VANCOUVER TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. NORTHRUP:: A few days ago a report was received from the Railway Committee to the effect that the preamble of Bill No. 55, to incorporate the Vancouver Terminal Railway Company, had not been proved. The Bill had been opposed by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), and the counsel for the city of Vancouver had objected to the word ''Vancouver" being included in the Bill. I understand that an arrangement has been come to under which the promoters agree that the word "Vancouver" shall be excluded from the Bill. In order that the Bill may be referred back to the committee, to be considered upon its merits, I beg to move:
That that portion of the seventh report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines reporting the preamble of Bill No. 55, an Act to incorporate Vancouver Terminal Railway Company, as not

proven, be referred back to the said committee for further consideration.


Mr. STEVENS:: The statement has been made that I entered into an arrangement on behalf of the city of Vancouver whereby it should be agreed that this Bill be referred back to the committee. I wish to state that this is not the case. I made no such arrangement. I was asked if I would move that it be referred back or would agree that this course be taken, but I did not agree either to make the motion or to consent to its being made. I want to make my position in the matter perfectly clfear; I accept no responsibility in that respect.


Mr. LANCASTER:: I suppose it is clearly understood that it is still open to the Railway Committee to reject this Bill if they think it is not a proper Bill; otherwise 1 should ask the House to vote down the motion. There were other objections to the Bill than those mentioned by the hon. gentleman who makes this motion. As Chairman of the Railway Committee, I do not wish to oppose a re-hearing of this Bill if the House thinks it should be referred back to the committee, but I wish it to be understood that if the committee sees fit to reject the Bill it shall not be hampered by this action of the House.


Mr. SPEAKER:: According to the wording of the motion, the matter is left entirely to the judgment of the committee. The motion proposes that the Bill be simply referred back to the committee for further consideration; it is unaccompanied by instructions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	>

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I wish to call the attention of the Government to a statement which appears in the press to-day, namely, that an Order in Council has been passed effecting the transfer of British .ships to persons not qualified for such ownership. Has any such Order in Council been passed?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: My recollection is that there was an Order in Council on the subject, passed in practically the same form as that which has been adopted in Great Britain. Any action taken was so taken in consequence of representations made to us by the Imperial Government, if my memory serves me correctly, as I think it does.


Wilfrid Laurier: All I ask is
that a copy of the Order in Council be brought down, accompanied by a statement of the authority under which it was passed.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.



THE MENACE NEWSPAPER.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. GAUVREAU:: I should like to put
a question to the Postmaster General, if he will be good enough to give me his attention.
(Translation). I find, in a Montreal paper, that the Canadian edition of the Newspaper La Menace is still being circulated through His Majesty's mail, in spite of the promise made to your predecessor, Mr. Pelletier, in the course of February, 1914. Yes, I find that this paper keeps on publishing against an important portion of our people, that is, against the Roman Catholics, such injurious and slanderous tilings, that I would hesitate even to read those nasty articles here, because I consider that this assembly is composed of gentlemen, and that such things should not be read in good company. I have the Na-tionaliste in my hand, and if the hon. Postmaster General will take the trouble to peruse those articles in this paper, he will see that I am not exaggerating in the least, and I am satisfied that there is but one thing to do-he will do it if he likes- it is to stop the paper in question from being circulated through His Majesty's mail, for that paper is a disgrace and a dishonour to journalism in this country.


Hon. T. C. CASGRAIN:: (Translation): I thank the hon. member for having drawn my attention to the fact that the newspaper La Menace is still being circulated through the mail. I thank him also for having pointed out to me the article which he refers to. I shall see to that matter, and he may rest assured that, should La Menace keep on publishing such articles as those which have appeared in the Canadian edition of that paper, its circulation through the mail shall be prohibited.
__ QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
On the Orders of the Day being called:


Mr. PROULX:: I wish to raise a question of privilege. The Ottawa Evening Journal of last Saturday, in an account of the debates of this House, said:
The Chamber was a deserted looking place last evening for a while. Hon. Charles Marcil and Mr. Proulx were in charge of the Opposition and at that they were half asleep on the job.
I wish to deny the imputation that I neglected my parliamentary duties. Instead [DOT] of being half asleep I was fully awake, and if you will consult the Hansard you will see that I was awake enough to interrupt the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) and my hon. friend from Rimouski (Mr. Boulay). I think the correspondent of the Journal should be more truhtful in reporting the proceedings of this House. I can say for the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) that he also was fully awake and that during the speech of the hon. member for Rimouski he took notes. I was sitting beside him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The question raised by
the hon. member is a correction of improper reporting by a newspaper, but not a question of privilege. Of course, the hon. gentleman has a perfect right to deny the incorrect report.



CORRECTION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Customs):: On the 9th inst. I was asked a question as to a carload of potatoes that had been sent to Boston from New Brunswick and had been condemned there. I made the statement that the potatoes condemned ha& been shipped from Boston to Cuba. I got the information from the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. Since then he has told me that the potatoes were not shipped from Boston to Cuba, but that the American authorities, had them destroyed or allowed them to be used in Boston, but directed that no further potatoes were to be shipped from Canada to the United States. I make this correction feeling that' the misstatement which I had inadvertently made might interfere with the trade now carried on between Canada and Cuba. The carload of potatoes did not go from Boston to Cuba, as I stated on the 9th instant.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 69, to incorporate Colonial Bank (Canada).-Sir James Aikins.
Bill No. 70, to incorporate the General Trust Company of Canada, and recommending that the title be changed to an Act to incorporate Alberta Permanent Trust Company.-Mr. Douglas.

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

Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Is Mr. F. X. Roy, of St. Philippe de Ndri employed by the Inland Revenue Department?
2.	If so, from what date, and what are his duties and salary?
3.	Who recommended his appointment?


Mr. BLONDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	October 25, 1912. Preventive officer, at $100 per annum. Food inspector, at $100 per annum.
3.	Mr. L. O. Lavallee, M.P.


THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
Mr. MARCIL:: .
1.	Of how many members is the Federal Civil Service Commission actually composed?
2.	Who are the members of the Federal Civil Seavice Commission?
3.	What is the rank, standing and salary of the Civil Service Commissioners?
4.	Were the two Civil Service Commissioners appointed under the Civil Service Amending Act of 1908?
5.	Does that Act provide for the appointment of a third commissioner?
6.	Does it provide for the appointment of a chairman of the Civil Service Commission?
7.	Has the amending Act of 1912, providing for the appointment of a third commissioner and a chairman of the Civil Service Commission, come into force? If so, on what date?
8.	Has the Government appointed a third member of the Civil Service Commission?
9.	Has the Government appointed a chairman of the Civil Service Commission?
10.	Has the Government appointed Mr. Adam Shortt Chairman of the Civil Service Commission?
11.	If so, on what date and at what salary?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Two.
2.	Adam Shortt and M. G. LaRochelle.
3.	Deputy head, $5,000 per annum.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.
6.	No.
7.	No.
8.	No.
9.	No.
10.	No.
11.	Answered by No. 10.


RICHMOND COUNTY RAILWAYS.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Did the Government order a survey of a line of railway in 1914, from Sydney to Point Tupper, or along any portion of said route?
2.	Was such survey made?
3.	Who were employed in making such survey and what were the wages of each?
4.	What was the total cost of such survey?

5.	Is it tihe intention of the Government to acquire the Cape Breton railway from Point Tupper to St. Peters?
6.	Is it the intention of the Government to build a railway from St. Peters to Sydney and Louisburg?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The name, position, and rate per -month are: J. H. Congdon, reconnaissance engineer, $150; D. J. Bergin, reconnaissance engineer, $150; J. H. MacKenzie, assistant engineer, $150; G. H. Patterson, transit man, $100; G. W. Bradden, leveller, $75; G. E. Dowling, draughtsman, $75; G.
R.	MacGrane, topographer, $60; A. 15. Oulton, assistant draughtsman, $50; M. C. Duplock, assistant draughtsman, $50; B. H. Smith, head chainman, $45; V. H. Car-ruthers, rodman, $45; R. P. Hetherrington, assistant topographer, $30; G. E. Stultz, chainman, $30; B. F. McKinnon, axeman, $30; L. McIntyre, axeman, $35; J. McPherson, axeman, $35; M. McPhee,# axeman, $35; E. G. McCall, cook, $60; N. Pettis, cookee, $35; M. Morrow, teamster, $35; D. McLean, axeman, $35; W. H. Crandall, assistant draughtsman, $50; William McKenzie, axeman, $35; J. McDonald, axeman, $35; McGowan, and Chisholm, team, $90.
4.	$8,064.96.
5 and 6. The matters are under consideration.


DUCK MOUNTAINS TIMBER RESERVE HOMESTEAD ENTRIES.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	What are the names of the men who obtained homestead entries in Duck Mountains Timber Reserve in the province of Manitoba?
2.	What were the dates of the respective entries?


Mr. ROCHE:: SW. I sec. 2, tp. 29, range 28, w. p. m.; N. Starczuk; 2nd lanuary, 1912.	'
SE. I sec. 10, tp. 29, range 28, w. p. m.;
D. Marczuk; 30th January, 1912.
SW. i sec. 10, tp. 29, range 28, w. p. m.; Ivan Korbut; 30th June, 1911.
SE. $ sec. 9, tp. 29, range 28, w. p. m.;
S.	Elaschuk; 27th June, 1911.
SW. i sec. 9, tp. 29, range 28, w. p. m.; W. Elaszazuk; 7th July, 1911.
N.W. I sec. 9, tp. 29, range 28, w. p. m.;
M. Elaszazuk; 3rd January, 1912.
NE. i sec. 24, tp. 29, range 28, w. p. m.;
D. R. McDonell; 6th July, 1911.
NW i sec. 24, tp. 29, range 28, w. p. m.;
A. J. McDonell; 5th August, 1911.
SW. i sec. 28, tp. 29, range 28, w. p. m.;
F. Langen; 20th June, 1907. Part south of river in reserve.

SW. J sec. 27, tp. 29, range 28, w. p. m.; F. Langeli, Jr.; 17th December, 1908. Part south of river in reserve.
SW. i sec. 12, tp. 30, range 29, w. p. m.; Frank Lilley; 1st March, 1912.
SW. i sec. 30, tp. 26, range 24, w. p. m.; Otto P. Eberwin; 21st June, 1900.


J. M. CAREY.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	Has one J. M. Carey applied to the Department of the Interior for the approval of any assignments of half-breed scrip made in his favour by James Sabiston, George Sabiston, senior, George Sabiston, junior, William Sabiston and Colin Sabiston?
2.	If so, have any such assignments been approved by the department in favour of the said J. M. Carey?
3.	If not, why have such assignments not been approved?
4.	Has the said .1. M. Carey located any such scrip ?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1. No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	No.


POPE LEASE ON KNEE HILL CREEK
Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	How many acres of Dominion lands in township 29, range 21, west 4th Meridian, in Alberta are in what is commonly known as the Pope Lease on the Knee Hill Creek?
2.	How many head of stock are the Pope people required to have to hold their lease under the regulations?
3.	Have they got that number?
4.	Have they bought from the Government any of the land formerly under lease? If so, at what price?
5.	Can the Provincial Government enforce collection of taxes on the Dominion lands lease?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	10,004 acres, approximately.
2.	811 head.
3.	Yes, at date of last return.
4.	No.
5.	The collection of taxes is a matter which does not come under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government;


ST. DENIS RURAL MAIL.
Mr. L. J. GAUTHIER:: 1.	What is the list of tenders for rural mail contract No. 2, of the parish of St. Denis, county of St. Hyaeinthe?
2.	What is the price mentioned in each of the
tenders?	*
3.	To whom has the contract been granted?
4.	(a) At what price, and (b) at what date?


Thomas Chase Casgrain: 1 and 2. Joseph Mathieu, $545 per annum; Amedee Plante, $550; Donat Desrosiers, $580; F. Gaudette, $584; William Roy, $590; Louis Desrosiers, $645; Donat Desrosiers, $540. The last mentioned was an offer from 63
Donat Desrosiers to reduce his tender of $580, but it was not received'at the department until the 11th January, 1915, three days after tenders were due and after the lowest regular tender had been accepted,
3.	Joseph Mathieu.
4.	(a) $545 per annum; (b) 8th January, 1915.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAV -PORTNEUP CLAIMS.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	Is the Minister of Railways aware, that there are still claims against the National Transcontinental railway unsettled in the county of Portneuf?
2.	If so. when is it expected that they will be finally settled?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	As soon as they can be investigated.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY -QUEBEC TERMINALS.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department ol Railways or of the Government to build a central station for the National Transcontinental railway at the Champlain Market in Quebec?
2.	If so, what kind will it be, at what cost, and when is it intended to commence the work?


