Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln) moved:: That Bill No. 33, to confirm certain agreements made between the Canadian Northern Ontaiio Railway Company, the Georgian Bay and Seaboard Railway Company, and the Campbellford, Lake Ontario and Western Railway Company, be withdrawn, in accordance with the recommendations contained in the third report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.


Mr. SPEAKER:: What about a motion to remit the fees?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The fees paid have not been in excess of the cost of printing and translation, and therefore there is nothing to remit.


Mr. GRAHAM:: What reasons did the company give for wishing to withdraw the Bill?	.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not know that any particular reason was given. When the Bill was called in the committee, the

gentleman in charge of the Bill'moved that it be withdrawn, and the motion was carried. I believe there was opposition to the Bill, coming from the city of Belleville, but that was not stated in the committee.


Mr. BLAIN:: The Bill stood in my name.. The companies mentioned in the Bill were unable to come to any satisfactory agreement, and they thought it was better to have further time, and so they requested that the Bill be withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
17th BATTALION NOVA SCOTIA HIGHLANDERS.
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. KYTE:: On Friday I called the attention of the Government to a despatch that is going the rounds of the Canadian newspapers concerning the conditions in which the 17th Battalion of Nova Scotia Highlanders find themselves in the old country. It is reported that the commanding officer, Col. Struan Robertson, was relieved of his command on the 28th of January, and that the only satisfaction which he had been able to obtain from the General Officer Commanding was " that the authorities were down on him." The despatch contains many other matters which affect the standing of the Nova Scotia contingent and put it in a rather unenviable condition as compared with the other portions of the overseas contingent. Has the Prime Minister any information on the subject?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: The arrangements for the troops on the other side have been entirely in the hands of the War Office, and we have no information from the War Office nor from any other source which would lead us to believe that the statements alluded to are wrell founded. I understand that the 600 or 700 men who went from Nova Scotia, together with four other battalions, have been set apart as reinforcements for the troops going to the front. I did see in the press, although I have no official information on the subject, that some men from the Nova Scotian regiment were to be sent forward as reinforcements for the Princess Patricia regiment. The Minister of Militia informs me that they were also to provide reinforcements for one of the Highland brigades. So far as Col. Struan Robertson is concerned, we have no information as to his having been relieved of his command. Nothing of that kind has originated or could originate here,
and we are not aware that anything of the kind has transpired.



ILLNESS OF COL. LABATT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
George Perry Graham: I note by the press that Col. Labatt has retired on account of illness. Who succeeds him?
Major-General HUGHES:	I have no
information on this subject, other than what is to be found in the newspapers. Col. Labatt has undergone a very serious operation, and, until he recovers from the effects of it, I presume some one else will be placed in command of his regiment. The information regarding his illness came by wire, and we have not as yet received any official information on the subject.



SERVICE OF MR. CARRICK, M.P.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
George Perry Graham: I notice in the papers a despatch stating that one of our colleagues in -the House has been appointed as eyewitness with Sir Max Aitkin for the purpose of getting information with regard to the movement of Canadian troops, the furnishing of casualty lists, and so on. I have reference to Mr. Carrick. Has he been appointed by this Government or by the British Government; what rank does he hold, and is information being furnished to this Government by him?


Robert Laird Borden: So far as I am aware, there has been no person appointed as eye-witness by this Government, notwithstanding all statements in the press to the contrary. Sir Max Aitkin was appointed to discharge certain duties in connection with the Recording Office in London. Mr. Carrick, who received the rank of honorary lieutenant colonel of his own regiment, desired to be of service in any capacity for which he might be available, and he was sent forward at his own request to have his services utilized in such manner as the War Office might deem expedient. Neither he nor Sir Max Aitkin has been appointed an eye-witness.



COL. McLEOD'S BATTALION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. PUGSLEY:: Has the Minister of Militia received any complaints with regard to certain dispositions made or proposed to be made in the various units which go to make up the battalion from officers in the battalion commanded by Col. McLeod, a member of this House? If so, what is the nature of those complaints, and



t>62
has the minister given personal attention to them in consultation with the general staff, and have the complaints been remedied?


Robert Laird Borden: I dare say that from time to time communications have come forward to persons in this country with regard to matters such as those to which the hon. member alludes. My own understanding is that any such communications are of a private and confidential character; and, further than that, I would like to remind my hon. friend that these troops, after they leave the country, having enlisted as Imperial troops, are necessarily subject to military dispositions under the control of the War Office, and that we do not make demands nor initiate anything at all in connection with such matters. It would be obviously impossible that there should be a dual control under such circumstances. We might, of course, in any case where the circumstances seemed to make it desirable, do something by way of suggestion. I am sure my hon. friend will be the first to realize that any attempt to establish a dual control over a portion of the troops at the front would probably, and indeed necessarily, have a most unfortunate result.


William Pugsley: My idea is exactly the
same as that of my right hon. friend, namely, that dual control would be very objectionable; but a copy of the communication to which I have referred was sent to me and was not marked confidential. It was not in the nature of a complaint against the commanding officer; but it referred to certain dispositions in regard to which the Minister of Militia was asked to intervene, and I am sure that my hon. friend the Minister of Militia will not forget that, since the troops went to the O'ld Country, he has attempted to have certain things done to add to their comfort and to meet the wishes of officers and men generally 'in the Canadian contingent. That would not be exercising dual control, but would merely be bringing to bear that knowledge of affairs which the Minister of Militia has, and which he might utilize to very great advantage in the interest and for the comfort of the Canadian soldiers. As the House is aware, the Minister of Militia went to England-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member must
not forget that it is not permissible to enter into a discussion when asking a question.


William Pugsley: The Prime Minister
rather provoked me to do that when he

stated his views as to the course he thought I ought to take as a member of this House in regard to matters of this kind. I see the Minister of Militia is anxious to reply, and so I shall sit down.


Major General HUGHES:: The gerieral
question of details-the name given to those who are not sent to the front, but who are kept behind to fill up vacancies arising from various causes in the brigades at the front- is left entirely in the hands of the British War Office, as has been explained by the Prime Minister.
I have not the slightest doubt that the officers, non-commissioned officers and men who were left on the details felt it very keenly. Each man is anxious to get to the front, and naturally each man would wish to get to the front with his own corps. But there must be some details. They all knew that. We have nothing to do with the selection of these details, and, whether the men are satisfied or not, these are matters over which we have not attempted to exercise any control, whatever else we may have done.


Mr. MURPHY:: In recent press despatches it was stated that a complete list of the officers and men at Salisbury had been prepared and forwarded to the Government. Has that list been received?


Major General HUGHES:: That is being prepared, and I hope it will be printed in a very short time. _



THE BUDGET.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) for Committee of Ways and Means resumed from February 25.
William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, in resuming this debate, let me first express appreciation of the courtesy shown by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) on Thursday evening last in consenting to the adjournment of this debate until to-day. It has been a matter of very considerable convenience to me. I suppose the only way in which I can show my gratitude in a practical way is by shortening my remarks as much as possible, and this I shall endeavour to do.
Before continuing the remarks I was making in reference to the proposed, and I think wholly unnecessary, expenditure provided for in the Estimates, I should like to call attention to an article appearing in the

Montreal Gazette, a prominent Conservative paper, under yesterday's date, criticising my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) and other hon. gentlemen who have spoken from this side of the House for the attitude we have taken with regard to the proposed increased taxation and rather expressing the. view that we are not discharging our duty to the country when we venture to criticise the Government with respect to these matters. I would like to read this, so that the nature of the criticism may go upon "Hansard." For this criticism is not peculiar to the Gazette; we find the same line taken in many prominent newspapers in many sections of the country. I have not observed that any prominent Liberal or Independent newspaper has criticised our course in this respect. The article to which I refer is not an editorial, but is contained in a parliamentary despatch or letter from Ottawa:
In one of the most uncompromisingly partisan speeches which the usually moderate junior member for Halifax has ever been heard to deliver, Mr. A. K. Maclean on Tuesday attacked the Government for that Recline in revenue, disturbance in trade and unsettling of financial conditions which has been experienced in Canada, as it has in a generally greater degree been experienced universally since the war began. In the course of his utterances he blamed the Government not only for the method of taxation which it proposed to adopt, but for the necessity of that taxation. It was, in many ways, an amazing deliverance, in that it arraigned the Government for a condition of affairs in Canada which has been general throughout the whole world since the first outbreak of hostilities, which in the United States alone has caused a revenue loss of over a hundred million dollars, and which has led even that neutral country to the necessity of imposing extraordinary taxation. In the face of such a fact, Mr. Maclean allowed himself to go on record as declaring that to the war alone could be laid no greater loss of revenue than five millions. It was, too, a singularly provocative utterance in view of the so-called political truce to which the Opposition has lost no opportunity of declaring its intention to adhere while Canada was in the throes of world war. As far as the method of taxation proposed by the Government was concerned, it was purely destructive criticism.
With that remark I entirely agree. It was destructive criticism-criticism of the most destructive character it would be possible for any critic to make of this Government.
There were appeals not to increase the tariff, not to touch the British preference, not to impose stamp taxes; but in all this no suggestion of any other method of securing the ends at which all these measures aim. And as regards the general question of financing, the only remedy Mr. Maclean had to propose for war conditions was the cessation of all public works and the consequent dismissal of hundreds of civil servants. It was a fighting speech and 36$
an indication that, truce or no truce, war or no war, the Pugsley-Clark spirit-
My genial and unwarlike friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) must be astonished to find such a statement as this in a newspaper:
-in the Liberal party has predominated and the Opposition, with no adequate measures of its own to propose, will fight those introduced by the Government.
Ye Gods! Think of an Opposition that would venture to fight the measures introduced by a Government. That is conduct which this newspaper and other newspapers cannot for a moment tolerate, especially at the present time. Mr. Speaker, I think the fact that a statement of that kind appears in such a prominent Conservative paper as the Montreal Gazette, such a thoroughly respectable and influential paper, calls for some remark from me. With regard to my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax, I think he made a fair and just criticism of the proposed measure of taxation. He argued that it was not necessary at the present time to impose this additional taxation on the people of Canadh. He contended that it was very impolitic, very unfair to the people to unduly burden them as proposed by the Minister of Finance. At the same time he showed that this Government, in the three years it has been in power, had increased the ordinary expenditure from $89,000,000 to $140,000,000-or, if you like to put it more accurately, looking at the Estimates of the present year, $147,000,000, the added $7,000,000 or thereabouts being necessary to pay interest on the money which it is proposed to borrow from the Imperial 'Government for war purposes. The hon. gentleman contended that that increase of expenditure was unjustifiable. He showed that whereas the expenditure on public works chargeable to ordinary revenue When this Government came into power, ranged about eleven or twelve millions, it was proposed this year to expend the enormous sum of twenty-two millions. And he charged, and I think properly charged, that there was nothing in connection with the public works, the immigration or the progress of the country to justify that enormous increase within three short years. He contended that if even now the Government would exercise that ordinary prudence which the average businessman in this country is exercising, and which every city, town and municipality in Canada is exercising; if they would apply the pruning hook and proceed to carry on only those public works the necessity of

which is recognized by all; it would not be long before the ordinary revenue would overtake the expenditure of the country, and it would not be necessary to resort to these extraordinary taxes and to impose these extraordinary heavy burdens upon the people of Canada.
It has been asserted that the hon. menu ber for Halifax said that all publio works should cease. My hon. friend said nothing of the kind. What he said was that in respect of harbour improvements, the deepening of rivers, the dredging of waterways and the erection of public buildings it would be possible to reduce the expenditure during this year, perhaps by one-half. In that way the public works would go on with reasonable rapidity and the people would be far better satisfied than if these works were carried out at full speed by means of this proposed extra taxation, That was the argument of the hon. junior member for Halifax; that was a part of the criticism which he made of the policy of the Government, and I for one say that the j unior member - for Halifax was entirely justified in the remarks, hev made in that respect.
I have had an opportunity of being among my own constituents for a couple of days since I addressed the House last week. When I first arrived I met a number of people who said: You are charged with desiring to stop the public works in St. John; surely that is not a proper thing to do. But I explained that while it was proposed to spend a considerable sum of money at St. John, and while we desired that there should be retrenchment and economy, yet we proposed not that these works should be stopped, but that they should 'be carried on with all reasonable rapidity, subject to the due exercise of proper economy. When I pointed out that these taxes are going to impose upon the 350,000 people of New Brunswick the payment of the enormous sum of 31,500,000 a year, they realized that I as a representative from that province was justified in standing up with my Liberal friends in the House and appealing to the Government not to resort to these extraordinary measures of taxation, but to proceed to exercise that economy which they might fairly exercise without any detriment to the public interest. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House talk about the necessity for going on with public works. They know-but they conceal it from the

people-that public works in any locality benefit but a small portion of the community. During the year which will close March 31, there will have been expended some 33,000,000 upon the harbour of St. John, but out of that total amount there has not been paid for labour more than $300,000. Many thousands of dollars have gone to the southern states to buy southern pine for the construction of wharves; vast sums of money have gone outside of St. John to purchase cement to be used in the making of concrete; vast sums of money have gone to pay contractors' profits and interest on the plant. I would say too, if it would not offend my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that a large amount possibly went towards the nourishment and support of those newspapers in New Bruns-vick which so violently attack members of the Opposition for venturing to criticise the Government. .
At the adjournment last Thursday evening I was endeavouring to show that there are in the Estimates for the coming year items providing for ^orks of various kinds -h'arbour and river improvements, erection of public buildings-in respect of which I believe the Government does not seriously intend to make any progress during the coming year. In a great majority of cases the amounts voted for next year are simply re-votes; if the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will take the trouble to look at the estimates for New Brunswick, he will find that the items in respect of a large number of public buildings are exactly the same as the amounts voted for the same purposes at the last regular session of Parliament. This shows positively that no work has been done, and I presume that in a large number of cases no contracts have been let and no plans prepared.
As evidence of the fact that unnecessary, items of expenditure are placed in the Estimates

I shall not say proposed to be made -in connection with the Department of Public Works, the Department of Railways and Canals and the Department of Marine and Fisheries, let me call attention to the fact that $5,000,000 has been struck out of the Estimates of the Department of Militia and Defence. In other words, the Estimates for the coming year are $5,000,000 and upwards less than they were last year. But that does not mean that the money is not to be spent; it means that the money is to be spent, but it is to be borrowed from the British Government to form part of the war expenditure. My hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) shakes his head, but-


Mr. HAZEN:: If my hon. friend will
1 Jok at the Militia Estimates he will observe that those items which were voted last year and which do not appear in the Estimates this year were expenses of camps of instruction, training of cadets, annual drill, and items of that nature which, in view of tue war, were not considered necessary during the present year. Not one dollar for these purposes would be used out of the vote for war expenditure.


