I trust he will pardon me if I do not follow him in all the subjects he has discussed during the course of his speech. I merely desire to refer to one criticism which he has directed against the representatives o, the West on mis side of the House. What he said would seem to indi-29
cate that he regarded it as a complaint that the farmers of the West have sent to the House lawyers or other professional men bo represent them. I remember very well	the record of the late
Conservative Government from 1878 to 1896, and during all that time the portfolio of Agriculture was held by a brewer, a lawyer, or a doctor. If our friends in the Conservative party think there is no person qualified to represent the farmers in Canada but farmers-and I recognize that farmers are well able to represent themselves and other interests in the coun-'try-and if our Conservative friends think it is a reflection upon the farmers of Canada that they should be represented by professional men, I want to know how it was that a Conservative Government during all these years did not find any farmers in Canada to take the portfolio of Agriculture, but, as I stated a moment ago, placed at the head of the Agricultural Department a brewer, a doctor and a lawyer. These men were all very good in their way, but if the argument of my hon. friend from Muskoka should prevail, then I think he would be able to express the same opinion of his own party in the House. It remained for the Liberal Government from 1896 to 1911 to place the first farmer in Canada in charge of the portfolio of Agriculture. As I said, I do not propose to follow my hon. friend any further.
For the second time in a period covering a little over six months we are called together for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to the greatest war known in history and to provide for Canada's participation in support of British arms. At the extraordinary meeting of Parliament in August last, which continued for the short period of five days, by unanimous vote, we supplied this Government with a war credit of $50,000,000 besides passing other legislation incidental thereto. Since that date we have witnessed the splendid response made by Canadians to the call of Lord Kitchener for " men and more men." From every city, town and hamlet, from the far North to the American boundary, from Cape Breton to Prince Rupert, there have been gathered companies, brigades, battalions and contingents of which it was our pleasure the other day to view the very climax and culmination in the magnificent body of men contributed by British Columbia to the overseas forces.

statement that forty-four thousand settlers in Canada had returned to the United States is correct.
One other instance I desire to refer to, and that is the conduct of the Government in relation to the reduction of the cement duties in 1912. During the session of 1913, the right hon. leader of the Opposition called the attention of the Government to the correspondence which had appeared in the newspapers some months before in which a gentleman in the city of Toronto, a supporter of the Government, had bitterly complained, that, notwithstanding that the Government had given him, or the interest in which he was concerned,
5 p.m. a distinct and specific promise that the cement duty would not be interfered with, that duty had actually been reduced fifty per cent, leaving the manufacturers of cement for the moment in an embarrassed position. An election took place in Saskatchewan about the time of this reduction and the question of cheaper cement, as well as cheaper goods of all kinds necessary for the settlers of the West, was a question which specially occupied the minds of the electors at that time. It was thought that by cutting the duty on cement some advantage might be gained by the Conservative party in that election, and notwithstanding that the Prime Minister a few weeks before, had given his *solemn assurance to this cement manufacturer that the cement duty would not be [DOT]interfered with, this cut of fifty per cent was made. This friend and supporter of the Government wrote a letter in which he protested against that conduct. He said: When I received your letter on the subject of the cement duty, I got the authority of my directors to spend a considerable sum in enlarging our plant and increasing our output, but we have been so embarrassed by the situation arising that we have lost our money and our shareholders will not hereafter have the confidence in the Government with respect to trade matters that they would otherwise have had.
During all the years when the Liberal party was in power, I believe, there never was an interference * with the tariff by Order in Council except in one instance. When the late Minister of Finance intended to change the tariff, he made his announcements first in the House of Commons, and they were accepted only after full and thorough debate, and in this way the public was kept informed of what was likely to take place in respect of tariff changes. But in this instance there was mo discussion in Parliament, no notice of

the action to be taken by the Government; the stroke came like a bolt from the blue; with the result that the confidence of business men in this Government received a shock from which it has not recovered.
So, if we have bad times in Canada, if there has not been in some respects as great an output of production or as much employment as we might have expected, the conditiori may be attributable to the fact that the business community in Canada have not the confidence in this Government that they had in its predecessor.
I would like to discuss another matter which relates to the Civil Service situation. A statement was brought down in the House a few days ago in which it was disclosed that between the time the present Government came into power and March, 1914, something like two thousand civil servants had been dismissed and their places taken by something over ten thousand. The Prime Minister in the course of a speech delivered in Halifax before the election of 1911, made this statement:
A government holds the power of patronage for the benefit of the public, and it is entitled to fill public offices solely in the public interest. The duties of those officials are for the public benefit and are fixed by the laws of the country; their salaries are paid out of the people's money. To use the power of filling such positions as a reward for party service and without regard to the character and capacity of the individual selected is a gross breach of a solemn public trust. A private trustee so dishonouring his office would be subject to punishment by the criminal law, but the one punishment which can be meted out for such abuse of a public trust is dismissal by the electorate.
We have had a revelation made within the last few days which is very startling in view of the source from which it comes; I have before me a statement by Professor Shortt, the chairman of. the Civil Service Commission, dealing with this matter. In an address which he recently delivered in the city of Ottawa he said:
" Patronage is entirely and absolutely in control of the lower grade appointments in the Civil Service," declared Professor Adam Shortt, Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, addressing the People's Forum last night. "Seven out of every nine appointments have patronage behind them."
"There have been many promotions in salary even where there were no vacancies in the upper ranks," he said. " The Civil Service is therefore in the same condition of an army with too many officers. The British expert, Sir George Murjiy, was shocked when he noticed this condition, and I am sick and tired of asking the Government to remedy this state of affairs.
" It is no use arguing that the high cost of living makes these salary promotions necessary; everybody has to pay for the necessaries of life, but not all get promotions. .. I have

met men In the Canadian Civil Service," he said, " who, though they held positions under the Government, were quite ready to admit that the Civil Service system was rotten."
Now, when this Government came into power they made loud professions as to the manner in which they would deal with the Civil Service. We have heard a great deal during the last few months on the subject of " Patriotism and Production." I believe that a distinguished philosopher once said that the greatest patriot was he who caused two blades of grass to grow where only one flourished before.
That principle is applied by the present Government in a somewnat. different manner. Their patriotism consists in patriotism for their party alone, their production consists in producing five government officials where only one flourished before. We have many instances of this kind of patriotism and production. We have the instance, brought up in the House of Commons a few days ago, where a customs official in my county was dismissed by the Minister of Customs because it was alleged that there was nothing for him to do; thereupon the minister appointed another official to do that nothing, at a salary of $250, being $150 more than his predecessor had received.


Mr. J. D. REID:: The man we appointed has been doing something since his appointment; the other man did not do anything.


George William Kyte: I would like to get the record from the department of what the man is doing at the present time, and I take this opportunity of requesting the hon. minister to lay a report to that effect on the table of the House.
In the province of Nova Scotia a man was appointed in the Department of the Interior to discharge certain duties, his jurisdiction extending over the maritime provinces. For five or six years he discharged his duties to the satisfaction of the department and its officials. But there was in the city of Halifax a young man, secretary of the Conservative Association of that city, who desired to obtain employment in the public service. For some time he was not given a position, and he became very insistent. It was necessary to provide a position for him, and in the month of October last the officials of the Department of the Interior appointed him at a salary of $1,800 a year-with expenses and office allowance, amounting to $2,500- to assist the other officer to discharge the dutieswhich he himself was quite capable of performing. Whatever extenuation there may
have been in the past, when times were good, revenues bounteous and surpluses large, for the Government is indulging in extravagances of that kind, there is surely no excuse at a time when it is necessary, owing to financial conditions, for a Minister of Finance to issue phoney money from the printing machines in the form of Dominion notes issued without authority and without the necessary gold reserve.
Permit me to cite another instance which occurred in the county of Richmond, and which was dealt with in this House a few years ago. It was necessary for the Department of Railways and Canals to expropriate lands for the improvement of the St. Peter's canal. The owner of the land, a friend of this Government, was a defeated candidate on several occasions in that county. The Department of Railways and Canals paid him about $1,000 an acre for the land that was required from him. It appeared in evidence in tins House that the land had been purchased by him a few years before for $10.50 an acre, and that subsequent to that his property had been assessed at $75 an acre. He moved in the Supreme Court to have the assessment quashed on the ground that the valuation was excessive. In evidence read (before the court he proved tihat the property was not worth $75 an acre, and in this evidence he was supported by certain leading citizens of the town in which I live. That was about three years before he sold the land to the Government. When the property was expropriated by the Department of Railways and Canals, they appointed three commissioners, resident in the town, to value that property. Two of these commissioners were two of the gentlemen who swore three years before that the property was not worth $75 an acre, and the third was the campaign manager of the defeated candidate in the previous election. These three men awarded the owner of the property a valuation of $1,000 an acre, notwithstanding the fact that that valuation was far above and beyond any value which attached to the property. This was an instance where over $3,000 was given to a party friend for the purpose of discharging a party obligation. It does appear to me that the whole resources of this Government are being exploited for party advantage, and for party advantage only.
I could give other reasons why we have_ a deficit of some $60,000,000 at the present time. When the Minister of Finance delivered his speech before the Commercial Travellers' Association in the city of Montreal, perhaps