Mr. COCHRANE:: The following information has been furnished by the Chief Engineer of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission:
1.	A stone and brick station is now under construction at Champlain Market. Work was commenced last year. The estimated cost is about $65,000.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


RIGAUD ARSENAL.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	On what date did the Government sell the Rigaud arsenal to the Rigaud Granite Company, Limited, of Montreal?
2.	Has it so far received the price of the transaction, in whole or in part?
3.	Who was the agent of the Rigaud Granite Company, Limited, for securing the sale of that building for the Government?
4.	If the Government has not yet secured the price of this transaction, does it intend to take steps to ascertain the solvency of that company?
5.	Is the Government aware that the said company is reported to he no longer in operation?
6.	Is the Government aware that the town of Rigaud:, >as alleged, used that company for failure to fulfil its obligations?
7.	1s the Government aware that the president ol that company is said to be a German, and is reported to be now at Hamburg?
8.	Who is the person authorized by the Rigaud Granite Company, Limited, to prepare the documents regarding the transaction?


VK VISED EDITION
[Stage Direction]
i COMMONS
Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Order in Conned passed on 28th January; letters patent signed on 16th February, 1915.
2.	No. The matter is now in the hands of the Justice Department, whose agent is instructed to not deliver letters patent until compensation is paid.
3.	Mr. S. A. Richardson, Secretary of the Rigaud Granite Company.
4.	The Government is not interested in the solvency of this company.
5.	6, and 7. No.
8. No information in the department.


WAR SUPPLIES-HORSES.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Were any horses purchased in either Bonaventure, GaspS or Rimouski counties for war purposes?
2.	If so, how many were so purchased from each county, and by whom were the purchases made?


Major Gjeneral HUGHES:: 1.	No record of such.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Where does Mr. Woodworth reside in Pictou county, and what is his business address, who sold horses in Pictou county to tihe Militia Department?


Major General HUGHES:: No information.


Mr. PROULX:: 1.	How many horses were purchased by the Government in the county of Prescott since the 1st August, 1914?
2.	From whom were the horses purchased, and what was the price paid for each?
3.	Who were the purchasing agents?
4.	What sums were sucih purchasing agents paid for their services?


Major General HUGHES:: 1.	No record of such.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


WAR SUPPLIES IN BONAVENTURE, GASPE AND RIMOUSKI.
Mr. MARCIL:: 
Major General HUGHES:: The Department of Militia and Defence has no specific record whence contractors obtained supplies.


QUEBEC FISHERIES.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has any understanding been arrived at with the Quebec Government regarding control of fisheries in the waters of Quebec?

2.	If so, what is tihe nature of the understanding?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Negotiations are proceeding; but up to the moment an arrangement has not been reached.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


BONAVENTURE COUNTY MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Who is the contractor for the mail service between Matapedia and Avignon and L' Tmrnaeulee Conception?
2.	Was the contract awarded after tenders had been called, was the present contractor the lowest tenderer, and what was the figure of his tender?
3.	When was the contract awarded?
4.	What did the service cost under the previous contract?
5.	Is the service the same as under tihe previous contract?
6.	What is the name of each tenderer, and the figure of his tender?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Thomas C. Gallant.
2,	3 and 4. The contract was awarded to Mr. Gallant, who was the lowest tenderer, at $750 per annum, on the 18th July, 1911, and who was advised of the acceptance of his tender. Subsequently, on the 28th July, 1911, this was cancelled on the recommendation of the Hon. Mr. Marcil, who submitted a reduced offer from Joseph Poirier at $725 per annum. The contract was then awarded to Poirier at $725 per annum. In March, 1913, Mr. Gallant submitted the facts of the case to the Postmaster General, who decided to terminate Poirier's contract if Gallant would accept the same price, $725 per annum, which he agreed to do.
5.	Yes.
6.	T.C. Gallant at $750 per annum; Joseph Poirier at $850.
brooks-macnally mail service.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Was the lowest tender accepted for the mail service between Brooks and MaeNally? If not, why not?
2.	Were tenders advertised for the service between Earlstone and MaeNally?
3.	Was the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer?
4.	Have any complaints been made about the weekly service between Earlstone and MaeNally?
Mr. CASGRAIN;
1.	After the tenders were invited, the department was obliged to re-arrange the service and increase the distance on the removal of Winnington Post Office. It was also ascertained that the Bassano and Swift Current section of the Canadian Pacific railway would necessitate a further re-adjustment of all the mail services in the

district. It was decided, therefore, to make a temporary arrangement only, which was done at a rate lower than the lowest tender received.
2.	No. '
3.	On the establishment of this service the department received a very reasonable offer, and as it was under $200 per annum, it was not considered necessary to invite tenders.
4.	No.


WAR SUPPLIES-BICYCLES.
Mr. GEEMAN:: 1.	How many bicycles have been purchased by the Government for the Militia Department since the 1st of August, 1914?
2.	With what extra equipment, if any, have these bicycles been supplied?
3.	Wihat price has been paid for such bicycles''


Major General HUGHES:: 1.	1,220 bicycles purchased.
2.	These bicycles were of special military design, the only extra equipment being rifle clips and lamps.
3.	450 at $62 each complete. 770 at $55 each complete.


RICHELIEU RIVER WHARVES.
Mr. TOBIN:: What was the cost of the wharves at St. Ours, Beloeil, St. Charles, St. Denis and St. Marc; on the Richelieu river?


Mr. EOGEES:: Beloeil wharf, $15,134.10; St. Charles, $7,288.64; St. Denis, $9,043.56; St. Marc, $5,717.; St. Ours, $8,604.


ST. ANTOINE DE RICHELIEU WHARF.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How much has the wharf at St. Antoine de Richelieu, county of Chambly-VerchSre, cost up to the present day?
2.	What was the amount of the probable estimate of that construction?
3.	Who selected the site of that wharf?
4.	How many days of dredging were required to place the wharf at deep water, and how much did it cost?
5.	From whom was the ground for that wharf, as also that for the road leading to it, purchased, and at what price?
6.	(a) Is the Government aware that a much more suitable and less costly place had been selected for the construction of that wharf, namely: Doctor Lapierre's wharf? (b) If so, were any recommendations made in that regard?
7.	Who was the foreman overseeing or superintending the said work, how much did he earn per day, and how much has he so far received?
8.	Is the wharf completed, or is it intended to make any improvements thereon?