William Pugsley: I was not calling attention to that at all; what I had in mind was annual drill. Last year $2,000,000 wore voted for annual drill; there will be no annual drill this year because the soldiers are being drilled preparatory to their going to the war. Therefore the item is cut out, but it is charged to war expenditure.


John Douglas Hazen: No, annual drill is not
charged to war expenditure.


William Pugsley: But what takes the
place of annual drill is paid for with money borrowed from the British Government. The item for ordnance and arms, amounting to $1,900,000, is also struck out. Ordnance and arms will be required for the militia for the coming year, or would be required if it were not for the war and if the militia men of Canada were not preparing to take part in the defence of the Empire. I do not know just how long my hon. friend was acting Minister of Militia and Defence; one of his organs in New Brunswick said that he was acting Minister of Militia during the absence of the minister,	but when	the	minister returned he referred to the Prime Minister	as	having been	the	acting Minister of Militia during his absence. But	if	my hon. friend	the Ministerof Marine and Fisheries was acting Minister of Militia and Defence, he ought to know that	this	Government	has	ordered vast
quantities of ammunition for the militia of Canada. Of course, it is for the purposes of war.


Mr. WILCOX:: Did my hon. friend expect us to shoot blank cartridges?


William Pugsley: Therefore that whole amount for ordnance, arms and ammunition has been struck out from the Estimates of the Department of Militia; $1,900,000 has been struck out. As I have said, it does not mean that the money is not to be expended, but that it is to be excluded from the Militia Estimates, while an equivalent or a greater amount, perhaps a far greater amount, is to be included in
the sums which are to be borrowed from the Imperial Government for the purposes of the war. And there are stores. It will be necessary to have stores just the same, but I presume these stores which are to be purchased now and next year will all be charged to the expenses of the war. All this money taken out of current Militia expenditure, and which is to be included in the money borrowed from England for the. purpose of the war should be available for the necessary expenditure of the other-Departments of the Government.


John Douglas Hazen: Might I interrupt my hon. friend? He said that the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) did not suggest giving up public works altogether this year. I would ask the hon. gentleman what meaning he attaches to these words of the hon. member for Halifax at page 387:
I do submit, and in fairness, I think, having in view the circumstances prevailing throughout Canada this year, and throughout the world for that matter, that instead of the Government's asking for an expenditure of $20,000,000 for public works, they might have asked , for $10,000,000 or less, and, if need be, they might have wiped out altogether expenditures for public works for the next fiscal year.
The hon. gentleman adds:
I do not believe that the people of any province of Canada would have objected to the most drastic measures on the part of the Minister of Public Works during the present year and during the next fiscal year in connection with public works expenditure.
I would ask my hon. friend if that does not convey the suggestion that there should be no expenditure for public works during the present fiscal year.


William Pugsley: I do not so read it. Let me read the whole passage:
I do submit, and in fairness, I think, having in view the circumstances prevailing throughout Canada this year, and throughout the world for that matter, that instead of the Government's asking for an expenditure of $20,000,000 for public works, they might have asked for $10,000,000 less.
It is important to consider this suggestion by itself. I think that my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax was speaking of the ordinary expenditure, not the expenditure upon capital account.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: I was.


William Pugsley: Not the expenditure on national harbors and so on. The hon. member went on:

And if need be, they might have wiped out altogether expenditures for public works for the next fiscal year.
That is, if need be. Where fs the objection to that? Suppose the Government had exercised reasonable, fair economy and had found that in order to carry on the public services they would have to curtail the public works which are chargeable to ordinary revenue-the building of the hundred odd buildings throughout Ontario, most of them in small towns where they have very good postal accommodation at the present time; if they had decided that it was absolutely necessary to postpone the construction of these buildings for one year, where would be the harm, more particularly as although this Parliament gave the money to the Government upwards of a 5'ear ago they have in many cases not started the work; they have not, I venture to say, in the majority of cases, even had the plans prepared. Where would the public interest have suffered if the construction of these buildings had been posponed for one year? The hon. junior member for Halifax said:
I do not believe that the people of any province of Canada would have objected to the most drastic measures on the part of the Minister of Public Works during the present year and during the next fiscal year In connection with public works expenditure. Many of these projected works were without justification, the necessity for others have at least temporarily passed away by reason of the declining business of the country. Expenditures for these purposes should have been reduced to the minimum this year and next year. And bear in mind that the expenditures to which I have referred do not include votes for dredging and dredging plants nor for other public works of an important or national character, whether proposed to he made under ordinary or capital expenditure. In respect to public works expenditure is it not time to adopt some rational policy?
Who will object to that? Who will say it is not the time to adopt some rational policy in respect to national works? Who will say it is not the time to endeavour to economize to a reasonable and fair extent?
The junior member for Halifax goes on:
Is not this the time to commence? Circumstances will compel us irr the near future, and I believe public opinion is condemnatory of the present method of spending money on public works. In this respect the present Government have been great sinners.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries should hot pick out just one part of the hon. member's speech, but should read the whole of it. Having read the hon. gentleman's complete remarks, I ask how any fair-minded man could question the reason-

ableness of the views set forth by the hon. junior member for Halifax.
In connection with public expenditure, just let me show you for a moment with what ideas this Government came into power. When they came into power in 1911 they found themselves with a buoyant and expanding revenue, with millions of dollars beyond what was necessary to meet the ordinary expenses of the country. In the city of St. John a demonstration was held, which was attended by the Minister of Finance (Mr. White), the Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid), and, I think, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen.) Under plans prepared by the late Government it had been proposed to expend there in the development of the great harbour of Courtenay bay about $11,500,000. My hon. friend the Minister of Customs had been taken around, and he had been amazed at the wonderful possibilities of the port of St. John; and at the banquet that night he said to the representative citizens who were there in numbers:	" The only fear
I have is that you are going ahead on too small a scale." And he said:	In
your presence and that of the Minister of Finance, I want to say to the Minister of Public Wotks that if he wants more money to carry on and enlarge these improvements, let him come to the Department of Customs." These, Sir, were the ideas of extravagance which were being disseminated among the people of Canada. -They were taught to believe that in the opinion of this Government the rainy day would never come and that all they had to do was to go ahead, to spend all the money they could possibly spend; that the time would never come when the revenues would decline, but that they might count upon them being enlarged-year by year for all time to come.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. member is mistaken in saying that I was present at the banquet to which he refers. I was in England at the time. I recollect, however, reading the reports in the newspapers, and it seems to me I read a statement by my hon. friend fully approving of what the Minister of Customs had said.


William Pugsley: This is only one of the very erroneous ideas my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries received when he was in England. He can well understand that I wrould not approve of what the Minister of Customs said, because

5G7
it was a reflection on myself. I wanted the people of St. John to believe that I had been liberal in expenditure, that I had provided plans for these works which would be ample for many years to come, and when the Minister of Customs thought it necessary or desirable to belittle what I had done, to convey the impression that I had been.' too small in my ideas and that all they had to do was to come to the Government and get many millions more, my ho'n. friend will well understand that I would not be ardent in expressing my approval of what the Minister of Customs had said.
There is another thing in regard to Which I should like to ask a question. I should like to know how it is that of the item of $4,700,000 which was voted last year for the construction, acquisition, leasing or expropriation of terminal elevators, no part has been expended during this year.


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: Some has been expended.


William Pugsley: No, it is marked a revote. It may be a clerical error, of course.


William Thomas White: If my hon. friend is referring to the elevators in the West, I may point out that a great deal has been expended in that direction.


William Pugsley: Then, it is misleading to put that in as a revote.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend would call it that anyway.	V


William Pugsley: Did I ever miscall anything that my hon. friend has done? I have enough to do to quote correctly what he has done, and enough to find fault with when I state correctly all his acts and statements, as perhaps he will discover before we get through with this discussion.


John Douglas Hazen: The amount voted last year was $4,700,000, and this year we are asking for $3,000,000. I think it would be natural to infer from those figures that $1,700,000 has been spent during the year.


William Pugsley: Yes, if it were not for
the fact that it was put in as a revote. Mr. Speaker, I was saying that of the $3,905,100 which Parliament is asked to vote for public buildings in Ontario, the enormous sum of $2,282,100 is made up of revotes. In a great many cases not a single dollar has been expended on the buildings for which amounts were provided during the last session of Parliament. Take, for instance, the public building at Berlin, for which a revote of $50,000 is asked. What does that
mean, Sir? It means that at the last session of Parliament-not, I am bound to say, in view of the statement of the Minister of Public Works, with any idea of influencing the electors-$50,000 was put in the Estimates in the session of 1913-14 but none of that amount has been spent. Why has none of it been spent? Why was not a contract let? Why was not even the foundation of a building prepared? We have conclusive evidence that not a blow was struck on that building. Yet last year, when no war was on, at all events until August, the building was not considered as urgently required, although provision was made for it in the Estimates. How can they fustify the clapping on of this extra tax by saying that this and other buildings are necessary when, although they were so urgently required last year that provision was made for them in the Estimates, not one dollar has been spent on them since. Take the public building at Burk's Falls', for which $20,000 was voted in the session of 1913-14. Not a single dollar of it has been spent, and yet the amount is again put in to swell up the Estimates in the hope of inducing the people of this country to believe that it is absolutely necessary to impose these special taxes upon an already overburdened people. Take the public building at Cobourg. Not one dollar of the $25,000 that was voted for it last session has been spent and the whole amount appears as a revote. And so I might go on down the list. There are scores of buildings in regard to which provision was made in the session of 1913-14, but on which not a single dollar has been spent since the money was voted. The same remark applies to the province of Quebec, to which I have already referred; and to Manitoba, where the' amount of $1,008,500 includes a revote of $752,500; that is to say, $750,000 of the amount voted in the session of 1913-14 remains unexpended. Take the Winnipeg barracks, for instance, for which $150,000 was voted in 1913-14; the amount to be voted this session is $150,000. The amount of the revote is $150,000. That shows that, although the Minister of Public Works sought to make Parliament believe that this money was required upwards of a year ago, not one dollar of it has been expended; which proves, I think, that there is no great urgency for these buildings, and that they- might very well stand for another year at all events, and that no public interest would suffer thereby. Take Winnipeg postal station "C," for which $75,000

was voted at the previous session, and $73,000 is asked for now. It is true that in that case $2,000 has been spent-not a very large amount. Take Winnipeg postal station "D," for which $75,000 was voted at the previous session; $75,000 is the vote for this year, and the revote is $75,000, showing that not a single dollar of that money has been expended, and refuting in the most positive way the statement that these works are urgently required, and which has been given as one of the reasons for this alleged, and falsely alleged, war tax. In the province of Saskatchewan the cases are even more marked. The vote for 191415 was $983,500. The amount asked for this year is $806,500, and the revote is $711,500, showing that of the large amount of $983,500 voted at- the previous session, almost all of it is a revote. And there are several other public buildings in regard to which no work has been done, and presumably no contract let. The same remark applies to Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and indeed to the whole of Canada. In view of that, Mr. Speaker, do you not think that the burden is upon this Government of giving to this Parliament a detailed statement of the public works in regard to which they think there is such urgency that the work on them cannot be delayed, and so justifying the imposition of this special tax? They attempt to justify it on the ground that these public works must go on. Presumably they said the same thing in the session of 1913-14, but I have shown to you and to this House that they asked for millions of dollars which they have not expended even in a time of peace. So it cannot lie in their mouths to say that these works are so urgently required in this time of war as to necessitate the imposition of these special and onerous taxes.


John Douglas Hazen: I might point out to my hon. friend that none of these votes are available for expenditure until the Supply Bill has been passed and assented to, and the House prorogued. The House prorogued last year on the 8th day of June, I think. War was declared on the 4th of August, but it was known a few days before that there would be war. Do I understand my hon. friend to complain because the Government, when war broke out, adopted the policy of proceeding only with those works actually under operation at the time, and does he say that the money that was voted could have been spent between the 8th day of June and the declaration of war?


William Pugsley: I do not complain that the Government did not spend the money, [Mr. Pugsley.l
I never did complain. I stated it as evidence that there is no emergency witn regard to these public buildings. I quite agree
with my hon. friend that after the war broke out the Government should have proceeded slowly. But the war is still on, and I greatly fear that the war will be on next year after these amounts have been voted, and if as my hon. friend suggests it was not reasonable to go ahead during these past six months, from the month of June to the month of December, when the building season was on, why does he say it is reasonable to ask Parliament to impose these special taxes in order that these works may now be rushed, the war still being on, and the financial condition of Canada in an alarming condition, due to the reckless administration of affairs by this Government since it came to power? There are in these Estimates items to the extent of millions of dollars in regard to which the action of the Government proves without the shadow of a doubt that there is no emergency, and that the public interest would not suffer if they should stand over for another year. If the Government could go slowly in respect to all these public works, surely that casts upon the Minister of Finance the burden of laying before this House a clear and detailed statement of the public works, the urgency of which is great, the necessity of going on with which is great, and which they purpose going on with, even though the war should continue. The Minister of Finance is asking the people of Canada to take upon themselves a heavy burden, and he should show absolute necessity for his course before he adopts the unusual expedient of raising money, not for war purposes [DOT]-let that not be too strongly emphasized- but simply in order to restore the equilibrium between the ordinary revenue and the ordinary expenditure. Before he does that, he ought to be able to show to this House and to the people of this country that these public works which the Government say they intend to carry on, are of an urgent character, and -that the public interest would suffer if the Government allowed some of them to be postponed until another year.
When you bear in mind that in this $140,000,000, which the Minister of Finance says will be expended and chargeable to consolidated revenue as ordinary expenditure during the coming year, is included seven or eight million dollars of interest upon the money borrowed and to be borrowed from the Imperial Government for war purposes,