he njig'M be excused if he did not fully appreciate the indications of the. far-reaching depression which was about to become prevalent throughout the Dominion of Canada. The Finance Minister's mature years were co-incident with that happy period in Canada from 1896 to 1911 when the Liberal party was in power and when there were no such things as hard times, scarcity of money, deficits, or trade depression. But his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce well knew what these signs portended. During all the years that he was Finance Minister in the Conservative Government which was defeated in 1896, hard times and unemployment supped, dined and lodged with him. He was nevei free from the glowering shadows of those unwelcome spectres; they were unbidden guests at every cabinet council and at every party caucus. The Minister of Trade and Commerce well knew what these things forebode, and if the hon. Minister of Finance was not in a position properly to appreciate the conditions which were upon us, it is unfortunate that he did not consult his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
At the session of Parliament of 1913 the minister brought down certain proposals with regard to the supplies for that year. No attempt was made during that sessiou to meet the stringency which was about to bear upon our commercial conditions. There was a period between 1896 and 1911 when there were evidences that the great expansion and prosperity which Canada had tHeretofore enjoyed were about to be checked for a period. In the Budget speech delivered on March 17, 1908, by the Hon. W. S. Fielding, then Finance Minister, he said:
Business has received a check but do not look for a continued period of depression. On the part of the Government it is a time for caution. Large new enterprises which would call for great outlay will be laid aside for a little while.
lhat was the position Mr. Fielding took in 1908, and in 1909, when he was bringing down the Estimates for that fiscal year, he gave further proof of his preparation for the expected depression. Referring to his Budget speech delivered in that year, he said:
With this condition of revenue and with the very many demands made upon us, it would almost seem unavoidable that we should meet the difficulties by an increase in taxation. In some other countries that seems to be the remedy for the financial conditions that have there arisen. In our judgment, however, there is no need here of increased. taxation. "We 
think the truer and sounder method is to meet the situation by a substantial reduction in our expenditure, and that is the method we have adopted. Unquestionably if we were to continue the same rate of expenditure as that which has prevailed in recent years, we should he obliged to add to the burdens of taxation; hut we have come to the conclusion that the part of wisdom is to ask all concerned to be patient with us for the time while we put the brakes severely on expenditure.
That is the attitude taken by Hon. Mr. Fielding at a time when no person in a position to judge of the financial conditions then existing thought that apything like such a severe depression was upon us as was upon the present Finance Minister during the session of 1914. Further on Mr. Fielding said:
We know that in many parts of the country) great works are projected, railways, canals!, and other enterprises, which might in themselves be worthy enough, some of which will have to be undertaken at a later date and; will figure largely in the development of Canada ; but it Is much more important that we>
should, in the present condition of affairs, await an improved financial condition. Therefore we say to the promoters of all these enterprises, no matter how worthy they may be, that they must he content to let them stand' aside for the present.
What was the condition of affairs in 1914? In 1914 there was every appearance of distress at the time that Parliament was opened for the session of that year. Words were placed in the mouth of His Royal Highness the Governor General, which I read a few moments ago, and which indicated that the Government was not unaware that a serious condition of affairs threatened this whole country. But the present Finance Minister did not take the steps followed by his predecessor in the year of which I spoke. In 1909-10 Mr. Fielding reduced the expenditure upon consolidated fund account by $9,334,243. He reduced it upon capital account by $13,247,215, making a total reduction of his Estimates from the preceding year of $22,581,458. It is quite true that at the end of the fiscal year it was found that he had not maintained that decrease; but why? Because the equilibrium of the revenue had been established in the meantime, and there was every indication that a revenue almost equal to that of the preceding year, would be enjoyed by the treasury during the years 1909 and 1910, but, notwithstanding the expenditure, that year was in fact $5,000,000 less than that of the preceding year, but Mr. Fielding still had a surplus that year of $22,091,963. The hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Mac-donell) endeavoured to take some credit for the Government because in the Estimates for the present year it is proposed to reduce

them by a considerable sum of money. In giving a list of reductions in the expenditures for 1915-16, as compared with those for 1914-15, he read items to the House which aggregated the sum of $17,780,320. This, you will remember, is for the year 1915-16, but these reductions did not apply to the last year. In answer to my hon. friend from South Toronto, all I can say is that if the foresight of the Government was only equal to its hindsight, the Finance Minister would not have a deficit of $60,000,000 by a blooming sight. But it is not in 1915-16 that they should have reduced their expenditure, it was in 1914-15. If the Finance Minister had done so, then we would not now be met with the condition of affairs which was disclosed by his Budget statement.
I have here a statement which has been brought down to the House to-day showing the expenditures from month to month during the years 1912, 1913 and 1914. I shall take the expenditure for the last three months of 1913 and the last three months of 1914 and see to what extent the Finance Minister was preparing to meet the financial obligations which were maturing and which have been disclosed in the Budget speech. In September 1913, the expenditure on consolidated revenue account amounted to $9,268,518.33. For the corresponding month in 1914, when the war was on and with every sign of the financial depression and the scarcity of money apparent on all sides, he increased that expenditure to $12,962,824.66. The capital expenditure for September, 1913, amounted to $3,892,564.02 and in September 1914 to $4,581,282.73. Special expenditure in September 1913 amounted to $80,145.02. In September 1914 it amounted to $687,201.81.
In October 1913, the expenditure on consolidated fund account amounted to $8,749,737.11. In October 1914 it amounted to $9,696,064.71. The capital expenditure in October 1913 was $3,343,026.36 and in October 1914 it was $4,479,119.80. Special expenditure for October 1913, amounted to $3,673,060.02 and for October 1914 $84,057.76.
In November, 1913, the consolidated fund expenditure was $9,232,141.30 and in November, 1914, it was $10,496,923.83. The capital expenditure in November, 1913, was $4,231,379.18 and in November, 1914, it was $4,250,385.75. Special expenditure for November, 1913, was $2,068,074.11 and for November, 1914, $350,245.68.
In December, 1913, the consolidated fund expenditure was $9,308,955.66 and in December 1914, it was $9,942,985.96. The capital expenditure in December, 1913, was $3,407,611.33 and in December, 1914, it was $2,910,167.25. The special expenditure in December, 1913, was $797,683.49 and in December, 1914, it was $1,532,807.78.
We have here a record which certainly does not indicate care and forethought on the part of the Finance Minister. The total increase during the four months, September, October, November and December, 1014, as compared with the same months of 1913 amounted to $3,686,188. We have certainly no indication in these figures that the Finance Minister, even as late as December 1014, realized that there was reason for economy. But how is it proposed that the deficit shall be met? It is proposed that this deficit on ordinary expenditure and on capital account, apart from the war, shall be met by certain special-taxes as well as by increases in the tariff rates. For the extravagance that I have pointed out-and I have only pointed out a few isolated cases-the people of Canada will be compelled, while the present Government is in power, to pay an extra cost on nearly every necessity of life as well as special taxes on other things which will add materially to the burden of the cost of living. We have increased duty on bananas, against which a very loud protest has been raised throughout this country, wearing apparel, boots and shoes, many kinds of foodstuffs, drugs and many other products which enter into the daily consumption and the ordinary business of almost every consumer in the Dominion of Canada. Somefewyears ago, and after the present Government came into office, the fishermen of the maritime provinces demanded a change in the interpretation of the tariff with respect to the duty on cotton twine used in the manufacture of lobster traps. The interpretation which had been placed upon it previous to the change of Government was regarded as too liberal for the fishermen, inasmuch as the actual commodity used in the construction of lobster traps was not described in the tariff. The result of the new interpretation put upon that item by the present Minister of Customs was to place upon the tax list an item which for many years under the old Government had been free, with the result that the fishermen of the maritime provinces have had to pay a higher price for that commodity ever since. In the session of 1912, I called the attention of the Minister of Finance to this unfairness, and he was good enough to say

that at the next revision of the tariff he would look into the matter. The next amendment to the tariff was made in the session of 1913, and while several articles heretofore taxed were placed on the free list by the tariff amendment of that year, notably coarse thread which is used by manufacturers of thread in certain cities in the province of Ontario, the Finance Minister did not see his way clear to reduce the duty upon this twine used by the fishermen, and as a consequence they have had to pay the duty ever since. So that in addition to the duty of 25 per cent heretofore collected by the present Government upon this kind of twine, there is to be an additional duty of 7i per cent, and the fishermen of the maritime provinces will be obliged to pay that additional tax to make up for the deficit of the Minister of Finance -a deficit which is due to the wanton and unjustifiable extravagance of the several departments of this Government.
There is another item in which the fishermen of the maritime provinces are interested, and that is corkwood. Ever since 1897, corkwood has been on the free list. By the revision of the tariff made in 1897 by the Minister of Customs of that day and his associates, corkwood and many other things necessary in the prosecution of the fisheries were put on the free list. I notice that in the list made by the Minister of Finance of articles which will not be affected by the proposed increase of 7i per cent, there is no mention of corkwood; so that necessarily this important item, hitherto free, will be taxed. If it is not too late, I most earnestly request the Minister of Finance to look into this matter, and inasmuch as nearly all the other articles used by fishermen in the prosecution of their industry are upon the free, list perhaps the Minister of Finance might see his way to put corkwood on the free list, as it was before.
What is to be the consequence of the increase in the tariff? Is it to be a temporary or a permanent increase? For my part I think there are signs and indications that the present increases are to be regarded as a permanent institution. The interests that have been able to get this advantage over the consumers of Canada are not likely to yield it up very readily. We know the history of the United States with respect to tariff. We know that the American Civil War was the excuse for imposing high protective duties in that country. Large obligations were incurred by the

United States Government during the Civil War, and as a consequence the duties had to be very largely increased. We know how the consumers of that country have struggled ever since to get the tariff reduced. We know that from 1865 up to the year 1913 they did not succeed in securing any decrease whatever. The interests that had grown up under the new tariff came forward year after year urging that the tariff be retained, and the consequence was that in a few years the United States had the highest tariff that has ever been imposed in any country. A writer of that day said of this tariff:
A system of taxation more comprehensive, more burdensome and more confused than it has ever been the lot of any other civilized community to hear.
Further on he says:
The tariff of 1864 is the real war tariff, andj the basis of the present tariff. While the main reasons of its passage were without doubt the need of increased revenue for the Government and the desire to compensate the various interests for the burdens imposed on them by the internal revenue, it is undeniable1 that its final shape was largely owing to the! endeavours of the protected manufacturers toi gain each for himself the greatest possible advantage irrespective of the other's interests. Above all, the habits engendered during this period of comprehensive protection to every thing led to a crystallization of the sentiment1 in favour of national exclusion and isolation. The commercial policy of the United States for many decades was moulded by the dealings and habits generated during the period of the civil war. Henceforth the move-' ment in favour of high protection, which still! in great part dominates the American people, was to become the leading feature in the commercial and political life of the country. What was in its origin a mere temporary expedient called forth by the exigencies of a great military struggle was to become a permanent institution.	I
We have had our first war tariff in Canada. We had the first instalment of it in August, 1914, and we are now getting the second instalment. There would be some excuse for asking the people of Canada to bear the burden of an increased tariff if these were actually war taxes, but in view of the facts that are well known throughout of the country at the present time and of the facts that have been made known in this House since this debate began, it is inconceivable and incomprehensible how the Minister of Finance can bring down a tariff for the purpose of raising ordinary revenue and call it a war tariff, and blame the war for the necessity of bringing it on. The Minister of Finance is largely interested in important financial corporations