Mr. EOGEES:: 1.	$13,089.54.
2.	$8,900, exclusive of site, inspection, shed and dredging.
3.	The site selected was recommended by District Engineer Michaud.
4.	A basin in front of the wharf was dredged out to the channel by the departmental plant between 15th July and 17th September, 1912, at an estimated cost of $5,215.08.
5.	Site was purchased from Mr. Jacques Cartier for the sum of $1,200.
6.	(a)No; (id) three other sites were recommended, but not approved.
7.	Inspector Ignaee Arehamhault, $3 per day and total paid, $786.
8.	The wharf is completed.


PICTOU COUNTY RURAL MAIL.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has a petition been received for a rural mail delivery route from Westville and Alma over Green Hill, in Pictou county?
2,	What action, if any, has been taken by the department in regard to it?


Mr. CASGEAIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The matter is still under inquiry by the Post Office Inspector, whose report is expected at an early date.


PHILIPSBURG-ST. ARMAND STATION MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	What are the names of the tenderers for the mail contract between Philipsburg and St. Armand station?
2.	What is the amount of each original tender?
3.	To whom has the contract been awarded, and at what nrice?


Mr. CASGEAIN:: 1.	Wilfrid Lariviere, Levi, L. Maskell.
2.	Wilfrid Lariviere, at $300 per annum; Levi L. Maskell, at $425 per annum.
3.	Levi L. Maskell, who had been performing the service temporarily from November 22, 1914, offered to reduce his tender to $295 per annum; and the contract was awarded to him at that price.


STANBRIDGE EAST RURAL MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	Who were the tenderers for rural route No. 3, Stanbridge East?
2.	What was the amount of the original tender in each case?
3.	To whom was the contract let, and at what price?


Mr. CASGEAIN:: 1.	Herbert C. Johnston, George C. Bullard, P. E. Khicard.
2.	Herbert C. Johnson, at $500 per annum; George C. Bullard, at $815; P. E. Ehioard at $825.

3.	The tenders were cons'dered too high and t'he inspector was instructed to give the tenderers an opportunity of submitting lower offers. Mr. Johnson reduced his tender to $450 per annum, Mr. Bullard to . $575 per annum, and Mr. Bichard to $500 per annum. The contract was awarded to Mr. Johnson at $450 per annum.


HOMESTEADS AND PRE-EMPTIONS.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	What is the total area of pre-emptions and purchased homesteads disposed of in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	What is the total amount of money which has been received by the Government on account of such homesteads and pre-emptions?
3.	What is the total amount of money still outstanding on account of such homesteads and pre-emptions?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Purchased homesteads, 752,160 acres; pre-emptions, 4,969,120 acres.
2.	Purchased homesteads, $1,427,165; preemptions, $2,088,052.
3.	Purchased homesteads, $829,315; preemptions, $12,819,308.
Note.-The number of acres disposed of under pre-emptions and purchased homesteads for each province and the total amount collected for the two provinces are accurate, but the amount applied to each province as shown above is only given approximately as separate accounts have not been kept for eacli province.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1. What is the total area of homesteads and pre-emptions disposed of in the province of Alberta?	.
2 What is the total amount of money which has been received by the Government an account of such homesteads and pre-emptions?
3.	What is the total amount of money still outstanding on account of such homesteads and pre-emptions?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Purchased homesteads, 293,280 acres; pre-emptions, 2,601,340 acres.
2.	Purchased homesteads, $713,582; preemptions, $1,044,026.
3.	Purchased homesteads, $166,258; preemptions, $6,760,294.

Note.-The number of acres disposed of under pre-emptions and purchased homesteads for each province and the total amount collected for the two provinces are -accurate, but the -amount applied to each province as above is only -given approximately a-s separate accounts have not been kept f-or each province.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	What was the total number of homestead entries in the province of Saskatchewan in each of the years 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913 and 1914?
2.	What was the total number of homestead entries in the province of Alberta in each of the years 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913 and 1914?
3.	What was the total number of homestead entries in the province of Manitoba in each of the years, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913 and 1914?


William Roche: Calendar Saskatchewan. Alberta. Manitoba.
year. 1908	21,004	13,558	35571909	19,354	14,907	2,5261910	26,878	18,013	3,1321911	20,681	14,960	2,9441912	18,425	13,668	3,1331913	14,524	12,122	2,9981914	9,752	10,772	4,252


T. A. ANDERSON. .
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	Has T. A. Anderson been employed by the Department of Immigration at any time during the years 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1915?
2.	Is he still so employed?
3.	What was the date of his appointment, what are his duties, and what is his salary or remuneration ?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1. No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


HAND OFFICE OFFICIALS.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	What are the names of all the officials, whether temporary or permanent, at present attached to the Swift Current land office?
2.	What was the date of the appointment of each of such officials?
3.	What is the salary paid to each, and what are the duties of each?
		MARCH 15, 1915				997


William Roche: 
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 2. What was	the date of the appointment of	
	names of all			each of such officials?		
ther temporary or permanent, at present tached to the Maple Creek land office?			at-	3. What is the salary paid to each, and what are the duties of each?


William Roche: Names.			Date of	Salary.	Duties.
				Appointment.		
C. H. Stockdale . .	Mar. 16, 1912.. .	$1,800	Agent.J. A. Currie . . . .	May 15, 1907...	1,200	3r. asst. .T. W. Clarke.. ..	J'an. 25, 1912...	1,000	Jlerk.G. Lister-Willey. .	1,000	Accountant.L. J. Smith	Mar. 8, 1913...	780	Jlerk.W. J. Howlett. . . .	Apr. 14, 1914...	780	W. Leckie	Apr. 22, 1913. . .	780	U. Isabelle	Mar. 3, 1913...	7S0	H. J. Wade	Feb. 1, 1914.. .	780	W. Goehring. . . .	Mar. 1, 1913...	780	Miss P. Cheeseman	May 26, 1913.. .	660	Stenographer.Miss M. Wills. . .	Vng. 6, 1913. . .	600	"M ss I. Tuhten. . .	Oct. 29, 1913. . .	600	Miss M. Harris . .	600	"T. McMann	300	rnn'or.Wm. Steer	June 12, 1912. . .	1,200	Homestead insp.P. McLaren	Anr. 25, 1912...	1,200	W. S. Jones.. ..	1.260


William Melville Martin: [DOT]	2. What was	the date of	the appointment of1. What are the	officials, whe-	each of such	officials?	ther temporary or permanent, at present tached to the Saskatoon land office?	at-	6. wnat is tne salary paid to each, and what are the duties of each?