surely it is not unreasonable to ask this Government to now curtail expenditure, and to bring the total expenditure chargeable against consolidated revenue down to at least one hundred million dollars. When we show tha't even in times of the greatest prosperity, even with an abounding revenue, even with a surplus of thirty or forty million dollars, the late Government only three years ago was able to get its ordinary expenditure down to less than ninety million dollars, surely in this time of war and trouble and stress, when the people of Canada need every dollar they can spare for contribution to various charitable objects to which they are cheerfully contributing, this Government ought to be able to cut down the expenditure within ten million dollars of what the expenditure on current account by the Liberal Government was only three years ago. It is not fair for hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to simply say: Oh, if you charge us with extravagance now, you are showing partisan feeling, and, after all, suppose we have been guilty of extravagance, what are you going to do about it? Well, Mr. Speaker, when we show, as we have shown conclusively from the public accounts, that only three years ago, when the whole country was prosperous, and when its revenues were increasing with wonderful rapidity, and when liberal provision was made for the various public works, the total expenditure on current account was only $90,000,000, surely we have the right to ask this Government to curtail the expenditure to at least $100,000,000. If the Government did so now, within a very short time the finances of Canada would be again in a sound position. The Ministei of Finance is estimating a revenue upon current account this year of $120,000,000, and if we should cut the ordinary expenditure down to $100,000,000, we would* have a surplus of $20,000,000. But, this Government is like the inexperienced mariner who, navigating his ship, hears the roar of the breakers off his bow and gives the order to steam ahead. All we want to do is to stop the ship as soon as possible, turn her so as to get her in a position of safety, guide her with skill and prudence, and in a few years we would be in a financial position which would give satisfaction and joy to the people of Canada. That is all we are asking the Government to do. We are asking them to be prudent; we are asking them to adopt the same prudent course which any business man or any municipality would adopt under the existing circumstances.
In answer to that these gentlemen on the other side of the House say to us: "Oh, the war is on, many people are out of employment, and now is the time for us to rush ahaad and spend all the money we can get, not only from the ordinary revenues, but which we may be able to squeeze out of the people by these exactions in the way off stamp duties and increased customs taxes.
I have-criticised in my own humble way the reasons presented by the Government for putting on these taxes, and I assert that in my opinion these taxes cannot De defended from any standpoint. They are so wanting in reason, so inharmonious, so unfair, so unequal in the burdens they impose upon the people that they cannot be defended. Take the question of putting stamps on receipts and cheques, and the poor man who is involved in a transaction of ten dollars pays as much as the wealthy man who is involved in a transaction of twenty or fifty or sixty thousand dollars. The burden upon the poor man in respect to small transactions is exactly the same as it is upon the rich man in respect to large transactions.
Let us consider the burden imposed upon people, who travel in sleeping cars. The man who occupies a berth from St. John to Montreal, or from Montreal to Toronto, or from Ottawa to Toronto, pays as much as the man who gets aboard a sleeping car in Montreal -and journeys all the way through to the Pacific ocean. The man going the journey of 3,000 miles in a sleeping car pays no more into the Dominion treasury than the man who goes the short journey.
Why is it that the man who, instead of buying his ticket, is furnished with a pass upon the railways, does not also pay a tax? Why is it that the 300 odd members of this Parliament who, by law, are entitled to travel free upon the railways, are not obliged to pay a tax whenever they enter upon ia railway journey the same as the man who does not enjoy that privilege and who is obliged to pay for his railway ticket ? What reason is there why the gentleman who enjoys the luxury of a private car and who is constantly travelling over the railways of this country, having passes not only for himself and his family, but for his car, is exempt under this extraordinary measure? Why. is it that the rich men who enjoy these luxuries are exempt from taxation ? An hen. member who preceded me, truly said that this tariff exemplifies the Scriptural

statement: " To him that hath, shall be given, -and from him that hath not shall be taken away, even that which he hath."
Why is a tax placed upon bituminous coal, which is used by hundreds [DOT] of thousands of poor people? Surely it is not because my right hon. friend the Prime Minister represents a coal-producing county. I would not suggest that; but what is the reason ? Will the hon. Minister of Finance tell us why bituminous coal, $15,000,000 worth of which came into Canada from the United States last year, has the tax upon if increased, while anthracite coal, $22,000,000 worth of which came info Canada from the United States last year, is left absolutely free of taxation ? Anthracite coal is used by the wealthy classes, perhaps I should say by the middle classes also but bituminous coal is the coal of the poor man.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The hon. financial critic of the Opposition is on record in Hansard as saying-


William Pugsley: I am not discussing the financial critic of the Opposition; I am speaking for myself.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman permit me-


William Pugsley: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for St. John has the floor.


William Pugsley: I object to my hon.
friend interrupting me in order to refer to what other hon. members on this side have said on this question. If my hon. friend wants to ask me anything in regard to what I have said on this question I shall be glad to give him an opportunity to do so.


Arthur Meighen: There will be another
chance, and I will give my hon. friend all the opportunity he wants.


William Pugsley: Yes, that will be a first-rate opportunity.


Richard Blain: Will my hon. Mend permit me to ask a question?


William Pugsley: Wait a moment. I wish to make a remark to my hon. friend the Solicitor General. I am glad to know that my hon. friend is not always unreasonable. Now what does my hon. friend wish to say?


Richard Blain: As my hon. friend is so conversant with the coal question, will he tell us in what part of the province of Ontario the poor man uses bituminous coal?


Mr. MACDONALD:: What about Quebec and the maritime provinces?


William Pugsley: In the form of gas. The poor man uses very little electricity as compared with gas. He is taxed by reason of this tax upon bituminous coal. Every company manufacturing gas in all the little towns throughout the province of Ontario is taxed a certain amount under this new tariff. The poor man also uses bituminous coal in his grate. Bituminous coal is used in that way by the poor man in my province, and 1 dare say also in the province of Ontario. Anthracite coal is largely used for furnaces, to heat the great office buildings in the various cities of Canada. It is used to heat the scores of buildings which the Government have been renting in vastly increased numbers from its wealthy friends in the city of Ottawa. It would be ia shame to impose burdens upon these gentlemen and to make them pay a little more for their coal. But that is one o'f the inequalities of this tariff.
On behalf of the farmers of this country, I ask the Minister oif Finance why he allows anthracite coal to the value of $22,000,000 to come in from the United States, and why he puts this tax upon practically everything the farmers of this country use? Why does he tax the farmers' ploughs, harrows, pitchforks, shovels, spades, hoes, potato-diggers and wagons ? It has been pointed out in the very able speech delivered by my bon. friend the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) that amongst the many other things in regard to which there is imposed by this new tariff an increase of duty to the extent of 100 peT cent, are fertilizers, the plant food, the life of the farmers' products. Why is that done? Can the Minister of Finance explain it? Can it be explained upon any other ground than to avoid the necessity for care, the necessity of going over the old tariff, taking up the different articles in regard to which in some cases the tariff was low and in some cases high and in some cases at a medium rate and adjusting the rates? Is it because it was easy simply to make an absolutely arbitrary horizontal rise of 5 per cent against Great Britain, 74 per cent against countries enjoying the intermediate tariff and 74 per cent against countries enjoying the general tariff? Under this new tariff the fertilizer of the farmer has been taxed by an increase in duty to the extent of 100 per cent against Great Britain, 75 per cent against countries enjoying the intermediate tariff, -and 75 per

cent against countries enjoying the general tariff.
This was bad enough. But in case of another most important fertilizer, nitrate of soda, which is absolutely essential to the people of eastern Canada, particularly at this time when, by reason of the war, the importation of potash from Germany is shut off-whereas nitrates formerly came into Canada free of duty, this Government has imposed upon that very important fertilizer the high tariff of 7J per cent against the only country in which nitrates can be obtained. I speak now of a country in regard to which the members of the Government seem ignorant, and more especially my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen)-I refer to the Republic of Chile. Chile has the only natural nitrate beds in the world. Last year there was brought into Canada from Chile some 45,000,000 pounds of nitrates. This was not all used for agricultural purposes; but a good deal, I presume, was used for making powder. Chile is a country with which Canada might have a good deal of trade; it is a country of enormous wealth and of vast possibilities. I hope the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will give attention to that country, because it especially interests his own province, which needs this fertilizer. Last year the export duties upon nitrates collected by the Chilean Government amounted to about $84,000,000 in Chilean money, or $42,000,000 in Canadian money. Under the former tariff nitrates came in absolutely free of duty, but now the Minister of Finance has put upon it a duty of 7J per cent.
In view of what I have said, what irony it seems for the Minister of Finance to declare that by this tariff a stimulus will be given to agricultural productions and to manufactures. As to manufactures, I do not think there is any doubt, because the very object of the tariff was to give increased protection to the manufacturers. But why the Minister of Finance should venture to say that the new tariff would encourage the farmers of this country I cannot understand, unless the Minister of Finance is becoming impressed with the view which was once put forward by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), that increased taxation is the gateway to prosperity. Certainly, the farmers are getting the increased taxation, and on the reasoning of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, they ought to find themselves at the gateway of prosperity. But I very much doubt it.
There was no excuse for this increased duty. For a considerable time the watchword of this Government has been increased production. The Minister of Finance has said to the farmers: My word to you is Production, Production, Production. Therefore, when he was considering this question of taxation, he ought to have considered how he could make the farmer's burden less onerous rather than more onerous. Where was the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell)? Has he been spending his whole time circulating about San Francisco while the tariff was being prepared? Why is he not on hand to look after the interests of the farmers? Or, if he is not here, where, when this tariff was framed, was my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), who knows how anxious the farmers of his own province, New Brunswick, are to obtain these fertilizers at as low a rate as possible? Surely, he cannot be oblivious to the fact that at the annual convention of the Farmers' and Dairymen's Association of New Brunswick, held in Fredericton in February, 1913, the following resolution was unanimously passed:
Whereas our farmers, in order to extend their operations, believe that it is necessary to use a considerable amount of commercial fertilizer ; and,
Whereas the cost of such fertilizers is so high that it is about impossible to use them with profit:
Therefore, resolved, that in the opinion of this convention of agriculturists from every county of New Brunswick, it is desirable that our Government take such steps as are necfes-sary to furnish the farmers with the chemicals for that purpose at first cost.
Sir, that was an important meeting, held in the capital of the province which my hon. friend represents in the Government. It was reported m all the newspapers. Its adoption of this resolution is only an evidence of the fact of which all of us in New Brunswick are aware, that for a number of years past the farmers have been of	the	opinion that,in order to	carry	on agriculture
successfully they must have resort to chemical fertilizers. Now, when the farmers require these fertilizers, when they are being urged from all quarters to engage in greater production, surely this is not the time to impose these burdens upon them, to put a tax upon every kind of fertilizer, both upon the manufactured chemical fertilizer which comes largely from the United States, and from the natural fertilizer which comes from the great republic of Chile.

intermediate tariff on certain products of France and a specific tariff on. other products of France; but why goods from other countries in no way affected by the French Convention should come from those countries, even although those goods are named in the French Convention, at a low rate of tariff, I cannot see. Why does the minister, so far as other countries are concerned, more especially the great country to the south of us, place a higher duty upon cottons and woollens and impose no extra duty upon silks and velvets and embroideries ? Why does he do that ? Is it because my young and handsome friend the Minister of Finance, the gallant and debonair Minister of Finance, thinks that no lady is well dressed unless she is dressed in silk and * velvet ? Why then does he tax the girl or the woman who wears cotton, or woollen, or muslin, or linen, and so far as this increase of the tariff is concerned, allow the girl or the woman who wears velvet or silk or embroideries, to go free? How can he justify that?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: He cannot.


William Pugsley: There is no reason for it, there is no manner in which it can be justified. I can understand that, so far as goods from France are concerned, particularly those named in schedule C, you cannot make a change because it would 'be in violation of the French Convention. And while I am upon the French Convention, let me ask my hon. friend if he thinks that he is entirely within his powers in imposing an additional stamp tax upon wine which comes from France and upon which, under the French Convention, a specific duty has been imposed. Take wine of the fresh grape, not a strong wine; a specific duty is payable upon that under the French Convention, under schedule C. It does not come under schedule B but under C, and a specific duty is'imposed upon it. He has raised the duty upon that by reason of this stamp tax 100 per cent. Has he the right to do it? He will say he has, because he will say that this is an Inland Revenue tax that he is putting on. Well, now, is it within the spirit of the French Convention? Parliament will be asked to say by the statute that these wines, these goods of France, cannot be taken out of the customs warehouse until this extra money is paid and this stamp is placed on them. What difference would it make if you had said that, before an importer could take

these goods out of the customs warehouse, in addition to the duty imposed under the French Convention, the importer must give the collector of customs a cheque for 25 cents or 50 cents as the case might be, upon every bottle of wine which he would take out of the customs warehouse? Is it not adding to the duty when this tax is placed upon the wine as a pre-requisite to its passing through the hands of the collector of customs? As to wines from France, containing under 20 per cent proof spirits, provided for in schedule C, the minister has raised the duty by 1,000 per cent Under the French Convention it is only 15 per cent, and he has raised it to $1.50, increasing the duty which has to be paid upon it before it can be taken out of the customs warehouse to the extent of 1,000 per cent. By stretching the terms of the convention, and by calling it a stamp duty instead of money which is to be paid by cheque to the collector of customs, you may get around the provisions of the French Convention.
The Minister of Finance may, by a lawyer's technicality, perhaps, under the advice of the Solicitor General, who looks so serious that I imagine he feels it is necessary to follow me in order to get the Government out of the difficulties they are in by reason of this iniquitous tax, be able to wriggle out of the spirit of this convention; but let me ask my hon. friend, in dealing with this great country, which is our ally as it is the ally of the Empire, not to give cause to the French Government to feel that Canada is treating this convention as a mere scrap of paper; let them feel that we treat it as a real agreement, a real convention between the Empire and our ally, made through the Canadian Government and the French Government, and one which Canada will live up to in truth and spirit, not live up to according to its mere words. It does seem to me that if the Government had provided that, as to these goods which come in under the French Convention, named by schedule C, in addition to the rates of duty therein provided for, before taking those goods out of the customs warehouse they must pay to the collector of customs an additional amount of duty, it would not have been any more a violation of the provisions of the French Convention than is the tariff which has been imposed and which is exacted by means of these stamps. In both cases they have to go through the customs warehouse before they can actually be considered entered in Ca,nada for the purpose of consumption. A duty imposed in that way does not cor-