in Canada, and he is certainly not without familiarity with corporation law. Let me ask him what would happen if the president or general manager or board of directors of a corporation in Canada were to put shares upon the market and ask for subscriptions to funds to be applied on capital account or for the purpose of increasing the capital outlay of that corporation, and who then, notwithstanding the statement in the prospectus, applied those funds for the purpose of paying salaries.
I am quite sure that a board of directors that would do such a thing would very soon be brought into intimate relationship with the crown attorney and with the judge presiding over the criminal court. In any other walk of life that would not be tolerated. I am bound to say it is absolutely improper and indefensible to couple a demand for war revenue with increased taxes which are required only for the purpose of paying the ordinary expenditure of the country.
There is another tax imposed upon the people by this tariff which will be- extremely irksome and annoying. I refer to the postage tax. Now, if it is necessary for the Government to resort to this mode of taxation, why do they not as a matter of principle raise the postage on letters to three cents and on postal cards to two cents? That would have been very much better, and much less annoying than the present scheme. I am familiar with conditions existing in the country. We know that the owner of a farm, for instance, does not waste his time running to and from the post office. Neither do the grownup members of his family, for they are employed in more important and serious work. The duty of carrying letters to and from the post office devolves upon the younger members of the family. Heretofore, when a farmer wanted to post a letter, he gave his child two cents, and he went to the post office, bought the stamp, placed it on the envelope and posted the letter, which then went on to its destination. What is the reason for the complicated system the Finance Minister proposes? There are going to be difficulties and irritations without end.
The child going to the post office after the new tariff is in force will have to ask not only for a two cent stamp, but in addition the one cent tax stamp which will also have to be attached to the letter, and if, through the ignorance or illiteracy of the postmaster, an ordinary one cent stamp is
placed upon the letter instead of the tax stamp, the letter will find its way into the dead letter office, or the receiver of the letter will be penalized to the extent of double the deficiency in postage. I intimated that there was such a thing as illiterate and incompetent postmasters in this country. Perhaps it will come as a surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, to know that the term "illiteracy" could be properly applied to functionaries occupying the responsible office of postmaster, but it is a fact that under the present Government there have been appointed postmasters who are absolutely illiterate, and are unable to read the directions upon the letters coming into their charge, or to know the denominations of the ordinary postage stamps. There is a case in my own county where a postmaster was dismissed. He was competent, and he had discharged his duties as such for a good many years. There was no fault to be found with him. After the change of Government a complaint was made that he was a Liberal, and his office was removed to a neighbouring house. He received his notice of dismissal, and he was directed to hand over the property of the Postoffice Department to his successor. His successor came to the postoffice, a list was made out of the articles belonging to the Postoffice Department, and the retiring postmaster passed his successor oyer a receipt for those articles and asked him to sign it. The successor said: I can not sign it. The retiring postmaster said: Why can you not sign it? And his successor replied: Because I am not able to read or write. The postmaster stated: You will not get the property until you sign for it. The new postmaster had to go to the nearest village and get into communication with the postmaster there. The postmaster there telegraphed the postoffice inspector at Halifax, and the inspector at Halifax instructed the postmaster at the neighbouring village to go to the postmaster who had been dismissed and sign the receipt for the new postmaster. That is not a fanciful tale, but it is in line with many of the appointments which are being made by this Government. We have food inspectors appointed who can not tell the difference between a porterhouse steak and a gad of smelts, and we have fruit inspectors appointed who do not know the difference between a Gravenstein apple and a Brussels 'sprout. These are conditions which have grown up under the present Government, notwithstanding the fact that these hon. gentlemen, while, in opposition, decried 'long and loud the system of patronage as it had developed during that period.

But we have other things which we are interested in and which we will continue to think about from time to time as a result of this new tariff. Upon the delivery by the Finance Minister of Ms Budget we had a deputation of two hundred tobacco growers from Ontario and Quebec asking to have more protection upon their tobacco. If every industry in Canada is to be protected I would, like to know why the tobacco growers are not to be able to enter the swim as well as others. If they do not get what they ask for it must be because they are not organized and are not an adjunct of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. The Budget of the Finance Minister is an announcement that this is a protectionist Government and that protection not only for revenue but protection to prohibit the importation of foreign goods of any description is to be their policy. The amount of revenue that we will derive from the new Budget proposals of the Finance Minister remains to be seen when the tariff proposals are taken up in Committee of the Whole House. It would, I am sure, be interesting to inquire what amount of revenue can be derived under the proposals of the Government in respect to many of these tariff increases; but apart from the additional burdens which are to be placed upon the people by this increase of the tariff, there are annoyances and disagreeable features that ought to be remedied and which, if not remedied, will lead to the utmost confusion/


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to several addresses which have been delivered on this Budget, although I did not have the opportunity of being present when the main Opposition critic (Mr. A. K. Maclean) delivered his speech.
I have read his speech quite carefully, and notwithstanding the criticisms made by the hon. gentleman and those who have followed him on that side of the House, I can sincerely offer my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) my hearty congratulations on the presentation of his Budget. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Kyte) found some fault with the present Administration for not having appointed, as he said, a farmer as Minister of Argriculture; and he took some credit to the previous Administration for having appointed the Hon. Sydney Fisher, a farmer, as Minister of Agriculture. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Sydney Fisher may have been a farmer, 
but I venture to say that no man ever occupied the position of Minister of Agriculture who had a smaller regard for the farmers of Canada than had the Hon. Sydney Fisher. The Hon. Sydney Fisher, from his place in this House, stated as a reason why the farmers preferred to raise hogs rather than sheep was that the obstinacy of the hog induced the farmer to engage in the production of pork rather than in the production of mutton. He also stated from his place in this House that the farmers were a slip-shod, lazy and indifferent class of people. He is on " Hansard " as having made such a statement, and yet the hon. member for Richmond gives credit to the Liberal Administration for having appointed as Minister of Agriculture a person of that kind.
I was very much amused by some of the arguments advanced by the hon. gentleman, particularly his argument in regard to the extra stamp to be placed on post cards and letters. The hon. gentleman was hard up for an argument when he said that the placing of an extra war stamp on a post card or letter would make the system a very embarrassing one. He said that children who now were sent to the post office by their parents with two cents to buy a postage stamp to put on a letter down in his constituency would hardly be able to handle the extra financing of one cent entailed by putting another stamp on the letter. If we take that as an illustration of the people generally in the county of Richmond we can readily understand how it is that they have their present representative in the House of Commons at Ottawa, but I think the hon. gentleman in making that statement has cast an unwarranted reflection on the intelligence of the people of Richmond.


George William Kyte: The intelligence of the Tory postmasters.


John Wesley Edwards: I think that, notwithstanding what he says, the people in Richmond will be able to handle this large financial problem and work it out successfully so that letters will not go to the dead letter office. The hon. gentleman has said that during the year 1914 there had been considerable depression and that there were men out of work. That is undoubtedly true. Let us ask why that is the case. The Canadian Pacific Railway Lake Shore line, the Canadian Northern Railway, Ontario division, the Canadian Northern Railway Ottawa-Torcntc branch and several other lines of railway have been completed lately,

throwing out of work men engaged in their construction. I take issue with the hon. member when he argues that at such a time we should put on the brakes at once and stop our public works. It is no time to do that when men are out of employment.
Is it a fact that we on this side of the House are entirely responsible for conditions in Canada at the present time, or is it not the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite should bear the blame? The hon. member said that this new tariff was imposed simply to meet the extravagance of the present Administration. Will the hon. gentleman declare that his party has no responsibility for any of the public works which were started when the Liberals were in power and which had to be completed by the present Government since it came into power? It is a fact that during the last four years ending March, 1915, the Minister of Finance has had to finance some $56,000,000 for the National Transcontinental railway, some $10,000,000 for the Quebec bridge, some $38,000,000 in connection with the extravagant implementing clause of the Grand Trunk Pacific bond issue, for which this Government is not responsible, and some $15,000,000 loaned to the Grand Trunk Pacific. That makes a total of about $120,000,000, for which the Minister of Finance has had to finance. If hon. gentlemen opposite want to be fair, they will not and cannot claim that the present Government is responsible in the main for these necessary expenditures.
Allow me to refer for a moment to some statements made bj previous speakers in regard to Government dismissals. They allege that in the various departments officials of the Government have been dismissed and others have been put in their places. If I have any fault to find with the present Government along that line, it will be because it has not dismissed enough of them. There are a great many more who still retain their positions who should have been dismissed. What is the record of the Liberal party when it came into power in 1896? The. axe fell, and it fell frequently. In the first nine months of the Laurier Administration, 466 Government officials were dismissed without the shadow of an investigation. I am not going to follow all the arguments advanced by the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) with regard to this, but I will refer to one or two departments to which he has alluded. Take for instance the Customs Department. The revenue from customs for 1911 was about two and a half
times as much as it was in 1896. The cost of collection advanced by 162 per cent in that time. In 1913, the revenue had increased from $73,000,000 to $115,000,000, or an increase of 57 per cent, while the cost of collection had increased by about 47 per cent. The inward entries in the Customs Department in 1896 amounted to only 528,489, and the outward entries to 104,660. The business had grown enormously during the Laurier regime and continued to grow after the Borden Government took office until in 1913 the inward entries amounted to 1,902,155, and the outward entries to 466,122. It is unreasonable for hon. gentlemen to expect that a department, in which the work was growing at the rate which these figures indicate, could go ahead with its work without any increase in the cost or in the number of officials. It is true the number of officials was increased. In 1911, there were 198 officials in the inside service, and in 1915 there were 232-not a very large increase. In the outside service the increase from Otcober, 1911, to January, 1915, was from 2,273 to 3,144. The salaries paid to these officials indicate just the opposite of what has been charged against the Minister of Customs. They indicate that the ptmost care has been used by the minister in that regard. It is true that the cost of living has increased and the salaries of these officials had to increase; but the increase is not so very great, and the average increase throughout has been more than warranted by the increased cost of living.
Let us take the cost of collection for the ten years from October 1, 1904 to October 1, 1914, because taking the figures year by year will best prove my argument. The figures are as follows:
Cost
Year.	to collect.
Per cent.
1904-	05	
3.491905-	06	
3-311906-	07	
3-041907-	08	
3-301908-	09 .. [DOT]	
4-151909-	10	
3-321910-	11	
2.98
or an average for those years of Liberal Government of 3-37.
1911-	12	
2-791912-	13	2-74
These figures answer the statement
made by the hon. junior member for Halifax and prove that he was not right in his statement charging extravagance to this department. In 1913-14, the cost of collection was 3-59 per cent.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: What are the
figures for 1914-15?