William Roche: Names.	Date of Appointment.	Salary.	Duties.M. A. Macinnes	Jan. 10, 1912. . .	$1,S00	Agent.A. S. Newcombe	Jan 1, 1909.. .	1,300	Sr. asst.J. T. Moxon	Mar. 19, 1912...	1,200	AccountantL. C. Paterson	May 17, 1910. . .	1,020	Clerk.F. E. Wager	Jan. 30, 1912. ..	900	W. R. Lowe	
. .	Jan. 12,1912...	900	J. Soucy	Mar. 23, 1911...	900	C. W. Armstrong	June 4, 112...	900	E. J. Koyle	June 5, 1911...	900	W. J. Spencer	Dec. 23,1912...	840	W. Hoy	Oct. 1, 19 3...	780	W. D. McAllister	Oct. 13, 1913. . .	780	Miss P. Winterton	Dec. 23, 1912. . .	660	Miss M. Kilburn	Dec. 24, 1912. . .	660	Miss D. Jaickson	May 28, 1913 . . .	660	Miss Iv. Hanna	660	A. E. Mosses	Feb. 1, 1913 . . .	1,200	Homestead insp.F. M. Collins	Feb. 1, 1912. . .	1,200	J. Balfour	May 25, 1912. . .	1,500	C. E. Barr	1,200	" "


CANADIAN TRANSPORTS.
Mr. MARCIL:: 
Robert Laird Borden: The information asked for is of a confidential character, and I do not think it would be desirable to afford it to the House at this juncture.


SUPPLIES FOR INTERNED ALIENS.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	From whom are the supplies for the Petawawa military camp purchased?
2.	Are tenders asked for before purchasing them, and who are asked to tender?


Major General HUGHES:: Does this refer to the military camp or to the camp for interned aliens?


Edmond Proulx: The camp where alien
prisoners are interned.


Major General HUGHES:: That is not a military camp.
IMr. W. M. Martin.]


Edmond Proulx: Well, it is a military
camp.


Major General HUGHES:: The interned alien camps are under the Justice Department, while the military camps are under the Militia Department.


Edmond Proulx: I beg the minister's pardon; I was under the impression that this was a military camp.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Buchanan: For the total amount already paid by the Government for relief to the settlers in the Medicine Hat constituency; the total amount of the outstanding accounts; the unpaid accounts amongst the merchants of Medicine Hat city, and the name of the merchant in each case?
Sir Wilfrid Laurier:	For a copy of the
claim of Captain Stephen Paul, owner of the steamer Rhoda, for the destruction of his ship, as a wreckage, by the Department of Marine, and of all correspondence with regard to the same.
Mr. Law: For a return showing the itemized disbursements of Ward Fisher, inspector of Fisheries, of Shelburne, N.S., for the year 1912, amounting to $388.40, and the year 1913, amounting to $1,009.84.
Mr. Kay:	For a return showing the names
of the persons who bought the horses which were sold by auction at Valcartier camp, giving the price paid for each horse.
Mr. W. M. Martin : For a copy of all correspondence passing between any department of the Government and any official of the Government, or any other person, with respect to the placing of settlers on homesteads in the Duck Mountains timber reserve, and also of the evidence taken by Inspector Cuttle of the Department of the Interior in an investigation held by the said

inspector with respect to the granting of entries for homesteads on the said timber re serve.
Mr. W. M. Martin:	For a copy of all peti -
tions, correspondence and the documents passing between any department of the Government and any official of the Government, or any other person, concerning the issue of certain halfbreed scrip to James Sabiston, George Sabiston, senior, George Sabiston, Junior, William Sabiston and Colin Sabiston.

[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 12.
Mr. F. F. PARDEE (West Lambton):: It has been intimated that the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be called away from the city very shortly, and that he is anxious to speak in the Budget debate. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) now has the floor. I understand that with your consent, Mr. Speaker, and with the unanimous consent of the House, the Minister of Commerce may now speak, on the understanding that the hon. member for Cape Breton South will follow. We on this side of the House have no objection to such an arrangement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When this request was made to me I looked into the matter very carefully, and I could find no rule and no precedent which would justify this course of procedure. In the circumstances, and at the request of both hon. members, I decided to submit the question to the House for its unanimous consent, with the understanding that this would not be regarded in any sense as a precedent. If it is the unanimous wish of the House, I will assent.


Wilfrid Laurier: I take this extract from an article in the Evening Journal, which my right hon. friend commended:
When the Imperial Parliament met in November, " this," said Premier Asquith, " is not a proper time for dealing with any matter of domestic politics," and the view he thus expressed was taken willingly by both sides.
The article then refers to Mr. Austin Chamberlain's conduct and co-operation with the Government, and maintains that, although Mr. Austin Chamberlain could not approve in principle the financial arrangements made by the Government, he co-operated before these were made, and although he dissented from some of them, he expressed in the House his determination loyally to co-operate for the general purposes of the war. The article goes on to say:
Mr. Bonar Law held as an exception that every member and every newspaper had a right to attack any member of the goverment who might be doing his work inefficiently. And nobody questioned that.
These were the principles laid down and approved by my right hon. friend.
He appealed also to the practice in Great Britain which has been so generously and strikingly exemplified in the last eight months. All questions of domestic policy which had divided the parties on opposite sides and which had been the subject of dispute, have been, both by the Opposition and by the Government, tabooed from Parliament since the opening of the war. Those were very vital and disturbing questions, and they were pursued in some cases with an eagerness and a thoroughness, if not with an animosity, which have seldom been witnessed in the British Parliament. When, however, the war broke out, those domestic questions were laid aside. You do not see John Redmond occupying the platforms of the United Kingdom discussing the question of the Ulsterman and the Nationalist. That question has also been laid aside, and John Redmond has used his activities in going up and down through his native Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom speaking in favour of the enlistment of Irishmen and their co-operation in the war. Another question was the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. That also was fought with great keenness and some acerbity. That has been absolutely laid aside. Nonconformists and Established churchmen have agreed that, while this war is on, that question shall not lead even to 'discussion, and certainly not to estrangement between the parties. Mr. Bonar Law and those who worked with him we [DOT]' -ery