respond to an Inland Revenue tax, it does not correspond to the octroi imposed in certain localities in France after goods get into the country, and which are peculiar to certain specified places within the country; but this is an extra duty which you exact as a condition to the goods being passed through the customs house.
I intended before leaving the subject of agriculture and the burdens which are being placed upon the farmers, to refer to one respect in which I think a real benefit might have been conferred upon farmers. They are asked to engage in greater production. You might have encouraged them to go in for greater production with a whole heart if you had shown to the farmers,particularly the farmers of the West, that there would be a market for them after this war is over, when the demand for wheat in Canada and England will decline, as it necessarily will when there will be an opportunity to get wheat through the Baltic from Russia, and from other European countries. But in this tariff the Minister of Finance has gone through the farce of leaving wheat and wheat flour just afs it was	before,	and how grateful the farmer ought to be to this Government because the duties on wheat and flour have not been actually increased. What a boon to such a great wheat-growing country as Canada is, a country which could easily become the granary of the world! Why does the Government not go further? Why do they not place wheat and flour upon the free list? If they had done so, what would have been the result? The farmers of the West would have felt that, while during this war there would be a good market for their wheat but still not good enough probably to pay for the investment of capital which would be necessary to prepare the land for greater production and to get additional horses and implements to cultivate the land, after the war there would have been a great market to the south, that they would then have had a steady and ever-growing market at good prices for their products in the great consuming cities of St. Paul, Minneapolis, Chicago, Spokane, Milwaukee and all the other great cities in the United States with their millions and millions of a consuming population. By refusing to put wheat and flour upon the free list the Government have struck a deadly blow at the development of our great western country. They have discouraged thousands of farmers. Their refusal to take a fair and broad view of the necessities and demands of our western
people has been the means, I believe, of sending many American citizens back to the United States, and depriving Canada of the great benefits which they were conferring upon our western country, and indeed upon the whole of Canada.
I read with much interest the other day a statement by the Master of the Dominion Grange. I have not the pleasure of knowing the gentleman who occupies that position, but his statement is certainly one which must commend itself to the judgment of any fair-minded man; and it shows that even in the short time the farmers have had to consider these matters, there is a growing protest against the impositions which are being made against them. Dealing with these tariff increases he says:
" There is not even the reasonable expectation of materially adding to our revenue," the Master continued, " since many of the recent changes in the customs schedule are practically prohibitive, their net result being to enable domestic producers to tax domestic consumers.
" I will venture the opinion that for every dollar which the recent change in the tariff will put into the Federal treasury, ten dollars of taxation will be levied upon Canadian industry.
" The Government might at least have considered the suggestion of the western farmers to adopt a direct tax upon land values in order to meet our requirements. This would have provided with no uncertainty for all our needs, and at the same time have cheapened land and thus have given the much needed stimulus to agriculture and to all production.
"But, instead of this we find industry subjected to still further exactions; and, most astounding of all, our motherland placed under an additional disability of five per cent, in her trade with us. To Knife Great Britain in this way when she is fighting for her existence and our liberties is a sight to make the gods weep."
He goes on:
"Wild and stupid are mild terms to apply to the recent tariff policy of our Federal Government, doubly wild and stupid at present, when the need for stimulating agriculture is paramount. It is the answer of Rehoboam, and will have its reward."
Every hon. gentleman in this House knows to what distinguished Biblical character the Master of the Grange refers, but as there are a good many Rehoboams in this Government I might offer
5 p.m. just a few remarks with respect to this gentleman who has long since passed away. You, Sir, with your Biblical knowledge, unsurpassed I take it by any gentleman in this House, know that Rehoboam succeeded Solomon as the King of Israel. Solomon had imposed many exactions upon his subjects, and when Rehoboam came to the throne the congregation of Israel requested an interview with him. Deputations waited upon him, as deputa-

tions have waited upon this Government- the farmers' delegation, for instance, which asked for freedom from taxation and for a wider market for their products. Rehoboam promised the delegation an answer in a few days. But instead of consulting with the older men-like my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce for instance, or the hon. member for Halton-he consulted with the younger men, just as this Government consults with pro-Protectionists like my hon. fri md from South Toronto (Mr. Mac-donell). Rehoboam was advised by these younger men to tell the deputation that he would not let up upon the exactions imposed by his father, that whereas the yoke imposed by Solomon had been heavy, he would make it heavier still. And so when the delegation came back in a few days Rehoboam acted upon the advice of the younger men and said that he would not yield to their requests, that whereas the yoke upon them had been heavy he would make it heavier. He said: " My little finger shall be heavier than my father's loins. . . . My father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions." And so it is with this Government. Angered, I suppose, because the farmers of our great western country had the temerity to come before them and demand that wheat and flour should be made free, and that' the British preference should be increased so that our trade with the Motherland might grow greater year by year, the Government in effect says to these people: Whereas you have been chastised with whips before, we are now going to chastise you with scorpions.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Don't forget the squid.


William Pugsley: Never mind about the squid. The Government says to the farmers of the West: Whereas you have complained that upon your implements, you have been obliged to pay too much into the Government treasury, we are going to put a further duty of seven and a half per cent against you; you folk have had the temerity to come to us and ask us to put wheat and flour on the free list, so that you could sell your wheat to the people of foreign countries so that you could take your wheat away from the millers of this country and send it to the United States; we will show you what we think of your conduct, we not only have refused to do that for you, but we will impose a further tax upon the implements with the excep-

tion of comparatively few, which you use in the production of wheat and other farm products.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me, and a good many members besides you in this House will agree with me, that we have a good many Rehoboams in this Government, who are acting towards the farmers of this country in the same spirit which Rehoboam displayed towards the Israelites when they went to him to obtain redress of their grievances.
In conclusion, let me say a word or two with regard to the British preference. To me it has been a matter of the greatest possible surprise that gentlemen on the other side of the House should, at this late date, get up in their places and say, in effect, that they did not value the British preference and that it was of no benefit to Canada. After the experience that Canada has had of the British preference since 1897, it is astonishing that any man should make such a statement on the floor of this Parliament. It iseems to me it is un-English, it is un-British, if is un-Imperial. As a result of the British preference, the trade of Canada has progressed until it has reached enormous proportions. We all know that you cannot have in connection with these great transportation systems one-way traffic only; you want traffic both ways to cheapen the cost of transportation to the lowest possible figure. The ships which bring from Great Britain her manufactured goods to be delivered to the people of Canada take back the products of the Canadian people, and they take back these products at a cheaper rate than they could possibly afford to if they did not have traffic from England to Canada. Instead of doing anything to interfere with the British preference, the Government should have increased the preference and given greater encouragement to the trade between Canada and the Mother Country. If there is one thing in this tariff more than another for which this Government ought to be condemned, it is because of the blow they have struck at our trade with the Mother Country. At a time when the Empire has not only given of her money and the lifeblood of her children for the defence of the Empire and of Canada as one of her most important parts, Great Britain is also lending to Canada, at a low rate of interest, the money which Canada needs to enable her to take part in the war, and surely that is not a time for Canada to strike this blow against the Motherland and to raise this barrier against her trade with us. I am satisfied that the Government might

save the people of this country from these stamp duties and this high tariff. I think that with prudence, there would be no necessity for increased taxes. The Government have got the Dominion into this deplorable state by reason of their want of foresight and prudence. They have told us, that for at least three years they knew there has been danger that war might come on between Great Britain and Germany. If they believed that, then surely three years ago they should have begun husbanding the resources of this country, they should have been saving money and keeping it in the. public treasury, to meet the day of trial when it came. The Government told us in August that so long ago as last January they had reason to believe that war was imminent,,' and that they began to organize the different departments under Sir Joseph Pope, Under Secretary of State, in order to be ready for the war. Notwithstanding that, they acteu as if they thought the war would make no difference to the revenues of the country; they acted as if they thought it would not bring hard times; they went on expending money just as before, and as a result of their mismanagement they have got the country into a position of very great dirticulty, but out of which, even at this late date, it can be rescued by prudent management of its affairs. Evidently, while the Government have sown the wind the people of this country are reaping the whirlwind, and it is the people of Canada, not the Government, who will suffer for the wild and reckless administration of the affairs of this country by the present Administration.
Mr. .T. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton): I have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) and I was surprised to hear him use such language. In his opening remarks the other evening, he dealt largely in personalities. He referred to the hon. member for Frontenac as a man with a lopsided brain. I was sorry to hear an exMinister of the Crown resort to such tactics against the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), who delivered one of the most able speeches in this whole debate.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend
pardon me? I spoke of a man who could criticise an expenditure of $5,000 when I was Minister of Public Works, and sustain the action of the present Government in giving away for ten dollars some land which was worth $200,000, and I said a man who would 37
do that must be a man with a lop-sided brain.


Mr. ROGERS:: I wish to correct my hon. friend, because when he makes the statement that this Government gave away land for ten dollars which was worth $100,000, he makes a statement that he must himself know to be untrue.


William Pugsley: I wish to say a word to my hon. friend-


Mr. ARMSTRONG:: I believe I have the floor.


William Pugsley: I have a right to answer the Minister of Public Works.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Not at this time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for East Lambton has the floor.


William Pugsley: Very well, I will answer again.	-


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Not only did the exminister (Mr. Pugsley) refer to the hon. member for Frontenac in this way, but he seemed for some reason or other to have a particular spite against the present Minister of Public Works. I merely wish to say that neither in the speech which he has just delivered, nor in any other of his speeches, has he been able to point to one dollar misspent by the Public Works Department under this Government.


William Pugsley: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman does me a great injustice when he says that I have shown a particular spite against the Minister of Public Works. I have not done so. I have made no personal reference to the Minister of Public Works; and, moreover, I have a kindly feeling towards him. My hon. friend is entirely mistaken. That is my point of order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The point of order of the hon. member is not very well taken. Throughout this debate hon. members have very largely indulged in a violation of the rule of debate by the way in which they have referred to other hon. members. The use of the personal pronouns, " he," "you " and " they " is not permissible according to the rule of debate. The proper form of address is " the hon. member for " the constituency which he represents, or " the hon. minister of " the portfolio that he holds, or something of that nature.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not
the point of order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There was no proper
point of order made.


Wilfrid Laurier: The point of order raised 'by my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) was that the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) had stated that my hon. friend beside me had exhibited spite against the Minister of Public Works i that he had imputed motives.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member, if I understood him correctly, denied the statement, and did not raise a point of order.


Wilfrid Laurier: If you take
into consideration the word " spite," a point of order was raised.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: While I was on my feet to make my statement in regard to the point of order, I thought it well, because of the frequency with which the rule of debate has been violated during this debate, to call attention to that violation.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to carry, out your wishes in regard to following the rules of debate.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Mr. Speaker,
would you give us the rule regarding the use of the personal pronoun? I have always understood that we must in every case address the Chair. That would, of course, preclude the use of the personal pronoun.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Hon. members must
address the Chair; but in referring to other hon. members they are not permitted to use the personal pronoun.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I was calling attention to the fact that the ex-Minister of Public Works had criticised unfairly the present Minister of Public Works in the administration of his department. I am justified in making that statement, because time and again the ex-Minister of Public Works has called attention to matters pertaining to the Public Works Department, which he said were most extravagantly managed and were unreasonably and unfairly dealt with. He took up at least half an hour of the time of this House in referring to different revotes that the present Minister of Public Works had put in the Estimates. Let me call the attention of the hon. member for St. John to the fact that in the year 1908, a copy of the Estimates for which I have under my hand, instead of a revote of $3,150,000, the amount of the revote put in the Estimates by the present Minister of Public Works, my hon. friend

had a revote of $3,544,000. It was quite right for the ex-Minister of Public Works to have a revote amounting fn $3,544,000, but it was a terrible thing for the present Minister of Public Works to have a revote of $3,150,000. Let me call the attention of the hon. member to some of the revotes.


William Pugsley: What was the expenditure for that year?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I do not care to take up the time of the House in looking up the expenditure. I do not see what bearing that has upon the question.


William Pugsley: That is the year in
which we curtailed our expenditure, and very properly curtailed it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Yes, but the revotes appeared in the Estimates just the same, and this Government is also curtailing its Estimates. Let me give a few of the amounts. The revote for public buildings in Nova Scotia amounted to $143,000; in Prince Edward Island, to $5,000; in New Brunswick, to $11,000; in Quebec, to $314,700; in Ontario, to $386,500; in Manitoba, to $219,000; in Saskatchewan and Alberta, to $117,000,' and in British Columbia, $93,000. If we consider public works and harbours, we find that in Nova Scotia the revotes amounted to $225,000; in Prince Edward Island, to $34,000; in New Brunswick, to $124,000; in Quebec, to $418,000; in Ontario, to $748,000; in Manitoba, to $17,000; in Saskatchewan and Alberta, to $31,000; in British Columbia, to $14,500. The revote in the Public Works Department for dredging amounted to $720,000; for roads and bridges to $20,000, and for miscellaneous,^ $75,000. This makes a total of $3,544,950. It was all right for the ex-Minister of Public Works in 1908 to have a revote appearing in the Estimates for the department under his administration for that large amount of money; but it was a most serious state of affairs for the present Minister of Public Works, under the trying circumstances which we have to face at the present time, to have a revote of only $3,150,000.


William Pugsley: I rise to correct my hon. friend.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I feel that the hon. gentleman has been interrupting me quite enough and interfering with my remarks. I allowed the hon. gentleman to proceed with his discussion without interruption, and I do not feel-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. If tlie lion, member rises to make an absolute correction or denial of a statement, he has a right to do so.	'


William Pugsley: 1 do not think my hon. friend would intentionally put a misinterpretation upon what I said. I was not complaining of the revotes. What I was doing was this:	I was showing that the large
amount of revotes showed that there was no urgency for the works in respect of which the revotes appeared. The same was true in 1908.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: There surely is as
much urgency to-day as there was in 1908. The hon. gentleman took up at least half an hour in dealing with this question. It seems to me that hon. gentlemen opposite are quibbling over little things. If they have any definite proposition to offer, let them present it to the House. They want to realize the fact that this Government is facing a tremendous crisis in the affairs of Canada. Our boys are marching to the front; some of them are on the firing line to-day, in the trenches and on the hillsides of France, assisting in the defence of their King and country. This Parliament should do everything possible to assist this Government in the position they occupy.
The ex-Minister of Public Works called attention to the Militia Estimates and complained because they were $7,000,000 less than they were last year. He realizes the fact that our boys are, as I have said, in the firing line; that therefore no camp or annual drill will be necessary, and that $1,900,000 for ordnance and stores and arms should not appear in the Estimates for the present year. He also appreciates the fact that, as far as public works are concerned, the Minister of Finance and a number of other hon. members have already stated that this Government do nbt intend'to carry on public works that were about to be started or were under consideration.