John Wesley Edwards: I have not the figures. Since October, 1911, a number of new offices have been opened. Three chief ports have been opened, three outports have been made chief ports, and 54 new outports and five preventive and collecting stations have been opened. It is all right to refer to the number of officials in a department, but there are places throughout the country where men are doing preventive officer's work and getting possibly $100 or $150 a year, and they are included in the number of customs officials. Therefore the number bulks very large, and it is most unfair * to place the figures before the House and the country as the hon. member has done.
The Post Office Department also came in for some censure from the hon. junior member from Halifax (Mr. Maclean), and it has not escaped the attention of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte). The figures presented to the House by the hon. junior member for Halifax show that the revenue from the Post Office Department has each year exceeded the expenditure. But the hon. gentleman looks forward very dolefully to the future and predicts a deficit in that department. Suppose there were a deficit in the Post Office Department. I have maintained before in this House, and have no hesitation in stating now that if there is any department of Government that would be justified in having a deficit it is the post office. The money which makes up the revenue of that department is obtained from the people as payment for postage and should be given back to the people in the form of increased postal facilities. In my county, since this administration took office, the people have obtained postal facilities the like of which they never had before. I have in my county over seven hundred miles of rural mail routes, and many other counties have more than that. I estimate that about one-quarter of the population of the county I have the honour to represent are able to get their mails at their very doors. What was the situation before this Government came into power? The situation was this: The Administration of that day seized upon a suggestion made by the right hon. gentleman who leads the present Govern- , ment in favour of rural free mail delivery, and just before the election of 1908 they established one or two rural routes in the province of Ontario. But from 1908 down to 1911, where were rural routes established? I cannot speak for the other provinces, but I
[Mr. Edwards. 1
know that in my own province of Ontario the rural routes were established only where there was suflicient political pull to get them. That is the fact and no hon. gentleman on the other side can deny it. A member who supported the Government of that day could get a few rural routes established in his county, but a county that was not represented by a Government supporter got no consideration whatever. Under the present Administration rural routes have been extended, and are being extended, regardless of the political complexion of the representative of the constituencies. That is an indication of fairness on the part of this Government which the Liberal Government never displayed.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. EDWARDS (resuming):: Before six o'clock I was calling attention to the expenditures in connection with the Post Office Department,	which have been
criticised by the hon. member for Halifax. I was pointing out that if in the Post Office Department the expenditure for the last fiscal year was greater than that of 1911, there was ample justification for that expenditure in the improved postal facilities which this Government has given the people of the country districts in various parts of the Dominion.
I had also called attention to the cost of collecting the custom revenue. The hon. member for Halifax asked as to the cost of collection for the present fiscal year. I do not see how the hon. gentleman can reasonably expect to make any point in that regard. I gave the cost of collection for ten years, and showed that in 1911-12 and 1912-13 the cost of collecting the customs revenue under the present Administration was considerably less than the average cost of collecting during the previous seven or eight years under the Liberal Administration. Undoubtedly during the present year, and possibly during the coming year, there will be an increase in the cost of collecting, because of a loss of revenue, which is inevitable. But I scarcely think that hon. gentlemen opposite would argue that the moment your revenue begins to fall you should immediately dismiss your officials Tight and left, in order to keep the cost of collecting down to the average cost of previous years. That would be imposing an unnecessary and very unjust hardship upon many officials.

The hon. member for Halifax, in -the course of his remarks, made use of this expression :	,
X realize it to be too true that in Canada the public sense respecting Government expenditures is not so delicately and correctly adjusted as it should be, and it frequently appears like the voice of one crying in the wilderness to protest.
When did the hon. gentleman's political conscience become troubled in that respect? Can the hon. gentleman point to any places in " Hansard " wherein he is reported as objecting to any of these expenditures in the past? If the expenditures of the various departments have been open to censure the hon. gentleman stands condemned out of his own mouth for sitting here in silence when he should have called attention to unnecessary and extravagant expenditure. But he said not a single word. Nor does he get up in his place in the House to-day and tell the Government that they should cut out any expenditures that they intend to make in the city of Halifax. It is all right to say in general terms that the expenditure is too great. But the way to show a true desire to have it reduced is to point to specific instances in which reductions can reasonably be made. When I read that sentence of the hon. member for Halifax with regard to the public sense being not very delicately adjusted, I wondered what the Liberal party had done in the past m the way of adjusting that public sense. I wondered if it would be out of place to call to their attention some of the things which they did to put the machinery out of adjustment and to dull the public sense of appreciation of expenditure. Let me read to the House the words of a former Liberal member of this House in regard to one matter of expenditure for which the" country -holds the Liberal party responsible. I quote from the Winnipeg Tribune, the editor of which is Mr. R. L. Richardson, a former Liberal member of this Parliament. The article, which is headed " Graft and Loot," deals with the Transcontinental Railway scandal, and this is what that gentleman says:
The entire report is such a record of incompetence, and dishonesty, and graft and loot that it ought to be sufficient to sink the country. Just what men like Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. Fielding, Mr. Sifton, Mr. Graham, the then Minister of Railways, must think of the situation, would be Interesting to know. Some of these men are still in public life, and others have retired, but they have certainly bequeathed a legacy to their country which should stand as a monument to their disgrace for the next century or two, until their names shall have rotted in oblivion. The appalling corruption and mismanagement in connection
with this undertaking practically destroys it for all time as an asset to the Dominion. So enormously has the cost been enhanced, and so frightful will be the interest charges that it will be impossible to pay operating expenses, interest on capital, and wear and tear, afford to the settlers passenger and freight rates that are not prohibitory, and that could afford any relief to the burdened taxpayer. The whole enterprise has been so bungled that it would probably have been better if the Government had taken $100,000,000 of the country's money and thrown it into the furnace for utter destruction.
That is the opinion of a former Liberal member of the Government which went out of power when this Government took office -and a Liberal candidate for election since that time-in regard to graft, loot and extravagance. I respectfully commend his words to hon. gentlemen opposite when they feel disposed to talk about the graft and extravagance of this Administration.
It has been stated by the Finance Minister and by the junior member for Halifax- and not denied-that there wild inevitably be an increase in the public debt of Canada. Let us look at the question of the national debt just for a moment. In 1896, the year the Liberal party came into power, the net debt of Canada was $258,497,432. In 1911, when they left office, the net debt was $340,042,052. So that they had succeeded in increasing the debt of Canada by over $81,500,000. The Borden Government took office in October, 1911, and at the end of the last fiscal year, March 31, 1914, they had decreased the net debt by something over $6,000,000. The present fiscal year will see an addition to the deot of Canada, due to Canada's participation in the defence of the Empire we love and of liberties that we hold sacred.
A decline in revenue and an increase in expenditure means, of course, an addition to the national debt; and no matter what party had been in power at the present time, I maintain that an increase in our national debt for this year was inevitable under the circumstances. In that, of course, I am assuming that if the Liberal party had been in power they would have gone on and participated in the present war as we have done. The Finance Minister puts the loss of revenue for the present year at $33,000,000. I would like hon. gentlemen opposite, in criticising the Budget, as they have a perfect right to do, to state how they would have altered or changed the policy of the Dominion of Canada so as to have avoided a declining revenue at the present time. Surely no hon. member in this House will to-day stand up and express the opinion that the adoption of the reciprocity

pact would have prevented the loss in revenue which has taken place. Surely no political party in this or any other country ever had its folly fully brought home as the folly of the Liberal party has been brought home to it in the last twelve months. For . the years 1911-12, 1912-13, 1913-14 the sur-plusses are the largest in the financial history of the Dominion of Canada. We have had heavy expenditures on public works that had to be completed-the National Transcontinental railway, the Quebec bridge, the Hudson Bay railway, the Welland canal-and which of these would the hon. gentlemen opposite have stopped? If I mistake not, the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition not only favoured the construction of the Welland canal, but also favoured entering on the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, and that within the last twelve months. Special taxes are required at the present time to meet special conditions. Will anybody question the correctness of that statement? To meet the necessities of our war expenditures and our pension list, special taxation is necessary. If no war existed these special taxes would not be necessary, and the situation would have been met without difficulty. In regard to expenditure, what has been the record of the Liberal party? I remember that previous to 1896, before they came to power, the Liberal party pledged itself to reduce the expenditure which at the time was $38,000,000 or $40,000,000 a year. This amount they declared to be outrageous; in fact, from one end of the country to the other they declared that the then Conservative party was grinding the people between the upper and the nether millstone of taxation; and that if they were returned to power they would reduce that expenditure by at least several millions. That statement, of course, at that time was just as bad as the statements they are making from their seats on the other side of the House to-day. What was their record when in power? Instead of reducing the expenditure, in the first five years the average ran, not from $38,000,000 to $40,000,000, but over $50,000,000; in the next five years it averaged over $72,000,000, and in the next five years it averaged over $113,500,000, reaching more than $133,000,000 in 1909. They declared they would lessen the taxes of the people. Did they fulfil that pledge? The taxes represented by customs and excise in 1896 amounted to $5.46 per head of the population. In 1906 they amounted to $10 per head of population, and in 1911, still under Liberal rule, to $12 per head of population. That is how 
they kept their pledge to reduce taxation. But Canada's national debt is not to be measured, merely in dollars, and while I submit that the Liberal party in this country is responsible for a very large part of Canada's national debt as represented in dollars, the Liberal party in this country is responsible, I believe I might say entirely responsible, for that part of Canada's national debt which is not measured in dollars, because there is a debt that this country owes, and which under Liberal administration was allowed to accumulate and increase from year to year, a debt of gratitude to the Mother Country, which they never seemed disposed to pay, and which was allowed to accumulate under their administration.
Allow me to call attention for a few moments to our trade. Canada's -imports for the year ending March 31,	1914,
amounted to $635,511,492, which was $31,000,000 less than our imports for the previous year, but notwithstanding that falling off, was $173,500,000 more than our imports in 1911.	In 1914 our exports
of Canadian produce amounted to $431,500,000, which was $75,800,000 more than in 1913 and $157,272,000 more than in 1911.	Canada's total trade
in 1914 showed an increase over 1913 of $34,500,000, and an increase over 1911, the last year of Liberal rule, of $460,300,000. Our trade with France shows a decrease in our imports of a little over $1,000,000 and an increase in our exports to that country of about a like amount. Our trade with Germany for 1914 shows a slight increase in our imports from that country, less than one-quarter of a million, and an increase of over $1,000,000 in our exports to that country. Our imports from the United Kingdom were $6,800,000 less than in 1913, but our exports to the United Kingdom in 1914 were $44,340,000 more than in 1913. To the United States our exports in 1914 were $25,900,000 more than in 1913, and our imports from that country were $39,300,000 less than in the preceding year. Of Canada's exports of animals and their products, 69 per cent go to the British Empire and 31 per 'cent to other countries. Of Canada's exports of agricultural products, 56 per cent go to the British Empire and 34 per cent to all other countries. Seventy-two per cent of our surplus farm products for which we have to find a market go to the United Kingdom, 124 per cent to the United States, and 154 per cent to other countries. In other words 874 per