strongly of the opinion that a change was advisable in the fiscal system of Great Britain. That question has been fought for many years. It was still a live question at the beginning of the war, and it divided both parties very clearly and very definitely; but, since the war broke out, that toe has been laid aside, and Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. Austin Chamberlain co-operate most heartily in every effort of the Government, while reserving to themselves the absolute right to criticise the political conduct of the Government so far as it relates to the war and what results from the war. The domestic questions which generally divide people have been laid upon the shelf. They have not been brought down since the 4th day of August, and they are reposing on that shelf now.
At our special session of Parliament, my right hon. friend took that same ground. A Bill was brought down to provide $50,000,000 for the war. We raised a certain amount which was to be contributary to the war fund, and we did it by the old method which lias been followed in Canada since Confederation; we placed certain tariff rates of excise and customs on various articles, and we made some changes in other rates. My right hon. friend acquiesced in our action, and his party with him. Whilst they criticised some of the items and gave some good advice, they did not divide the House; they did not prolong the discussion. We come up to this year. What has happened since last session? Is not the course taken by my right hon. friend -absolutely contrary to that which has been pursued in the British House of Commons; absolutely contrary to the course which he and his party pursued last year on the war vote and on the means of raising the war vote? If my right hon. friend was right last year, is he right this year? If he appealed last year to the practice in the British House of Commons and if he appeals to it this year-by Caesar let him be judged; for he appeals to Caesar-and I do not think the judgment will be lenient to him from that judge, namely, the practice of the British House of Commons.
Therefore, the first point I wish to draw to the attention of my right hon. friend and his party is that they have departed from the ground which they took last year. They have departed from the practice which they last year commended by their lips and by their practice. This year they have adopted a contrary practice. The country will form its own judgment on that action. That is why I said that my right hon friend

-for whatever reasons he made his decision, by whatever pressure or whatever prospect he was induced to make such a decision- hesitated before he made it, and felt a little troubling of his conscience; and therefore his apology, somewhat lengthy, as to why he was going to adopt a different line from that which he had adopted before.
My right hon. friend traced the course of the truce, as it was called, and commended himself for having kept it. It is a truce which was established not by writings, nor as the result of negotiations or conferences, but which arose out of the spirit and wish of the people at large of both political opinions. It has been fairly well kept. My right hon. friend and his party have not appeared on public platforms discussing those domestic questions which divide us. It is true that the little official utterances- official organs shall we call them?-the breathing pores for each party, have been issued as usual; and whilst they have been fairly reasonable, they have served to keep the idea that two parties do yet exist and that they have not coalesced on all points. The newspapers, I think, have fairly exemplified the same spirit; and, up to this present debate at least, the same spirit has characterized the doings as well as the feelings of this House.
Now we have a change. I put it to my right hon. friend: is the question which we have been discussing for the last four of five weeks in this House a question of support of the war and of war measures, or has the main body of this discussion gone back to the times of 1878 and traced the history of discussion from that up to the present, in the old, old domestic issue and quarrel that has been on from 1875, and is still on it seems, as to whether protection or free trade, or reciprocity or any other form of that domestic policy which shall govern our tariff regulations is the best for this country? That is entirely a domestic question; and this amendment on which we are to be called upon to vote is an amendment which affects absolutely and wholly a domestic question, the question of Canada's own tariff.
In the first place, the amendment, which is guarded in its terms, is based upon an artificial definition made by the first speaker on that side in this debate, my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean). It is based upon the division said to exist between war necessaries in the way of votes of Parliament and what may
be called strictly home necessities. The first thing that was done when the basis of the action was laid down was to make an artificial definition-and found an argument upon it-that a certain amount of this money could be designated a war vote, while a certain other portion of it should be designated a vote for home purposes. And hon. gentlemen opposite believe that they would fulfil their whole duty and be consistent with the position taken last year if, having made that artificial definition, they affirmed that they were quite willing to pass everything in connection with that vote, which they define as necessary for war purposes, and quite willing to criticise, and to oppose, and to defeat if possible, the raising of the money, and the methods by which the money was to be obtained, on what they are pleased to call the provisions for home necessities. This amendment states-I am not quoting its exact words, but the amendment itself, the comments upon it by my right hon. friend, and the summary which was given by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) in the presence of his leader, runs about this way:-as to the hundred millions asked for this year, like the fifty millions voted last year, upon that we will raise no discussion, with reference to that we will bring no opposition; we will support the Government so far as that is concerned. As the. debate progressed that ground was widened a little, because it was pointed out by the Minister of Finance (Hon. W. T. White) and by others, that the hundred millions did not cover the whole of even what those hon. gentlemen were willing to admit was war vote, that a certain sum would be necessary to pay the interest of the two war votes, and that another sum would be necessary to provide for pensions. And so, in the course of the discussion, my hon. friends opposite conceded these two points and indicated that there would be no opposi-
4 p.m. tion .so far as the principal war vote, the interest upon the war votes and the provision for pensions were concerned. The assertion was made, and the attempt made to prove it and to support it by argument, that nothing else should be included in the war vote, and that for all outside of that these hon. gentlemen were free to oppose and yet to consider themselves as .supporting the Government in its war measures.
My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) asked .a question, asked it more than once: Why should Canada be