William Pugsley: Why, then, put the
amount in the Estimates?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: They do not intend to carry them on at the present time. But should the war cease before the end of the year and normal conditions obtain, this Government would be quite justified in carrying on these public works. The ex-Mmister of Public Works, apparently would like to see half the men in his own district put out of work by a serious cut in the Public Works Estimates for his dis-37J
trict. But I venture to say there is not a man behind him, in whose district large public works are carried on who would support the hon. gentleman in that position. What folly it would be for the Government, under the present circumstances, to cut down An these public works and dismiss men, making hard times harder. Hon, gentlemen opposite cry out about hard times and about the country going to smash; and yet they are trying to embarrass the Government and make it much harder for them to conduct public affairs. This country is at war, and hon. gqntlemen opposite should be asking what they can do to help at this time of crisis.	In
England you will see the posters on the walls and billboards hearing the words, "Your King and Country need you." That call has come to the people of Canada, and nearly a hundred thousand of our btave young men have offered their services in defence of their country. These young men are marching to the front, and we ought to be willing to assist them in every way, and, instead of taking up the time of this House in trying to embarrass the Government, we should he doing our utmost to lend assistance to provide these men with every means whereby they can accomplish the glorious object for which they have gone to the front. Hon gentlemen opposite do not seem to appreciate what these men are doing. They do not seem to understand the position of the British Empire under present circumstances. When we realize that the Mother Country is facing the greatest crisis in her history and that every effort is being put forward by her people to bring this great war to a successful issue, surely it must be clear to us that our duty in Parliament is to stop criticising and embarrassing the Government, and to uphold them in the position they have taken.
I understand that some hon. members on the other side, even the hon. member for St. John City, are anxious for a fight. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) gave us to understand that he was anxious to drive the Government to the country on this Budget. If that is the desire of hon. gentlemen on the other side, then I can only say to the Government: The best thing we can do is to pitch oar tents right here, and if we can not show these hon. gentlemen that they are wrong and we are right, let us go to the country. I am sure that the people of Canada will see to it that the majority of hon. gentlemen opposite are left , at home,

Agriculture that Canada has ever had. He has placed on the statute books of Canada more progressive legislation in favour of the fanning interests of this country than has any other Minister of Agriculture. In addition to that what do we find? We find the department of the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) being criticised by hon. members opposite. Mr. Pelletier has given the most progressive and advanced legislation in connection with the Post Office Department of any man who has occupied that position in Canada. He has established a system of rural free mail delivery whereby the people living in the rural districts have the benefits of a post office at their very doors. The late Government for eight long years were urged to establish that system; but when they finally did undertake it they gave free rural delivery only on *existing mail and stage routes instead of in the extensive way that the late Postmaster General has established that system. Mr. Pelletier also gave to the people of Canada a parcel post system which will develop and grow as years go by. The policy of the Post Office Department under the Conservative Government has been progressive, advanced and in the interests of the country.
The hon. member for St. John referred in a very slight way to the reciprocity pact, calling attention to the wheat that would be going into the United States to-day if we had had reciprocity. If that hon. gentleman would read the papers and look at the columns showing the prices which are being paid for wheat in Winnipeg and Minneapolis, he would find that day after day and month after month and year after year the price in Winnipeg exceeds the price paid in Minneapolis. How can he believe that farmers are anxious to send their wheat over there at the present time when they are receiving in Canada a higher price than they could possibly receive on the other side of the line? Does he not realize that the people of the United States last year were able to export to the markets of the world 173,861,000 bushels of wheat and more tnan 12,000,000 barrels of flour, while this country was able to export only a very small portion of that amount. Which shows that the United States are capable of producing enough wheat' and flour to supply not only their own people but the people of other lands.	.
Our people have been anxious to promote the made-in-Canada campaign. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not seem to appreciate [Mr. J. E. Armstrong:.!
this made-in-Canada proposition. The hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) called attention to it, and tried to lead the members of the House to believe that it was not to their best interests to urge upon the people of Canada to make and to consume as much of the products of their own land as possible. Do not these hon, gentlemen realize that the best market is the home market, and that the made-in-Canada proposition is a live and progressive idea, and that people in Canada should gladly and willingly support it?
Do these gentlemen want us to call attention to the position in which they were placed in 1911 when they voted against the three dreadnoughts that should to-day be in the firing line of the British fleet?


William Pugsley: They would not have been completed until next year.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The ex-Minister of Public Works criticises this Government in its management of the affairs of Canada. Had these two battleships been completed and were to-day in the firing line of the British fleet, how proud the people of Canada would be. Does the hon. member for St. John not appreciate the fact that on the 5th day of August, when war was declared, the people of Canada were humiliated to think that they had done so little to aid the British Empire. Thousands of men in Canada hung their heads in shame to think they were unable to assist the Motherland in her defence. Who was to blame? Day in and day out, night in and night out, this Government did their utmost to carry this proposition through this House, so that assistance would be granted to the Motherland. They were doing just what the British Admiralty asked them to do. Any man who will read the memorandum that was placed before this Government in 1911 will realize that this Government was merely carrying out the wishes of the British Admiralty when they said that the best means whereby the Canadian people could assist the Motherland in the defence of the Empire would be by building three of the largest and best battleships that money could buy or science procure. The is the statement made in the memorandum, and the hon. gentlemen opposite did their ulmost to defeat that proposition.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman says if these battleships had been completed Canada would have been proud of them. Did not the right hon. the Prime Minister, at the time when it was proposed to build them, say that they would not be completed

until after 1916? It would be after the general election; that would take place before they were completed.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That statement may have been made by the Premier of Canada.


Mr. J. D. REID:: No, it was not.


William Pugsley: Yes, it was made distinctly and positively.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: But supposing that it was made, under the present circumstances if those two battleships had been in the dockyards of England in process of construction, men could have been put to work on them night and day during the last seven months, we are not so far from the year 1916 that we cannot appreciate the fact that the British Admiralty would have been able to have completed those two battleships, and that to-day they might have been in the firing line of the British fleet.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why didn't you have the Niobe ready?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Let me call attention to the fact that the people of Canada have looked on with admiration at the splendid fight put up by the warship furnished to the British Admiralty by the Government of New Zealand in the battle off Heligoland.


William Pugsley: What about the Australian Government's boat?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: And more than that, they were able to assist Admiral Beatty in the splendid victory he achieved in the North Sea. The cry with these gentlemen opposite was: "No need; no danger, no emergency; no menace; we know what we are talking about and there is no need for the Government to undertake this proposition." But the Premier had asked the British Admiralty how he could best serve them in that regard, and he is asking them to-day. This Government to-day are carrying out the wishes of the British Admiralty, and we are"proud and glad to support them. But hon. gentlemen opposite are doing their utmost to discredit this Government in the eyes of Canada and the world at large, and if possible drive them to the country. We on this side of the House are glad that we have at the head of affairs in Canada such an honest, straight-forward, and businesslike Governement, a Government which from time time to time gives to the people of Canada legislation as progressive as could possibly be expected from any Government. .
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 62, respecting the Bank of Alberta.

Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 63, to incorporate the Catholic Truth Society of Canada-Mi;. Macdonell.
Bill No. 64, respecting a certain patent of the Mills Equipment Company, Limited. -Mr. Northrup.
Bill No. 65, respecting the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company.-Mr. T. J, Stewart.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: When the House rose at six o'clock I was calling attention to the fact that had this Government obeyed the wishes of the British Admiralty in 1911 and, had their policy not been thwarted in this House and defeated in the Senate by the Liberal party, Canada and Great Britain would to-day have been much better prepared for this war. Upon the shoulders of hon. gentlemen opposite, therefore, rests a great responsibility, and when called upon to give an account of their stewardship in the near future, they will cut a sorry figure before the people, when they have to tell them that their policy in this House so far this session has been) to embarrass and hinder the Government in promoting the necessary legislation to help the Empire to bring this great struggle to a successful issue. When war broke out we had no great dreadnoughts to place in the firing line, and for that hon. gentlemen opposite are to blame. They do not dare to vote in opposition to the $100,000,000 asked for by the Government now, nor did they dare to vote last summer against the $50,000,000 for war expenditure, but they do dare to try to embarrass and obstruct and criticise necessary legislation. The Government now in power has done its full duty in this crisis. One hundred thousand of our brave soldiers have been armed and equipped and fed, and great credit is due to the men at the head of affairs who have been so successful in this undertaking. Apparently hon. gentlemen opposite are now taking up the time of Parliament with the object of driving the Government to the country, and if that is their wish, and if the Government should appeal to the country, these hon. gentlemen must expect very little sympathy
v

from the electorate. Look at what the colonies are doing in this great war; see the splendid work of Australia!


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: to-day. They realize that unless some help comes from countries such as Canada to assist them in producing the flax fibre for the purposes of their mills, they are going to be seriously handicapped. Representatives of these concerns have been in Canada during the past few months urging many of us who live in districts where flax grows extensively to try to have these mills started and some of their - products sent forward.
This year the whole Belgium export is cancelled, Germany has seized the whole stock of fibre, tow, yarns and linen. Germany having taken possession of the straw of the 1913 crop, held in reserve, and of the 1914 crop, harvested just before the war broke out and not marketed, there will De no flax sown this spring. For these reasons Belgium is out of the flax supply for three years.
This would appear to me to be Canada's opportunity. The improved methods used in handling the flax has made it a very profitable industry for the farmers. Pulling machines have been successful and the latest method of retting and caring for the flax have been the means of reducing the cost of handling to an enormous extent. The cotton industry of the southern States has tried to place the growing of flax in as much disfavour as possible. Canada cannot ever become great in cotton; she can become great in flax. If proper assistance is given 1 look forward not only to the old mills being operated, but to large mills being established in the Northwest as part of an industry which will add materially to the agricultural wealth of Canada.
I believe that a small commission should be appointed at the earliest possible date whose duty it should be to send out literature from time to time to men interested in flax. That commission should visit the mills which have'not been operated and induce them to reopen, and should see to it that sufficient seed is placed at their disposal at a reasonable price. Other duties of that commission would be: to visit each mill once at seeding time, harvesting, spreading, retting and turning, in order that they might obtain the best results; to see that the best of seed is used for planting purposes; to see to the proper grading of flax fibre for export; to investigate the new means of retting which are being introduced from time to time; to start the flax industry again in the province of Quebec if possible; to keep posted in the new European methods of handling flax; to find out ways and means of disposing of flax [Mr. J. E. Armstrong. 5
and its by-products in Canada; to assist the flax growers to co-operate with others in the importation of flaxseed from Holland; to devise some means whereby flax grown and scutched by the farmers on the farm in small quantities can be marketed to advantage; to devise a plan to settle disputes between the farmer and the flax buyer in regard to prices and to the standardization of flax both as to seed and to fibre. New Canadian strains should be developed; encouragement should be given in the way of baling the crop; lower freight rates should be secured; information concerning tests as to the exhaustiveness of flax on the soil should be disseminated. The farmers should be disabused of any prejudice they may have against flax growing, and if possible the establishment of paper mills in flaxseed centres should be encouraged in centres such as Saskatchewan where coarse straw can be profitably utilized. The United States, Ireland, Holland, France and other countries should be visited to inquire into and study their methods of treating flax. In short, every possible assistance should be rendered toward the development of this industry. I hope the Government will give immediate attention to this matter and that some assistance will be forthcoming.
In conclusion, I wish to congratulate this Government on the Budget and to say that it is a reasonable, fair, businesslike proposition, and that I have every confidence in the good sense and business management of the Prime Minister and his advisers.


Mr. L. J. GAUTHIER (St. Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing that the hon.
[DOT] member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) came to his " in conclusion," for up to that point the hon. gentleman had not mentioned the Budget. He took us through the history of the Liberal Administration from 1896; he spoke of dreadnoughts, of flax, of loyalty -of everything except the question which is now an issue between the two parties sitting in this House. I intend first to take up briefly the points that have been raised by my hon. friend. In the first place, he found fault with the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Pugsley) for his attitude on revotes, and said that when that lion, gentleman was Minister of Public Works in 1908 there were a number of revotes. The hon. member for St. John City did not say that money should not be revoted, but he objects to revotes that involve extra taxation. The revotes of 1908 did not mean extra taxation laid upon the people. The hon. member for

Lambton goes on to say that the Opposition is embarrassing the Government while our boys are marching to tlhe front. But the Opposition has declared that it is ready to Vote any amount of money asked by this Government to go on with the war. I do not- see how we can be charged with embarrassing the Government in the conduct -of the war. Being willing to help the Government all along, it is nothing but right that we should criticise what we think is -open to criticism. Otherwise, what was the reason for convening Parliament? The Government, having a majority in this House, has the duty of keeping the business of the country going, and they must take the responsibility of their actions. If the Opposition find that the manner in which the Government is fulfilling its duty is not according to what is right, it is their duty to criticise. But we do not want to embarrass -the Government on account of the war-not at all; and we shall prove it before the debate is over.
The hon. member for East Lambton raised a question which ought to be settled at once for all. He said to the Opposition: If you are anxious for a fight, if you want to have an election, you may have it immediately. It is just as well that we should understand each other in this regard.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I know that my hon. friend does not intend to misquote what I said. I did not use the word " immediately." I said that if hon. gentlemen wanted an election, it was up to this Government to pitch its tent right here and fight the matter out, and that if we could not convince hon. gentlemen opposite that they are in the wrong and we are in the right, the best thing to do would be to go to the country.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: I have no objection to the correction of my hon. friend. He made two allusions to that subject during the course of his speech: first, I understood him to say that if we were anxious for a fight- the Government should pitch their tent and fight to a finish. Secondly, he said that if the Liberal party wanted an election, we should go to the country. That is what I understood him to say, and I think the explanation he has made beats that out. We are not ovjr anxious to have .an election, but if the Gv vernment wants it, it will find us ready to face it.
The hon. member asks what the Government of the day did in 1907, when we were
in the midst of a crisis. The Government of the day reduced its expenditure, while the Government of to-day is increasing its expenditure, that is the difference. We are opposed to the Government on this question of taxation, because they are increasing expenditures as well as increasing the burdens which have to be borne by the people.
My hon. friend says that every country is enlarging its public debt. To this assertion we do not object. When the Government at the war session asked us to vote $50,000,000, we voted the amount willingly. This year, when they ask for $100,000,000, we are ready to vote it without objection. We realize that this war in which our country is involved must increase the public debt. We are willing to shoulder part of the responsibility for the expansion of the debt, but we do not wish to be held responsible for the extra taxation that is to be imposed upon the people in a manner to which we take objection.
My hon. friend said that instead of building the Transcontinental the previous Government should have extended the Intercolonial to the coast. Having regard to the statistics concerning the Intercolonial at the present time, I think my hon. friend will realize that if the Intercolonial railway had been extended to the coast, the results would have been much less advantageous than thos^ which will be obtained by the construction of the Transcontinental, which is built by a private corporation.
My hon. friend compares the price of wheat in Winnipeg with the price of wheat in Minneapolis. It is all very well to speak of a home market, but what is the use of having a quotation from the Winnipeg market and not having a consumer for the produce that is put on that market? I would rather have the consumer than the quotation.
The hon. gentleman sought to draw a parallel between the action of the Government in connection with the proposed contribution- of $35,000,000 to the British Admiralty and the position of the present Administration in connection with the Budget. He said that the Government acted under the direction of the British Admiralty when they asked Parliament to vote $35,000,000 for the Mother Country. Evidently my hon. friend desires to intimate that this Budget of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has been drawn under the direction of the Admiralty. I think it is not fair that the Admiralty should be held responsible for anything the responsi-

bility for which rests upon the Government.
My hon. friend says that in respect of the $50,000,000 which have been voted, and the $100,000,000 which are being appropriated for war purposes, the Opposition did not and would not dare vote against the Government. I am not a scholar in the English language, and very often when a new word comes up in this House I go to the library and consult dictionaries and lexicons for the purpose of finding out the meaning of the word so employed. I have heard an hon. member in this House read an extract carefully prepared upon the words obsolete and obsolescent, and contend that the ships, which would have been tendered for under the Naval Act of 1910, would have been obsolete tne moment the contract was granted. But quite recently the Government bought two submarines which had been rejected by the Government for which they were ordered; they paid for them $250,000, and they were not obsolete. It is the same with the extra-superfine distinction between the two words "false" and "untrue." The same applies to the word "truce." The two parties have entered into a truce which, according to the dictionary, is a cessation of hostilities. Listening as you do, Mr. Speaker, with careful attention to the speeches which are delivered in this House, would you believe, after having heard the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. member for East Lamb-ton, that the party to which he belongs has entered into a truce and has ceased hostilities? When the two parties entered into a truce, the right hon. leader of the Opposition gave the Government a free hand in the direction of the affairs of this country. Parliament was summoned; the Government asked for a certain amount of money; we granted it willingly. All proposed amendments to existing laws which were suggested by the Government were willingly supported by the Opposition. When the session was over it was suggested that a Ereneh-Canadian regiment be formed in the province of Quebec. My right hon. friend and leader went on the public platform with his old political opponent and asked the young men to enlist, and the formation of a regiment was completed inside of three weeks. Would you be surprised to know, Sir, that at that very moment, when my right hon. friend and leader was respecting the truce which had been declared between the two parties, our friends of the Conservative party were circulating literature and cartoons with the professed object of preparing for an election, which, it was alleged, would be held on November 28, 1914?


