[Stage Direction]
PRINTED 15Y J. ok L. TACHlj, PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY 1915
)
\
'
[Stage Direction]
Douse of Commons Debates

[Stage Direction]
Speaker: Hon. Thomas Simpson Spiioule.
Friday, March 12, 1915.

Mr. A. K. MACLEAN (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to move the resolution of which I gave notice:
That sessional papers numbered 122 of the present session of Parliament, being copies of correspondence between the Auditor General and the Department of Militia and other departments of Government in respect of the expenditures under the War Appropriations Act, be referred to the Committee on Public Accounts, with power to investigate the matters therein referred to and to report thereon to this House: that the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses on oath or affirmation, and to report from time to time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The last portion of the resolution, with regard to examining witnesses under oath, is not necessary, as the committee already has that power.


Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the question as to investigation by the Public Accounts Committee into matters that have not been referred to that committee in the ordinary way has more than once engaged the attention of the House since I became a member of Parliament. I may say a word as to the practice adopted in the past. First, as to accounts of past years the committee would be empowered to inquire into matters referred in such previous years only if the committee itself reports that this is desirable; and probably without such a report the House would make the reference to the extent to which the investigation into matters transpiring in previous years might prove necessary to an investigation of the accounts referred to the committee in the regular way. This is 60
not a motion to investigate matters referred to in previous years, but it is a motion to investigate matters which have transpired during the current year. Up to the present time I have been unable to find that such a course has been taken. I observe that as far back as 1902 a member of the late Administration, speaking for the Administration, laid it down as an absolutely unheard of thing that matters which had transpired during the then current fiscal year should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee, inasmuch as, in ordinary course, they would come to that committee during the ensuing year.
However, the correspondence that has been brought down indicates that some of the questions which have been raised by the Auditor General demand consideration, and, under the circumstances, I am not disposed to offer any opposition to the motion which has been made by the hon. junior member for Halifax. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence, whom I * consulted on the subject, informed me that he desired to welcome the fullest possible investigation into the matters which are referred to in the correspondence with the Auditor General. He reminds me that in the return there does not seem to be any direct correspondence between the Auditor General and himself. In relation to that, it is pointed but in some of the documents brought down and laid on the table of the House yesterday that certain letters that are printed as having been sent by the Auditor General to the Department of Militia and Defence are alleged by the officers of that department never to have reached them at all.
I am also the more inclined to accede to the motion of the hon. member for Halifax for the reason that a member of this House, the hon. member for Carleton, Ont. (Mr. Garland), came to me some time ago and asked that matters in this corespondence that have been commented upon especially in the press of this country as touching



M6 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
his own position in the House should be fully investigated at the earliest possible moment. When the hon. member for Halifax intimated across the floor of the House some time ago that he desired to make a motion for the purpose of referring this correspondence to the Committee on Public Accounts, with the view to investigating the matter referred to therein, the hon. member for Carleton at once came to me and asked that, so far as he was concerned, no objection should be made to that motion, and that the fullest opportunity of investigation should be afforded in the Public Accounts Committee.
If, therefore, the hon. member for Halifax will be good enough to add to his motion suitable words to include the documents that were brought down yesterday by the Minister of Militia and Defence, I shall be very glad to agree that the motion pass.
Mr. GERMAN:: May I ask the right hon. Prime Minister if he will allow to be included in this motion two returns which I moved for-one in reference to the purchase of tires for motor trucks for the Militia Department, and another in reference to commissions paid to P. W. Ellis & Company. I think the latter is included in the correspondence.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: It is.


William Manley German: I understand that the
Minister of Militia is preparing these re turns; it seems to me that the whole might be referred to the Committee on Public Accounts.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as concerns all matters referred to in the return, full power will be given to the Public Accounts Committee. As to any matter outside of that, I would prefer that my hon. friend let it stand until I see precisely what the position is.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would the motion in this form meet the point taken by the right hon. Prime Minister:
That sessional papers numbered 122 of the present session of Parliament, and all other papers in relation thereto, being copies of correspondence between the Auditor General and the Department of Militia and other departments of Government, laid upon the table of the House, in respect to expenditures under the War Expropriations Act, be referred to the Committee on Public Accounts, with power to investigate the matters therein referred to, and to report thereon from time to time.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, I think that will cover it.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Is this motion understood by the right hon. Prime Minister to be broad enough to include my inquiry regarding the purchase of two submarines? This matter is referred to in the correspondence, and if it is understood that it will be included in the reference to the Public Accounts Committee, that will be satisfactory to me.


Robert Laird Borden: I really do not know precisely what is in the return, but I want to assure my hon. friend that if he is desirous of making any charges in regard to the purchase of submarines, we are prepared to grant him the fullest possible investigation. I have already brought down and laid upon the table of the House a telegram from Sir Richard McBride, in which he asked that, in view of the observations made by the hon. member for St. John, inquiry should be made into that matter. I replied that it did not seem to me that the observations which had been made in the matter merited the notice which he thought should be taken of it; to which, in reply, he said that he would very greatly regret that any suggestion should go abroad that he did not desire an investigation. He said that in view of what I had said he would leave the matter to my colleagues and myself. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has brought down and laid on the table of the House the telegram alluded to, as well as a letter from Sir Richard McBride, confirming the telegram, and including the observations which he felt called upon to make in the legislative assembly of the province of British Columbia, in which he repudiated in the most cogent terms the suggestions which were made by the hon. member for St. John of improper conduct on his part in connection with the matter.


William Pugsley: That being so, I presume there will be no objection to the Committee on Public Accounts taking this matter up with the others, because correspondence connected with it appears in the printed report.


Robert Laird Borden: There will be no objection, so far as the purchase of the submarines is concerned. If any further motion is necessary I shall be willing to accept it.


Mr. W. F. GARLAND (Carleton, Ont.):: I do not wish to take advantage of the present occasion to make any extended

remarks on the subject referred to in this motion. I cannot pretend to have the knowledge myself of the proper procedure in cases of this kind; but I have been informed that it is not the practice to refer matters to the Public Accounts Committee until they appear in the Public Accounts; consequently there would be good grounds why the House might well vote down the present motion. I have, however, from the first, requested that such a step be not taken; but, on the contrary, that every facility be offered those who think they have found any cause of offence in me to prove such offence in the quickest possible way.
I have no desire to anticipate anything which should properly be brought out before the Public Accounts Committee; but it is only just to myself, in view of the careless and reckless attacks made upon me, that I should state very briefly such facts as will make my own position clear. I will not go into the evidence upholding such facts until the proper time comes, but I say to those who have been quite ready and willing to attack without taking the trouble to investigate, that the evidence will come in due course.
First of all, since I have become a member of Parliament, I have not been in any way whatever interested in contracts with the Dominion Government, and have never been and am not now, directly or indirectly, by understanding, secret or otherwise, or in any other way whatever, interested in the dealings which Mr. Powell had with the Militia Department, or with any department.
Having been informed that certain goods manufactured in the United States were required for the Militia Department, and believing as I do now that these goods could only be purchased through a Canadian agency -and would only be sold through a Canadian agency, I recommended Mr. Powell as such Canadian agent. My belief as above stated was and is in my opinion absolutely correct. I understood at the time that only a comparatively small purchase from the firm in the United States was to be made. I believed Mr. Powell to be dependable, and still believe him to be so, and I recommended him because, in my judgment, he was dependable and a fit and proper person to so recommend. If such recommendation is a wrong one on my part, then I will ask that all recommendations be similarly inquired into.
I have seen reports and statements to the effect that I misrepresented the profits being made by Mr. Powell on the con-601
tract. I deny flatly any such accusation, and I challenge the most rigid inquiry.
It is, I think, to be regretted that parties who so flippantly make such charges have, so far as I can see, no corresponding responsibility, and very little to lose.
It is only my desire to bring this matter to an investigation and conclusion as quickly as possible that leads me now to demand that any one who wishes to make such a charge, make it now in a manly way across the floor of the House and on his responsibility as a member of Parliament.
With the question as to deductions made by the Militia Department against Mr. Powell I have no concern; it is a matter entirely between him and the Militia Department.
I have absolutely nothing to conceal in the matter, and have entire confidence that the House, or any committee of the House, will treat me with absolute lairness, which is a great deal more than a partisan press and certain interested parties on the outside have done.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend (Mr. A. K. Maclean) has made this motion a little wider than I intended. I think the words, " in relation thereto," should follow where I have indicated in the paper. That might possibly have the effect of not including in the motion this matter of submarines to which the hon. metmlber for St. John alluded. I am perfectly willing to have that matter also referred to the Committee on Public Accounts if the hon. member for St. John desires.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the hon. member for Carleton, Ontario, might possibly leave the impression that this was especially directed against him and might leave myself under the imputation of being particularly interested in the affair to which he has referred, hut did not desire to request the appointment of a special committee and make a charge in the manner usually followed in such cases. I may say that my motion is merely to have placed before the Public Accounts Committee the correspondence mentioned in the motion.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.



ASSISTANCE TO HOMESTEADERS- FEED FOR STOCK.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order of the Day being called:
Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of complaints lately that feed for stock is not

being distributed very generously or very expeditiously at the present time. I have brought some of these complaints to the attention of the department, and I will confess that the minister has given them his attention. But these complaints continue to come in, and I am advised that stock is suffering seriously in cases where farmers are not in a position to purchase feed themselves. I am also informed that the feed supplied is being limited to work horses. Consequently cows and farm stock and other kinds are suffering because farmers cannot get feed for them. I would like the minister to outline the exact policy of the department in regard to the distribution of feed in that drouth-stricken area, so that the people there will have a proper appreciation of what is being done.


Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of the Interior) :: The question of fodder for animals has not been brought to my attention so conspicuously as the question of seed grain. The Commissioner of Immigration in Winnipeg has full charge of the purchase and distribution of grain and of fodder as well. But my understanding is that representations were made to the department to the effect that it would be almost useless to supply seed grain to the farmers if their stock were not kept in a sufficiently good condition to enable the farmers to put their crops in; and, recognizing the force of that argument, the Commissioner of Immigration has engaged to distribute feed oats to supply the horses which are to be used in seeding, both before and during the seeding season. In addition to that, there are farmers who have.been left absolutely with-but any crop in the drouth-stricken area, and who have a certain number of animals absolutely without any fodder. For some months past Mr. Bruce Walker has been distributing fodder to these animals. I do not know exactly the quantity he is distributing, but I understand that all the cases that have been submitted to him have been investigated and he is, in his opinion, supplying fairly generously the amount of fodder required for these animals. To be sure, some unreasonable requests have been received in regard to fodder as well as seed grain, requests to which we could not possibly respond favourably. For instance, we have had requests from men who are owners of 20 head of horses and 30 head of cattle, but have not sufficient fodder for all of them. They thought that all they had to do was apply to the department for fodder and they would be supplied, a request

which, in our opinion, was entirely unreasonable and has not been responded to favourably, because those people had the option of either raising sufficient money on the security of their stock to produce fodder or disposing of some of the stock and feeding the others with the proceeds. I think the policy of the department is that where-ever a limited number of animals are required to be kept by a farmer and they are absolutely deprived of any fodder, the Government should give a certain amount; but, as in the case of the seed grain, we have fixed a maximum amount to be given to any man, and in some cases that has not satisfied the applicants. They are complaining because we would not distribute more than 400 bushels of seed grain as a maximum. There may be some who think that they are not being dealt with as generously as they should be. However, I think that all legitimate demands are being very fairly met.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the day being called;
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE '(North Cape Breton) :	Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to a
question of privilege. On the 10th day of June last, from my seat in this House, I made the statement that a certain one of the Royal Commissioners appointed by the Government had received payment to the extent of $128.95 when, in fact, according to the terms of his engagement by the Government he should only have received $21.35. During this session the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) asked the following question in reference to the observations which I had made:
With reference to the charge brought to the notice of the Government hy the member for North Cape Breton on June 10, 1914, as reported on page 5238 of Hansard, that one H. P. Duchemin, of Sydney, N.S., a commissioner appointed to investigate charges against partisan officials, had embezzled over $75 of the public funds in connection with one item of his account, by charging six days remuneration and expenses for less than one day's work, has the Government investigated this charge?
The answer given by the Secretary of State is to be found at the bottom of the page, and it is in this form:
For the Customs Department, the answer is: The charge made hy the member for North Cape Breton Was looked into by Customs Department and inquired into by Auditor General and found to be not true. The report ot the Auditor General on this matter appears

on pages F-48 and F-49 of his report for 1913-14. Mr. Duehemin has heen employed only when cases were sent him for investigation. There are no cases now before him from the Customs Department for investigation.
I wish to make a statement to your honour, as a matter of privilege, because I am charged by the Customs Department with having made a statement in this House on the 10th June, 1914, which was not true. I hold in my hand Order in Council No. 2996:
Certified copy of a report of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved by His Royal Highness the Governor General on the 3rd January, 1912.
The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration the question as to the rate of remuneration which should be allowed commissioners appointed or to be appointed to hold inquiries or investigations under the Inquiries Act, chapter 104, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906.
The committee advises that, except in cases otherwise provided for by Order in Council, the fees allowable to a commissioner appointed under the authority of the above-mentioned Act shall not in any case exceed fifteen dollars for each full day's attendance or occupation in connection with the work of the commission, exclusive of the reasonable moving and living expenses of the commissioner, to be allowed where he has to travel for the purpose of executing the commission; and that the said per diem allowance shall be deemed to cover letters and interviews on other days as well as on the days for which the commissioner is entitled to such per diem allowance; and that no further charge be allowed for such letters and interviews; and that a professional man shall not be entitled to any fees or allowances as commissioner to which other commissioners are not entitled as aforesaid.
This Order in Council makes it clear that the allowance is |15 a day exclusive of expenses and that any other work that is done incidental to the inquiry is to be included in, or covered by, the $15 per day. I made the statement on the 10th June, 1914, that six different cases were examined into by the commissioner, Mr. Duehemin, on the 6th day of September, 1912, and that for these six inquiries he sent in six separate bills. I hold in my hand the six different returns in connection with these inquiries, handed to me by the proper officials-Sessional Papers No. 6. They are all marked No. 6, but with different letters to identify them. Without making any particular referenceto them beyond stating what they show, I take up the inquiry into the conduct of Captain Roderick McDonald, of New Campbellton, who was specifically charged with partisanship by my friend and former opponent in the last election, Mr. John McCormick. It was unnecessary for Mr. Duehemin or anybody else to inquire what the charge was because it was specifically contained in a letter sent to the department by Mr. McCormick. In this report Mr. Duehemin himself said that he held the inquiry on the 6th inst., that is the 6th day of September, 1912, and he wrote his report to the department on the next day, the 7th, as this document which I hold in my hand shows. I wish your honour to remember, because it comes in afterwards in my explanation, that the report was made on the 7th. The inquiry was made on the 6th and the report on the 7th. The inquiry, and everything connected with it, was out of Mr. Duchemin's hands on the 7th September, 1912. In connection with this inquiry I have his bill. I read the bills before the House on the 10th June, 1914, but I notice that Hansard only took note of one of them. On this occasion, as my Own integrity, truthfulness and good faith are rather impugned in connection with the matter, I would regard it as a favour if Hansard would take them all. The first bill that happens to be here is that in connection with the inquiry into the charge of partisanship against Captain Roderick McDonald, and it is as follows:
To travel, issuing notices, subpoenas etc., conducting inquiry re Rod. McDonald, New Campbellton. .. $15 00 " allowance for living expenses..	. .
" paid ferry fare	
" tram fare North Sydney to Sydney
Mines	
" horse hire, Sydney Mines to New
Campbellton	
" paid for use of room for holding inquiries	
" service- on witnesses	
" stenographer (copying evidence and
reports)	 -[DOT]
" stationery and postage	
[Stage Direction]
The next that happens to come in order is the inquiry into the charge of partisanship against Captain George Livingstone. It was not necessary to waste any time trying to find out what the charge was in that instance, because Mr. John McCormick, in a letter bearing date June 10, 1912, specifically and clearly states to the department wha't the charge against Captain Livingstone was, and that charge was transmitted in due course to Mr. Duehemin who inquired into it. I have here in my hand, it having been obtained from the Secretary of State, a report in which Mr. Duehemin says that he held the investigation on the 6th day of September, 1912, and his report is dated on the 7th of the same month. In connection
2 50 0 05
0 05
0 80
0	40
1	00
1 35 0 05
[Stage Direction]
with that inquiry on the same identical day he puts in this bill:
To travel, issuing notices, subpoenas, etc., conducting inquiry re George
Livingstone, Big Bras d'Or .. .. $15 00 " allowance for living expenses.. ..	2 50
" paid ferry fare	 v 05
" tram fare, North Sydney to Sydney
Mines	 0	06
" paid for use of room for holding
inquiries		0 40
"	service on	witnesses	 l	nil
" stenographer (copying evidence and
reports)	 135
"	stationery	and	postage	 0	10
[Stage Direction]
The next in order is the case of Roderick McLeod. The investigation, according to the report as I have it here, was on the 6th day of September, 1912. It was made simply ai.d clearly in a letter written by Mr. McCormick, so that no time need be wasted in looking up what the charge was. The bill in connection with that investigation is attached to the papers and it reads as follows:
To travel, issuing notices, subpoenas,
etc., conducting inquiries	$15 00
"	allowance	for living	expenses....	2 50"	ferry fare	
005"	horse hire	
1 00
" paid for use of room for holding
inquiries	 0 40
"	service on	witnesses	 1 00
" stenog:apher (copying evidence and
repots)	 135
"	stationery	and postage	 0 05
[Stage Direction]
The next in order is that of D. J. Morrison. The charge is made clearly and distinctly by my hon. friend, Mr. McCormick, in a letter dated July 6, 1912, and sent in due course to Mr. Duchemin for inquiry, so that there was no need of wasting any time finding out about it. I find that he took evidence of two lines and three words, and that finished the whole inquiry, and he sent in his bill in connection with that. It will be noted that it is the same day as the other:
To travel, issuing notices, subpoenas,
etc., conducting inquiries	$15 00
"	allowance	for	living	expenses.. ..	2 50J'	ferry fare	
0	05"	horse hire	
1	00
*" paid for use of room for holding
inquiries	
0	40"	service on	witnesses	
1	00
" stenographer (copying evidence and
reports)	 135
"	stationery	and	postage	 0	Ou
Total	 $21 35
The next that happens to come to nay hand is that of Roderick Bain, an inquiry 
held upon the same day and at the same place, with the same witnesses and in the same room. In connection with which I find this bill:
.To travel, issuing notices, subpoenas, etc., conducting inquiry re Roderick Bain, New Campbellton, N.S. 15 00 "	allowance for living	expenses.. ..	2 50"	paid ferry fare	
o	05
" Paid tram fare, North Sydney to
Sydney Mines	 0	05
" horse hire, Sydney Mines to New
Campbellton	 080
" paid for use of room for holding
inquiries	
0	40"	service on witnesses	
1	00
" stenographer (copying evidence and
reports)	
1	35"	stationery and postage	
0	05
The last one is that of H. G. McKay; for an investigation held in the same place and on the same day, with the same witnesses, the same room, and crossing the same ferry. He does not set out the items as clearly as in the other. He says:
Allowance	$15	00Living allowance	
3	00Witnesses, typewriting, etc. . .	5	40
That is the full record of the charges that were made, and I have satisfied I think, the House-and Mr. Duchemin does not deny it-that all these services were performed the same day. I have pointed out what Mr. Duchemin's explanation is, and it is the explanation upon which the Customs Department thought they were safe in making the statement that I made a false representation to the House when I intimated that too much money was paid for this inquiry. In the Auditor-General's Report, 1912-13, Part F, Finance Department, there appears on page F-48 some correspondence about this matter, which I read:
Audit Office, Ottawa, June 13, 1913.
Sir,-With regard to the investigations held by Mr. H. P. Duchemin for your department,
1 presume your attention has been called to the statement made in the House of Commons by Mr. McKenzie. M.P., on the 23rd ultimo 0p- 10981, Hansard) that " on the 6th September last Mr. Duchemin held six investigations between three o'clock and six o'clock in the afternoon in a house at New Campbellton, or Big Bras d'Or, and rendered six separate and distinct bills, amounting to over one hundred dollars for three hours' work."
His account, dated 31st October last, shows that he charged for six days' services for portions of September 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, lrth and 12th in conducting investigations at Little Bras d'Or and New Campbellton.
In view of the discussion in the House, I