affected in this way by the war ? My hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) ventured the opinion, from the slight analysis he gave of it and after the short ' period he had it under review, that only a small part of the diminution of public revenue was due to the war, and that the larger part of it was due to causes entirely outside the war, and that if there had been no war this would have occurred and would have to be made up. Now, in the discussion of that question it is not necessary to go into details; for I think it is plain to every man who reads and thinks that there is an effect from the war over and above what is required for preparation, equipment and maintenance of soldiers, also over and above what is required for their pensions and to pay the interest on money borrowed in this connection-that there are other consequences, other direct entailments of a war which are felt by Canada as well as by every other country and which contribute in a major way towards the diminution of the revenue and the dislocation of trade, and which consequently act as a damper upon progress >and upon enterprise. Let us answer the question that my hon. friend from Red Deer asked: Why is it that Canada should be so affected by this war? My first answer is, because Canada is an integral part of the world-just as much an integral part of the world, suffering or rejoicing with the rest of the world, as the foot or the hand of a man is part of his body, to suffer or be healthy according as the rest of the organism is normal or the contrary. Never in any period of the world's history has this been so true as it is to-day. As the central forces from the heart course through every part of the body and give vitality to all, just so to-day the central forces of the world percolate, permeate, find their way into the most remote ramifications of the life of every closely-connected portion of the world. To say that Canada would not be profoundly affected by this war except to the extent of the direct financial burden which she imposes upon herself by reason of her participation in it, is to say what I think will not hold for a single moment in the forum of public opinion. I have had a good deal to do with what has been going on in connection with the war, and I confess that I do not fully feel the responsibilities connected with or realize the consequences which are being and will be entailed by its occurrence. With equal truth it may be said that every member of this House, intelligent. thn.1ffht-	.
ful, studious as he may be, has as ypt but looked over the edge of the precipice, as it were; he knows very little about the seething forces that are beyond him, the effect and influences of which are yet to be felt not merely in Canada, but in the whole, wide world. So I say that it is necessary for me, for all of us, to think this matter out item by item and part by part in order that we may be fairly and adequately seized of what is meant by the greatest war in the world's history; by the most unprecedented course of events that the world's historians will ever have attempted to record.
In the first place, when war broke out, capital was affected. The borrowing power of this country abroad was absolutely cut off. Borrowing power in Canada itself was restricted, restrained and diminished, from the highest circle of borrowers down to the smallest unit. In the present constitution of the world; in its vital union; can a thing like that take place without having a tremendous effect upon the business and other relations of all countries? When war broke out, the credits of the world suffered collapse. As borrowing was stopped, so credit ceased. Foreign credits were no longer given; in every country credits from the highest circles down were curtailed and diminished. Any thoughtful man knows what that means.
What happened to securities in that juncture of circumstances? Every security, from the highest to the lowest, dropped in value; hundreds of millions of them became absolutely useless as instruments of credit. So it happened with other instruments of credit as well. As to trade, what happened? Orders involving in the aggregate vast sums of money, which had been placed in other countries with Canadian producers, were at once absolutely and definitely cancelled. The factories were ready, the materials were at hand, but the orders were cancelled. In so far as those orders were concerned, everything came to a standstill at once Moreover, as it became impossible in many instances for people in Canada to obtain money by borrowing and on credit, purchasing power stopped to a considerable extent, so on the part of South America, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and every non-belligerent country in the world purchasing negotiations ceased because of a diminution in the purchasing power of those countries. Did that have no effect upon trade? Men were stocked up with various lines of manufacture and oi production. Markets that were formerly

open to them were closed, some because oi alien belligerency; others because of the results of the war. It is not necessary to labour that argument. To-day there are on the shelves of many producers in this country large stocks of goods; this would not be the case if no war had occurred. The results of the war go still further; they act upon production. If these shelves, instead of being bare of goods, are stocked with them, that means that when the next season comes round the producer is not in a position to replenish his stock. He has nothing to replenish; his old stock is still on his hands, and that condition affects this country and every other country.
What else takes place? Industrial production necessarily lags, slows down and stops, if these other things wdiich I have spoken of take place. That has been the case with production in various lines all through our country. With one exception, all producing interests in Canada have been adversely affected by the war. The exception is the agricultural industry. For a time even that was hit, but, owing to the large demands for food and food products, agriculture is the industry which alone of all the others is not adversely affected; quite the opposite.
In respect of immigration, what have we experienced all through our later history? Hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming into the country. But immigration stopped abruptly when the war broke out. Immigrants contribute to a country not only their brains and their toil, but their money as well. That was stopped too, and so all along the line; these tilings did take place and do take place, because Canada is a part of the great world organism of national and business life. Revenues decreased because imports decreased; imports decreased as a result of the causes to which I have referred. Imports decreased because exports were not going out to support imports; imports decreased and revenues decreased accordingly. It is not necessary for me to present this argument at length to the members of this House. I present it to the people of the country; to a certain extent that is necessary, because the people in the country do not think along the lines that some of those who are in the House and who are more conversant with these matters are wont to do. It seems to me to be perfectly plain that you do not exhaust the replenishment and sustenance that has to he furnished by this House and this country to carry on the war, when you simply give permission to raise revenues to meet the $100,000,000 appropriation, and the interest
upon it, together with the amount required for pensions, which are systematized, to take care of some of the consequences of war.
If my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) were here I would put a question to him. Through his speech, more than through the speech of any other member, there ran the old cry of protection, the bane and the curse, the old domestic question which we were not to touch, but which has been in our home and sitting by our hearth fire ever since the Dominion of Canada had a home and a hearth fire. That old question formed the theme of his speech, and I felt once or twice like getting up and asking him, if he would permit me: Dear sir and kind friend, tell me, in your honest opinion, suppose that instead of protection having been the feature and basis of the 'tariff system of Canada to-day free trade had been the feature and basis of that tariff system, would none of these effects have been visited upon Canada? If you had put up your shield and buckler, revenue tariff, and said to the world and to these deep, far-permeating influences:	Thus far you may
come and no farther; you cannot pass that shield and that buckler. I ask my right hon. friend himself, in the absence of my hon. friend from Red Deer, if he would answer the question: Would we have been void, immune, free from all these secondary consequences of war if you had had your reciprocity with the United States? If you had had what you and your party talked about for so many years, but when you had the power never put into operation, free trade, would we or would we not have been subject to the same far-reaching and powerful influences? Why it only needs to ask that question to answer it, and the answer is that there are times when no nostrum saves. There are times when even protection cannot prevent, and when, free trade is powerless to prohibit. But we do not give up faith in protection because at times it fails, any more than a man gives up faith in having a water system in a city because there will be conflagrations when the best water system will be as powerless as an infant's hand to stay the conflagration. We do not give up our faith in medical science and medical practice because there comes a time with each' of us, or will, when all the science and medical skill possible will not keep the grim reaper from having his harvest. There comes a time when he will not be denied; hut we are not foolish enough