Mr. PAQUET:: In the province of Quebec?


Louis Joseph Gauthier: In the Dominion of
Canada.


Eugène Paquet: Would my honorable friend allow me a question? Does he intend to maintain that we have sent out for distribution in the province of Quebec pamphlets
concerning a general election?


Louis Joseph Gauthier: What I said was that at the very moment that my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was respecting the truce and giving as free a hand as possible to the Government, the Government was circulating in the Dominion of Canada literature and cartoons to prepare for an election that was proposed to be held on the 28th of November of last year.


Eugène Paquet: I want to know from my honourable friend if, in the province of Quebec, the truce was observed by the Conservative party.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: There are two reasons why these pamphlets were not circulated in Quebec: first, they were not translated; and then it would be of no use, because hon. members opposite are very well awaTe that it is no use circulating literature in Quebec when we have their own records on which to punish them at the next general election.


Eugène Paquet: My honourable friend
refuses to answer.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: is all tied up in the banks because the owners do not wish to take any risks with it. And who is responsible for this? I say it is the Government of this country, because they are not only recklessly spending the reveiiues of this country but preparing to spend recklessly the money that will be exacted from our people by this unjust, unfair and unsound taxation.


Mr. F. S. SCOTT (South Waterloo):: It seems to me but fitting that my first words spoken in this House should bear reference to the loss which this Parliament has suffered in the death of the gentleman who preceded me in the position which I now occupy. The more I have come in contact with the members of this House and heard their references to the late hon,
9 p.m. Mr. Clare the more I have been impressed with the high place which he occupied in the estimation and the affections of the men with whom he was associated here. In his home town of Preston the splendid industries with which he was identified stand as a monument to his ability as a business man. We in South Waterloo who knew him so well feel that so great was the work in which he was engaged and so widespread his influence throughout Canada that his loss may well be referred to as a national one.
I	should also like to give expression on this occasion to the very great pride and pleasure that I feel at being permitted to serve in this House under the gentleman who occupies the high position of Premier of this Dominion of Canada. For ten years he was the chosen leader of his party while in Opposition. For more than three years he has been Premier of this country, during which time Canada has passed through perhaps the most difficrflt period in her history. I believe it is the verdict of the people of Canada to-day, and will be the verdict of the people more than ever in the future, that by the statesmanlike manner in which he has guided this country through this difficult time, the Premier has measured up to the best traditions of British statesmanship, and his place is secure in the honour roll of great Canadians.
The hon. member for St. Hyaeinthe (Mr. Gauthier) who has just resumed his seat will pardon me if I do not follow in detail the various arguments he has advanced, but there are one or two points to w'hich I shall refer. It has seemed to me as I have followed this debate, that after the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) had spoken for the gentlemen opposite,

the field that has been covered since that time has been practically the same ground over and over again. I should just like to refer to one of the points that was made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, a point that was also emphasized very emphatically by the hon. member foist. John (Mr. Pugsley) this afternoon; and that is their insistence that the Government of the day should cut down expenditures. I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I have a very limited knowledge of the procedure followed by this House in the carrying on of its business, but it does seem to me that it would be a much more businesslike proceeding if hon. gentlemen opposite, instead of speaking in a general way about expenditures, would wait until the Estimates are before the House and then tell us which of them they object to.
The hon. member for St. Hyaeinthe (Mr. Gauthier) also stated that the great burden of taxation in this Budget fell upon the people who were least able to bear it. Well, the Bank of Montreal, under this new taxation system, will pay into the treasury of this country $150,000 per annum, the Bank of Commerce $135,000 per annum, and the Imperial Bank $60,000 per annum, and the other banks will pay in like proportion. On the day following that on which the Minister of Finance brought down 'his Budget, I was in the office of the general manager of a bank in the oity of Toronto, and he said to me: Our share of this taxation will be $60,000 a year, but the banks will not attempt to shift that burden on to their customers, with whom they have been doing business, but will cheerfully pay dt, feeling that they are discharging a patriotic obligation which they owe to Canada and to the Empire. That, Sir, I have no doubt, represents the feeling amongst the banking institutions of this country.
I represent a constituency, important from an agricultural standpoint and important also from an industrial standpoint, and my constituents aTe intelligent people, who follow closely the discussion of public affairs, and I want to tell the Minister of Finance that I have not, up to the present, received a single complaint from them against the customs .tariff as proposed in this war Budget.
I can compliment the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) on the manner in which he handled his subject in criticising the Budget, and \ have found that the hon. gentlemen on his side of the House who have spoken since he did

have done him the compliment of largely following his argument. As I understand the position which the hon. gentleman and his party take with regard to this Budget, it is, that if the gentlemen who have been in charge of tire affairs of this country during -the past three years had been more careful in their expenditure, and had husbanded better the revenues of the country, there would have been no need for a war Budget. Well, the people of Canada know, the people of the world know, that as a consequence of this war the business and financial conditions of the world have been revolutionized, and that in every country, whether warring or neutral, it has been necessary to introduce unusual fiscal measures of the kind we are now discussing. In the neutral United States, which is far removed from the seat of conflict, shortly after the war broke out it became necessary to introduce special legislation to take care of the financial situation. Australia, New Zealand, every civilized country, has had to pass special legislation to meet the extraordinary conditions which have arisen. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) says: Had 1 been Minister of Finance during the past three years, and had I had surrounding me on the Treasury benches my chosen people, I would have so administered the financial affairs of Canada that it would not have been necessary to introduce any war Budget. 1 must admit that for the short time I have been in this House I have been very much impressed with the ability of the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. K. Maclean), but when he makes a contention of that kind, I feel I cannot pay equal tribute to his modesty. When the Liberal party in the Dominion advances such an argument, I am forced to think that the people of Canada will not be prepared to take them as seriously as they themselves.
Another point raised by the financial critic of the Liberal party was that these proposed changes in the tariff made the tariff so high that it became prohibitive, and that it would consequently restrict trade. I have no doubt that hon. gentlemen opposite are sincere when they say that this will be a high (tariff, and perhaps they are sincere when they say it will restrict trade, but I certainly cannot agree with them in the conclusion they have arrived at in this respect. Let them look at the tariff which has been in force in the United States for the last twenty-five years, and let them average the duties of that tariff and then compare that average with
the average duties in the war Budget now submitted by the Minister of Finance, and they will find that the average rate of duty in the United States has been considerably higher than the average rate in this proposed war Budget. And, Sir, I do not think it can be successfully contended that the tariff in the United States has not always supplied an abounding revenue for the needs of that country.
Particular stress has been laid by hon. gentlemen opposite on the changes proposed *in the tariff with reference to the British preference. They say that under no circumstances would they touch the British preference, but I can tell them that if they occupied the Government benches to-day, and if they were to add that seven and a half per cent duty on raw materials and leave the British preference as it is, it would be a very serious thing indeed for Canadian industries. There are in my constituency a number of woollen mills, and they are owned by gentlemen, some of whom support the party opposite, but I want to tell those gentlemen on the other side of the House, that if they adopted such a policy as they propose they would adopt, it would not be very favourably received by that army of people who are engaged in our woollen industries. I submit further, Mr. Speaker, that in so far as the principle of the British preference is concerned, it remains unchanged by this Budget.
A great deal has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite about extravagant expenditure, and while I have no desire to weary the House by an array of figures, I would like to refer to four items of expenditure which this Government had to undertake during the last three years. During the short time the present Government have been in power they, paid $56,000,000 towards the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, $10,000,000 for the Quebec bridge, $38,000,000 to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, which they "were obliged to pay under an interpretation of the Grand Trunk Pacific agreement, made by the Liberal Government, and $15,000,000 to prevent the Grand Trunk Pacific from being tied up in 1913. Here we have a total of $119,000,000 which had to be paid by this Government, and every dollar of which is a legacy from the Liberal Government and an obligation incurred by them which the present Government had to assume. I have no doubt that were I thoroughly to analyse the situation I would find other large sums of a like nature.
I would like for a moment to refer to a

matter brought up by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) in the part which he took in this debate the other night. The hon. member said that he would like to see a more equitable distribution of the taxes than the new customs tariff would give, and he advocated direct taxation. The Minister of Finance has introduced no new principles in his War Budget; he has simply extended the principles that have always underlain the customs tariff. Those same principles were in effect in the tariff that was in operation in this country between the years 1896 and 1911. In so far as my knowledge goes, I have never heard that the hon. member for Edmonton tried to induce the party with which he is identified to change from a customs tariff to a system of direct taxation.
The hon. member for Edmonton also said that the duties on lumber, cement and many other articles, to which I need not refer, affected the prairie provinces. It has been my privilege to visit the provinces of the West; and if I were to be asked what is the chief characteristics of the people of the West, my answer might well be that one of their chief characteristics is their deep-rooted loyalty to Canada and to the Empire. When the hon. member for Edmonton says that the people of the West will be affected by these taxes, if I know the spirit of the people of the West, I say that they want to be affected by these taxes, because they realize that when they are so affected, they are paying a patriotic debt which they owe to Canada and to the Empire.
Reference has also been made by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to the made-in-Canada campaign, and hon. gentlemen opposite have been inclined to hold it up to ridicule. I do not think that hon. gentlemen opposite properly appreciate the significance of this made-in-Canada campaign. What does it mean? Made in Canada means employment to Canadian industry. When our industries are busy and when our people are well employed, the Minister of Finance of to-day or the minister of to-morrow, whoever he may be, need not worry about the revenues of this country.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), not in this debate but on another occasion-and 1 followed his remarks with a great deal- of interest-also paid his compliments to this made-in-Canada idea. His statement was that he was sorry to see this Government give its approval to it; that

it savoured to him too much of the iuea of " made in Germany," and that in so far as he was concerned, he was too good a Britisher to have anything to do with it. My prejudices against Germany do not carry me as iar as that. The Canadian people have a great deal to learn from the German people. It will be a great thing for this country when our people have the same efficiency in all the walks of l:fe that Germany has been able to instil into her people. We have also very much to learn from Germany in matters of education as applied to industry and also to agriculture. Canada cannot do better than take as an example what has been accomplished during the last forty years by the German empire. The development and growth of Germany can to a very large extent be attributed to the great assistance which she has received in the convenient open market which she has had, the free trade market of Great Britain. As a result of that great trade with Great Bn ain, the greatest market in the world, Germany has developed until she has become one of the greatest and most powerful nations in the world.
The point I would like to make is this,' that what the German empire has done the Dominion of Canada in the future ought to be able to do. Compare for a moment the opportunities of the two countries. We have room here for sixteen German empires. German soil is not as rich as our own. The Germans ..have not the great wealth of forests such as we possess; they have not the great lakes for inland shipping; they have not sea coasts such as we possess; and yet we see what has been accomplished by Germany. As a result of this war, new trade routes will be built up; new business connections in the old land will be developed in a way never before known; but the empire to which we belong, whatever changes there may be; will come out of this struggle with a greater standing in the world and a greater influence for good amongst the nations than she has ever befqre possessed. With those changed conditions, a splendid field of opportunity is offered not only for colonial, but for British statesmen. If Great Britain, with the great trade which she will command in the future, is going to build up another giant, tnat giant should come from people of her own breed, it should spring from a people who ask no better future, for no nobler destiny than that they may ibe permitted to work

out their future as part of the British Empire.
So, it seems to me, the future promises a great opportunity for Canada, an opportunity to which our public men, our statesmen, should direct attention. Right Hon. David Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated the other day that the cost of this war to Great Britain for the first year amounted to $2,500,000,000. An enormous debt will have to be assumed by the people of the Motherland. We know that a large part of the people of the Motherland have expressed themselves as being in favour of tariff reform and preferential trade. Now, my thought is this-tha't, as a result of the piling up of this debt and of the period of reconstruction which will follow, Great Britain will be compelled to adopt a customs tariff again; and when that time comes it should be the duty of not only Canadian but British statemen to see to it that there shall be secured for the products of Canada a preference in that market; and I know of nothing that will do more than such a preference to promote the welfare, the progress and the development of the Dominion.
I feel that I should not longer trespass on the patience of this House. I was told that when a new member rises for the first time in his place he is received in a very considerate way. That has been my own experience, and I must thank hon. members for the indulgent way in which they have received my efforts.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford):: I congratulate the hon. member for South Waterloo- (Mr. Scott) on his maiden effort. I am sure we all' must acknowledge that his speech in dignity and ability was all that we could expect. I join in his expressions of regret at the death of Ms predecessor, Mr. Clare. I am sure that we on this -side regret that gentleman's death as much as do hon. gentlemen on the other side, foir he was a very capable man, a man who had risen in the world by his own efforts, and who had proven himself a man in every respect.
I will not attempt to criticise my hon. friend's speech particularly, but I wish to offer one or two remarks upon it. He started out by telling us that if we would oppose the votes in the Estimates we should be doing our duty more than by criticising the Budget. When he has been longer a- member of this House he will know that we do oppose many of the votes in the Estimates-and that is all the good 38	*
it does. The hon. gentleman says that the banks are ready to pay the extra taxation laid upon them by the Budget. But these are public corporations and the individuals who control their operation do not pay a cent of this taxation out of their own pockets. Moreover, if that taxation becomes a burden on the banks they will simply charge it up to us poor devils who have to borrow money. That is human nature, of course; but it does not show loyalty or patriotism on the part of the banks. They are prepared to do their duty, no doubt; 1 am not saying anything against them; I shall have occasion to mention them later in my remarks.
The hon. gentleman says the whole business community is feeling the hard times brought on by the war. in his own town, as in many other towns in this Dominion, if it were not for the war-and I am sorry to give that as a reason; it is an unspeakable. reason-the hard times would be a hundred per cent worse than they are to-day.