should like a statement in full detail from Mr. Duchemin showing how this time was occupied during the six days charged for.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
E. D. Sutherland, for A.G.
The Commissioner of Customs.
To that the Department of Customs replied:
Department of Customs,
Ottawa, June 26, 1913.
Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 13th instant, in which you call attention to a statement on page 10981 of Hansard, with reference to investigations made by Mr. H. P. Duchemin, and enclose h'ewi'h a copy of Mr. Duchemin's report rn this subject.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
John McDougald, Commissioner of Customs.
The Auditor General.
I will read Mr. Duohemin's reply, which is not long, and before I read it I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of the House, to the fact that Mr. Duchemin explained here that he was working in connection with these investigations at Bras d'Or during the 11th, 12th and 13th of September, 1912, when in fact his own reports obtained from the department would have left his hands on the 7th, or one of them as late as the 9th, but all were clear of him before the 11th. I may point out that the date, 2nd September, is four days before the inquiry at Little Bras d'Or. His explanation is:
Sydney, N.S., June 21, 1913.
Dear Sir,-Replying to your favour of tne 17th instant, I beg to furnish details asked for by the Auditor' General, as follows:
Sept. 2,	1912.-Travel Sydney to Sydney
Mines, conferring with Mr. McCormick and arranging docket of cases; going over charges of local complainants arranging for places of hearing; for service of witnesses, etc. Also issuing subpoenas, notices and communicating by mail with local complainants from Sydney, in re Little Bras d'Or, Big Bras d'Or and Mew Campbellton cases; sitting at North Sydney to open hearing, J. J. McDonald case.
Sept. 4, 1912.-Further conferring with Mr. McCormick, Sydney Mines, and Mr. McDonald, North Sydney, in re Little Bras d'Or case; sitting at North Sydney, J. J. McDonald case (continued).
Sept. 5,	1912.-Travel Sydney to Sydney
M'nes, taking evidence in Day case, Arseneau and Dunlop cases.	Sydney-issuing further
subpoenas Big Bras d'Or cases.
Sept. 6 and 7, 1912.-Travel from Sydney to Sydney Mines and Big Bras d'Or, sittings for hearings of evidence afternoon and night of the 6th at Big Bras d'Or; return to Sydney on 7th, going over evidence and partially preparing reports.
Sept. 9, 1912.-Taking adjourned hearing of Arseneau case at North Sydney. Further sitting J. J. McDonald case.
Let it be clearly understood that I said nothing at all about the cases of Day, Arseneau and McDonald; I know nothing about these bills and I made no complaint.
Sept. 11, 12 and 13, 1912.-Reviewing evidence, making findings, preparing and drafting reports in re the following cases: Arseneau, Dunlop, Day, Rod. McLeod, D. J. Morrison, Rod. McDonald, Rodk. Bain and Geo. Livingstone case; going over evidence in J. J. McDonald case; holding adjourned sitting McDonald case at Sydney, and meeting accused there; issuing subpoenas at request of accused for absent witnesses; further adjournment of bearing taking up McCurdy case with Mr. McCormick, and disposing of same; writing complainants in various constituencies for immediate closing all customs inquiries; conferring with Mr. Douglas and issuing processes re Mc-Aulay, McDonald and Peach inquiries.
This is as complete a report as I can furnish at this distance of time from the date of the inquiries.
I may say that Mr. McKenzie made some strange errors, during the course of the discussion referred to, in the House of Commons. He stated, for instance, that I had rendered six different accounts, in connection with these investigations. The Auditor General will, of course, know that this is incorrect. I have rendered but two accounts, covering in all eight days, one to your department for six days and another to another department for two.
Mr. McKenzie also stated that the six Investigations which he referred to were all held in one afternoon at Little Bras d'Or when, as a matter of fact, they were held at different points, namely, at Big Bras d'Or, at Sydney Mines, and at North Sydney, on distinctly different dates.
Further, Mr. McKenzie assumes that the sole work of a Commissioner of Inquiry is the sitting to take evidence, whereas, this is only a fraction- and in most cases a very small fraction-of the amount of time taken up. For instance: You will note that the hearing at Big Bras d'Or included one day to arrange docket, get names of witnesses, find out what evidence they were likely to give and determine to whom subpoenas should issue, fixing place of hearing, etc. Following this, was the sending out of notices, the issuing of subpoenas, the arranging for bailiffs to serve same, etc. He further ignores what is the largest item of all in connection with these investigations, namely, that of travel. Going from Sydney to Big Bras d'Or, holding the investigations, and taking the evidence there and return, alone consumed one and a half days and a night sitting for the taking of evidence.
* Further, Mr. McKenzie implied that my accounts have overlapped and that different departments were charged for same periods of time. In this, too, he is, of course, incorrect. My method has been as follows: I have kept strict account of the time during each month in which I have been engaged on the work of my commission. At the end of the month I have made up the exact number of days that I have been engaged on Government business as commissioner, and have determined as v^ell as might be, how this time should be apportioned between the different departments. This apportionment has, for obvious reasons, been
S5i!
[Stage Direction]
difficult to make with absolute accuracy as between the various departments. It has, however, been easy for me to determine the precise number of days that I have been doing work of investigator, and I have in no case charged for any more or any less time than I have been so occupied. Sometimes part of a day is charged against one department, and part against another. In determining how much of each day is to be charged against a particular department, I have considered the number of investigations that I have had for the various departments during the itinerary under consideration, and have made the fairest and most; equitable apportionment that I could under the circumstances, as between the various departments.
I may say that immediately on receipt of Hansard containing Mr. McKenzie's observations in this connection, I wrote the Hon. Mr. Hazen somewhat fully with regard to the matter.
Trusting that the foregoing information will be sufficient for the purpose of the Auditor General, I remain,
Yours very truly,
(Signed) H. P. Duchemin.
I would not for one moment think of taking up so much time of the House, were it not that I was flatly charged, in Hansard of March 3, 1915, with making a mis-statement. Mr. Duchemin says that he was working on these returns on the 11th and 12th of September, 1912, when he is on record as saying that they were out of his hands and sent to the department on the 7th and 9th of that month. When I found those returns, knowing the facts from my local knowledge, I felt that I was perfectly justified in bringing to the attention of the Government the fact that it was overcharged in this connection. The $128 and some cents charged here should he only $21.35. The Government should find out if it has overpaid Mr. Duchemin to that extent, in proportion on the $6,500 or nearly $7,000 that he received. The result of my investigation justifies me in the statement that I have made, and the Customs Department was not justified in charging me with having made a mis-statement.
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Customs):: This matter was brought to the attention of the Government by the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) during the session of 1914. I was very sorry that the hon. member took the opportunity of bringing it up when I was not present. He brought it up when the estimates of the Public Works Department were before the House, and I had not an opportunity of replying to him at that time. If I had had, there would not perhaps have been this misunderstanding. Evidently from the attitude of the hon. member in this House, he 
has some grievance, so far as Mr. Duchemin is concerned, and he is a little wrathy over the reply given by the Cus-4 p.m. toms Department. Personally I did not wish to give an answer that would hurt the feelings of the hon. member; but, in answering the question, I had to state that the charges made were either true or untrue. The records in the Customs Department and, so far as I know, the evidence before the hon. member for North Cape Breton, did not justify the statement made by him. I have never seen Mr. Duchemin and I did not know anything about him until I had made inquiries after his name had been brought to the attention of the House I have made inquiries of bon. members on the opposite side of the House who know Mr. Duchemin, and they tell me that he is an upright, honourable, honest man, and that any decision that he would give in any case on which he was acting as judge, would be fair and honest so far as he was able to decide. Therefore was it fair for the hon. member for North Cape Breton shielding himself behind this House, to ask the question he did with reference to .Mr. Duchemin?


Mr. McKENZIE:: If the minister will
look into the matter he will find that I did not ask any such question.


John Dowsley Reid: If the records of Hansard are as I understand they are, the hon. member asked the question foT the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair).


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Not at all.


John Dowsley Reid: At all events, the question was asked. Was it fair to ask such a question as this:
Is it. the intention of the Government to take steps to recover from the said H. p. Duchemin the money so obtained by him? '


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not ask that question.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, it was asked by the hon. member for Guysborough. The answer was that the statements made in 1914, as recorded in Hansard were untrue.
The hon. member for North Cape Breton has made the statement that Mr. Duchemin sent to the Customs Department six different accounts, that is, an account for each of the six men on whom an investigation was held. That is not in accordance with the facts.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not wish any misunderstanding about this matter. I had these six accounts in my hand when I was speaking. They are now in charge of the Hansard reporters.


John Dowsley Reid: 'That is the only account the . Customs Department ever received from Mr. Duchemin with regard to the investigations into the cases of these men, so far as I am aware, and he does not say that this is the account for one day. He states that he was engaged on other days, and in his letter-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How does the minister explain the documents laid before the House by the Secretary of State? I moved for the documents, and the Secretary of State brought down six distinct bills. I am not responsible for these documents.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member is entitled to an explanation of that matter, and I will come to it in a moment. I say again, Mr. Duchemin rendered only one account for these investigations. Now, the hon. member knows very well that the Order in Council provides that a commissioner shall be paid $15 a day while engaged in these investigations. He knows that Mr. Duchemin would have to travel from his place of residence to the place where the investigations were to be held and also to other places for the serving of subpoenas. Therefore it would be impossible to hold these investigations in one day. The hon. gentleman stated here to-day that all the returns of these investigations had left Mr. Duche-min's hands on the 7th of September.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: On the 9th of September.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, I wish to correct that; it was on the 9th of September that the last one left his hands. The hon. member asks why there were these accounts. In his statement he led the House to believe that there were six accounts rendered, all dated 6th September. I have before me a copy of the return laid on the table of the House, and an exact copy of that which the hon. member read, and here is one of the accounts exactly the same as appears in Hansard as read by the hon. member, and there is no date whatever on that account.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am sure the minister wishes to be fair. If he will look at the six accounts of Mr. Duchemin as furnished by the Secretary of State, he will see that the investigation was held on the 6th.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that one investigation was held on that date; but Mr. Duchemin goes on to show in his letter that he had to travel on other days and he had to serve subpoenas. He shows that he did other work besides the investigation held on that day. The hon. member states that six accounts were rendered by Mr. Duchemin. That is not in accordance with the fact. Perhaps the hon. member may have misunderstood these accounts.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I submit this to Your Honour: We had this matter properly before us, and I was reading from the record of the House given me by the Secretary of State. That record is in the possession of the House. I submit to Your Honour that it is not fair to me that the minister should read from another and entirely different record. There is only one record given me by the Government, and I submit that the minister should read from that record.


John Dowsley Reid: I am reading from an exact copy. This document is entitled:
Return to an Order of the House of Commons, March 31:
" That the proper officer do lay before this House a copy of all charges, correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents relative to the dismissal of Rod McLeod, boatman in the customs service at Big Bras D'or, North Cape Breton and Victoria, N.S., and of

the evidence taken and reports of the investigation held by H. P. Duchemin in regard to same, with a detailed statement of the expenses of such investigation."
I think that is what the hon. member read from. The Order of the House called for a detailed statement of the expenses of the investigation. On making inquiries in the Customs Department with reference to this return, I find that the official of the department took this account of Mr. Duchemin for $126.55, and, as the hon. member for North Cape Breton had asked for a return for each of the men named in these charges, the official divided this account equally, or nearly equally, amongst these eases, and in that form the return was laid on the table. The only way the official could eoime to a conclusion as to what the costs were in the several oases was to divide the account equally in the way I have indicated.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister will be surprised to find that the accounts put down so much for ferry, so much for dinner, etc., in each bill. I do not understand how the officers of the department could do that.


John Dowsley Reid: The accounts laid on the table were:	" Allowance for living expenses, 5 days, $15," and so on.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the minister give the details of the six accounts to which I referred?


John Dowsley Reid: I am giving the hon. member the information which I have in connection with the Customs Department; I am informed that the account was divided up as I have stated. The hon. member says that Mr. Duchemin, in connection with an investigation held on one day, the 6th, charged for six days' work. If the hon. member will refer to Mr. Duchemin's letter of June 21, he will see that on September 2 Mr. Duchemin travelled from Sydney to Sydney mines, conferred with Mr. McCormick, arranged docket and so on.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That has nothing to do with the case I am dealing with. *


John Dowsley Reid: I am surprised that the hon. gentleman should make that statement. Mr. Duchemin said in his letter that he was travelling, serving subpoenas, and so on, on those different days.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was present at the inquiry on the 2nd at Sydney Mines and Sydney, which are only tw'elve miles distant from Big Bras d'Or.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Duchemin says that on the 2nd he was conferring with Mr. McCormick.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But the Order in Council does not allow him anything for that.


John Dowsley Reid: I disagree with the hon. gentleman in that respect.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: For any preliminaries he gets nothing.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. member, but as I understand the Order in Council, if a commissioner occupies his time serving subpoenas and travelling long distances to confer with parties who know something about the matter under consideration, he certainly is entitled to remuneration for the time so occupied.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the minister will pardon me-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member has put his case before the House. It is competent for the minister to make his reply; I do not think it is competent for the hon. gentleman to enter into a discussion of the matter.