cent of those surplus products goes across the ocean, and is absolutely dependent upon Britain's supremacy on the seas for its safe conduct to the markets of the world. Let me give an example to illustrate the importance of this. In the first week after the war, salesmen representing various cheese factories in Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec attended their regular cheese board meetings, but were informed by the buyers of big exporting firms in Montreal, that they had had instructions not to buy any cheese that week. The reason given was that the exporting firms of Montreal did not*feel that the trade routes were absolutely safe on account of the war. This was a serious matter for many of the farmers of Eastern Ontario, where dairying is _carried on very -extensively. The incident directed the attention of farmers from one end of the country to the other to the possibility of serious loss on account of the war. If we could not. export our cheese, neither could we export our apples or our wheat. The next week, however, it was cabled to Canada from England that the trade routes were perfectly safe, and that the people of this country could export their produce as usual. What was it that made the trade routes safe? The British fleet. For years, every other overseas dominion had been contributing to the upkeep of that fleet. But the supremacy of Britain on the seas meant more to Canada, and particularly to the farmers of Canada, than it did to the people of any, or perhaps all, of the other overseas dominions; and yet this country, because of the action of the hon. gentlemen opposite, was in the position of being the only one of the overseas dominions that had never contributed a cent to- wards maintaining the supremacy of the British navy.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have often said in the past that the United States is Canada's natural market for wheat, and pretty nearly everything else. I feel that it is incumbent on me to give a few figures to demonstrate, as I think they will, that that argument is absolutely fallacious. Our wheat production in 1913 was something over 231,000,000 bushels. In 1914, it dropped to 158,223,000 bushels. To what was that falling off due? It was due to these three causes: unfavourable weather, less acreage under crop, and a smaller yield per acre. The United States in 1913 produced 763,000,000 bushels, and in 1914, 891,950,000 bushels. Their production last year was very great, and was due to the opposites of the three causes I have just mentioned.
Their increase was due to favourable weather, greater acreage under crop, and a larger yield per acre. Let us look at the exports of wheat. The United States exported in 1912, 61,654,000 bushels; in 1913,
99.500.000	bushels, and in 1914, 173,861,000 bushels. Their exports of wheat flour were
10.621.000	barrels in 1912; 12,278,000 barrels in 1913, and 12,708,000 barrels in 1914. In the face of figures like that, can hon. gentlemen opposite still contend that Canada's natural market for wheat is the United States? It is just as reasonable to say that the natural market for Nova Scotia coal is Newcastle-on-Tyne, and hon. gentlemen opposite must surely admit that. We have a good market for wheat in England, but the market for our western wheat in our eastern provinces of Canada' is almost as good. While we send to England
38.000.	000 to 40,000,000 bushels of wheat a year, we send to Ontario, Queoee, the maritime provinces and British Columbia, over
32.000.	000. bushels; so that these provinces alone furnish us with no small market.
Is the United States a market for our barley? The United States export figures do not indicate it. Last year they exported over 17,000,000 bushels; and as regards oats, while they import a lot, their exports of oats amounted to 25,500,000 bushels more than their imports. Is the United States a market for our horses? Last year Canada sold to the United States 4,618 horses, for which we received $583,000. The same year, the United States sold to Canada 33,718 horses, for which we paid $4,877,000. These figures do not convince me that the United States is a natural market for our horses, as hon. gentlemen opposite have frequently said. Take other products. The United States exports over 21,000,000 dozen of eggs and we import over 15,000,000 dozen; yet hon. gentlemen opposite argue that the United States is the natural market for Canada's eggs. Our exports of butter have dropped down to the vanishing point; we import over 8,000,000 pounds a year, and a large portion of that comes from the United States In this connection, let me say that one of the greatest butter-exporting countries in the world is Denmark, which annually exports over 200,000,000 pounds. When considering the tariff I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite- to bear in mind this fact: that butter brought from Denmark or Liverpool can be laid down in the Montreal market for less than one cent a pound for carriage. It has been claimed that the United States is also the market

for Canadian meats. The United States exports of beef run to over 36,000,000 pounds a year, and of hog products, to over one billion pounds aT year. The United States invaded our home markets last year by sending to us 1,339,000 pounds of beef, nearly 9,000,000 pounds of bacon, 1,500,000 pounds of hams and shoulders, over
9,000,000 pounds of lard, and nearly ten million pounds of pickled pork; or a total of over 31,000,000 pounds of meats, to the value of four million dollars and upwards.
Last session I quoted from the United States official bulletin, to show that the prices of foodstuffs in the United States had not been materially affected by the Wilson-Underwood tariff. Why were the prices not materially affected? Because the importations were not sufficient to potentially affect the large supply in that country. But we must remember that a comparatively small quantity of foodstuffs imported into Canada would materially affect the supply here, and have a very strong effect upon prices. What would be a negligible quantity to the United States in comparison with the vast amount of foodstuffs in that country, would not be a negligible quantity if it were brought into Canada, and as I say, would seriously affect prices. That suggests to me another justification besides those already given by the Minister of Finance for the present increase in our tariff, and it is this. Since war broke out, large quantities of foodstuffs produced in the United States have been shut out of the markets to which they formerly went. For instance, the United States had an export trade of farm products to Germany of over $200,000,000 a year; but the war has stopped that, and, on account of the blockade, unsafe trade routes, and for other reasons, these products have also been shut out from other markets they formerly enjoyed. With these products on their hands, the United States would naturally look to selling them to their nearest neighbours, or wherever they could be most easily disposed of. In o'ther words, they would try to dispose of them in this country. And I maintain that, if there were no other justification for this tariff, there is justification for it in order to prevent the dumping into Canada of the surplus productions of countries which through the war have lost the markets they formerly enjoyed. I am speaking as a protectionist when I make that statement. I make no apology for being a protectionist; I am a protectionist because I believe in the policy of protection. I talk in favour of pro-

tection, and in that respect I am unlike some hon. gentlemen opposite, who, believing in protection just as strongly as I do, for political reasons talk the other way; it all depending on which side of the House they are sitting.
Let us look for a moment at the British preference, about which hon. gentlemen opposite seem to be terribly worked up. They frequently talk as if the idea of the British preference originated in the minds of the Liberal party, arid as if it were their child. But they can not demonstrate that, for it is not true. It is a borrowed idea, just as thousands of the ideas that they claim as their own are borrowed or stolen from somebody else. The Toronto Globe of June 13, 1896, in its report of a speech delivered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in that city, quotes him as saying:
I agree with him (Sir Charles Tupper) in regard to preferential trade. This is a new idea and one which in itself is fraught with greatness, not only for the Canadian people but for the British Empire at large. And now the principle is proclaimed that there shall be preferential trade within the Empire at large.
That idea of Sir Charles Tupper's was, then, a new one to the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The Globe goes on:
That is to say that England and her colonies should trade upon a footing of preference-over other nations. Imagine what would be the consequences if the products of Canada, the wheat, the barley, the oats, the butter, the cheese, which we are sending to England were to be accepted in the British markets on terms of preference over the products of the United States, of Russia, and all other countries which are competing with us in the market. The advantages are obvious, so obvious that the moment I saw the idea I jumped at it, and immediately declared myself in favour of it.
These are the words of the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier: that when the idea which originated in the mind of Sir Charles Tupper first appeared to the vision of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, he jumped at it. But hon. gentlemen opposite have forgotten the jump, and now claim the idea as their own. Shortly after this, Sir Wilfrid Laurier publicly announced, when he was in England, that he did not want any preference for Canadian farm products in the English market, but that he had given the preference to England without asking for any return. Hon. gentlemen opposite harp a good deal on that, but let us follow this British preference a little further. The intention of the Liberal party was to apply the preference, not merely to Great Britain-they did not intend to follow Sir Charles Tupper's idea along that line- but they intended to offer a preference to other countries besides England and the British Empire. In 1897 they

passed what they now call the British Preference Act. I will read the section of the Act that hears upon this:
An Act to consolidate and amend the Acts respecting the duties of customs; assented to 29th June, 1897.
Section 17 is in these words:
When the custom tariff of any country) admits the products of Canada on terms which, on the whole, are as favourable to Canada as the terms of the reciprocal tariff herein referred to are to the countries to which it may apply, articles which are the growth, produce or manufacture of such country, when imported direct therefrom, may then be entered for duty, or taken out of warehouse for consumption in Canada, at the reduced rates of duty provided in the reciprocal tariff set forth in schedule D to this Act.
Let us see what the Finance Minister of that time said. The Finance Minister took pride in the fact that the preference was open to all countries and that we were not doing anything in particular for Great Britain. Here is what he said about the custom tariff of 1897, as quoted in Hansard of that year:
We do not by our resolution offer anything to Great Britain alone. We make our offer, not to Great Britain, but to every nation that is prepared to accept it. We make it to every country which is willing to establish fair and reasonable trade relations with Canada.
These are the words of Finance Minister Fielding on that tariff. The idea put forth by Sir Charles Tupper had undergone some modification. They introduced their tariff changes along the lines of section 17, but no sooner was the Act passed and put in operation than they found themselves in difficulties with other countries on account of existing treaties. They amended the Act in these words:
On and after the 1st day of August, 1898, section 17 of the said Act shall be repealed and the following shall be substituted therefor :
Articles which are the growth, produce or manufacture of any of the following countries may, when imported directly into Canada from any such country, be entered for duty or taken out of warehouse for consumption in Canada at the reduced rate of duty provided in the British preferential tariff set forth in schedule II to this Act.
I want to give hon. gentlemen opposite a few more figures in regard to this British preference which I thought perhaps would be interesting to them and certainly to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). I do not see him present but I hope he will be here in a few minutes. Of Canada's total imports in 1896, 31 per cent were from Great Britain; in 1908, under Liberal Government, only 27 per cent of our total imports were 30
from Great Britain. In 1896, of the imports coming into Canada free of duty 22 per cent came from Great Britain. In 1908, under Liberal Government, notwithstanding all their talk about the preference, only 17 per cent of the goods coming into Canada free came from England. From the United States the proportion rose from 64 per cent free of duty in 18a6 to 70 per cent in 1908.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have been endeavouring to make capital out of the fact that under the Finance Minister's arrangement of the tariff he is not only increasing the general tariff 7J per cent but he is also increasing the British preferential tariff 5 per cent. Hon. gentlemen do not seem to realize that it is possible to increase the rate of duty and yet a-t the same time increase the degree of preference and that is precisely what is being done here. The Budget of the Finance Minister increases the British preference by 21 per cent relatively to other countries. Let us take a case to illustrate that statement. An article worth $100 comes into Canada from England. A similar article worth $100 comes into Canada from the United States. The duty on the article coming from the United States is 30 per. cent, we will say. This 30 per cent on $100 is $30 that has to be paid on that article. The duty on the article coming from England is 20 per cent and 20 per cent on $100 is $20. The British merchant in that case gets his article worth $100 into Canada foT $10 less than it costs the United States merchant. Take the tariff as changed by the Finance Minister. The duty on the article coming from the United States is 37| per cent while the British tax is 25 per cent. The tariff of 37J per cent on the article worth $100 amounts to $37.50 and 25 per cent off the $100 article coming from England is $25. M you subtract one from the other you will find that the preference to the British merchant is $12.50, whereas it was formerly $10.
I want to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Assiniboia and I am sorry he is not here. In discussing the British preference last night the hon. member for Assiniboia got very tragic. He said: My hon. friend opposite now proposes to put 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; the Finance Minister has to have more money; if the Government will not shut off expenditures, 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 any other way, impose a direct tax and take your $10,000,000 out of the banks, the trust companies



and the insurance companies, tax every one of them, make them pay what money you want, but for heaven's sake keep your unholy and disloyal hands off the British preference. So spoke the hon. member for Assi-niboia. Keep your unholy hands-[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: Disloyal.