Oliver James Wilcox: Don't you believe that.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I not only believe it,
but know it; and in the constituency of my hon. triend who has just spoken I think they have contracts for shells out of which they make money. They do not make shells, woollens, and other goods for nothing, even for the Imperial Government. And so it is with many kinds of industries throughout this Dominion. Everybody knew these hard times were coming. The Minister of Finance warned us of them a year ago. I will go into that also later on. The hon. member for South Waterloo mentioned the woollen industries and said they could not stand the increased duty on the raw material unless the duty on the finished goods were also increased. 1 cannot agree with him. I know something about the woollen industry, in the same torm as do the people in his own town-knitted goods-and I do not agree that the industry could not have stood an increase on the raw material. But we have been opposed to increased duties not only on the raw material but also on the finished article. The hon. junior member of Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) has told you distinctly that we were opposed to the increase of duties entirely'.
The hon. member for South Waterloo tells us that Great Britain will be compelled to adopt a customs tariff when this war is over. As I do not have anything to do with the management of Great Britain's affairs, and as I find that the Cabinet in

nue producing tariff. I shall not suggest that the tariff is being enacted for the purpose of assisting, as some of my friends say, the large corporations or the manufacturers. I shall not suggest anything of that kind, but I am going to say that as far as I know business the tariff will not be a revenue producing tariff. I believe there would have been a greater revenue from the tariff as it was before than will be derived from the tariff as it is. now, for the simple reason that on a great many articles the tariff is absolutely prohibitive. You take the one article of woollens. The Finance Minister said that he relieved the people who could not afford to bear the burden to a great extent. There is nobody who can afford it or who cannot afford but is forced to wear woollens in some manner or form. Practically all the clothes we wear in the winter are woollen or should be, and axe to the extent of our power to insure their being woollen, so that every man, poor or rich, is taxed on this article. The tariff on woollens is raised from 35 per cent to 42J per cent. Heaven knows that the man who cannot do business with a protection of 35 per cent should go out of business, there is no doubt about that. The tariff on cotton is also increased to a ridiculous extent, and so it is on such things as flannel and worsted and all manner of wearing apparel, which all the people of this country must get, for even if they wanted to go naked they could not because it is too cold most of the time. There is the difference between a revenue tariff and a protective tariff:	My hon.
friends on the other side of the House have always twitted us on -this side that when we were in power we always kept up the duty; but I want to say that the inclination during all the time that the Liberal party were in pow'er, led by my right -hon. friend and leader, the inclination was downwards and the inclination to place more things on the free list was always there. We were increasing the free list every time. I counted the other night the articles in the old tariff that were on the free list and found there were 232. But in the tariff now brought down there are only about 100 articles on the free list that were on before. That is where we are going to feel the burden to a large extent. Let me mention one other article of interest to the farmer, of whom we are all talking more or less. He will have to pay 7^ per cent duty on number 9 and number 12 wire, or the wires that were free before, 
out of which fence is manufactured. There is hardly a farmer in Canada, either west or east, who does not have to buy wire fencing. There is not a farmex in Canada but will have to buy wire fencing because the old fences have largely gone to pieces. The Minister of Finance is charging the farmer in that one item about $175,000, if you take last year's importation as a basis. The farmer will be caused gome regret if you raise the price of his fence somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3 per ton. My hon. friend might say that the farmer can buy his wire here. There is not the slightest fear but what the one or two industries that do draw wire in this country will raise the price of their wire to the utmost 'that they will be allowed to by the duty that is now imposed. There is no possible doubt about that, because they have been supplying very little of the wire	used	in Canada.
I am not taking into account the wire used in the telegraph and telephone industries, and similar businesses. The wire to farmers alone will cost in the neighbourhood of from $175,000 to $200,000 if they use as much in the coming year as they did in 1914. And that brings me to what my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax has said we should do with the tariff this year. Hon. members on the other side of the House are inclined to laugh at our suggestion that the expenditure be curtailed. The first item I am going to speak about is the expenditure on the Hudson Bay railway. I know that my hon. friends on this side of the House promised to build that railway, but I have come to the conclusion, or almost come to the conclusion, that political parties are justified in certain instances in not keeping promises which they should never have made. My hon. friends on this side of the House have this virtue, that while they promised to start the Hudson Bay railway, they never did. They sent out surveyors and got reports on the route whicn, however, were not encouraging enough to induce them to start building.
Mr. SAM. SHARPE: Did they not let the first contract?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Not that I know of. At any rate they did not build any of the road. The Government are asking this year for a vote of $5,500,000 for the Hudson Bay railway. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) the other evening said that that could be cut down to $1,000,000 without hurting anybody. I say it could be

absolutely wiped out, and that if the Government of the day would pull up the rails and sell them to somebody else for whatever they would bring, they would earn the lasting gratitude of the people of this country. In my judgment the Hudson Bay railway has no more chance of earning money than Stefansson would have if he built a railway upon one of those islands where he is lost. They do say that there are some fish in Hudson bay. That could easily be proved, and if there are any fish there and we wished to sell them, the best possible way and the only reasonable way would be to extend the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway to some point on James bay, and the fish could then be brought out to the Transcontinental and transferred east and west to the great cities that would consume it. The reports that I have read of the country between Le Pas and Port Nelson show that there is certainly nothing else to bring out from that country unless they bring out the frozen ground once a year or so. We could make a saving of $5,500,000 on that item alone. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) has mentioned public buildings in Ontario.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: What is the hon. gentleman's view as to stopping the work on the Welland canal?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would not stop the work, but you could easily reduce the expenditure on the canal this year, as you could all necessary expenditures.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think the contracts are all let, with one exception. Which one would you stop?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My hon. friend knows that there is a vast difference between pushing on a work and letting it progress at a reasonable rate. My hon. friend knows it is not necessary to stop the contracts. A great many men were sent out of this country last fall. Somebody said just now, 100,000, but I believe it is nearer 50,000; at any rate most of the soldiers were working men, and their absence makes a great difference in the number of working men in this country. My hon. friend knows that the Government could ease up on the expenditure both at St. John and on the Welland canal, and on any other proper public works in this country, and thereby save several million dollars without doing anybody any harm. Now as to public buildings in Ontario. I see in the Estimates that $3,905,100 is required for .this purpose. My hon. friend
the other night said he would cut off $1,500,000 of that. I would cut off $3,000,000, and not a particle of harm would be done to anybody. There are a number of buildings here that are absolutely unnecessary to the towns that are supposed to require
them.	What would any business man do in our position? What could he do but curtail his expenditure and cut his coat according to his cloth, as the old saying is? Why,
then,	should not the Government do that?
Why should we not, as representing the people of this country, do what the people want?	Take the Barrie drill hall, for
instance. There is no more need of a drill hall at Barrie at the present time than there is of one in Palestine. Nor does Berlin need another public building to accommodate the public. There is the Brantford drill hall. Good gracious, are we never to be done with Brantford? Within the last two years $275,000 was spent on a public building there, and now they wan,t a drill hall at a cost of $75,000. We all know that drill halls are absolutely unnecessary this year, for practically no drills will take place. The Militia Department has cut out its annual vote for drilling, and quite properly, because the men who are going to the front are drilling together in different sections all over the country. We have found out that it is not
drilling up and down a drill hall 10 p.m. that makes a soldier. A soidjer
should be drilled out in the open weather and given some exercise. Even I myself find it necessary to go out after six o'clock for a walk of two or three miles, in order to keep myself alive after sitting here all day. Soldiers would be better if not drilled in drill halls. Some hon. gentlemen say that these drill halls are also used for Fat Stock shows. Well, let them hold the Fat Stock show in somebody's barn this year. It will not hurt them any. Colling-wood also wants a public building at a cost of $35,000, and here is a drill hall for Galt at $45,000. I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman wiho has just spoken would be glad to get that building in Galt, but the little bit of money that is spent in these towns does not do the general country any good. It does not do the good that would be done if the money was kept in the treasury or went to pay our debts, and it is the general good of the country that we are supposed to look after, not some individual who may get a few votes by our spending money in his constituency.


Mr. FISHER:: There is an appropriation for a building at Burford, I believe. What does my hon. friend think of that?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes, J2*,000. I think it is a ridiculous expense.


John Henry Fisher: The village of Burford is in the constituency I represent, or that I endeavour to represent.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You represent it well. That is all right.


John Henry Fisher: Is my hon. friend aware that the villages of Drumbo and Princeton in the constituency that he represents, neither one of which is as large or important or progressive as Burford, are asking for public buildings?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am aware of the fact that last year the village of Princeton, after seeing the example set by the village of Burford, came down here and asked for a public building. I am also aware of the fact that they asked for a builamg to cost only $5,000. I am also aware of the fact that there is a vote here of $25,000 for a building in Burford.
I am also aware that the revenue from the village of Plattsville is greater than the revenue from the village of Burford, I am also aware that the revenue from the village of Drumbo is greater than the revenue from Burford, I am also aware that the village of Plattsville is a much better village than the village of Burford, and I am aware of the, fact that these villages were satisfied with the expenditure of $5,000. I am further aware, that if you put a building worth five or six thousand dollars in the village of Burford, it would be a palace alongside the rest of the buildings there.


John Henry Fisher: Is the hon. gentleman
aware that the village of Drumbo algo asked for a public building?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I told you I did.


John Henry Fisher: You are then aware that both places have asked for a public building?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes.


John Henry Fisher: Are you aware they have asked the member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) and myself to intercede for them ?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: 1 am not aware of that; they did not show good taste there.


John Henry Fisher: Does the hon. gentleman know that the village of Princeton revised its estimate as to what kind of a public building it wanted and that it now thinks it should have one costing $15,000?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I did not know that.


John Henry Fisher: Well, that is the fact. Let me put this last question to my hon. friend -is he in favour or is he opposed to public buildings for the villages of Princeton and Drumbo? .


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Ever since I have had a seat in this House I have expressed myself in favour of the principle of erecting public buildings for the purpose of collecting revenue in towns and cities throughout the country, in proportion to the revenues collected in these various places. I am stating to-night that I am opposed to these buildings being erected this year when the revenue is short, and I am stating to-niuht that if you want to build a house, Mr. Representative for Brant, and you have not the money and cannot borrow it, you cannot build the house, and the Government should be guided by the same principle identically. I repeat that I am absolutely in favour of erecting public buildings for the purpose of collecting revenue, in proportion to the revenue collected in each place, but I am not in favour of erecting a $25,000 building and putting a caretaker into it in a village like Burford, where the revenue is about $1,200 a year, and in view of the fact that the revenue is being collected now for an expenditure of probably three or four hundred dollars a year. I have not looked up the post office returns to-night to see what the revenue or expenditure in Burford is, but it is in the neighbourhood of the figures I have given. The expenditure on public buildings in the province of Ontario could be cut down, at the lowest calculation, $3,000,000 this year, without hurting anybody. We should wait for another year to see how the revenue will be then. I do not know anything about the province of Quebec in that respect, but I have not the slightest doubt that the expenditure for public buildings in all the other provinces could be proportionately cut down. Then take the Trent Valley canal, for which there is a vote of one million or one million and a half dollars this year, and I am quite sure that those people who go-out on picnic parties on the Trent Valley canal could, for the year to come, do so by motor, or rig, or walk. All they do on that canal is to hold picnic parties up and down, and therefore that

million and a half dollars to be expended there could be saved for this year.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the hon. member know what the depth of the Trent Valley canal is, and the size of the locks?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The depth on the sills is seven feet, I think.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is eight feet two
inches.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Leave out the two inches;
I think on most of it you will get nearer to seven feet than eight feet.


Michael Clark: It is deep enough to cost a lot of money.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes, it is deep enough
to pour a lot of money into it. There is no transportation waiting on the expenditure there and nothing would be hurt by waiting and saving that million and a half dollars for the coming year. Then as to the French river; I asked the Minister of Public Works last year what he is going to do about the French river, and he said he did not, know, and I do not believe he knows yet, but everybody knows that to put a canal on the French river would be 'an absolute waste of money. I suppose there are a lot of people in this country who still in their imagination, fortified imagination I would call it, think we would be justified in going on with the expenditure on the Georgian Bay Canal. I am glad to say these people are scarce, because it would be a wilder and more foolish expenditure that the expenditure on the Hudson Bay Railway.
Mr. GERALD V. WHITE: What stand does the right hon. leader of my hon. friend take on that?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It does not make any
difference to me what stand my leader takes on it; I am telling you what I think about it,' and I am only speaking for myself. There was only one possible object in building the Hudson Bay railway and that was to cheapen'transportation for the grain of the West, but how are you going to cheapen transportation when you have to haul that grain there and build elevators and store it from one year to the other. Any one who buys grain knows that when you have to carry it over for a year and pay interest charges you cannot get any benefit from cheaper transportation for the grain. Then, when you have got the grain at Hudson Bay you have to nave a line of steamers to take it out and there is not a man living wlip would invest a dollar in a
line of steamers which would work for three months of the year and lie idle for the other nine months. That is the plain fact about the Hudson Bay railway, and the Georgian Bay Canal would be a thousand times worse if that could be possible.
Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about throwing men out of work. There is no necessity to throw men out of work. These great enterprises, such as the Welland Canal, the Quebec Bridge, the improvements at St. John, N.B., can be gone on with in a reasonable way, and they will afford employment. The railways will have to make improvements and they will at least have to attend to the upkeep of their roads, and there is no fear of men being thrown out of work. When spring comes there will be lots of work for every one jto do. We are now preaching from end to end of the land patriotism and production, while at the same time we are at every turn, by this new tariff, making the necessaries of life dearer for the men who have to produce, and we are making it harder every day for the farmer to get a fair profit from the results of his toil.
Many people believe that the farmers are making fortunes. There is not a cent of profit in farming at the present day unless a farmer has grain to sell, and there are not many farmers in Ontario that I know of that have any grain to sell. The men who have grain to sell are making a great deal of money, but the men who are raising cattle and hogs at the present price of grain are not making any money.
Not only does this new tariff not help the people of the country to produce more, but it retards the production of the country in every way. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance could wipe out $30,000,000 of the expenditure of this country without the slightest difficulty and let the estimated revenue of next year meet the expenditure for that period. I hope that he will see his way to do so. I have great faith in my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, and I hope that he will not be influenced by his colleagues and by those who say, "dash away and spend the money," to go on with such a wild-goose proposition as this tariff and the expenditure that he proposes by this year's Estimates.


Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver):: I
understand that the motion under which this debate is being conducted is for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and that it is usual on an occasion -of this kind to consider the problem of the ways and means of the country. I have

followed the debate up to the present time with a considerable degree of attention and with a hope that we might hear from some of the members of the Opposition, whose right and proper duty it is to offer fair criticism, some constructive criticism, something: in the nature of a suggestion to help the Government to meet the most critical financial period with which the country has probably ever been faced in its history; but up to the present moment I have failed to catch any constructive suggestion from hon. gentlemen opposite.
I desire to say a few words in reply to some of, the arguments presented by my hon. friend the member for North Oxford (Mr., Nesbitt). He seems to have based his arguments on this one proposition, namely, that the expenditures of the country for the forthcoming year should be reduced so as to meet the estimated revenue for that period. In fact, that seems to be the main argument adduced by hon. members opposite. It was rather interesting to observe the efforts of my hon. friend in wiggling his way through the Ontario Estimates. I was expecting him to criticise them at somewhat greater length; but the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Fisher), I think, rather upset him with some of the queries that he advanced.
The hon. member for North Oxford said that we should have cut off the further construction of the Hudson Bay railway at this time. Does he not remember that, when the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was Prime Minister of this country, and when he and his colleagues sat on this side of the House supporting him, they, in season and out of season, advocated the construction of the Hudson Bay railway? I was not a member of the House then; but I understand that my hon. friend supported and voted for that project.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I did not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Did my hon. friend vote against it?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I never voted for it. I never heard it brought up.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is very good indeed. The hon. member certainly supported the right hon. the leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister of this country, and in western Canada advanced the construction of the Hudson Bay railway as one of his main policies.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE:: And they won their elections on it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Moreover, on no occasion in the history of this House did my hon. friend raise his voice against this project. I challenge any hon. gentleman opposite to produce a single vote from that party against that project while they were in power. The Government of the day, composed of hon. gentlemen opposite, entered into a contract for the construction of that railway, and the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) himself signed the contract.


George Perry Graham: The then Solicitor
General says that I did not do so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What does my hon. friend say?


George Perry Graham: I take his word.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the hon. gentleman deny that he signed the contract?


Mr. PARDEE:: Whom would you rather believe?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am bound to believe
the hon. gentleman's statement. In any case, this fact cannot be gainsaid, that our hon. friends opposite supported and advocated the project. They signed the first contract and entered into contracts for the construction of that railway. The construction has been carried out by this Government to the satisfaction of the people of the West, and I believe the railway will prove a very satisfactory project. The question of the construction of railways, of the opening up of the vast territory of the West, has always been a question of great difficulty and danger. You, Mr. Speaker, and the older members of the House who have had the honour of sitting here for many years, will remember that when the Canadian Pacific railway was constructed it was prophesied by certain learned gentlemen in this House and out of it that it would be an absolute failure. Within thirty years the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has grown to be one of the largest and most reputable corporations in the known world. As the Canadian Pacific railway has more than vindicated the confidence placed in it by the Canadian people at that time, and as nearly every other project of a similar character constructed in western Canada has proved itseslf to be a successful venture, it is reasonable for the people of Canada to believe that a railway to that inland sea of Hudson Bay will also be a success. At least we who live in western Canada have faith in the great West, and we believe that the railway will be a success. Let me call

my hon. friend's attention to certain resources. He speaks of moving carloads of frozen earth. It has been demonstrated, as far as it has been possible to investigate, that the Hudson Bay is a veritable storehouse of fish which will supply the food markets of Canada and of the world, because it must be remembered that to-day we are shipping from Prince Rupert clear to the old land frozen fresh fish, and the Hudson Bay is a very much nearer shipping place than is the western coast. Therefore in fish alone there are vast possibilities in that section of the country. We have also vast areas of pulp timber in that district, which commodity is rapidly becoming of more and more value in the Dominion and is supporting one of our most valuable industries, and for which the market is increasing day by day. Therefore, when hon. gentlemen suggest that the project should be cut off, that it is wasteful expenditure, that it is extravagantly unjustifiable on the part of the Government, they should at least be thoroughly seized of the facts of the case before they make such suggestions.
My hon. friend also suggested that certain portions of the Welland canal could be stopped. I am not familiar with the details of tine Welland canal other than this, that I know that a number of contracts have been entered into. The Government say-I shall be glad to be corrected if I am wrong -that no further contract shall be entered into in the immediate future, but that the present contracts shall be carried out.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I rise to correct the hon. gentleman. He says that I said that work on the Welland canal should be stopped. I distinctly stated that it should not be stopped.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I said that the hon. gentleman suggested that the work on the Welland canal should be greatly curtailed.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The hon. gentleman said I said it should be stopped.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Edward Walter Nesbitt: I must again correct my hon. friend. I certainly never voted for an expenditure in Peterborough or Guelph such as he speaks about. I opposed such expenditures last year as I do this year. I did not enumerate all the places, but I opposed such expenditures generally.


Henry Herbert Stevens: These buildings were
put up by the late Government, and the hon. gentleman, so far as I am able to learn, did not once raise his voice in opposition to them. Now, a word as to the construction of drill halls which my hon. friend ridicules, and says that we are not using them and that men cannot be drilled in a hall. In every large city in Canada to-day, and in my own city particularly, we have to rent building after building to accommodate the contingents that we are raising. We have no drill hall except a very old one, in Vancouver, yet we need accommodation for the training of the men of these contingents, and so we are forced to rent buildings. If we had more drill halls in Canada where we could assemble the troops we are raising in all parts of the country and where we could give them the preliminary training and drill and then give them the mass drill in the cities where they are assembled, we should be better off.
The hon. gentleman took exception to the Trent Valley canal. That is a work that has been under way for a great many years and it is one that the people of Canada demand shall be completed and put into sue-

cessful operation at the earliest possible date. Parts of it are being operated now and, I am informed, with very great advantage to the country through which it passes. So with the Georgian Bay canal. Personally, I have never been very enthusiastic about that work, but I look upon it as a matter very largely affecting the people in the eastern part of Canada. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) would not object to that work going on. I think he would not say " Hear, hear! " to what his friend from North Oxford said. The hon. member for North Oxford said a moment ago unchallenged that he did not care for his leader or anybody else, that he was speaking for himself. It is a happy condition with these hon. gentlemen in the Opposition that they have the privilege of speaking for themselves without involving their party in the argument.


George Perry Graham: That is one of the beauties of being in opposition.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It reminds me that
possibly a great deal of the argument advanced within the last few days by hon. gentlemen is not-I was going to say is not quite sincere, but that wouid not be parliamentary; but what I mean to say is that many of the arguments on the question of expenditure are put possibly with the hope that the Government may be foolish enough to accept the advice and so injure themselves politically throughout the country. This Government could not possibly indulge in a more foolish act, in my estimation, than to curtail the expenditure on public works at this crisis in the history of the country. Now we have had very considerable criticism of the expenditures, and I shall ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments while we examine some of these expenditures. Because one of the things I have particularly remarked in this debate is that those hon. gentlemen who have criticised the Government fail, as my friend Mr. Joseph Martin puts it, to get down to brass tacks. While they offer criticisms, they do not show how improvement could be made. With regard to the increased expenditure we have certain items to which I wish to refer. First there is $8,730,000 in sinking fund. It' is utterly impossible for us to avoid the inclusion of that sum in our Estimates. I am possibly mistaken in what I thought I heard an hon. gentleman on the other side say this afternoon. But as I understood him he said that his view was that this sum should have been included in the sum we borrowed from the Mother Country to carry on 
the war. What are the facts? The Minister of Finance has made an arrangement with the Imperial Government, whereby all the moneys necessary for carrying on the war- that is war expenses and only war expenses -will be advanced on the general War Budget of the Old Land That is an arrangement for which the Finance Minister deserves a great deal of credit. It would be absurd for us to seek to include in those borrowings the interest covering the same. We get the money on most reasonable terms -the same rate that the Imperial Government will pay, which are the best rates in the world. And surely that is a sufficient concession. It has been argued that this is not a War Budget but that it is presented as a War Budget merely to cover up the failure of the Government to administer the affairs of the country aright. I wish to discuss for a moment the facts of the war with a view to showing hon. gentlemen opposite-though they do not need it; they know it already-that the conditions now pertaining are produced directly by the war, if not by this war, then by the. war of 1912. For we all remember that when the Balkan war broke out, and while it was raging, it was daily expected that the great powers of Europe would be dragged into the conflict in which we are to-day. The money interests of the world commenced hoarding funds against the possible outbreak for a period of two * years. And it is well they did so, well both for this country and for the Motherland. For I believe that if it had not been for the wisdom of Lloyd George, the great Finance Minister of the Old Land, Mr. Winston Cnurchill and others we should not have been in the happy position in which we are to-day, immune from attack by foreign countries.
In my city we have two lines of steamships, one of which is operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Five steamships of this service, the Empress of Asia, the Empress of Russia-which are larger than any steamships running into Montreal-the Empress of China, the Empress of Japan and the Monteagle, were taken by the Admiralty a( the outbreak of the war and, with the exception of the Monteagle, which has been returned, are being used by them to-day. What effect did this have upon trade? It had this effect: we could not get bottoms in Vancouver for the export of goods, and the consequence was that export trade on the western coast was absolutely paralysed. Steamships not only of the Canadian Pacific railway lines but of

the Blue Funnel lines, the Harrison lines, the Holt and other lines, were taken over by the Admiralty, and the tonnage on the Pacific coast at Vancouver, at San Francisco, Portland, and other ports, became so scarce that freight rates were doubled. Today, therefore, we are precluded from export trade on the Pacific coast because of the lack of bottoms in which to carry our goods. Millions upon millions of dollars' worth' of lumber trade which is offering to our lumber men cannot be accepted because there is no way of transporting the goods. Yet Ihon. gentlemen opposite coolly stand up in their places in this House and, seemingly indifferent to their responsibilities as representatives of the people, say that the war is not the cause of the present disrupted conditions of trade and commerce in Canada.
Again, what effect has the absolute cutting off of all borrowings had upon our trade and commerce? First, the Federal Government could borrow no more money, except for the purposes which I have mentioned; secondly, all provincial borrowings were shut off, with the result that many public works were stopped. Municipal borrowings were suddenly cut off, and in my province-and, I believe, in other provinces as well-the provincial government was forced to come to the assistance of many municipalities in order that they might be enabled to carry out ordinary works throughout the coming year. Lastly, industrial borrowings were cut off and the activities of the various industries of the country were curtailed. This was directly attributable to the outbreak of this war in Europe.
The shutting off of borrowings directly affected the steel industry, because the carrying on of industrial and municipal works for which large amounts of money were borrowed involved the use of a considerable amount of steel. The steel industry was so seriously affected that factories at Hamilton and on the Atlantic coast were shut down, or almost shut down. The practical cessation of building operations throughout the whole of Canada is directly attributable to the outbreak of war. Large financial concerns wthich formerly received money from the old land were unable to secure any further amounts; loans could not be advanced on mortgages, buildings could not be erected; practically every industry was affected. I think every lion, gentleman opposite must admit that practically the whole of the stagnation in trade
which now prevails throughout Canada is directly attributable to the war.
Let us examine some of the items which have been criticised by hon. gentlemen opposite. What is the increase in respect of civil government? 3174,000, which consists of statutory increases authorized by legislation passed by the very hon. gentlemen who now criticise this item. What would they have us do? Because the revenue of a post office falls considerably during the year, would they have us close tne office and discharge the employees? The same applies to customs ports of entry. There has been an increase in the Post Office Estimates of $1,720,000. How is that increase being spent? Railway service, $405,000. That amount is devoted to parcel post. Up to the present time we have not begn able to receive the full benefit which is to be derived from the operation of the parcel post system, but would hon. gentlemen opposite suggest that this newly-organized branch of the postal service be dispensed with? Rural deliveries, an inci-ease of $350,-
000.	In 1912-13 600 new rural routes were established; in 1913-14, 940; to-day there are 2,857 routes. The establishment of these rural mail delivery routes is but the carrying *'out of the avowed policy of this Government during and prior to the last election. Hon. gentlemen opposite have stated that we are not carrying out our promises to the electors; here is a case in which the Government is faithfully carrying out one of its solemn pledges to the rural districts of Canada, yet hon. gentlemen opposite criticise the expenditure necessary to make good the word of the Government in that respect. In 1913-14 48,000 additional rural mail delivery boxes were established in the towns, villages and cities throughout the Dominion. These are a great convenience to the farmers of the country and to those living in the outlying districts.


George Perry Graham: Do the farmers not pay for their own boxes?
. Mr. STEVENS : I presume they do.


George Perry Graham: Tiien the Post Office Department obtains a revenue from that source; there is no expenditure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend knows that a postal service cannot be expanded without very considerable cost to the community. He knows, too, that the postal service of this or any other country is not looked upon as a means for obtaining revenue; it is looked upon as a means of

communication and a system of enabling the rural districts to keep in touch with the affairs of the world.	'


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend misunderstood me. He was quoting as an item of expense the number of rural mail delivery boxes that have been purchased by the Government. I was trying to point out that the farmers paid for these boxes; consequently there was no expenditure on the part of the Government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend misunderstands me; I am afraid I have not the faculty of making myself clear. We expended in the expansion of this postal service $1,721,000. I was trying to give to the House some evidence of the fact that the Government has done some real work in this connection. I will repeat my statement; the Government established in 1913, 600 new rural mail routes and in 1913-14, 940. They had in 1912-13, 23,000 rural mail delivery boxes; last year this number was increased to 48,000. The cost of the boxes was borne by those who obtained them, but the cost of the service was borne by the Government. I mention this to show that the Government has done its utmost to give the people of Canada an up-to-date postal service, and I think they have succeeded in doing so.
The Estimates for the Mounted Police have been increased by $509,000. Do hon. gentlemen opposite object to that? No body of men in any country in the world are more worthy of admiration and of the support of the people than the Mounted Police of Canada. The staff of this splendid body of men has been increased for the purpose of keeping track of subjects of the enemy who may be leaving or passing through or coming into the western country. Pensions are increased by $139,000, the statutory increase.
Then, we have subsidies to provinces, another statutory increase which must be given, for which the Government, the Minister of Finance is not responsible. It amounts to $192,000. In agriculture, there is an important increase. Our hon. friends say that this Government neglects the farmer. How is this being spent? One important item of expenditure is testing seed. One great cause of failure and weakness among the farming communities of Canada has been carelessness in the selection of seed; we all know that. During the recent years the present Government, under the able administration of the Minister of Agriculture, has been trying to assist the farmer in the selection of his seed and has
[Mr. Stevens.!
been testing it for him and helping him in every way. There have been increased expenditures in connection with the live-stock industry, and to enforce the Meats and Canned Foods Act. I have myself been impressing on the Government the necessity of increased vigilance in the inspection of canned fruits, meats, etc., and there have been great steps forward in this respect. There is also the Pest Act and the Fruit Branch. These are the items on which the money is being expended, and the increase is in each case thoroughly justifiable. The Government cannot carry out these works and keep their pledges unless they have some reasonable aid from the country in the [DOT] matter of their finances.
As the hour is late, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Hon. W. T. White, the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Wednesday, March 3, 1915.