John Dowsley Reid: In his letter Mr. Duchemin states that he was employed on the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 12th and 13th yet he charges only for services on the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th, six days. The records of tne department show that he was employed on the 9th, which is the day upon which he made out and sent in his last report. Mr. Duchemin did not send in any false statements. He sent in a statement of accounts for the days upon which he was, in my opinion, fairly and honestly employed in connection with the several cases which ne had under consideration. For his services on those occasions he was entitled to remuneration. I feel that it is unfair for any member to do anything which would give the people of the province of Nova Scotia the impression that Mr. Duchemin committed a fraudulent act. He did not do so, if he had he would not have been paid the accounts which he rendered for his services in connection with these investigations.


Mr. CARROLL:: Mr. Duchemin has been publicly charged in Nova Scotia with fraud in connection with this matter.


John Dowsley Reid: I have never heard of anything of the kind. If a charge of fraud was made against Mr. Duchemin, it is difficult

for me to understand why he should not at once have taken it up.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Does the minister not
think it looks suspicious that an account should be sent in for six days' work in respect of something that it took only three hours to accomplish? If this gentleman is allowed to pad his accounts in that way, where will the limit be? What will prevent his claiming ten days or twenty days' service just as well as six by saying that on ten or twenty days he was talking to somebody about the matter?


John Dowsley Reid: That is a fair question; 1
will give the hon. gentleman my opinion in that regard. I have known of cases decided in court within the space of two hours; yet in respect of that case days and weeks and months of work had to be done previous to its trial. Of course, these preliminary services had to be paid for by the parties to the suit. Every one knows that Mr. Duchemin had to travel some distance from his home-


John Howard Sinclair: Twelve miles.


John Dowsley Reid: -to hold the investigations; surely Mr. Duchemin was entitled to remuneration for these services. The hon. member for North Cape Breton has the records before him. He knows well that Mr. Duchemin could not hold an investigation miles from his own home in one day.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He says he did it in
one day.


John Dowsley Reid: He says that the evidence
was taken on that one day, but his time ' was previously occupied in travelling, serving subpoenas, and so on. The hon. member for North Cape Breton, from the returns brought down, naturally understood that six accounts were rendered by Mr. Duchemin. I have explained this by saying that one account of Mr. Duchemin was divided into six different items for the purpose of showing what the charges were in connection witn each investigation.
Taking into consideration the whole circumstances, I can only say that in my judgment Mr. Duchemin's charges for these investigations were fair, reasonable and honest. Mr. Duchemin did not commit any fraudulent act. and I do not think that any member of this House should, by putting a question on the Order Paper, do anything that might injure the reputation of any esteemed citizen of Canada.



THE PURCHASE OF SUBMARINES.

Robert Laird Borden: That the return respecting the purchase of two submarines, brought down and laid upon the table of the House this day by the Minister of Naval Defence, be printed forthwith, and that rule 74 be suspended for that purpose.
He said:	This return relates to an important matter that has involved a good deal of discussion in the House and has attracted a good deal of attention throughout the country It would seem to me appropriate that the documents should be printed forthwith so that members of the House and the people of the country as a whole may have a better opportunity of making themselves acquainted with them than they would otherwise have.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) for the Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier thereto, resumed from March 11.
Mr. R. J. BALL (South Grey):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some hesitancy that I rise to say a few words on the subject of the Budget, which has now been before us for some time, especially after it has been discussed by so many able speakers who have preceded me. Before proceeding to the Budget I might refer to a few remarks of the last speaker, the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp). That hon. gentleman and others have spoken of curtailing the expenditure of the Government for this year. I take it that in the Estimates the Government have curtailed as far as possible; but owing to the war, which, of course, was an unforeseen event, they had to make altogether unusual provisions for revenue. Then there were the ordinary liabilities and necessary expenditures of the Government, some of which were really incurred by the late Government; and contracts, for which annual provision must be made, could not possibly be eliminated or curtailed. It might not have been wise for the Government to curtail or abandon contracts which they had entered into for public buildings and other improvements throughout the country under present conditions. The Government have been urging the farmers, manufacturers and others to continue their operations so as to obviate

unemployment. It seems to me that the Government itself, being the largest employer in the Dominion of Canada, should set a good example; in fact, it controls more money and can more easily obtain money than private institutions. I think that, as far as possible, in order to alleviate distress and help on the work of the country, legitimate public works ought to be gone on with.
Reference was also made to the employment of foreigners in Westmorland while our own people were out of employment. I do not know what the circumstances of that particular case were, but I know that very often contractors and others are obliged to employ foreigners to do certain classes of work that our own people refuse to do. I sometimes wonder if our people are as diligent as they should be, and if they avail themselves of all their opportunities in connection with public works and similar undertakings.
Some reference was also made to the distribution of contracts for war materials. I have not looked very closely into this matter, but, from what I can gather, the contracts for war materials have been distributed over the country amongst the various firms who manufacture such materials without any discrimination. I think the Government, under the strain to which they were subjected and being under the necessity of providing many of these things in such a hurry, were obliged, even if they had not been so disposed, to give these contracts out almost indiscriminately. I think it was wise for them to do so, because, while manufacturers may be on one side of politics or the other, they employ men of all classes and all shades of politics.
I think from a business standpoint that it would be well not to discriminate, and I believe there has not been any discrimination.
_ Something has been said of public criticism. It is well for us, even as political parties in this House, to be careful of criticism that goes out before the public. It is sometimes very hurtful. We have now before a Committee of this House an investigation into the matter of boots supplied to the soldiers. I have no doubt that when the investigation has been completed there will be very little fault to be found; yet from an international standpoint, that investigation has been very hurtful, and I have no doubt that Canadian manufacturers have suffered in consequence. The Governments of France and Russia and perhaps other countries which might have made purchases in this country will refraia- from 
doing so owing to the reputation that has been given to the Canadian boot. There are many matters such as this which are international in character, in handling which we ought to be very careful and discreet. Of course, the Opposition must investigate where there are real reasons for doing so, but to my mind there have never seemed to be much cause for this investigation.
The hon. gentleman referred to the tariff as it affects his locality, that is, the province of New Brunswick. This is one broad Dominion, and it seems to me very difficult to enact a general tariff that will not strike somebody unfairly. For instance, in Ontario, and I presume in western Quebec, we have to bring bituminous coal from the other side and have had to pay a duty on it of 53 cents per ton. In addition to that there will be the 7| per cent further duty as war tax. I presume this duty is imposed in order to protect the Nova Scotia coal mines. I have heard very little complaint of that. Canada being a broad Dominion, it is very difficult to legislate for particular localities.
Reference was also made to the supposed clashing of interests between farmers and manufacturers. I was very much pleased at the remarks of the hon. member for East Huron (Mr. Bowman) last night on this subject. I see no reason why there should be any conflict or rivalry between the farmers and the manufacturers of this country. They should co-operate. In fact, in Ontario there is very little of that feeling. I believe that the farmers appreciate the advantages which they derive from the presence of manufactories in their districts, and the manufacturers appreciate the presence of the farmer. A great deal has been said on this subject by western members who seem to have a feeling of antagonism towards the manufacturers of the East. The same spirit does not prevail in Ontario, as far as I have been able to learn; we are glad to know that the West is prospering and has good prospects, and we are sorry to find any depression there. There should be mutual good will over the whole Dominion in these matters; there is no reason why one section of the people should be stirred up in antagonism towards another section of the people. The proper way for this country to prosper is on the line of co-operation. I have no doubt that before many years there will be manufacturing industries in the West. Winnipeg to-day has a great many industries, and there are industries in many of the larger towns farther west. The farmers

of the West will find the towns thus developed of great help to them.
Something was said about people, through unemployment, being almost void of the necessaries of life. If that be the case, we cannot very consistently ask the Government to withhold contracts. It would seem to me to be a time when the Government ought to proceed with public works just for that reason, namely, to help to alleviate the problem of unemployment. In many cities, as in Toronto, and I have no doubt in Ottawa, men have been employed shovelling snow and doing other work which might have been dispensed with, simply that the unemployed might be furnished with a legitimate means of livelihood. For similar reasons I think the Government ought to proceed with public works.	[DOT]
Reference was made to the new war stamp. It was suggested that instead of having a war stamp, the two-cent stamp should have been made a three-cent stamp, that is,	that the	old	domestic postalrate should	have been	restored.
We are living under very special conditions at the present time. There is a great European war in progress. We hope that there will never be such a war again in our time or for generations to come. I have no doubt that one of the objects of the Government is to interest the Canadian people in this war and to impress its great significance especially upon the minds of the young. The imposition of special war stamp taxes will have a great effect upon the mind of the child going to school. It will imbue him with a love for his country, and emphasise the importance and significance of the period through which we are passing.
I must congratulate- my hon friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) on the able manner in which he has handled this Budget. I have heard no complaints from my riding nor from any other part of the country through which I have passed in regard to the proposals which he has laid before the House. The people know that there is a war on. They have encouraged the Government to send forward troops to assist Great Britain in the war. They have sent forward their sons and are willing to assist the Government in every way possible to carry on the war. They have been expecting taxation in some way or other. Taxation by way of customs duties seems to be the most reasonable way of collecting the money that is required for this purpose. We have in existence the ordinary customs tariff. Last August a special war rate was levied through the customs tariff, and now
we have another special war rate imposed. The last special war rate affected the people generally. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has seen fit to tax those who are best able to pay. For instance, he taxes the banks, public institutions, loan companies, insurance companies, cable and telegraph companies, and business men, in the proportion to the business they do. This seems to me to be the best way in which the taxes could be levied. The tax touches us all pro rata as nearly as can be. The farmer does not expect to be exempt from this war tax. Why should he be? The farmer is just as much interested in this war as we are. The farmer s son, the boy whom he has raised, sent to school and fitted out for life, has now gone to the front; he wants that boy to be taken care of. The only way he can be taken care of is by the Government making provision in this way, and to do this we must provide the necessary money. The labouring map does not wish to be exempt. His son has also gone to the front, and he is just as much interested in seeing that his son is properly provided for as is any other member of the community. But he is not so heavily taxed as those who are better able to pay. The levying of taxes and the paying out of their money will have a good effect even upon cnildren.
We know the cause of this war: it has been caused by one man. We cannot but wonder at the power that one man can exert over a continent and over the world. The war was caused by the inordinate lust for power and territory of the German Kaiser. This war did not spring up in a day. We have a depression, but a depression has existed the world over for some time. Two or three years ago we had the Balkan war. Europe seemed to be convulsed; in fact, we did not know where the trouble was going to break out again, whether in Europe or Asia. Finally, a couple of years ago, it broke out in the Balkans, and then the nations began to retrench financially. It takes money to carry on war, and	the nations	began	to bemore careful of	their	finances.
When the Balkan war was ended this present war began to loom up. A year ago nobody had any definite idea that we would now be in the midst of war. The clouds were hovering around, the nations felt that something was going to happen, and in order to provide for whatever might happen England, as well as our own Government, began to retrench. England began to draw in her sails in the matter of finance. Imme-

diately after the war broke out Canadian and other loans became more difficult to negotiate in Great Britain. Great Britain husbanded her finances in order that she might be able to take care of her national interests. We are pleased to know that she has also taken this colony of hers, Canada, under her wing, and has assisted her in the difficult task of financing. We are glad to know that we are able to finance under such favourable conditions. Most of the nations of Europe are involved in this war. We have Germany, Austria and Turkey on one side, and Great Britain, Russia, France, Belgium, Japan, and the British colonies on the other. This brings the matter home to us in a very decided way. Canada is inhabited by people of many nations. We have people of English, Irish, Scotch, German, French, Austrian and other nationalities. Perhaps we are too much given to sectionalism and to the perpetuation of national distinctions. I like the word "Canadian " better than any other, and I think that the sooner we realize that we are all Canadians the better it will be for this country of ours. In western Canada we have a great many German people. Many of these people are in my own riding. They find themselves in a very difficult position at the present time. Many of them have their brothers and friends fighting in the war against Britain. These people are endeavouring to be, and I believe are, loyal to the Crown under which they live. We can understand their difficulty. They are deserving of our sympathy, and we ought to be careful not to estrange such German citizens at this time. In my own riding they are an industrious, law-abiding, thrifty and loyal people. Many of them, no doubt, coming direct from the fatherland, have a love and affection for that land while loyal to the country they live in. In a generation or two this feeling will pass away, and we shall all become one people.
A year or two ago there was much talk of an emergency. There must have been an emergency at that time, as this war has broken out so suddenly. Germany had been preparing for the war. The Kaiser probably has been preparing for the last twenty-five years or more, and therefore it was up to the rest of the nations of Europe to see that they also were prepared. We had considerable discussion here about dreadnoughts and naval preparations for war a couple of years ago. I have no doubt that the British Government at that time realized the

danger, and it may be that some members of this Government had some hint as to the danger that was then in the air. It would have been very gratifying to us now if some of our dreadnoughts had been in the fighting line.
At the present time trade and financial depression extend throughout every country in the world, and it is for the Canadian Government to help business along and to carry out all the contracts which the country has entered into, so as to encourage the people and help them to struggle along until the hard times have passed. The industries which are turning out war materials do not perhaps feel the depression so keenly, but factories that are making what might be more or less called luxuries are undoubtedly adversely affected by the war. In my own town of Hanover we find that the war affects us greatly Our town was in good shape before this appalling war broke out, but since then business has become more or less stagnant, and the same remark would apply to Berlin, Stratford, and other towns in which the furniture industry is carried on. The Government has been very liberal with our banks, and I think that the banks in turn should assist business men who are legitimately entitled to advances, and in cases where the security is perfectly good. It seems to me that the banks could do a great deal in the way of helping business until the war is over and there is a recovery.
The farmeis of Canada are no doubt in a prosperous condition, and we are all glad to know it, because nobody envies the farmer all he can get out of his industry. Perhaps the best way to draw people to the land is to develop agricultural education, and the present Government has done a great deal in that direction. I believe also that the education in the public schools should be more directed along the lines of teaching agriculture, for it is a regrettable fact that up to the present our young people have been trained more for professions and other occupations which take them away from the land. The inauguration of rural mail delivery and the parcel post by the Government, as well as the establishment of rural telephones and the development of electricity during late years, all bring the comforts of urban life to the rural population and tend to induce people to cultivate the land and to stay on the farm.
We have had during late years a good deal of trouble over labour matters in this

as in other countries; but now that there is a wave ot industrial depression, conditions have become better in this respect.
It seems to me that we are inclined to legislate too much, in Canada as elsewhere, for the settlement of labour disputes. In my opinion the better way to settle such disputes is to let the individual employer and the individual workman negotiate between themselves. In my own town we have never had labour organizations, and we have never had strikes of any kind; our thrifty working-people for the most part own their own homes; and harmony prevails among all classes of the community. I have already spoken of the concord which should exist between the farmer and the manufacturer and other business men in the community.
The action taken by the Government to give seed grain to the farmers of the West has, I think, met with the approval of all classes. There have been 48,630 applications received for seed grain, which will supply 3,473,456 acres, requiring 6,000,000 bushels of wheat and oats. I believe that the Government Is treating the West very generously in this respect, and I am glad that the farmers of the West will be helped thereby. The Ontario Government is providing for its own people; Manitoba and the eastern, provinces are doing the same; but in the prairie provinces, Manitoba excepted, it is the Dominion Government which has taken action, and we trust it may be successful in relieving the situation there. I believe that this Government deserves a great deal of credit for the manner in which it has conducted the affairs of Canada since it came to office, and I congratulate the Minister of Finance upon his Budget, which I believe to be as fair and equitable as it possibly could be. I think it bears equitably on all, and I have no doubt that all the people of Canada are willing to contribute to the expenses of this war.	I believe that the Budget	has	so	arranged	things that	all
classes	will contribute in proportion
' to	their	ability to	pay, and	thatthe	policy	of the	Government	in
this respect will be endorsed by the electorate. In my own riding, so far as I have been able to learn, the people are at one in endorsing the course taken by the Government to provide means to enable Canada to bear her share in this terrible war.
Mr. D.	B.	NEELY	(Humboldt):	Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some degree of interest to the remarks of my hon. friend
from South Grey (Mr. Ball), and I must express my regret that I cannot agree with a number of his conclusions. The hon. gentleman, and other hon. gentlemen on the Government side, seem to view with very great complacency the tariff proposals we are now considering. I can quite understand that the mental attitude of the hon. gentleman might be influenced to some extent by the fact that his livelihood is gained in an industry which certainly will benefit largely by the proposals in this Budget. My hon. friend deprecates the idea of putting class against class, the manufacturer against the farmer and the farmer against the manufacturer, and I quite agree with him that there should be the best possible relationship between all elements of our citizenship. I agree with him also when he says that the farmers appreciate the presence of the manufacturers in this country; and I agree with him when he says that the manufacturers appreciate the farmers.
I should say they do, and they will appreciate them a great deal more when these tariff proposals have become law. My hon. friend, who is a practical business man, comes to the defence of the Government when he says we must not blame their policy for the widespread depression that exists in commercial and financial affairs	throughout Canada.
I must differ sharply with my hon. friend in his conclusions, for, in my judgment, the policy of this Government since it came into office has had a great deal to do with the financial and commercial depression that exists in Canada to-day. This Government came into power on a policy which, if it meant anything at all, meant restriction of trade to the Dominion. If a policy of restriction of trade has not for its logical conclusion commercial depression and unemployment, then I understand nothing of the principles of political economy.
The defeat of the trade agreement of 1911, brought about iby the protectionist arguments of hon. gentlemen who now occupy the Government benches, is and must be considered largely responsible for the present commercial depression. In the first place, it was a great blow to production in this country, in that the great community engaged in the industry of agriculture, which is the foundation of Canada's prosperity, was .prevented from obtaining, on terms of absolute preference, what in my judgment and in the judgment of the great

*majority of my constituents "was the best possible market in the civilized world.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Would the defeat of reciprocity account also for the depression in the United States at the present time?