John Wesley Edwards: 
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: Yes.


John Wesley Edwards: Is it possible that he is the same gentleman who the other night, with tears coursing down his cheeks, begged that our unholy and profane hands would be kept off the British preference? Ts it possible that that gentleman sat in this House supporting his party when they laid their unholy hands-surely no person will object to my using that language, because my hon. friends applied it wholesale to hon. gentlemen on this side-on the British preference, as I have shown that they did in 1907.
There is another remark which the hon. member for Assiniboia made and which I, as a member of this House, do not feel like letting pass. He begged us to keep our unholy and profane hands
9 p.m. off the British preference; but the hon. gentleman in the course of his remarks saw fit to throw the taunt of disloyalty at members on this side of the House, mainly in regard to the change in the preferential tariff. Under those circumstances I am justified in inquiring as to who this hon. gentleman is and as to the record of his party so far as loyalty is concerned. If the Liberal party want a discussion or a comparison of records along that line, we will give it to them. If they get it, they will have themselves to blame for having invited it.
What was their loyalty in 1891, and how did they manifest it? They manifested their loyalty by showing a willingness to barter Canada and Canada's honour for Yankee dollars. The hon. member for Assiniboia supported his party in that course at that time.
What was their record during the Boer war in 1899? The Conservative party and public sentiment actually forced the Liberal Government to send what troops they did send to South Africa. Let me tell the hon. member for Assiniboia and those sitting near him who applauded his taunt of disloyalty that, when they sent that party of less than 3,000 men-yes, less than 2,500 men, if we leave out the Stratheona contribution-they sent them C.O.D. When that contingent went to South Africa every dollar of the cost was paid by Great Britain during the whole time they were there; yet five times as much money came from Great Britain into the hands of the Lib-

eral Government to purchase supplies for the war as the Liberal party expended in sending that contingent of men to South Africa. That is their record so far as their loyalty in that regard is concerned.
What about their loyalty in 1911? What was their position as manifested then by their trade policy? They were perfectly willing at that time to make Canada an adjunct of the United States. I do not impugn their party loyalty not for a moment. They have manifested their party loyalty time and again in the past by a willing obedience to the crack of the party whip, to back up sawdust wharf transactions, which I commend especially to the attention of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley); McAvity steals, the Aylesworth ditch, the Saskatchewan land deal, which probably the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) could tell us a good deal about; and if there is anything that he would miss, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) who has had some knowledge as to transactions regarding timber, will probably be able to tell us something. In all of these matters they have manifested a party loyalty which no one will impugn.


Edmond Proulx: The hon. gentleman should not forget the Prince Albert deal.


John Wesley Edwards: I did not know you had a deal in Prince Albert, too. I know there are mighty few places you missed, ,and it would be rather surprising if you had overlooked Prince Albert. I am very certain that if my hon. friend had been there it would not have been overlooked.
Now, hon. gentlemen opposite argue as if it were possible to raise the general tariff without raising or changing the British preferential tariff. That is absolutely ridiculous. The hon. member for Assiniboia spoke as if it would be possible to add 74 per cent and still leave the British preferential tariff alone. Surely, if hon. members will consider that matter for a little while they will see the fallacy of that. What would be the effect of such a course? You would simply invite disaster to every concern in Canada. Why? Because you would be forcing your Canadian manufacturer to pay an increase of 74 per cent on his raw material while the raw material would still go into Britain free and their goods would be shipped in here at the old rate. That would give to the British manufacturer an advantage which would simply mean the destruction of every industry in the Domin-304
ion of Canada. Hon. gentlemen may talk about this 5 per cent addition to the British preference being disloyal or unfair to England, but they would not get any English statesman or politician to say that, because-and I do not wish to be discourteous -they would have more sense.
Let us consider another matter connected with the record of the party of hon. gentlemen opposite. They have shed tears-or have got ready to do so; they have gone through all the motions of weeping-about agricultural implements. Let us follow their course on agricultural implements and one or two other things, for it is an interesting course and one worth following. The tariff of 1894 reduced the duty on agricultural implements from 35 per cent to 20 per cent. We all remember, of course, how the Liberal party and their organs up and down the country declared that if only they had the chance to get their hands on the throats of the manufacturers they would utterly destroy them. Occasionally they talk along that line to-day, at least one or two of them do, forgetting that their own leader has said that the manufacturer was the farmer's best and warmest friend. In 1907, the Liberal party did pluck up courage to take off 24 per cent from the duty on agricultural implements, cutting it down from 20 per cent to 174 per cent. When the matter came up in the House in that year, the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) proposed this resolution:
That the committee reconsider item 445, and that it be amended hy striking out the figures 17| per cent in the general tariff and inserting in lieu therof the figures 10 per cent.
That was voted down by 56 to 22. Every Liberal member in the House at that time forgot the farmer entirely and voted against the resolution. There was a discussion in regard to this resolution. The hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) is reported at page 5597 of Hansard of that year as follows:
I shall give the Government hearty support tor I believe the policy of the Government is in the interests of the country.
You have heard him speak rather differently since then. In the same discussion, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) took part. At page 5624 of Hansard the hon. gentleman who now rages and raves about no duty on agricultural implements, said:
The Tariff Commission got information all over the country. I do not think the farmers of the West at all events, asked for a great reduction such as is proposed hy this resolution

on agricultural implements. They asked that the duties be left alone. I shall give the Government hearty support on this question.
Do you notice any difference in the attitude of the hon. gentleman now from what it was in 1907? Hon. William Paterson, who previous to 1896 had declared for free trade in everything except biscuits, said as reported at page 5582:
I do not disguise the fact that we propose to give these people-
That is, the manufacturers.
-nearly the amount of reduction in duty that has been made. For it must be remembered that 17i per cent is no more than a revenue tariff.	|	|
I have looked in Hansard and have not seen that the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) expressed a different opinion, so I suppose I am right in concluding that he was of the same mind. But we have a still greater authority than any of these I have quoted-and I suppose some hon. members think he would not have to be very great to come up to that. Hon. Mr. Fielding, the Minister of Finance of the late Administration, said, as reported at page 5621 of Hansard:
By a careful calculation we are advised that the drawbacks we allow are somewhat less than the disadvantage under which the manufacturer is placed by the reduction of the tariff. Even suppose for a moment that he got everything free and had a duty of 171 Per cent on the implements, would that be an extravagant duty as things go in this country? I believe this proposal of the hon. member for Souris, if adopted, would do an injustice to an established industry.
My belief is that if this motion were passed we would strike a severe blow at one of the great industries of the country. X believe the International Harvester Company would find it to its interests to close up its business in Hamilton, at least so much of it as is devoted' to mowers and binders and have them made at the American branch and bring them from the United 'States. The factory in Hamilton is an American concern. With a moderate duty we have induced American capital to come into Canada and to establish 'that great industry and after we have brought it in and established it in Canada I believe that if we were to pass this resolution the company operating that industry would find it profitable to close the Hamilton factory and bring in the goods which they make in the United States.
That was Hon. Mr. Fielding, then Finance Minister. You do not want any sounder protectionist than this speech shows him to be, do you? Now, follow the history a little further. Under the reciprocity pact the Liberals proposed a reduction from 17J per cent to 15 per cent. At that time the hon. member for Dundas asked the then Finance Minister, Mr. Fielding, if there was to be

any change in the valuation for duty. This was Mr. Fielding's answer:
Our negotiations have not touched the question of valuation; that must be left to the operation of the customs authorities of the two countries.
Why was that question asked by the hon. member for Dundas? The Liberal party had gone up and down this country preaching against the manufacturers and declaring their intention of taking the duty off agricultural implements. They did make a reduction in 1907 from 20 per cent to 174 per cent; then they turned to the manufacturers and said: Do not be alarmed, we will fix this up so that it will not hurt you a bit. We will show the farmers that we have made a reduction from 20 per cent to 17i per cent; we will make them believe that we are going [DOT] to take further steps along that line, but we will simply change the value of a binder for duty purposes from $80 to $100. That is exactly what they did. When the rate of duty under the Conservative Government was 20 per cent the duty on a binder was $16; after the Liberal party got through tinkering with it, the duty on the same binder was $17.50.
Last year the hon. member for Moose-jaw (Mr. Knowles) moved this resolution:
That in the opinion of this House the time has arrived when in the interests of the farmers, and consequently in the interests of the whole of Canada, the duties on agricultural implements should be forthwith removed.
Why was it that the " time had arrived?" Just the difference between here and there; just the difference between the right of Mr. Speaker and the left. So far as the arrival of the time is concerned, that makes all the difference in the world. When hon. gentlemen are on this side of the House the time does not arrive, and they proceed to manipulate the tariff in the way that I have indicated. "But when they get on the other side of the House the " time arrives " for them to endeavour to hoodwink the people. If hon. gentlemen opposite were sincere in their contention that to take the duty off agriculural implements would benefit the farmer, why did they not accept the standing offer from the United States to make farming implements free? It was on the statute books of the United States for years; why did they not accept the proposal? They knew perfectly Well that not one per cent of the people of Canada knew of the existence of that provision; consequently they took the course they did.