Mr. NEELY:: My hon. friend will have to demonstrate first of all that the premises on which his question is based are sound, and that there' is a condition of financial depression in the United States similar or equal to that in Canada.
The defeat of the trade agreement of 1911 was also a severe blow to production in this country, in that it meant the stemming of the tide of that class of immigration which is largely responsible for much of the development and prosperity of Canada in recent years. Take the best class of immigration that we have in Canada to-day, in western Canada particularly-I say the best class, because the immigrants come to us not only with money but with equipment and .with experience that is worth more than money-the class of American farmers who for years past have been flocking into Canada from the farming states to the south. The defeat of the trade agreement of 1911 did more to stem that tide of immigration than anything else that has ever occurred in Canada's history. Since 1911, there has been a great falling- off in this class of immigration, to the great loss not only of the people of western Canada, but of the people of every part of the Dominion.
What does this Government stand for in the matter of its trade policy? My hon. friend the Minister of Finance is exceedingly sensitive about criticism or question of motive as to why the present tariff legislation has been brought before the House and the country. I say in all sincerity that no matter that could be brought forward by the Government having for its object the paying of our proper Bills-the
5 p.m. paying of Canada's share in the successful prosecution of the great struggle in which, the Empire is engaged-would meet with one word of criticism from any hon. member on this side of the House; but 1 strenuously object to the people of Canada and hon. members of this House being asked to vote for proposals labelled as war-tax proposals, when the Minister of Finance himself admits that the objects of this legislation are not to pay the expenses of the war. That statement, made in the first Budget deliver-
ance of this session by the Minister of Finance, cannot be mistaken. He says in the clearest language that every dollar of Canada's share of the expense of this war is to be obtained from the Government of Great Britain, and that this extra tax is to meet that great gap, which he sees before him, between the current revenue and the current expenditure, outside of the expenses of the war.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance takes criticism of his proposals almost as personal criticism of himself. It is a well-known fact that all egotists are thinskinned ; and when I point to the fact, which was abundantly demonstrated in the three-hour speech of tne Minister of Finance the other night, namely, that he appears to assume the whole responsibility of the financial situation of Canada at the present time, one can quite understand how criticism would be exceedingly unwelcome to one who has such a high valuation of his own abilities.
It took only a matter of a few minutes to run over the speech of the Minister of Finance the other night, and count the number of times the Finance Minister had actually used the first personal pronoun. I could hardly believe the result myself when I was told that he used it no less than 435 times, and that exclusive of references made by the hon. gentleman to himself as " me " or " my." That would he an average of about 145 times an hour, or about two and a half times a minute. Sir, we have been accustomed to regard the Emperor of Germany as the greatest egotist in the world, but even he is more moderate than my hon. friend. The Emperor of Germany takes a partner with him, for his expression as reported to us is " Me und Gott." But my hon. friend the Minister of Fin- -ance does not share responsibility or honour with anybody; he takes it all himself. He assumes the most injured air towards members of the Opposition because they dare to question the express object for which these tariff proposals are brought down. Although the Minister of Finance holds a much more important place in this House and in this country than I do as a private member of this House, I would counsel him to cultivate a spirit of stolid indifference to criticism, for I believe it would make him a more useful member of this House and a better minister and member of the Government. If he is thinskinned about criticism, I am not, and I propose therefore to inquire, as best I can, into the underlying motive or principle

that actuated these proposals now under consideration.
I disagree with the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Ball) and with the Finance Minister when they say that this Government are not to blame for a large part of the depression that exists in Canada to-day. Let me ask the Minister of Finance what was the condition of Canada's trade before the outbreak of war in August, 1914? What was the condition as to our imports? My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) put that question to the Minister of Finance	the other nightand he did not get an answer. That question has not been answered, and it is not capable of being answered by the Minister of Finance. My hon. friend from Red Deer pointed out that while in the United States and Australia, for months preceding the war, 'imports were on the increase; in the case of Canada, for months preceding the war, there was a constant falling off of imports. What had the war to do with that situation?
In that connection, let me point out to the House that these tariff changes are not the first that have'been brought before this House for the replenishing of a falling revenue. We had a Budget speech about a year ago, in which the Minister of Finance increased the tariff and put new taxes on a very considerable list of articles consumed by the people of Canada. There was no war in April, 1914; and I presume that when these increases in the tariff were made, the object .was, as my hon. friend says the object is in the present case, to increase the revenues of the country. Well, let us be frank, and I am going to be frank when I say, notwithstanding the somewhat theatrical statement of the Minister of Finance when he said: "I refuse to vindicate myself; I refuse to answer this imputation against my motives in bringing down these tariff proposals"-that, in my judgment, we have every reason to come to the conclusion that these tariff proposals of the present Budget are just one further step in the carrying out of a definite and settled policy of this Government, which policy they had in their minds when they took office. Since this Government took office we have been given every reason to come to that conclusion. We found this Government tampering with the regulations under which our tariff was administered with reference to certain articles. Take, for instance, the item that means so much to the people of Western Canada, and more or less to all of Canada, the item of lumber, and what did this Government do with reference to that, very 61
shortly after they came into office? Whereas certain classes of rough lumber had been allowed to come into this country free, on the advice, apparently, of members of this Government, a new decision was arrived at by the Board of Customs, and this lumber was declared to be dutiable at $2 a thousand feet extra. Nothing saved us from that extra burden hut the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which decision was to the effect that this class of lumber was not dutiable under the statute. But for that decision the people of Canada would have been bearing that extra burden. That is one of a number of such instances. The legislation with regard to the importation of fruit was an instance; the legislation with regard to the importation of fertilizers was another instance. These things, followed up as they were by the legislation of 1914, the tariff changes of last year, I contend, give us every reason to believe that in the proposals now before the House, the Government are simply carrying out a policy which they had laid down for themselves, or which their friends had laid down for them, when they came into office in 1911.
Previous to August, 1914, no war was taking place, yet conditions in Canada were very bad; export trade and revenues were falling off. When the minister made his Budget speech at the last regular session of Parliament, he did not, any more than the humblest member of this House, foresee the conditions of war which now prevail. Yet in view of the falling off of imports and, consequently, of revenue, did not the hon. gentleman foresee that at this session of Parliament the legislation which we are now considering would be introduced? Did he not foresee a deficit, aside altogether from the conditions created by the war? My hon. friend does not answer; perhaps he will later. When he is answering that question, I should like him to answer another. If the taxes that he now proposes to impose upon the people of Canada are, as he calls them, genuine war taxes, what will become of them when the dreadful conflict which is now in progress is brought to a conclusion? If these are war taxes, I presume that they will cease when the war is over. Will the Finance Minister be good' enough to tell the House at some future time, if not at the present moment, whether or not these proposed enactments will be wiped off the statute books when the war is over and Canada's trade resumes something like a normal condition? I think that is a fair question to ask the hon. gentleman, in view of the fact that



he so earnestly desires this. House to look upon these tariff measures as war taxes to pay for 'Canada's participation in the war.
I question the expressed object of this legislation, namely, that it is for the purpose of raising a larger revenue to meet the extraordinary expenses incurred by Canada in connection with the war. If this tariff increase were put on expressly for the purpose of raising a revenue, in my judgment that increase would consist not of a flat increase in the duties on all imports coming into the country, hut of a tariff rate graduated to meet the conditions prevailing in respect of each of the various classes of imports proposed to be taxed. We are asked to approve an increase of 7J percent on practically every class of goods entering into Canada from foreign countries, and	an increase of five per
cant as against goods coming Into Canada from Great Britain. This method of dealing with the tariff does not seem to be consistent with the principle that the imposition of tariffs is a scientific method of obtaining a revenue. Nothing so surely refutes the Finance Minister's contention that these tariff increases axe intended merely to raise a revenue to meet war expenses, than the very manner in which they are made. The hon. gentleman should know that some articles coming into this country will stand a higher rate of duty than others; this is particularly applicable to articles that are not produced in Canada. What will be the logical result of this unscientific method of raising revenue? The Finance Minister says that his proposals are made for the purpose of creating a revenue. Granted. But if these tariffs do not bring about the desired revenue; if they fall short of the object which it is proposed they shall accomplish, what then? My hon. friend the Minister of Finance said the other night: I see my way through this very difficult financial situation; I saw my way through it last August, and I see my way through it now. If the hon. member has such clarity of vision, no doubt he will be able to tell the House and the country what kind of proposals he will bring down to the House if his present tariff proposals do not produce the desired revenue-that is, if it is the will of Proviuence that he have the privilege of presenting another Budget to this House. A great many articles coming into Canada will now be taxed as high as 42i per cent; yet we have absolutely no ground for believing that this new tariff legislation is going to produce the additional 
revenue that the Minister of Finance desires. If it does not, what shall we do next? Shall we have another 7J per cent general increase and another 5, 10 or 15 per cent increase in the British preferential rate? To what follies would the protectionists lead the people if they had their way without let or hindrance, and were able to carry out their policy to its logical conclusion? In my opinion, the logical result of their policy would be in the creation of a tariff wall so high that no imports could come into Canada to compete with similar articles manufactured or produced in this country.
We on this side of the House regret the necessity of differing with the hon. minister and of questioning his motives, but we doubt whether it is really intended that these tariff proposals will increase the revenues of this country.
But whatever other effect they will have they will certainly and surely increase the cost of living to every consumer in this country. I can give a few very practical illustrations of what an increase in the tariff means to consumers in this country. My hon. friend last year was good enough to place a duty of $4 a ton on wire rods coming into Canada, these having formerly come in free. What was the effect of this increased duty ? We were led at that time to believe that this would not result in any greater price being paid by the consumer for the finished products from those wire rods. Why, Sir, it was not a month after the coming into effect of that legislation before every farmer and every artisan in this country who wanted to buy a keg of nails had to pay 25 cents to 50 cents a keg more for the nails which they purchased. I had the privilege a couple of months ago of attending a farmers' meeting in my constituency, called for the purpose of organizing a rural telephone system. This system was to run out some 20 or 25 miles to a settlement of people who lived that far from a railroad -and I regret to say that I have many people in my district who live even farther than that from the nearest market town. These people proposed to have a farmers' rural telephone line which, with its branches into the residences en route, would probably amount in five years time to a total installation of 40 miles of telephone line. When they came to investigate the cost of building that line it was found that for every mile of telephone wire used those farmers would have to pay from $5 to $7 more because of the additional

adian people is so honest and sincere that when it comes to a Question of choice as between Canadian made goods and goods made in a foreign country, if the quality is equal and the pnce the same, they will buy the goods that are madfe in their own country. But if the Minister of Finance wanted to buy a new automobile for himself, or nis department, and if he could get a better machine at a lower price in the United States than he could get in Canada, I question whether he or any other member of the House would consider very seriously this propaganda of "anade-in-C'an-ada." Of course, we want to see the industries of this country develop and-flour-ish, but we cannot consent to their flourishing solely and entirely at the expense, and at the loss, of the great mass of the consumers of the country. If you carry the principle of this made-in-Canada propaganda to its logical conclusion, where do you arrive? We put an extra tariff in order to increase the revenue and in the very same breath we are educating the people through the Budget of the Finance Minister to use goods that are made in Canada. If you are going to use only goods that are made in Canada, in the name of common sense, how is this new tariff going to produce an increased revenue? If we are going to get a revenue from the tariff it must be because we import foreign-made goods and if we use exclusively goods made in Canada then my hon. friend's proposals will be a dead letter on the statute books. You cannot eat your cake and have it too. You cannot carry out this propaganda to its logical conclusion and expect increased revenues from the customs tariff on goods coming into the country.
As far as the manufacturers are concerned I fail to see why, at this crisis in our country's history, they should have required this special legislation. For over forty years Canada has had a protective tariff. Even under the late Administration there was a very large element of protection in the tariff. We have had a protective tariff and certain industries, many of whose representatives sit on the opposite side of the House, have enjoyed the benefit of that protection. For what purpose and to what end? For what purpose if not for the purpose that when Canada would be passing through just such a financial and commercial crisis as that which confronts it at the present moment, these men, these industries that have been built up under forty years of protection and special consideration,

should be able to bear the brunt of the sacri * fices that Canada would have to make to meet the situation. But what do we find to-day? We find our manufacturers receiving the benefit of millions of dollars worth of special orders from the allied nations who are at war. They have the additional advantage that the war itself has cut off the foreign exports of qne of the greatest manufacturing countries in the world, namely, Germany, and the manufacturers of Canada have the opportunity of a lifetime at the present moment, because if they wanted to .reach out their hands they could lay hold of a large share of Germany's and Austria's foreign export trade.
The protected interests that have been taken care of since Canada was brought into Confederation, ought to be saying to the Government and to the people of Canada: You have given us special consideration for the last forty years, you have protected us from foreign imports by the tariff, we have built up flourishing industries, we have made money, we have succeeded and to-day we come to the defence of our Government, of our country, of our Empire by offering up the money which we have made out of the special privileges and benefits we have obtained under protection in the last forty yeaffs, but instead of that we find them coming to the Government and asking for further protection of 71 and 5 per cent. I feel deeply on this question because I know that every man, woman and child in this country is going to feel the pinch of this legislation in the very near futurS and that the people are going to feel it, Sir, where it touches them most-in the things that they put upon their tables and that they put upon their backs.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance sees no light in any of the suggestions that have been offered from this side of the House as to any other method by which larger revenues might be obtained to meet the extra burden of the present situation. I would like to call his attention to a little item that appeared in the Ottawa Evening Journal on Monday, March 8, in the form of the following despatch:
London, March 8.-A despatch from Berne, Switzerland, says:	A Bill has been submitted
to the German Reichstag imposing a special tax on the profits of manufacturers of war materials. The tax is retroactive and the commissioners already are obtaining returns from all firms which have been supplying the army and navy since August last.
There is some initiative on the part of a country whose fiscal policy seems to be so

much admired by this present Government. I recommend this method of obtaining revenue to the Minister of Finance. The income tax and the land tax he throws aside as broken reeds. Perhaps, following the example of Germany, if he will go over some of the contracts let iiy the Canadian Government during the last six months, he will be able to find a margin of profit to the manufacturers of these supplies, which might very well be divided up with the treasury of the country and still leave a very handsome profit to the contractors.
These are some of the objections we nave to the proposal in this Budget as to a 7i per cent increase on goods coming in from other countries. But let me say that while we object to this horizontal increase of 7i per cent, because we do not on this side of the House believe it will bring about the desired results, because it will go largely into the pockets of the manufacturers and not into the treasury of the country; in all sincerity I say we might possibly try out this further tariff experiment, were it not for the fact that the Government has added this-I would not care to, use the words that come to me to describe it-most reprehensible proposal to increase the preferential rate on goods coming from the Mother Country.
What is the situation which Canada and the Empire are confronted with? The Minister of Finance threw a very serious charge against members on this side of the House the other night, when he said that in his judgment there was not apparently among us a proper realization of the great gravity of the present struggle in Europe. Sir, it is because we Liberals do appreciate the gravity of that situation that we now propose to vote against increased obstacles to British trade, through the addition of an extra tariff of 5 per cent on British goods. Let it be distinctly understood that we do not do this in a challenge to the Government; we are not doing it with the idea of throwing down the gauntlet or placing a chip on our shoulder, because let me tell hon. gentlemen opposite that if they want to take this issue and this vote as a reason for an appeal to the people of this country, they will have to do it on their own responsibility. We on this side of the House will not share that responsibility. We refuse to share it, because when we did agree, as we did agree last August, to aid this Government in every possible way to carry on successfully Canada's part in the war, we did not agree at that time or at any time since, to conform our views to the present
proposal of the Government, that we can best play Canada's part by placing obstacles in the way of Britain's trade. Look at the present situation! The Minister of Finance says that this increased tariff against British goods really gives the British manufacturer a further preference in our markets over his competitors from other countries. The plain fact is that this increase in the tariff means another five dollars on every hundred dollars' worth of British goods coming into this country and that at a time when Britain's trade is staggering under a load which that trade has never before been called upon to bear. I sincerely and honestly say, that in my judgment this tariff proposal is the most severe blow at Britain's trade which she has received since the outbreak of the present struggle. What are the conditions? Britain is a great exporting country; her trade with Germany is cut off, her trade with Austria and Turkey is cut off, her trade with all foreign countries is necessarily hampered by the lack of transport, by the scarcity of labour, by higher ocean freight rates, and by the high cost of marine insurance. I should not be surprised had I the figures at hand, to find that the extra freight rates on account of the greater risk of war meant an additional obstacle of five or ten per cent in the way of Britain's exporting goods to Canada. Labouring under these obstacles at the present moment, and at the same time reaching out a helping hand to every one of her colonies that need her financial assistance, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, as well as to the weaker of the allied countries, Belgium and Servia; with this enormous burden upon her shoulders, and with the solution of the war based upon Britain's financial stability and strength, the foundation of which is her export trade to the other countries of the world, I say, Mr. Speaker, that we are striking at the very heart of Britain's strength when we undertake to put this extra obstacle against the importation of British goods to Canada.
The Minister of Finance replied to my right hon. leader in the the old familiar way, when he said that the enormous expenditures and terrible burdens of this country which he, as Finance Minister, had to meet, were the consequence of the policy of the preceding Administration, and he pointed particularly to our large expenditure in recent years on transportation facilities. That argument is our old familiar friend, but what are the facts? We know perfectly well that for the expenditure on the Hudson

Bay railway the leader of the Government must assume just as much responsibility as the leader of the Opposition, because preceding the last election the leader of this Government pledged himself to the people of Cahada that if he were returned to power he would build the Hudson Bay railway; and as an hon. friend reminds me, he said that he would build it much faster than the Liberal Administration would.
Let us take the case of the National Transcontinental railway. It is too late to discuss the question of the advisability of building that railway. The people of Canada decided that question in the election of 1904, and they decided it very largely in its favour. When my hon. friend the Minister of Finance brings back those stale arguments about what the original cost was supposed to be and what the road actually cost, he knows from his own experience, since he has been a member of this Government, that many things cost a great deal more than one originally expects them to do. What, for example, about that public building, almost within sight of Parliament? When the Government is through paying for it, it will find that that building will cost a great deal more than was originally anticipated. This Government paid out over $100,000-1 think I am correct in the figure-to a couple of gentlemen, partisan friends, who spent over a year in investigating every contract in connection with the construction of the National Transcontinental railway, from one end to the other. What conclusion did they arrive at? Every hon. gentleman opposite knows that, before that report was brought into this House, rumours were spread broadcast throughout the country as to what great scandals were forthcoming against the late Administration. Since that report has been brought down and discussed here, scarcely a reputable Tory newspaper has dared to print a single line or to make a single reference to it.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Private Bills, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
Bill No. 52, respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company- Mr. G. V. White-in committee.

On section 1-extension of time for completion :
Mr. GRAHAM:: This went through the Railway Committee, did it?


Mr. LANCASTER:: Yes. This is in exactly the same terms as the Bill of two years ago, with the same provision for the protection of the Government as to damages.


Mr. NESBITT:: What extension of time is allowed?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Three years to commence and nine to complete. We do not have the same rules with regard to canals as to railways.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Under certain circumstances we have the right to take it over?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes. And if the Government take it over they pay only limited
species of damages.


George Perry Graham: Has the Government any policy to announce on the Georgian Bay canal?


Hon. W. T. WHITE:: This is hardly an
opportune time to discuss the general question. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) is not present. I understand that the policy of the hon. gentleman (Mt. Graham) is to stop all public works.


George Perry Graham: No.


William Thomas White: That is the view expressed by many of his associates. The policy of the Government, as announced in the Budget speech, is that we are not proceeding with new works until the sources from which the expenditure is to be defrayed are apparent.


Mr. CARVELL:: Not much hope for the Georgian Bay canal this year.


William Thomas White: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that we should go on with it at once?


George Perry Graham: No, my suggestion is that the hon. gentleman .should make up his mind at once about it. If he does not intend to do anything this year, let him make *up his mind whether or not he intends to do something next year. A commission was appointed a couple of years ago to investigate the commercial possibilities of this scheme. Have they made any report to the Government?


William Thomas White: No report has been made. I understand that the commission is at work obtaining the necessary information as

the basis of the report which they will subsequently make.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.	'	.
Bill No. 65, respecting the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company-Mr. T. G. Stewart-in committee.
On section 3-powers, etc.:


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo railway operating now?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes. The Erie and Ontario railway joins the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo railway at Smithville.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the present bond issue of the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I cannot say at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
The following Bills were considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed, without discussion:
Bill No. 49, respecting the Calgary and Fernie' Railway	Company.-Sir James
Aikins.
Bill No. 50, respecting the Canadian Western Railway Company.-Sir James Aikms.
Bill No. 54, respecting the Toronto Terminals Railway Company.-Mr. Macdonell.
Bill No. 62, respecting the Bank of Alberta. -Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 61, respecting the Simcoe, Grey and Bruce Railway Company.-Mr. Middle-bro.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 71, respecting The Sterling Life Assurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Macdonell.


David Bradley Neely: Mr. Speaker, when you left the Chair at six o'clock, I was making some reference to the lament of the Finance Minister and his friends in this House and throughout the country, that the burdens resting so heavily on the shoulders of this Government in the matter of meeting the expenditures of the country are a legacy from the late Administration. I have pointed out that, so far as the building of the Hudson Bay railway was concerned,
the right hon. the Prime Minister was equally responsible with the late Government for the inauguration of that scheme, and that, so far as the burden placed upon the country by the construction of the National Transcontinental railway was concerned, that proposition had been submitted to this country and the country had approved of it, whether the cost be small or great. It is quite true, we admit that the cost of the National Transcontinental railway was greater than originally expected. Nevertheless there is no condemnation to fall upon the late Administration if it can be demonstrated to the people of Canada that the money voted by this Parliament and by the people of this country for the construction of that road, actually went into its construction. I had pointed out that this Government, in its zeal to demonstrate that all the money voted for that purpose had not gone into the construction of the road, had spent some $100,000 in salary and expenses to two gentlemen, who spent over a year of their time looking into the various contracts let by the late Administration, from Moncton to the city of Winnipeg. WThat was the result of that investigation? It was heralded in the Tory newspapers throughout the length and breadth of Canada before being submitted to this House as one of the greatest scandals in Canadian history. We find that after that report was examined, dissected, taken to pieces and put together again by my hon. friend the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), no responsible public man in this country and no reputable, responsible Tory newspaper, has given any consideration or more than a mere passing mention to the contents of that report which was to produce such an enormous scandal in Canadian history. Sir, the people of Canada are concerned to know how their money is spent, and they are concerned to know that large sums of money, which they voted for the building of the National Transcontinental railway, have been spent in the construction of the road. That that has been done, Sir, is absolutely proven by the report that was intended primarily to be a partisan, biased report, that was intended to prove exactly the opposite, a report which, in my judgment, is_the most splendid vindication of the honesty and integrity of the late Government that we have had since that Government went out of office. If the National Transcontinental railway is not, and will not be in the future, the great national asset that we had hoped, the fault will not lie with the late Liberal Adminis-

Laurier had been followed four years ago, and two years ago, we would not have had every iseaport in Canada in a panic at the outbreak of war, and to-day we would not be depleting the British navy in the North Sea of cruisers to convoy our troops across the Atlantic. The Minister of Finance, referring to my right hon. leader, compared his hands to the hands of Lady Macbeth; but if this tariff legislation goes through, history will refer to the hands of the Minister of Finance as the Teuton hands that delivered the most ruthless blow against British trade that could be dealt n in this crisis of British history.
The Minister of Finance wants to know what alternative proposals gentlemen on this side of the House have to make to his tariff. I give him one suggestion obtained from a source that should appeal to him: the legislation imposed by the German Reichstag to place a tax upon the output of war materials by the manufacturers of Germany. Other gentlemen on this side of the House have offered suggestions, but the Minister of Finance answers that they are totally inadequate and do not fill the bill. I presume then that all the people of Canada have to hope for is that if the Budget proposals of the Minister of Finance do not. fill the bill, we may expect a further dose of this same treatment when this Parliament meets again. Mhat is the situation? $100,000,000 required for war expenses, $180,000,000 or thereabouts required for capital and current expenditure, of which only $120,000,000 is available from our present sources of income, leaving a balance against us of $60,000,000. The Minister of Finance says:	We must
provide, and we propose to provide by an increase in the tariff, this $60,000,000. A very worthy member on the Government side of the House gave this Government a slogan when it first came into office. That . slogan was:	" Dash away and spend the
money." This Government has carried out that policy so well, it is going so fast down the toboggan slide in this matter of reckless and extravagant expenditure, that it does not wish to have the sensation of coming to a sudden halt on account of the unusual situation brought about by this great European struggle. When we on this side of the House offer suggestions along the line of retrenchment, of curtailment, the Government waves us aside with an airy wave of the hand, as if retrenchment were quite out of the question under the present
[M>
Neely.]
regime in Canada. I doubt if there are very many hon. members who, since this war broke out, and indeed during the last year or two, have not had to adopt a policy of retrenchment as regards their personal expenditure. If that policy is good for the individual, I fail to see why it should not be good for Canada as a nation. Has it ever entered the mind of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance that he might have increased the revenue by a sweeping reduction of the tariff instead of by increasing the tariff in many instances. That suggestion, of course, is falling upon deaf ears. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance cannot listen to or hear any argument that' is not along the lines of the proposals contained in his Budget statement. The people of Canada are not averse to paying their share of Canada's expenditure in this great struggle that means the freedom of every civilized nation in the world; but, if I am not mistaken, they will object very strongly to the tariff proposals of the Government by which, for one dollar that goes into the Dominion treasury four or five dollars will go into the pockets of the protected interests of this country. I would have been very glad had it been possible that this session of Parliament would have passed like the session of August last, in absolute unanimity so far as any partisan discussion is concerned; but. if there is any blame for the division that has taken place on the proposals of the Minister of Finance, that blame must be placed where it rightly belongs, namely, at the door of the Government. The Opposition have been given absolutely no voice in the making of the proposals for increasing the revenue. As a member of the Opposition I feel that I would be derelict in my duty were I not to oppose as strenuously as possible, the method by which the Minister of Finance proposes to increase the revenues of this country.
Before I conclude, I want to say a personal word with reference to
9 p.m. the constituency that I have the honour to represent. As some hon. members know, I represent a constituency that has perhaps as cosmopolitan a population as is to be found in any part of Canada. Of that population some hundreds of families are of German birth or German extraction. There is an idea in the minds of some of our good people in other parts of Canada that, in those German and Austrian communities in the West, there

must at this time 'be a considerable amount of disaffection. Speaking on behalf of this portion of the population in my constituency, I want to say that, since the outbreak of this war, a war which has indeed touched the feelings and rent the heartstrings of many of our people, whether of English or of German birth, in every possible way, from the moment of the outbreak of the war, they have conducted themselves as true and loyal citizens of this great Dominion of Canada. I cannot speak too highly or too generously of their thrift, their integrity, their high class of citizenship. If under the circumstances they have not sent their sons to the front-and they cannot he expected to do so-no class of our population has responded more liberally to the call for assistance for the families of those who have gone to the front than has the German population throughout the various districts of the West. While it is not to be expected that this class of our population should hold the tie of British connection as strongly as do those who are Canadian or British-born, yet I believe that every one of these citizens would shoulder arms to-morrow if any foreign foe were to attack the coasts of Canada. That is as far as we can expect their loyalty and patriotism to go in this, the first era of their residence in this country.
I have spoken somewhat longer than at the outset I proposed to do; but, in conclusion, I want to say that, in voting, as I propose to do, for the amendment of my right hon. leader, I believe that I am voting not only in the best interests of the great mass of the people of Canada, but for the shortening of that terrible struggle that is costing Canada and the Empire and the Allied Nations so much of their best blood and so much of their wealth. I am voting for this amendment, because I believe that the proposals of the Government are a direct blow at the financial strength of Britain at a time when every fibre of her energy is necessary to prosecute the greatest struggle that the world has ever seen, and, we hope, will ever see-a struggle which in our hope and judgment can have but one result, namely, the vindication of the principles of democracy the world over.


Mr. EUGENE PAQUET (L'Islet) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I heartily congratulate my hon. friend, the member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) on the brilliant address he has just given. I shall endeavour to answer his arguments by examining the impor-, tant question of the budget.	L
The salient fact of the fiscal year of 191213 is the unprecedented business expansion in Canada.
During the fiscal year of 1910-11 our trade amounted to $769,482,000.
During the year 1912-13, for the first time in our history, our trade reached the handsome figure of $1,085,000,000. In every case, the statistics revealed the steady advance of agriculture, industry and commerce; but with the closing months of 1913 Canada and the other civilized countries witnessed the opening of a trying period for industry and trade.
In July 1914, according to the hon. Minister of Finance, a marked change for the better was felt. The most powerful nations suddenly began to make war on one another, with all the murderous resources furnished them by modern science and skill.
As the hon. the leader of the Opposition has remarked:	" This war is a conflict between liberty and despotism." Servia, Russia, France, Belgium and our Mother Country are fighting for the cause of right and justice. Without being constrained to do so and instantly, in an outburst of patriotic solidarity, Canada proffered her food products, her gold, her brave soldiers, who to-day are shedding their blood for the cause of civilization and mankind.
While the Germans have been guilty of atrocities, have committed cruelties never heard of before in the history of civilized nations, ever since the war broke out; while this mighty nation tramples under foot the most solemn treaties, the soldiers of Canada are fighting for the fundamental principles of civilization.
As the hon. member for Laprairie says: " We are only a self-governing colony, and, unlike other nations, we are not forced to fight for the preservation of our sovereignty."
As a young nation acting our part in the Empire, we champion the cause of liberty and of Gallic culture.
The French of Canada are fighting the destroyers of temples, the murderers of the aged, of unarmed and defenceless priests; the foe who violate and mutilate helpless innocence.
German militarism has brought on this frightful war, a war so horrible that it staggers mankind. We must destroy this plague.
As the Archbishop of Montreal has said: "It is the duty of every one of us to give
I England our loyal and generous support." Our people will not fail to do so. The

voice of religion, as well as love of country, urges it. The French Canadians have responded loyally to the call of the flag, realizing their great duty-to guard our dearly-won liberties.
Permit me here to quote the words of the President of the Montreal Board of Trade:
While applauding our soldiers who sacrifice their lives on the battlefields, let us remember that those who stay at home must maintain our economic life, above all must stimulate production in order to more completely satisfy the needs of the war, and to recuperate the more rapidly after the losses and sacrifices which the war will entail.
Throughout the whole world the European war has created an almost unprecedented money crisis. As one of our financiers has remarked, it is fortunate for. Canada that the sound financial methods of our hank directors and the able intervention of the hon. Minister of Finance have safeguarded our best interests.
Our financial institutions, thanks to able, prudent and enlightened management, have escaped economic disaster. While acknowledging the wisdom of our business men, we must also give the Government a fair share of the credit for contributing to this happy result by its prudent administration.
I have been vividly impressed by the admirable "made in Canada" campaign. During the fiscal year of 1912-13, our imports amounted to $675,000,000. We have, therefore, in a single year, sent $675,000,000 to foreign producers. This gives us an idea of the importance of our domestic and interprovincial market. Let us be vigilant in order to benefit still more by this market. It is the blood circulating continually from one member of the country to the other, finding its way to all parts of the body and giving it vitality and growth.
The orders for military supplies have greatly aided in maintaining our industrial concerns, although many of our manufacturers have been seriously affected-by current events.
Let us therefore respond to the noble appeal " Patriotism and Production " by buying goods made in Canada by Canadian workmen.
That expert economist, Mr. Errol Bou-chette, lias been among us an apostle of the industrial idea. He would inscribe on our banners, he would imprint on our hearts these patriotically inspired words: " Let us capture the industrial world." Thanks to the development of this idea and to the application of the national policy, numerous manufacturing establishments have sprung
[Mr. Paquet. 1
up, our natural ressources have been developed and (the labouring classes have found plenty of [DOT]employment, regular work and good wages.
Thanks to national protection, the manufacture of harvesting, binding and mowing machines has reached a marvelous state of perfection. Consequently the Government was enabled, during the last session, to reduce by five per cent the customs duty on binding, harvesting and mowing machines. Thanks also to the national policy of protection, our exports of agricultural products have increased by $50,000,000 during the last fiscal year.
Notwithstanding the customs duties, we import 31,000,000 pounds of meat.
What would happen should these duties be taken off?
The free entry of foodstuffs would affect adversely some 6,285 manufactories which now employ 52,000 hands.
In their efforts to uproot the tree of national protection of industries, members the Opposition are displaying some ingenuity.
Planted in the soil of Canada by Sir John A. Macdonald, the tree of protection-protection to the farmer and to the manufacturer-will weather all storms, all attacks of the Liberal party.
The honourable member for Laprairie and Napierville has severely criticized the administration of the Public Works Department.	/	*
To this I answer: Sawdust wharves and rake-offs on dredging contracts are things of the past. Their day has gone.
In 1908, when the Minister of Marine paid $50 a day to foreigners to audit the accounts of the Department of Marine, the hon. member had not a single word of censure for his friends.