FEBBUAKY 25, 1915.
[Stage Direction]
During the period from 1909 to 1913 Canada imported from the United States over 21,000 mowers, binders and reapers, valued at nearly $1,500,000. I do not hesitate to say that I would rather see those mowers, binders and reapers manufactured in Canada, giving employment to our Canadian artisans.
Hon. gentlemen on the other side have called attention to the matter of cement.
I do not think there is a quality of cement made that would hold together the conflicting ideas of hon. gentlemen opposite. In 1910 the price of cement in Canada jumped up 40 or 50 cents a barrel. The Liberal party was in power at that time. What did they do? Absolutely nothing; they did not attempt to relieve the situation so far as the farmers were concerned, nor did they shed any tears over ,the farmer because he had to pay 40 or 50 cents a barrel more for his cement. I suppose the time " had not arrived " for a change of ideas. Then they brought up the reciprocity pact, under which they proposed a reduction of li cents a hundred pounds on cement, or 4j cents a barrel. If the reciprocity pact had been carried into effect, the duty on cement coming into Canada from the United States, even after the reduction, would still have been three cents a hundred pounds, or nine cents a barrel higher than the United States duty on cement going into that country from Canada. If they had the interests of the farmers at heart, they might at least have proposed to bring the Canadian duty on cement down as' low as the corresponding duty on the other side of the line-but they made no such proposal. They were on the Government benches at the time, and they did not look at the matter of cement as they look at it now. When it became apparent to this Government after they came into power that there was an apparent combine or merger in the matter of cement, they brought the members of that merger to time by a reduction of the duty on cement, thus showing a practical interests in the farmers of Canada. The hon. member for Assiniboia, in referring to this cement merger, implied, it seemed to me, that the men composing that merger were friends of the Conservative party. If I am not mistaken, the head of that company was and is Senator Edwards, a member of the Liberal party. If that combine is in existence at the present time, I have no doubt that the free trade ideas whieh are floating about on the other side of the
House may reach the Senate and have such an effect upon hon. gentlemen of the Senate that the price of cement may be reduced.
But that is not the only evidence of the inconsistency of hon. gentlemen opposite. ' They made a reduction in the duty on coal oil, and in less than three years they handed back to the coal oil men subsidies to the extent of nearly a million dollars.
So that while on the one hand they were apparently giving the people some benefit, on the other they were turning round and soaking them, so to speak, by the payment of these bounties.
We are face to face with a crisis not only in the history of the Empire but of tms country as forming a part of the Empire.
It has been found necessary to increase the rate of duty in order to produce a revenue to meet the conditions caused by the war. Hon. gentlemen opposite may argue until doomsday, but I am convinced that they cannot get the people to see with them in this matter. I am convinced that they cannot impose upon the people of this country their idea that this is not a war tax. This is a war tax due to our falling revenues, whieh revenues have fallen away because of interference with trade, caused by the war. Across the line the United States, which is not engaged in war, has been seriously affected by the war and has been obliged to take unusual steps to make good its loss in revenue, admittedly due to the war. Our revenue has gone down undoubtedly because of this war, prices have gone up, the consumption of products has decreased and so on. This has all had its effect in bringing about abnormal conditions. These conditions must be met, and are being met by the Government by means of these taxes. I want to be fair to hon. gentlemen opposite and at the same time to say what I honestly think. Hon. gentlemen opposite in one breadth say that they wholeheartedly support the Government in voting ' $50,000,000 or $100,000,000 to carry on the war; but in the very next sentence they do their utmost to oppose the only means at the disposal of the Government to raise money for prosecuting the war. It is in my judgment a roundabout way of showing opposition to the Government in their conduct of this war, a roundabout way and therefore not a very creditable way to hon. gentlemen opposite. They cannot make the people of this country believe that this tax is not made necessary by this war. Not only do the people of Canada believe that,
[Stage Direction]
but they will turn with disgust from men who think to make party capital out of this increased taxation, because the people of Canada are patriotic and loyal and will pay these increased taxes and pay them without murmur. Hon. gentlemen may think they are taking a right course; but from Confederation down to the present time hon. gentlemen have never been known to take the right course on tariff matters, never once. That is the undeniable history of this country, that whenever a tariff issue has come up in Canada the Liberal party has always been on the wrong side, at least the people of this country said they were on the wrong side, they have never seemed to be able to grasp tariff matters. Let me beg of them to consider this past record of theirs and to see if that record should not teach them the lesson to beware of themselves when it comes to the consideration of tariff matters.
I heartily concur in the Budget which the Finance Minister has presented to this House. I believe it will benefit this country in more ways than one. Already evidences of that are apparent. To-day the Montreal Gazette contains this little item:
New Plant at Hamilton-$150,000 to be expended by Horse Shoe Concern.
Hamilton, Ont., February 24.-The United States Horse Shoe Company, of Erie, Pa., it was announced to-day, has selected Hamilton for its Canadian headquarters. The company is said to be the largest manufacturer of horse and mule shoes in the world. It will spend 3 150,000 on a plant here to start with and employ 100 men. Construction work starts at once.
I shall place that beside the quotation I gave a short time ago from the speech of the Hon. Mr. Fielding when discussing the duty on agricultural implements. The two taken together seem to me to indicate that this Government, like other Conservative Governments in the past, is following the proper course in this matter.
Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I trust my hon. friend and my respected friend from Kingston, because I do respect him with all his faults and idiosyncracies-


John Wesley Edwards: May I correct my hon. friend, not Kingston but Frontenac.


William Pugsley: 
Mr. MEIGHEN:: What about pensions?


William Pugsley: We have no Bill before the House providing for pensions. If any Bill is brought before the House I presume it will take effect next year when ample provision can be made for any pensions. The Government has no idea of what will be required for pensions.


Arthur Meighen: Has the hon. gentleman never seen on the statute books an Act providing for pensions?


William Pugsley: There is no Bill yet at all events.


Arthur Meighen: There is.


William Pugsley: No, not during this session. There is no amount estimated for pensions. Parliament has not been asked to make any provision for pensions and I sincerely trust it will not be called upon to make any large provision for pensions. I trust that better luck than that will attend our young men who have gone to the front. If the time should come when any large amount must be voted for pensions hon. gentlemen will find members on this side of the House standing side by side with them in voting whatever amount may be necessary. I think it has been demonstrated beyond the possibilities of contradiction that if this Government, since it came into power, had exercised even ordinary prudence with reference to the appointment of officials there would have been saved enough money to pay the interest upon this $100,000,tOO which it is proposed to borrow for at least a year and a half.
I have not that familiarity with the Civil Service that Professor Shortt, chairman of the Civil Service Commission, necessarily
has. He is a gentleman who is in the employ of the Government; he occupies, I presume, a quasi independent position as chairman of that commission; he has made the statement, made it publicly, made it with deliberation that under this Government the appointments to the Civil Service in the lower grades are entirely a matter of patronage and he says that, whereas there have been something like 2,000 dismissals from the Civil Service, there have been some 10,000 appointments, making a difference of some 8,000.


Robert Rogers: I would like to say that this is a statement that has been repeated so often in this House that hon. gentlemen opposite will possibly be beginning to believe it. No more dishonourable, no more dishonest, no more unfair-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. ROGERS-statement was ever made by any man than that.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman repeat that?


Robert Rogers: I want to say that no more dishonourable, no more dishonest, no more-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Untrue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Rogers: -statement was ever made by any man-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


William Pugsley: Will the minister repeat it? I could not hear him.


Robert Rogers: I have repeated it twice, but I shall be glad to stay here and go on repeating- it if it will be any benefit to my hon. friend. I was referring not to my hon. friend hut to Professor Shortt and in that connection I want to say here and now that no more dishonourable, no more dishonest, no more unfair statement was ever made by any man than that made by Professor Shortt, Chairman of the Civil Service Commission. It is an absolutely untrue statement.


William Pugsley: I am sure my hon. friend could hardly hear his own voice when he got to the last sentence and it is delightful to see the way in which hon. gentlemen applaud the minister without hearing him. There is a sort of telepathic communication between the supporters of the Government

and my hon. friend and they take it for granted that whatever he says will be right. That is a very delightful position for the minister to occupy with reference to his party. It is more creditable to the hon. gentleman than it is to the party. Ordinarily one would suppose that a party of intelligent gentlemen, and very excellent gentlemen, would like to hear what the minister has to say and then decide whether it was something that should be applauded. The matter becomes a question at issue between the Minister of Public Works and Professor Shortt. Of course, we have to leave that to be settled between them, but unfortunately for my hon. friend's statement, when he makes this terrible imputation against a man of the high standing and independent position of Professor Shortt, the returns which have been brought down to this House by the Government would seem to justify the statement which Professor Shortt makes.


Robert Rogers: I am sure my hon. friend does not wish to make an unfair statement. He has surely not read the return himself or he would not venture to make that statement. The return shows nothing of the kind. Take the return of my own department for instance; in it 507 dismissals are credited and there are 700 odd resignations which Professor Shortt never takes into account. The same is true of every department of the Government which makes the fact absolutely clear as against Professor Shortt's statement.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We will find out more about that another day.


Robert Rogers: I shall be very glad to
make my statement good.


William Pugsley: I am glad to accept the statement of my hon. friend so far as that matter comes within his own knowledge, but I would suppose that a gentleman of Professor Shortt's standing would not make such a statement without very good foundation.


Charles Murphy: It is only a partial return.


William Pugsley: I base the statement
which I have made, namely, that this is not a war tax, upon the Estimates presented to the House, and I find that one of the necessities for imposing that tax is the very large amount required for the Department of Public Works and for the Department of Railways. I make this assertion, which the Estimates confirm,

namely, that some $18,000,000, which was voted last year for these two purposes, was not required and was not expended; and that notwithstanding the war, notwithstanding the necessity which ought to influence every prudent man in dealing with expenditures, in these two departments alone the Government is asking Parliament to vote $1,000,000 more than was expended during the year 1914-15. That could be justified only upon the ground that they are public works of such an urgent character that there can be neither a postponement nor a reduction in regard to them. That would be an extraordinary condition so far as Government works are concerned, when we know that all the cities and towns in Canada have found it necessary to reduce public works, works on street improvements, work of installation or enlargement of water systems, work in connection with the improvement of the fire department and of the various civic services. Those who govern those cities all feel that in view of the depression, in view of the fact that every man, woman, boy, and girl in this country is doing what he or she can, and is giving his or her mite, little though it may be, towards the various charities	which have	beenorganized in connection with the war, some for the	Red Cross,	some
for the Belgian fund, some for the patriotic fund, some for the hospitals, all doing their part, this is not the time to impose further burdens upon the tax-payers, and that these services ought to be carried over for another year at all events to see whether or not the war is over and whether times may not become (better. Notwithstanding that this is the example which has been set by all the municipalities throughout this vast Dominion, we find this Government asking Parliament for an appropriation for these two services, public works and railways, of $1,000,000 more than it found it possible to expend during the year about to close. I prove that by taking the Estimates which have been laid before Parliament. The re-votes are given in every case so far as the railways and public works are concerned. In the columns giving the votes for 1914-15, the items include not only the main estimates but the supplementary estimates as well, that is, the whole expenses for the current year which will expire on March 31. If we go over these Estimates, item by item, we shall find that a very large number of them are re-votes for harbours and railways; and taking out the ne-votes, we shall find that the Government are asking Parliament to vote $1,000,000 more1 than it

was able to expend during the current year. There are scores of Estimates in these items, some for public works, some for harbour works, in regard to which no contracts have been let and for which it is not intended by the minister-to let the contracts during the coming year. They are put in here-I shall not say to pad the Estimates, but in order to keep these amounts before Parliament and the people of the country, so that when the appropriate time arrives, the minister may engage upon the work and ask for tenders and let the contracts.