Mr. PROULX (Translation):: Wnat salary does Mr. Bergeron receive?


Eugène Paquet: I do not say that the hon. member for Laprairie-Napier-ville has wilfully misled the House in saying that my friend Mr. Bergeron received a salary of $30 a day, when he is paid only $20.


Edmond Proulx: But he
draws $10 more for living expenses.


Eugène Paquet: Mr. Bergeron is paid only $20 a day salary, the $10 are for expenses.


Edmond Proulx: Then he receives $30 a day.


Eugène Paquet: If you read the Auditor General's report, you will see that Mr. Bergeron is paid $20 a day salary, besides board and lodging, and if the hon. member can prove the contrary I am willing to forfeit my seat.


Edmond Proulx: The Auditor General'3 report shows that Mr. Bergeron receives $30 a day.


Eugène Paquet: Mr. Bergeron is paid only $20 a day and his expenses, and I defy the hon. member to contradict me when I say there is no person anywhere acting as counsel for the Government in the criminal courts who receives less than $20 a day.


Edmond Proulx: They are not paid $10 extra for living expenses.


Eugène Paquet: As Canadians and British subjects, we have to discuss questions so much more important, questions which concern the future of the country, that we cannot spend any more time on these penny-wise-pound-foolish criticisms. I simply quote the report of the Auditor General H-48 1913-14:	Salary of
Mr. Bergeron at the rate of $20 a day.


Edmond Proulx: Give the amount in full. You say nothing about the $10 a day expenses.


Eugène Paquet: The hon.
' gentleman will be entirely free to say anything he pleases when I am through.
Some months before the fall of the Liberal Administration, when the country was suffering from irregularities, misappropriation of public funds, had the hon. member the courage to denounce these abuses? Never. When the books were falsified, when documents were destroyed, the country's resources given away, had the hon. member theoourage to utter a cry of warning? Never.
The hon. member and his friends have only words of censure for those who wanted to learn the truth in the investigation of the most serious charges.
The hon. Minister of Inland Revenue, who wisely denounced such misdeeds, was held up to ridicule, and even threatened with the loss of his portfolio.
My hon. friend from Laprairie has even approved of the throwing-away of 40 millions in the construction of the Transcontinental.
The country, to its honour, realizes its duty to repair the losses caused by this wrongdoing.
Our opponents taunt us with appropriating excessive amounts for public works. A French economist says it is the duty of a government, during a crisis such as this, to disburse among the people, in useful enterprises, as much money as possible, thus enabling workingmen to support their families. The Government is doing its duty in appropriating money for necessary public works, and withal conducting the business of the country with as much caution and system as is shown by our business men in the management of their private affairs. We have no wish to make hard times worse and compel the workman to beg for his bread.
The Federal Government very properly asks the House to vote considerable amounts to assure to Quebec a future worthy of a national seaport.
The construction of a double track between Levis and Chaudiere, the building of the Quebec bridge; of the workshops of S'aint-Malo; of a dry-dock; of a grain elevator; and the works of the Harbour Commission, will be of immense benefit to the country at large.
I cannot thank the Government too much for its strenuous efforts to fully equip our seaports, and particularly the port of Quebec in order to control the western traffic.
The task of creating a New Quebec is accomplished, and the city of Champlain owes to the Conservative government the realization of its dreams and its definite launching on the highway of progress.
A transportation system is necessary for the development of agriculture, of commerce, and of industries. I therefore thank the Government for the opening to traffic of the Transcontinental from Lewis to Moncton. The people of the southeast part of the province of Quebec fully appreciate this important improvement.
According to some politicians, the Government is imposing unjust and misleading taxes, notwithstanding that Hon. Mr. Fielding, Minister of Finance under the Liberal Government, declares that the present Finance Minister seems to have found the best possible solution of a delicate problem.
In 1911, the Conservative party fell heir to most onerous obligations. The hon. Minister of Finance has shown that the Liberal Government would have ruined the country in the space of a generation had it remained in powder.
We have been forced to expend enormous amounts to continue the undertakings begun

under the Liberal regime. The Hon. Minister of Finance has inherited an estate of doubtful value, and is now forced to increase the duties in order to procure sufficient revenue to meet the requirements of the war. Notwithstanding their cleverness, our opponents will never succeed in making the people believe that the new imposts are not war taxes. This war tax is due to the decline in revenue, and this decline is due to the business stagnation caused by the war. The financial muddle created by the old regime was also a contributory factor making a war tax necessary.
The financial crisis of 1913-14, experienced in every civilized country; the burdensome obligations .bequeathed us by the Opposition, and the war-these have made necessary the new taxes. The Liberals declare their readiness to vote any money needed tc prosecute the war, while doing everything in their power to deprive the Government of the sole means at its disposition to procure the necessary funds. Our opponents are aware that the Congress of the United States, a neutral country, has voted 100 millions towards equalizing receipts and expenditure. All civilized countries have enacted special laws to meet the requirements of the situation.
Not only will the increase in the duties be productive of larger revenue, it will stimulate our industries, and ensure employment to our artisans. Thus shall we be in a better position to stamp out militarism.
The Liberals make the unfair statement that the war taxes will bear heavily on the poor, while affecting the rich but little. A close estimate shows that the Bank of Montreal will pay annually $150,000, the Bank of Commerce $135,000, the Imperial Bank $60,000. These figures prove that the greater portion of the new taxes will fall on the shoulders of those of our citizens who are best able to pay them. The Government finds it necessary to impose new taxes to finance our participation with the Allies in the war, a war brought on by the spirit of militarism as opposed to civilization.
Exemptions from tariff increase comprise wheat, flour, mowing machines, rakes, spades and reapers.
It is gratefully realized that our farmers are ready to make sacrifices for the sacred cause, in aid of our soldiers,' of the soldiers of the Empire, and of France and Belgium.
The Conservative Government, in view of the depopulation of the rural districts, the scarcity of labour .and the high cost of living, has devoted its best efforts to agri-
culture in order to bring that industry up to the high standard befitting it in our country. Some years ago the Government granted a bare million to agriculture. The present Administration, realizing the people's needs, expends $4,280,000 for the development of agriculture.
The party now in power has voted ten millions to encourage the teaching of agriculture in the Dominion. In view of the present crisis the Federal Government is concentrating its best efforts stimulating the productive capacity of the soil. Producing larger crops, our farmers will control the home market and be in a position to increase their imports, while aiding the cause of the Mother Country and her noble Allies.
I am inexpressibly grateful to the lion. Minister of Agriculture for appropriating ten millions for the promotion of agricultural education among our farmers, and thus stimulating production to the benefit of the whole Canadian people.
While our troops on the firing-line are winning honour for Canada, we should unite to develop our natural resources, increase our production, seek new markets for our products, and endeavour to capture those markets lost by the enemy, and thus ensure Canada's prosperity. I am proud to serve ray country under the enlightened and far-seeing leadership of the hon. Prime Minister.
The uprightness of the premier, his unquestioned good qualities of heart and mind, his wide knowledge, his respect for our religion, his fair treatment of our race and of our language have deeply impressed the country. Men of my own race, pent up in the narrow prison of political passion, have slandered this friend of French Canadians with a view to lessen his prestige in the interest of the Liberal cause. I have studied the career of this distinguished man, in whose person we may hail the defender of equal rights, the friend of religious toleration and the enemy of exploiters of our race and our religion. I rely on the sense of justice actuating the Bt. Hon. the Prime Minister of Canada. To-day English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians join forces in order to ensure victory to our Mother Country as well as to our ancient motherland. The premier, employing every means at his disposal, will, I am satisfied, succeed in uniting 'all Canadians and removing any friction that may exist regarding languages worthy of being spoken and

taught throughout the length and breadth of Canada.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: While I was listening to the very eloquent address of the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) thoughts were running through my mind of the different nationalities within the bounds of this magnificent Empire to which we belong. My hon. friend, in addressing the House, used the flowing sentences of his native tongue as a descendant of those whose home was -on the beautiful plains and sunny hillsides of France. I who follow him am a descendant of those whose homes were in the rocky hills and glens of Scotland. I find that my hon. friend as a descendant of those who dwell in a foreign country is free to arise in this great court of the people representing a part of our splendid Empire and to address us in the tongue of his own people. It would appear to be a hardship that I, whose ancestors of a thousand years lived upon the Island of Great Britain itself am to speak to you in what was to my forefathers, and is to me, a foreign tongue. My native language is that of Wallace and of Bruce; I am a Gaelic-speaking man. However, I do not make any complaint, but I speak of this matter only as one characteristic of the magnificent Empire in which we live and a proof of the liberties we enjoy. With such use as I am able to make of this foreign language in which I am obliged to speak here, I shall endeavour to make a few observations on the subject before the Chair.
I was not able to follow the hon. member for L'Islet very closely, as I did not understand his arguments so clearly as he does himself, and therefore I cannot deal with his arguments in detail. I fully agree with him in what he says with respect to the policy of the Canadian people in the present war. I fully agree with him also in his denunciation of the German atrocities. I am not so sure that I agree with him in his praises of the financial policy of this Government, nor in his argument that the Royal commissions issued by this Government were fully justified and the money they cost well spent. That is what he said if I followed his argument correctly. Let me remind the hon. member-and I am sure he understands my words very well -that when	he is	dealing	with
these	charges about Royal Commissions he knows, perhaps, but little about the extravagances attendant upon
them. This afternoon I pointed out some extravagances in connection with one commission. I showed that it cost about $128 to pay for one afternoon's service of one gentleman when at most the charge should have been $21 or $22. I was told by no loss an authority than the Minister of Customs that I should not make any such charge, because this gentleman was also engaged in serving subpoenas. Serving subpoenas, forsooth! What is the duty of serving subpoenas, and what is usually paid to those who serve them? In the part of the country from which I come, and where these subpoenas were served, there are constables whose duty it is to serve them. These constables receive the enormous sum of five cents a mile as mileage and 20 cents for each subpoena they serve. In this case, iri which the minister tells us with a flourish of trumpets that subpoenas were served by this commissioner who received about $20 a day, three witnesses were served. Had these subpoenas been served by the constable, he would have received sixty cents for serving the three with a mile for each, say three miles, so that the serving of the three subpoenas would have cost seventy-five cents. And we have a minister of the Crown standing up in this House, and with feigned indignation, striking his desk and saying that I should not find fault with an expenditure of about $108 more than there ought to be because, forsooth, the commissioner must serve subpoenas. And the hon. member for L'lslet is defending conduct of that kind. He says that this is all right; that under this Government we must abandon the machinery for serving papers that exists in the municipalities and must pay a man $15 a day and also pay him for six dinners, six horse-hires, six times whatever his itemized bill may be.


Eugène Paquet: I did not say that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I assure my hon. friend that that is what I understood him to say. However, he understands his words better than I do, and I will not cross swords with him on that subject. I will turn aside from his speech, simply congratulate him on the excellent manner in which he presented his views, and go on to say what I had laid out for myself.
Mr. Speaker, let me first direct your attention and that of the House to the attitude we on this side take towards the question that is uppermost in The mind of every man in this country at the present hour. I myself am getting to that stage
976 '

where I am no longer a young man; most of us in the House are moving up to the meridian of life. We never before had the experience of having our country at war. This is the first time during my life-time when we have had serious difficulties of this kind. And, approaching the question as at present in this House, I think that before I say anything else, it is only fair that I should express my own opinion and the opinions of those of the people I have the honour to represent here, that there is nothing too dear, nothing too big, nothing too difficult for us as a Canadian people to do in support of ourselves and the Empire to which we belong. I wish to put our position as a Canadian people before this House and before the country by quoting a few of the early steps taken by Canada and the British Government at the time the war broke out. These stages are well known to hon. members of the House and to people who are in touch with the literature that comes to us from the Government day by day. But the ordinary man in the country, possibly, has not a clear conception of what was done at that time. I would just like to read a few of these cablegrams to show that the Governor General and tne King were perfectly justified in the opinion they had of the Canadian people; and I believe that our conduct throughout will corroborate the view held, and that they have made no mistake in their conception of the temper of the Canadian people in this war. The first is a cablegram from His Excellency the Governor General to the Secretary of State for the Colonies:
In view of the impending danger of war involving the Empire my advisers are anxiously considering the most effective means of rendering every possible aid and they will welcome any suggestions and advice which imperial, naval and military authorities may deem it expedient to offer. They are confident that a considerable force would he available for service abroad. A question has been mooted respecting the status of any Canadian force serving abroad, as under section sixty-nine of Canadian Militia Act the active militia can only be placed on service beyond Canada for the defence thereof. It has been suggested that regiments might enlist as imperial troops for stated period, Canadian Government undertaking to make all necessary financial provision for their equipment, pay and maintenance. This proposal has not yet been maturely considered here and my advisers would be glad to have views of Imperial Government thereon.
Arthur.
This is signed by His Royal Highness the Governor General of Canada. On August 1, 1914, the Governor General cabled to the

Secretary of State for the Colonies, as follows :
My advisors, whi^e expressing their most earnest hope that a peaceful solution of existing international difficulties may be achieved and their strong desire to co-operate in every possible way for that purpose, wish me to convey to His Majesty's Government the firm assurance that if unhappily, war should ensue, the Canadian people will be united in a common resolve to put forth every effort and to make every sacrifice necessary to ensure the integrity and to maintain the honour of the Empire.
On August 2, 1914, the Secretary of State for the Colonies cabled to the Governor General of Canada ag follows:
With reference to your telegram of the 1st August, His Majesty's Government gratefully welcome the assurance of your government that in the present crisis they may rely on the wholehearted co-operation of the people of Canada.
On August 4, 1914, His Majesty the King, through the Secretary of State for the Colonies, cabled as follows to the Governor General of Canada:
Please communicate to your ministers the following message and publish:	I desire to
express to my people of the overseas dominions with what appreciation and pride I have received the messages from their respective governments during the last few days. These spontaneous assurances of their fullest support recall to me the generous self-sacrificing help given by them in the past to the Mother Country. I shall be strengthened in the discharge of the great responsibilities which rest upon me by the confident belief that in this time of trial my empire will stand united, calm, resolute, trusting in God.
This is signed by His Majesty the King. On August 4, 1914, His Royal Highness the Governor General of Canada cabled to the Secretary of State as follows:
In the name of the Dominion of Canada I humbly thank Your Majesty for your gracious message of approval. Canada stands united from the Pacific to the Atlantic in her determination to uphold the honour and traditions of the Empire.
Thus it is shown clearly and conclusively that His Majesty the King, His Royal Highness the Governor General of Canada were not mistaken in their conception of the attitude of the Canadian people.
I wish to avoid making reference to the taunts of disloyalty that have been thrown across the floor of this House They are unworthy of this Parliament; they are unworthy of the Canadian people. If hon. gentlemen opposite are as strong as they profess to be, and have that confidence in their record which they profess to have, surely, in looking for an excuse to appeal to the people, they can adopt a method more manly and more likely to appeal to the higher motives of the people than that of

carrying chips on their shoulders and raising a hue-and-cry about something which is not really in issue. I submit that when we have furnished all the money and all the men necessary to do our part in securing the triumph of British arms, we shall have done all that can be expected of us. Perhaps I should not say " expected of us," as that would imply that we are a sort of side-issue and that our responsibilities in this matter are merely secondary. We are an important part of one great Empire. As such, we are expected to do our duty by our own country as well as by the great Empire of which we form a* part; therefore, there lays upon us in greater measure the responsibility of carrying out all the purposes which we had in view when we took steps to do our part in bringing this conflict to a successful issue.
We shall come out of this war with a more united Empire 'than we
10 p.m. ever had before; with the different dominions and nations of which it is composed more consolidated and more in sympathy each with the other than ever they were before; with the bonds uniting Canada with the Mother Country stronger and firmer than ever they were before. If any evidence is required to prove that Canada is faithful to her trust in this regard, it may be given in the words of Marshall Ney, who, when he was blamed by Napoleon for unfaithfulness in some of his later battles, said: "We have been faithful; the bones of Frenchmen, scattered from the sands of Egypt to the snows of Russia, prove our fidelity." So we say: We are faithful to t)he Crown; the bones of Canadians scattered from South Africa to the snows of Russia prove the fidelity of our people.
It was pointed out by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) the other evening that there is a clear distinction between the policy of the Government and the manner in which it is proposed to be carried out. We are a.t one with the Government as to the policy of giving every possible support to the Mother Country, but we reserve the right to criticise the manner in which that policy is proposed to be carried out. For precedents in parliamentary matters I presume we are safe in looking to the Mother Country. There is no question as to the desire of both parties in the Imperial House of Commons to do all that can be done to bring the war to a successful conclusion. The following extract from a Canadian 62
newspaper deals with the attitude of the Opposition in the British House of Commons so far as their reception of the Government's policy is concerned:
There seems to be a disposition on the part of the Government at Ottawa, and more particularly its newspaper supporters, to resent any criticism of the policy or administration of the Government, and to regard it as a violation of the truce. This is an unreasonable attitude to assume.
In England although there has been the heartiest and closest co-operation between the parties, the Government does not regard its acts as sacrosanct. In his speech at the opening of Parliament, Mr. Bonar Law, leader of the Opposition, asserted his right to criticise the acts and policy of the Government, and Mr. Asquith promptly acknowledged the right of the Opposition to do so. He said, that " faced as we have been, and faced as we are, with all the responsibilities and cares which are almost unexampled in their complexity, and in their magnitude, we welcome the fullest criticism and we know that we shall receive the cooperation of the House of Commons." That is the only true attitude to take.
That, as I understand it, is the position we are taking in this House. The position of the Opposition here is the same as the position of the Opposition in the Mother Country, and I am sure that the hon. Premier and every other member of the Government and all of their supporters must, if they want to be fair to us on this side of the House, understand our criticism in that way.
Having cleared the ground so far as the position of those I represent and my own position is concerned, I leave myself absolutely free to consider the methods by which the present Minister of Finance expects to gather in the money that is necessary for carrying on the operations of this country in connection with the war. I think the hon. minister has contended that this financial burden is not to be very onerous, that it is not to be felt very much by the people of the country. I wish to quote to him the opinions of some financial papers in England, which he ' will recognize as authorities:
British financial papers are quoted in recent cables as expressing approval of the stamp tax feature of the new Canadian Budget. That is quite natural, for the stamp taxes are a permanent revenue-getting feature in the Old Country. The financial critics, however, are not so complimentary with reference to the increase in the tariff. For instance, the London Economist, which Sir Robert Borden once certified was " the greatest financial journal in the world," says:
"We are strongly of the opinion that this addition to the cost of living in a new country where prices are already very high will cause much hardship and discontent. Many of these taxes are protective, so that the revenue



secured will be much less than the burden imposed upon consumers. But in Canada manufacturing interests are powerful enough to extract advantage even from the embarrassments and difficulties of the nation."
Along the same line the "Investors" Review says: "We think it a pity the people of Canada should be further handicapped by indirect taxation, which is more profitable probably to the trader and manufacturer within the Dominion than to the treasury. Discontent with the tariff is deep enough in the West already. A better way of raising revenue might surely have been found by men of courage."
I take it that these two financial papers are at-least as strong as any other financial authorities of this character in the old land; and most of them have expressed themselves as being against the method taken by the Minister of Finance for raising the necessary money. I have been to-day reading the first speech delivered by the Minister of Finance in this House as a minister. In that speech he said that the credit of the country should be maintained at the highest possible mark, so that if the day ever came when we wanted money or when the revenue fell below what would be expected, we should be in a position to borrow the money and not have to impose heavier taxes on the people. That is the way I understand the speech made by the hon. gentleman on that occasion; but I regret to find that he has departed very strikingly from that position. Referring to the speech that he delivered the other day, I must say for the minister that in its construction, in its language and style, it is a fine piece of machinery, so to speak. The language is excellent; it is concise and well constructed. I must further give credit to the minister for breaking the news of the disastrous condition of the country as well as any man could possibly do it. There is a. story of breaking the news. When Mr. O'Flaherty was sent to break the news to Mrs. Murphy that her husband had been killed, he was to do it in the gentlest way possible, so he went up to the door and said: Is the widow Murphy here? She said: What are you talking about? The widow Murphy is not here, but Mrs. Murphy is here. You're a liar; your husband was killed a moment ago ! That was the gentle way-in which Mr. O'Flaherty broke the news. I must say to my hon. friend that he broke the news very much better, although the situation was not much of an improvement on that of Mrs. Murphy.
I wish to point out some features of the situation that the minister had to present to us. He 'had to inform us that the revenue

\
had fallen off very badly indeed and that the expenditure had gone up by leaps and bounds. But a little later on, on another day, he got very warm, or at least feigned to be very wrathy because he had been told that a beautiful heritage had been handed over to him when he took charge of the affairs of this country. I wish to reassert, notwithstanding any demur on the part of my hon. friend, that we did hand over to him a magnificent legacy, and a ship of state in a first-rate condition, fully equipped and ready for sea; and if any trouble did occur it was on account of the captain and crew that were put aboard when we vacated the ship on the 6th of October, 1911. It may be difficult to understand, but there must be some way of making hon. gentleman understand it, that in l&d6 and for many years before that, when the previous Conservative Government had charge of the affairs of this country, things were exactly as they are to-day. Finances were down at the lowest ebb; unemployment, poverty and a.scontent were rampant throughout the length and breadth of this country.
That was the condition of affairs when our friends took charge in 1896. It is quite unnecessary for me to relate what happened during the sixteen years of the Administration of my right hon. leader. I could not, if I tried, put the position in nearly as good shape as it was put by the present Minister of Finance, upon making his first speech in this House on the 13th March, 1912, when he was fresh from the country, new to his position, Without any prejudices one way or the other, and when he was only presenting to the House a fair statement of the standing of the country, financially and otherwise, as he found it at that time. The duty of an hon. gentleman taking charge of the business of the country, or the duty of a man taking charge of any business, is to take stock of the situation of the business, strike a balance, and see how the matter stands. Between the 6th October and the 13th March the hon. gentleman had plenty of time to look into the financial condition of the country. I have no doubt he looked into it, and, therefore, when he came down to this House on the 13th March, 1912, he was in a fair position to tell us how matters stood.
Let me digress for a moment to say that hon. gentlemen who are now supporting the Government, and who were then members of the Opposition, had been telling us from time to time that we had no surplus, that our finances were not in a healthy condition, and that when they came into power

they would show that we were only throwing dust in the eyes of the people by saying that we had a surplus when such was not really the case, and that proper bookkeeping would show where the country stood. After five months of investigation and preparation by so capable a financier as the Minister of Finance, he came down to this House and presented his Budget. Let me call his attention, and the attention of the country, to the testimony which he gave us in respect to the legacy which had been handed over to him. Coming from him, or coming from any hon. gentleman on that side of the House, I am sure it cannot but have weight with the people. I was sorry to hear him the other day denouncing this legacy and saying that there was nothing in it, that it was a burden to him, and that even upon his gigantic shoulders he could not bear it. Even he, who seems to care nothing for any assistance from anybody else, who cares for nobody on that side of the House but himself, comes now to the conclusion that this heritage was not at all so brilliant, so glowing and so attractive as it at first appeared to him. That is what happens to every man to whom a fortune is given by his parents or some other benefactor; it is not nearly so attractive after it is spent, after it is all gone. Let me give the House the judgment which my hon. friend passed upon the condition of the country the first time he had the opportunity of addressing the House. It will be found in the conclusion of the Budget speech delivered by him to this House on March 13, 1912. He said:
It will, as I have said before, be gratifying to all that the material prosperity with which we have been so highly favoured still continues to be our portion. Despite the serious vicissitudes through which the western wheat crop has passed and the unusual heat experienced in the province of Ontario during the past summer, the field crops of Canada show a bountiful yield and with the high prices prevailing for practically all its products the great basic industry of agriculture continues in a flourishing condition. Almost every department of trade and commerce shows expansion. Our mines are wonderfully productive.	Our coast fisheries, notably the
Atlantic, have enjoyed a good catch and high prices. Our manufacturers are thriving and new industries are springing up throughout the whole Dominion. Railway construction, especially in the West, proceeds apace, preparing a way for settlements in districts not yet opened up and for trade with other markets than we now enjoy. Our increased bank deposits, clearings and circulation, the amount of public and private building evidenced in municipal and business structures, extensions to manufacturing plants and residences m almost every part of the country, all attest 62*
that the general prosperity of Canada at the present time is very great.
Our Dominion continues to be the land of hope and promise to the home seeker. During the last year, as before shown, our immigration from Europe and the United States reached an average of nearly a thousand a day, bringing their capital, their intelligence and their energy to assist in the great task of developing the resources of Canada and building up her nationality. Much has been said in the past with which I am in aocord as to the selection of immigration as far as possible with an eye to the quality and character of our future citizenship. Notwithstanding the large stream of immigration, labour conditions are good and extreme poverty, from any reason other than incapacity or direct misfortune, is hardly known.
Under the favourable conditions which I have described, and with every prospect for their continuance, the future of Canada looks bright indeed. In the enjoyment of peace, plenty and prosperity her energetic, loyal and patriotic people look forward with hope and expectation to an ever great and greater future.
That, Sir, is a description, a beautiful and most glowing description, and certainly a true description, of the conditions in which our friends on the other side found this country on the 6th day of October, 1911. It is sad to relate that it did not take long to produce a condition that makes a very different picture. We have often seen in the yellow-covered almanac a picture illustrating the effect of Kendall's Spavin Cure, showing a horse before using and after using. The dilapidated condition of the horse in the picture before using never was half so bad as the picture of Canada after using the Tory Government for a short time. It has already been observed. that we are plunging headlong into expenditures when we have no money to meet them. But, before going into that, there is something else which I learn from the speech of the Minister of Finance, and I am sure we have all to learn from him in matters of finance. Speaking in all sincerity for myself, I am sure that I can put him up as my Gamaliel for many years to come.	.
He told us when replying to the leader of the Opposition that our railway policy was of the most foolish and abominable kind, and that no people other than fools-he did not use that language-could propose such a policy, because it was ruinous to this country. When the Minister of Finance took charge of the affairs of this country and struck his balance sheet, and investigated the conditions to see how matters stood, it was then, if he had any criticism to make on the great question of railway

construction, that he should have made it. That was the time to make the criticism and to tell the people there was something wrong, and had he done that he would be able to say now that he had informed the people at the very start of his career a? Finance Minister that it would work out badly. It is rather sad to see men on the other side of the House, particularly a distinguished legislator and parliamentarian like the Minister of Finance, tilting at tombstones. It was bad enough to tilt at windmills, but when you go back 10 or 15 years to tilt at tombstones it is very much worse. This question as to whether the Transcontinental railway should or should not have been built is an old question. It is a question which the people of this country have passed judgment upon two or three times, and to resurrect it now is like threshing old straw. The Transcontinental railway was a live issue when first I had the honour to run for this House in 1904, and the people of Canada then gave overwhelming approval to the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his Government in that respect. The road was started and advanced a long way towards completion before the next election in 1906, and while it was somewhat of an issue then, there is no question but that the decision was again overwhelmingly in favour of the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who were primarily responsible for building the road. In the election of 1911 it was not an issue at all; the Conservative party having reached the con-[DOT]clusion that it was absolutely all right, and nobody from the Atlantic to the Pacific had a word to say against building the Transcontinental railway. It was then the fixed policy of the country accepted and endorsed -by the people. That being the case, what is the good of the Minister of Finance or anybody else coming here and tilting at tombstones and telling us that tnis thing never should have been. I would direct the attention of the Minister of Finance to his first Budget speech in 1912 when he was dealing with the finances of the country, and speaking about the Transcontinental railway he said:
Now I come to another matter in which I bespeak the attention of the House as it deals with the Transcontinental railway, or at least the eastern division of that line, and I have thought it well when dealing with the liabilities of the Dominion and our future maturities, to advert briefly to this portion of the Transcontinental which is our chief national undertaking at the present time. The heavy cost of the eastern section of that railway, so greatly in excess of the estimate of the late Government might prove, and X know it has proved

to a certain extent, somewhat disturbing to the House and to the public. Up to the 31st March, 1911, there had been expended in cash upon this undertaking the sum of $95,422,533.44. For the current year it is estimated that the outlay will amount to about $22,500,000, so that at the end of the present fiscal year the Dominion will have expended nearly $118,000,000. Now, in view of this large outlay, and i think probably that at least $100,000,000 additional will be expended before completion, I have thought it advisable in the financial interest of the Dominion to present a statement of capital and special expenditures from 1904 onward, that being the first year of the expenditure on Transcontinental railway account, dividing them into outlays on the railway on the one hand and on the other the capital and special outlays for other purposes. Against these I have set the increase and decrease ot debt for the respective years, and from the statment it will be found that from the year 1904 to the 31st March, 1911, Canada expended $95,422,533.44 on National Transcontinental railway account.
I desire to say, both to those of our own Dominion, and to those in Great Britain, if there be any, who have felt misgivings as to the very large amount of estimated expenditure upon the eastern section of the National Transcontinental and the burden entailed upon the country In consequence that I think it will be reassuring, completely reassuring, to know that, great as the cost has been, and will be, a large proportion of that cost for the past, has been and for the future, (if conditions continue as I believe may very well be expected), will be liquidated from the surpluses of consolidated revenue account and will not become a charge upon the future. I think we are all glad that we are able to make that statement.
That is a statement, Mr. Speaker, which to the ordinary man would appear to show that the Minister of Finance was perfectly satisfied with the financial condition in which he found the country when he took office, and perfectly satisfied with the undertaking of the late Government to build this road. Were the hon. gentleman then of the same frame of mind as now, I would suppose he would have expressed himself to that effect. I submit that the evidence which he gave in his speech at that time is a better class of evidence and more conclusive as to the real conditions of the country at that time, than the evidence he gives now when he finds that things have gone bad, by reason of his mismanagement, and when he is trying to escape from the position in which he finds himself, by saying that the policy of the former Administration was wild and foolish in respect to railways. That sort of statement must receive very little attention when we measure it with the position which the hon. gentleman took when he first became Minister of f inance, and when the condition of the road and the condition of our finances were fully before him.
As to the financial condition of the country, I would say to the Minister of Finance


that in the condition in which he finds the country to-day he ought to touch the poor people as lightly as possible with taxation.
I speak on behalf of the honest yeomanry of that part of the country from which I come-sturdy, firm, hard-working people who are willing to work if there is work for them; coal-miners and steel-makers, fishermen and lumbermen, all ready and willing to work and scorning to look to any one for assistance if the opportunity is given to them to earn an honest living. I am not going to say where the difficulty comes from; all I can say is that, when our Tory friends were in power before, those conditions were abroad in the land. When they were not in charge of the affairs of this country, we had peace and plenty and abundance of every kind. When they came back to power, this locust came back with them. Whether they are to blame for it or not, I do not know; but, as the blind man of old said: " One thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see." All we can say is, that, whereas we had good times without them, with them we have the locust and the pest and the bad times. I would suppose that the hon. gentlemen who have wrought with those difficulties and troubles have made conditions for the poor workingman such that he cannot feed his children, and that he has to cut down his expenditure on their food and clothing and shoes. Hon. gentlemen opposite should try to steer clear of making any further exactions on the people by way of taxation. If there were any way by which this could be done, I would expect that the humane and sometimes good-natured hon. gentleman who is Minister of Finance and who is absolutely responsible for this condition would take that course. Some of us, when we get into difficulties, would be glad to share the responsibility with and to blame other people. It is very natural to put the blame on some one else. If we go back to the first man we believe there was, when he was questioned about his shortcomings, he said: "This woman whom thou gavest me ''-she is the cause of all the trouble. From that day down, it has been natural for human beings to blame some one else. I am glad to find that we have in the Minister of Finance a man who would not only not blame his wife, but would not blame any one else in the world for any pitfalls into which he might stumble. He scduted the idea of consulting the Prime Minister or any other member of the Cabinet. He said: It was I myself, first, last and all the time; and ii there are any mistakes, they are mine,
and if there is any glory, it is mine. That is the position of the minister, and I wish to bring home to his doorstep the fact that he should not place upon the shoulders of the workingman, who in my county gets two or at the most three days' work a week, a tax when he goes to the store on Saturday night with his little earnings to get food and supplies for himself and his family; that he should not stand at the door of that store with his ultimatum: Before you go in, you must give me something ranging from thirty-five to forty per cent of the little money in your pocket, and with the rest you can buy what you like. That is a rather hard and somewhat humiliating position for the good physician, as he calls himself, of this country to be in, under the conditions that prevail at present. If that course could be avoided, it should have been done by the hon. minister.
The Finance Minister says that he will require $100,000,000 to carry on this war. We shall be glad to assist him in getting $100,000,000, or double that amount, if lie so desires. There will be no obstruction or objection on this side of the House. Ii the hon. minister had stopped there and borrowed that money, and was taxing the people only for the interest on it, he would not be obliged, as I said a moment ago, to stand at the shop-door watching those people and taking the money out of their pockets as they enter. All he would have to do would be to impose this stamp tax, this direct taxation, from which he would get more than sufficient to pay the interest on the borrowed money, and to form the nucleus of a pension fund which could be speedily increased when occasion arose. That is all that would be expected of him, and that amount the people would certainly pay. He goes on, however, to gather more money and to levy heavier taxes. The hon. minister tells us this is a war tax. It is more than a war tax; it is a matter of policy, as can be seen from his own speech. This raising of the tax is put forward by him and his Government as a thing that should be done, for the purpose of popularizing themselves in the country. In his speech which he delivered the other day, he said:
We believe the tariff increases which we propose not only will be effectual in producing greater revenue, but will be strongly effectual in stimulating Canadian industries and agriculture and relieving unemployment.
There is the question of policy. When this jaded horse, as I may call the people