William Humphrey Bennett: Did you ever do that?


William Pugsley: Yes. I have often done that, and every minister who has ever been in a government in Canada has done it, and there is no harm in it when conditions are normal. I always kept such items in, because, Parliament being committed to the work, even though it were postponed for two	or three	years, there
was less difficulty in getting the amount voted when it was really necessary to carry on the work. That has been done over and over again. But if. my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works will take us into his confidence and go through these large items, he will agree with me that it will be impossible for him to expend within fro,000,000 or $zO,000,000 of the amount which the Government has put into the Estimates and for which it has asked the approval of Parliament. To meet that ostensible deficiency of $18,000,000 to $2u,-000,000, the Government is imposing this war tax upon the people of this country. That is absolutely unreasonable and unfair, and it is a course which will not commend itself to the good judgment of the people of Canada.
My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works says: Well, what will you do with regard to the public works at St. John? Would you be willing to permit a reduction in the amount to be expended there? I would not be worthy of my position as a member of this House if I did not answer " Yes " to that question. I would not be worthy of the confidence of the people of my constituency if I were so cowardly that I would not dare to stand up in my place ana give an answer to that question in the affirmative. Therefore I say that in these times of stress and trouble the amount proposed for St. John harbour of $1,500,000 might very well be cut down during this year to $750,000. The work could go on, and
a great deal of work could be done for that money.
With regard to Halifax there is an appropriation of $3,000,000. If that were reduced to $1,500,000, a magnificent amount of work could be done there. When we come to the Hudson Bay railway and the terminals at Port Nelson, while I have always been in favour of the construction of that railway, yet we ought to pause, and instead of proposing to expend, as the Government is doing, $5,000,000 during this year on that railway and terminals, the Government ought, in fairness to the people of Canada cut that amount down to the sum of not more than $1,000,000.
There is $4,000,000- which they propose raising by putting a tax upon all people so far as they can reach them and which they propose to spend on this railway away to the north, going through a country where there are no people, going to a harbour where there are no people, and intended to develop a trade which under the conditions now existing is not likely to come for a number of years; and proposing to do it at a time when two of the great transcontinental railways which hav.e been built for the purpose of carrying the traffic between the East and the West, between the interior and the seaboard are almost-and I am speaking now only of what is well known-are almost on the eve of bank- _ ruptcy. They propose to construct that' railway and those terminals immediately, though there is no traffic in sight for the railway and no work for the terminals. Would it not be the part of wisdom to suspend work on the terminals and go ahead at reasonable speed with the building of the railway; and would it not be reasonable, instead of taking the material by steamer to Port Nelson, to construct the line first, and so bring in material for the harbour works by rail, and in the meantime operating the line by giving a reasonable service sufficient to carry the traffic, that can be developed? Instead of that, in order to build this road and these terminals, you propose to tax every one who mails a letter. The poor woman who mails a letter, it may be to her son fighting in the trenches, is asked to contribute this extra alleged war stamp. And why? To build the Hudson Bay railway and create the terminals there. I contend that no work should be carried on during the present year unless it is of an urgent character, one the failure to prosecute which would cause the interests of the country inevitably to suffer.
Then, take the Quebec harbour. We are asked for $1,200,000 for a dry-dock there.

Well, they have a very fair dry-dock at Quebec. I recognize the importance of building a dry-dock there, but is it necessary to spend the whole $1,200,000? If $600,000 were expended there during the coming year it would do	a
great deal of work and would give employment to a large number of people. Then there is $450,000 for the French river waterway improvement for which last year $500,000 was voted and only $50,000 of which was expended. That being so, could not you reasonably postpone the expenditure of at least a part of this $450,000 until the war is over and the condition of the people improved?


Mr. BRADBURY:: The time to spend
money is when times are hard, so as to provide work for the people.


William Pugsley: That is right, if you
have the money in the treasury. But is this the time to tax the people of this country, when, as I have said every dollar, every cent they can spare is being given to charity? The same remarks would apply to other harbours-Toronto, where you propose to spend $1,000,000; Vancouver, $1,000,000; Victoria, $1,400,000. Take these items on page 57 of the Estimates, to some of which I have referred, and you will find that where the minister last year asked for $12,780,000, ho did not expend within $3,159,200 of it. Yet the amount is being carried forward as a re-vote and forms part of what is to be voted this year.


John Dowsley Reid: The total vote is $9,000,000 less.


William Pugsley: The total vote for railways, canals and public works, including the harbours and public buildings, is $1,000,000 more than the amount expended last year.


John Dowsley Reid: I was referring to the
amounts on page 57.


William Pugsley: On those items the minister asks the same amount as he expended last year.


John Dowsley Reid: Last year the minister asked, for these items on page 57 which are chargeable to capital, $12,780,500, and this year he is asking for $9,459,200, or more than $3,000,000 less-


William Pugsley: Less than what?


John Dowsley Reid: Less than he asked for last year.


William Pugsley: But what did he expend?


John Dowsley Reid: He spent $9,000,000. But
that does not say that he will spend that amount this year.


George Perry Graham: That is exactly the argument.


John Dowsley Reid: And the amount asked
for this year is $3,000,000 less than it was last year. So, the amount for both departments is many millions less than last year.


William Pugsley: Exactly what I said; I thank the hon. minister for corroborating my statement. I said these departments spent last year $18,000,000 less than they asked for under the Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates combined. Today the two ministers are asking for $1,000,000 more than they actually expended last year. My argument is that with prudence, with the exercise of a little judgment, they could get along with $18,000,000 or $20,000,000 less than they are asking for in the Estimates. Now, take Harbours and Rivers, chargeable to income. I cannot speak of other places, but I will speak of my own constituency. The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) knows that he has an amount- $100,000, I think-to extend the breakwater to Partridge Island. But he has announced publicly that he is not going to commence that work this year. Why, then, is it in the Estimates, except for the reason I suggested-that the minister thinks it proper to keep it there because it will be easier to get it voted when he wishes to go ahead. But why raise a war tax-


Robert Rogers: I do not remember having made the public statement that I do not intend to go on with the breakwater to Partridge Island.


William Pugsley: Let me ask, then, if the hon. minister intends to go on with it?


Robert Rogers: We have called for tenders, and I am hopeful that we shall be able to go on, because that is one of the most important works in the Dominion I believe.


William Pugsley: The statement has been .made publicly that the new works will not be gone on with during the present year.


Robert Rogers: That is not a new work.


William Pugsley: Entirely new. The
present breakwater has been completed for thirty years.


Robert Rogers: It is part of the harbour.


William Pugsley: Yes, but still it is a
new work. Then again the Department of Railways asks for $112,000 to build the spur line to Courtenay Bay.
Parliament granted that money at least three years ago, and not a blow has been struck, although we voted and revoted the money, and it is put in again this year. I venture to say that there is no intention of going ahead with that work this year. I am sorry that by reason of the bungling and humbugging and the mistakes that have been made in connection with the Valley railway and the carrying of the Transcontinental to the port of St. John, it is not very likely that anything will be done on that spur line during the present year. The Provincial Government and the Minister of Railways do not know how they are going to bring the Valley railway into the harbour of St. John. They have reached Gagetown, they commenced at Centreville in Carleton county-the road begins nowhere and ends nowhere. The only thing which they have is an agreement-which, fortunately, I was able to negotiate with my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals-that the Dominion Government shoulcj undertake operation as each 40 miles were completed. But our scheme was to build from the city of St. John to Grand Falls, there to connect with the Transcontinental railway so that the Valley line might be utilized as part of the Transcontinental system. I say the matter has been humbugged and trifled with, mistakes have been made, grades have been altered between Fredericton and the country to the north, and there does not seem to be any reasonable probability that the line can be used with success as a part of the Transcontinental system. While the Provincial Government and this Government do not say publicly that the road is not to go to St. John, I am told that the Minister of Railways is pretty sure that it is not going to St. John, and that he is going to carry it over to Westfield to connect with the Canadian Pacific railway. It may be that that is the reason why this spur line to Courtenay bay has not been built. At all events, if it is not to be built this year, I decidedly object to the people being taxed to build it-the tax being called a war tax-when it is not proposed to go ahead with it at all during the coming year. The same applies to hundreds of other items in these Estimates.
With regard to public buildings. In the item for Ontario there are 106 or more public buildings, and in respect of nearly every one there is a revote. The total vote for Ontario
is $3,905,100. The amount voted last year in both main and supplementary Estimates was $4,771,200.56; yet there is a revote of the enormous sum of $2,282,100. In other words, practically 50 per cent of the amount which my hon. friend had placed in the Estimates for public buildings in Ontario last year has not been expended, and is being carried forward as a re-vote. Did my hon. friend seriously intend to go ahead with those public buildings at that time, or did he, upon the persistent request of his friends from Ontario, put them there in order to obviate the danger of any question arising as to whether public buildings were or were not to be erected? The blue book is always authoritative; it counts for so much more than the mere statement of the member. While $3,354,750 was voted last year for public buildings in Quebec, in respect of nearly every one of them a very large amount is carried over as a re-vote, showing that no contracts have been entered into, that no work has been done; and that in respect of many of these buildings-there is no urgency except political urgency.


Robert Rogers: There is no political urgency at all. There may have been urgency in my hon. friend's day, but there is none in mine.


William Pugsley: I am sure that my hon. friend is not altogether unaware of the fact that constituencies are to a certain extent influenced by the consideration as to whether or not they are to get public buildings.


Robert Rogers: Not those represented on this side of the House.


William Pugsley: Of course, it may be
that my hon. friend would prefer to exercise other influences than the mere production of the blue book to the electors. I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.07 p.m.
Friday, February 26, 1915.