ing in purple and fine linen; much more does he eclipse the Babylonian product in other respects. The ancient prodigal had some regard for property and civil rights, and only took the share that fell to him after a proper division of his father's property. Our prodigal of the Borden fibre, scorning such trammels of scrupulosity, would take the whole business. The Babylonian product had also some regard for public opinion, for he carried on his ravages in a far country. Our prodigal had no such compunctions; he carried on his performance in broad daylight and in the market places, absolutely oblivious to the demands and exactions of higher things.' The Babylonian artist fed his swine in a field, undoubtedly at a respectable distance from the haunts of men. Our modern artist gathered his Gadarene herd of political insatiables right around him so that the high court of Parliament is not immune from their incursions. Still more did our distinguished prodigal outstrip and outclass his prototype of Babylonian days in the manner in which he dealt with his father, confiding old Canada. Where does our unfilial spendthrift leave his father? He leaves him absolutely penniless, standing at the corners of places of public resort, such as railways, stations, customs houses, banks and post offices, begging for coppers, his estate squandered to the four winds of Heaven, and the spendthrift son an absolute bankrupt. It now remains to be seen what the end shall be. Our prodigal cannot say, " I will arise and go to my father/' for he left his father penniless and homeless; there is nobody to dance, and no fatted calf to kill. But I have reason to believe that in the very near future the elder brother, as represented in the intelligent Canadian electorate, will find a place for the unpenitent prodigal on the high shelf of political forgetfulness, where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest.


Mr. H. BOULAY (Rimouski) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to discuss any of the statements just made by the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) or of his other charges which have been contradicted again and again by previous speakers on this side of the House. In beginning I must say I do not share the views expressed by the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (M. Lanctot) in his speech of Tuesday last, as regards our cash contribution for carrying on the present war. However, I am proud to see that the French 
Canadians are flocking in by thousands at the call to the colours, and flying to tne aid or not only Belgium, France and England, but of the civilization of the entire world, menaced by that horde of modern barbarians calling themselves Germans, worthy descendants of the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths and even of the Huns, who were in the Middle Ages the scourge of that portion of Europe. But as to our cash contribution, I am dubious whether we are not really doing more than our share, whether we have the means of furnishing so much money, and if the advantages we would gain thereby could recompense us for the enormous sacrifices we are now making, a pecuniary sacrifice which I consider out of all proportion to the resources of our country. We need not only courage and the ambition to serve; we need, at the same time, to be sure we possess the means requisite to that end. It appears to me that the upkeep of our soldiers once they have landed in Europe, should be altogether chargeable to the country we are assisting. , The contribution of blood is more burdensome than that of money, but we are inclined to contribute the former all the more willingly that our sons are willing and proud to sacrifice their lives to defend that civilization so fearfully menaced. However, I am not prepared to say that I will oppose the proposed vote of 100 millions, for the greater the cost the greater the sacrifice appears, and we hope that our ancient motherland of France, as well as our new mother country, England, will be so much the more grateful the more painful the sacrifice will be for us.
We are about to debate a question of great importance to our country from the financial standpoint. During the month of August of last year fifty millions were voted. The public treasury, or Canada as a whole, was drained of millions for the defence of the Empire and of Canada. This sum, enorniT ous in proportion to the financial resources of our country, is in great part already spent, and to-day we are asked to vote double that amount-one hundred millions. We are asked to make another enormous pecuniary sacrifice. We are again ready to do so. We are asked, besides, to make the greatest sacrifice that could be asked of a man-the sacrifice of his blood, of his life, the sacrifice of our brothers and sons for the defence of the Empire and of Canada - We are prepared to make it. By thousands, from one end of Canada to the other, our youth have ralllied to the flag.
Yet while we are asked to make the most

terrible sacrifice, the sacrifice of our life, it is well that we French Canadians should do a little thinking; firstly, as to our reasons for participating in this war of extermination, and secondly, the state of affairs in this country for some years past.
With heroic Belgium sacrificing her national wealth, her children and her monuments, to defend a principle, with France, no less proud and brave, the cradle of our ancestors, with these countries repelling the most uncalled for invasion, with England as nobly and courageously flying to the succor of these two peoples so brutally attacked by the most brutal of nations, we had not a moment to hesitate.
Our duty was clear. We realized this and set to work at once. The sons of Quebec stand shoulder to shoulder on the battle fields of Belgium, on Salisbury Plain and in our Canadian camps, with the soldiers of English nationality. I even venture to say that in the first contingent sent abroad, there are more French Canadians, in proportion to our total population, than there are English Canadians born in Canada.
We are proud and happy to do our duty, but we do it with a certain bitterness of soul, even regretfully and with foreboding. Why? The reason is very plain. It is because in the Canadian confederation we are not treated with the consideration due to us. Our rightful privileges are denied us. In a word, though dwelling beneath the shelter of the British flag, we are certainly not given British fair play. I am here alluding to government employment. Not that I wish my compatriots to seek easy jobs. I would rather see them possess themselves of the soil and remain agriculturists, than to flock into our cities and towns. Nevertheless we must face the situation as it really is, and the complaints reaching me are justified, for our compatriots have not always in the past, and do not to-day receive the fair play to which they are entitled in this regard. British fair play exists, however, but it is one-sided. We are treated with every consideration so long as we permit our rights to be taken away, so long as we are pliant, so long as we are content to take second place, just so long as we are content with the humblest positions. Let the French Canadians stand back. We should be snow-shovellers, mechanics, day-labourers, elevator-men, bowed down by hard work at a small salary-that is what we are fit for. But the most lucrative offices and the greater number of positions are reserved for our English-speaking citizens.
If perchance any may doubt the accuracy of my statements on this subject, let them examine with me the report I am about to quote. This report was prepared under the preceding Administration, an Administration under which our compatriots had a right to expect full and entire justice. But then, just as now, we waited patiently, vainly, hoping from day to day for better things.


Edmond Proulx: The hon.
member should consult this year's report, it is the latest one.


Herménégilde Boulay: I would ask the hon. member to get this report ready and I shall read it with pleasure. In the meantime I will consult the report prepared in 1907. I will not refer to every department, but quote a few only so as to bring the most salient facts before the House.
Taking the office of the High Commissioner in London, it employs five clerks, not one of whom is a French Canadian.
The Department of Justice employs four French Canadians and thirty-eight English.
The Interior Department, twenty-six French Canadians and 217 English.
The Auditor General's Office, one French Canadian and forty-six English.
The Finance Department, one French Canadian and seventy-five English.
The Department of Trade and Commerce, four French Canadians and 41 English.
Customs Department, 147 French Canadians and 1,175 English.
Department of Agriculture, 27 French Canadians and 125 English.
Department of Railways and Canals, 8 French Canadians and 87 English.
Department of Indian Affairs, 16 French Canadians and 161 English Canadians.
The proportion of employees according to nationality is as follows: French Canadians 17.80 per cent; English 82.20 per cent.
According to the latest census up to that time, the census of 1901, the proportion of French Canadians relative to the total population of the country had risen to 30-71 per 100, exclusive of Swiss and Belgians who should have been classed as French, which would have still further increased the above ratio.
The total number of civil servants permanently employed amounting to 5,634, there should be 1,792 French employees instead of the 1,039, which would give the 30 -71 per 100. The number of French Canadian civil servants should therefore be increased by 753. The number of other employees should be reduced to 4,042, which would give

the last year of the Liberal regime, we find that judges1 allowances totaled $151,428, an increase of nearly a hundred thousand dollars in fifteen years. '
I think, then, instead of crying scandal as regards Judge Doherty's allowance, the member for Laprairie while his friends were in power, should have devoted himself to the reduction or even the total abolition of these allowances. But I will not hesitate to say what I think: If we are granting any one useless appropriation, that appropriation is these judges' retiring allowances. In my opinion, a man earning a salary ranging from five to eight thousand a year, for many years, should not find it necessary to end his days as a state pensioner.
The Opposition instead of being scandalized to-day, should have repealed that law *while they had the power, but they have done the very opposite, since they have increased these allowances by one hundred thousand dollars per annum. There is something much more of a real scandal than Judge Doherty's allowance, namely, the case of Judge Clement of British Columbia, which occurred during the Liberal Administration. This gentleman was a Liberal, not a Conservative. He cheated the public treasury out of $4,000, but I have heard no protest from the member for Laprairie.
As to Judge Doherty, if the country considers it has need of his services, I fail to see what scandal there can be in acting as a minister of the Crown while drawing a retiring allow'ance. If he were not a cabinet minister, some one else would be minister in his stead, and would receive a salary, while Judge Doherty would still draw his allowance. The treasury would not save a cent by this, while it loses nothing by having Mr. Doherty in the Cabinet. Were we to recall all the doings of our adversaries while in power, we should reveal many scandals. Something would be said of the famous Arctic expedition, ' of the Transcontinental scandal where sand excavations were charged as loose rock, and paid for at the price of the latter, this being followed by an entire series of transactions so scandalous that the chief engineers on two different occasions had to send in their resignations, finding it impossible to condone such scandals in the construction of this railway. Again, if we wished to bring up the unfortunate incidents at Quebec, which led to the resignation of a certain member of Parliament, it would be edifying indeed.
Such things happen in both parties, and we must not rub it in too hard. Those who

live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Let us now glance at the condition of the Dominion revenue at different periods.
In 1897 the expenditure per head was $7.46 and the revenue $7.36. In 1911, when the Liberals went out of office, the revenue per head was $16.20 and the expenditure $12.18. The Opposition accused us of mismanagement during the last three years. If we follow up the comparison, we see that in 1913 the revenue was $21.74 per head, and the expenses $14.44, or an excess of revenue over expenditure of $7.30, while in 1911 under the Liberal regime the difference was only $4.02.
As it is getting late I shall condense the remarks I have yet to make. On the 16th of February last the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin), made a speech in this House in which he asked for seed grain for the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. I find in the supplementary budget, soon to be voted the sum of $10,401,958.25.
We are told as a reason why we should come to the aid of the West that the land belongs to the Federal Government. Even if this is the case, it seems to me we would have everything to gain in giving up these lands rather than spend millions every year to aid Alberta and Saskatchewan. After all, the West has been built up by the old provinces. We have constructed their railways and canals, we have brought them immigrants by hundreds of thousands, and every year they keep on coming to ask of us millions for public works, for general development, and we vote them millions under the pretext that the Federal Government owns the lands. Besides the same need of aid exists elsewhere than in the western provinces. In my own constituency, I last year forwarded petitions from nearly all the parishes of Rimouski to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, requesting him to come to the aid of the farmers by supplying them with seed wheat, or at the very least, to have the transport charges paid by the Federal Government. This was refused because, it was stated, it was contrary to law.
If there is a county anywhere in the Dominion requiring Government assistance, that county is surely Rimouski, for this reason: It is the northernmost county of the whole province of Quebec. Our farmers have seven months of winter and five of summer. They must battle against a rigorous climate and against a dearth of seed grain. Despite this, they display great courage and firmness. Notwithstanding the unfavourable climate and seasons, prosperous cheese and

butter factories are found in every parish. When I asked that these brave, plucky farmers be given well merited assistance, I was told this would be against the law. It appears to me it would be easy to enact a law, in a few lines, empowering the Government to come to the aid of these courageous people. We give a great deal of assistance to the western farmers, why not aid those of the East who have as much right to assistance?
I beg the Government to consider the situation. If it be necessary to enact a law, this can be done easily. Rimouski is the most northerly of the counties of Quebec province, and is the most disadvantageously situated. I know there are many members of Parliament who have never seen this portion of the province of Quebec in winter, and it must be visited in winter to realize the truth of what I say. Our spring season is two months later, and we have earlier frosts in autumn than in any other part of our country. I give these explanations, because I do not wish any one to think I am asking for something that is not really needed, or that I desire to annoy the Government by my importunity. If Rimouski had a climate like that of the Eastern Townships or of the district of Montreal, I would never make such a request. We would be only too happy to enjoy such a climate. But it is just the opposite.
I wish to be heard in order that the. situation may be thoroughly understood, and I ask my friends to help me. I do not want to bring in a Bill entailing the expenditure of money; this would fail as it is within the competence of the Government alone. But I ask the Government to leave nothing undone to aid the Rimouski agriculturists, who occupy such an inhospitable soil.


William F. Carroll: The hon. member is usually very independent in his statements in this House. On this occasion in his speech, as far as I was able, or rather as I was helped to understand him, he has taken a somewhat peculiar position. He has criticised the Government for doing certain things and for purposing to do other things; but he still says he is obliged, under the circumstances, to support the Government. He takes the stand that the Dominion of Canada or this Parliament should not assist England to any further extent than would come within her means. I take it from that that his idea and contention is that this country and this Parliament should not assist England beyond the revenue or the
surplus of revenue after the ordinary expenditures of the country would be covered. Still he says he is going to vote for the one hundred millions! If that were said by a Liberal member of this House, and the further statement were made that the Canadian contingent, alter leaving our Canadian shores, should be maintained in England and on the continent by English money, you would certainly hear throughout this country the usual cry that we of the Liberal persuasion were disloyal. I am not going to charge the hon. member with any disloyal sentiments. I believe that he is expressing his opinion as to the proper course for Canada to pursue in connection with this war. He criticises the Liberal Government in connection with pensions, but he comes to the rescue of the present Government for adopting the same system of pensions, a very peculiar stand. I presume that some parts of his speech will be for consumption in certain counties in Quebec where the pension schemes are not very well liked, and other parts will be used in other parts of Quebec. I am sorry that I could not follow the hon. gentleman in all his remarks. He belongs to that class in the province of Quebec, who, I understand, are denominated Nationalists. I have no doubt that the hon. member is quite sincere in saying or in thinking that the French Canadian people, owing to the fact that so many of them went to the front to fight the battles of the Empire, are not getting as fair a show in this country as he thinks they should get. I am sorry to think that the hon. gentleman has any such idea as that; but I can hardly think that he believes it. I think that he must, when looking into this question at short range, come to the conclusion that there is no class distinction in Canada so far as Nationalists are concerned, and that the day is past when he can say that his French confreres in this country, either in the Civil Service or anywhere else, are not getting equal justice with other nationalities -English, Scotch, Irish, Belgian or any other. Such sentiments as these should be deprecated; they should not be given utterance in this Chamber; and I can only say that, after all, it is a provincial view to-take in a House of Commons composed of members representing people of very many nationalities. However, as I said, I believe that perhaps the hon. gentleman may be sincere, but it looks to me as if, after all, he was speaking to a certain small section in his own county where perhaps those sentiments may have some effect in

capturing votes at the next general election. I shall not follow him any further in the remarks which he made upon the war and the conditions under which his confreres in Quebec enlisted for active service at the front. To me, a young member of the House perhaps not just as well matured in partisan and political bitterness as some others who have been longer in public life, there has been in this debate one thing very gratifying and very pleasing and encouraging, that is, the evidence that there are times in Canadian public life when the parties on the floor of this House, representing the two great parties in this cpuntry, can see as one on certain great public issues that arise. It is most pleasing to myself to know that in this country there is but one opinion as to what Canada's duty and the duty of the public men of Canada should be during the present crisis-that that duty is to give every dollar available and every willing man available to the service of the Empire, so long as they should be needed, to uphold the dignity and prestige of Great Britain.
On motion of Mr. Carroll the debate was adjourned.
On motion of the Hon. W. T. White, the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
Monday, March 15, 1915.