to say that because medical science sometimes fails, therefore there is no good in medical science.
Nn man in this House or this country can find words to express his sense of the responsible and tremendous situation which faces Canada to-day, and which calls not for division of sentiment or effort, but for the sanest, soundest, most co-operating forces within this Dominion to bring it through these tribulations to the safe and. sane ground which we believe lies in the future and upon which she will ultimately take her stand. I am not one of those who think that you can pick out any one particular theory or practice and make it responsible for a situation such as we have to-day. What is that situation? An unprecedented war which could not have been conceived by any one before it broke out and before its conflagration spread, unprecedented in respect not only of the almost demoniac energy with which it is carried out, but with reference to the width and space and scope of its destruction and its influences, a war, as I have said, unprecedented in history, in which we form and take a part. If we had to face nothing else than that it would call for the best we can do and the most we can do; and if this war keeps on for months as many as it had already been progressing and he is a rather daring prophet who will pretend to prophesy that it will have a shorter period, and its intensity grows with its duration-for the war itself and its support and its outcome the best that we can do will be none too much. But we have another situation than that. For that war neither my right hon. friend there nor my right hon. friend here nor the parties that support them are at all answerable. It came, it is difficult to say why-in this brilliant twentieth, Christian century; but it came, and it touched us to the very heart. We did not contribute to its coming, but once it came every man felt that the cause was just and that his duty as a patriot and member of the Empire was to rally to its support and face towards the front.
But there are other features of the situation which are not primarily due to the war. There is a home question and a home situation as well as this other which I have been so inadequately describing. For ttiat Home situation who is bold enough to say that one party or another party is wholly responsible? To that home situation, to a certain extent, both parties may have contributed. But I must hold my opinion, and I must back it up by what I believe to 
be just and true arguments, that for this present home situation the party which is led by my right hon. friend has contributed a mighty big share during the last 15 years, and having contributed that mighty big share during the last 15 years it is not open to them, in the interests of fair play, that they should throw the whole burden upon the party on this side of the House, the Government which, for the time being, happens to have inherited that position and that situation. Rather should their conscience be punctured with a bit of remorse; rather should that incite them to more than common and more than ordinary effort to stand behind the Government, which is a small thing, and the country, which is a much larger thing, in this its great crisis.
Now, what is the home situation? It is an inherited situation, an entailed situation, which the Government has to shoulder whether it wishes to or not. In 1896 our total disbursements were $44,000,000; our net debt $258,000,000. We had a country, such as it was at that time, but I am not going to spend time with reference to that, except to say that at that time we bad one great transcontinental line of railway completed, strong, solvent, and in paying operation. In 1911 our total disbursements had risen to $123,000,000; our debt to $340,000,000; and in 1911, with those disbursements and what had preceded them, and with that debt, the country had three large railway systems. The Canadian Pacific Railway extended from what it had been in 1896, strong, powerful, prosperous, and operative in every part of it, and advantageously operative. But we had more. We had a Grand Trunk Pacific railway which we knew not in 1896-a railway which had cost this country in money out of pocket well up to $200,000,000, besides numerous advances and numerous guarantees, and which in 1911 was handed over to this Government unfinished and which this Government was bound to finish; which up to this date has in most of its line been inoperative; and which, in a large part of its line, is still inoperative; and which, beside its completion and beside the en-tailment of burden which I have mentioned, beside all that, will have to be operated, and for many years operated probably at a very considerable loss.
We have another line of railway, the Canadian Northern railway, which existed in part in 1896, but which in 1911 had assumed the complexion of a transcontinental railway. To that advances were made,

not yet completed through and through, and not yet operated through and through Advances of money, large guarantees, great obligations; and that railway, too, reverted to this present Government, and constitutes a feature of the home situation. We know what these two railways have cost up to the present; we know something of the obligations and the guarantees which surround us on account of them. But not a man in this House 'has got an instrument fine enough to measure what is possible in the not very distant future as to further burdens, further obligations and further expenses with reference to those two roads. And not only is the Dominion involved, but the provinces are entangled and involved; and the question of the facing of a situation and difficulty of this kind by this Government is 'complicated by the fact that, if certain things do take place, not only the Dominion Government will feel the burden deeply, but the provincial governments will feel the burden still more deeply, and to their greater risk, because they are smaller and less adequate in financial means.
We had in 1896 no Hudson Bay railway except in imagination. I am sorry sometimes, when I think of it, that members of Parliament have such vivid imaginations, and I should like, in some cases, that we should try to see farther ahead as to means and results. But it was the opinion of both sides of the House as far back as that, that it was worth a try to build the Hudson Bay railway and to get a fresh route out from the West to the markets of Europe. In 1896 that had involved no obligation. In 1911 it had involved obligations, and that road, with its obligations, initiated and almost unstarted, but certainly altogether uncompleted, was thrown on to the incoming Government, and its burden came along with the other burdens. Great harbour improvements ware projected, outlined, systematized, legislated upon, and work started upon them; and just after their initiation they also came upon this Government with their large amount of unmet liabilities, owing to their initiation just before, and the time and the money necessary to their completion.
So that, without making this a longer story, is the home situation, which we as the present Government are not entirely responsible for, and when I say that no man will cavil at such a statement. I think no man can rightly cavil at the statement that this Government are not in a major degree
responsible for it. But the obligations were entailed upon us, and we have to meet them as well as these others of which I have spoken. Now if there had been no war, if this terrible spectacle at present before us had been held off another decade, although this incoming Government would have felt the burden and the country would have strained under it, it could have carried it through, and carried it through without very great difficulty. There might be a question as to whether the values come or not, but the burden would have been carried through and the country would have borne the burden and come through. Then this war happened, and the moment the tocsin of war sounded these burdens increased their weights by hundreds upon hundreds of per cent. No borrowing was possible; debts had to be paid; obligations had to be met; guarantees had to be protected; and all this thing under the shadow, the malign shadow, of the greatest war of history. That makes the situation still more tremendous- and I do not use too large a word-than it would otherwise have been. Now I put it to the country and to the members of this House that, whilst the Government that comes in has to assume what is entailed by its predecessors, this Government ought to have the fullest sympathy and the fullest co-operation of the hon. gentlemen opposite in staggering along under these home burdens. Let me add to my argument of a little while ago what directly comes out of this presentation which I have made: that, in addition to all the other consequences of the war which made our difficulties great, these responsibilities and obligations thrown on us in conjunction with the war bring the war in consequentially as a. factor, and as a large factor in the solution of the home situation. I think I have said enough to outline my thought in this respect. In the first place I say to my right hon. friend that, as he and all no doubt on both sides of the House recognize, the Government of the day, whatever it is, whatever party it belongs to, is responsible for the duties that fall upon it and that may be thrust upon it. In this way this Government is responsible not only for paying the bills, but responsible as to the best methods to oe taken to raise money with which to pay the bills, and it is going very far when an opposition reaches beyond war criticism and takes up domestic questions and domestic issues, and says: Thus far will we go and no farther; we are with you for the $100,000,000 and for the added interest and

pension funds, but we are against you when you attempt to raise money in any other way and for any other purpose.
Nor are we open to the objection of proposing to raise this -money by methods unused in this country and unauthorized by this country. Theorize as much as you like a-s to your l-and tax and your income tax or any other form of direct tax; but we have had theorizing -since 1867, and yet no theory has to any -extent overborne the practical conclusion come to by the people of Canada and asserted for 47 years, that they have thought that the best way to raise revenue is through the customs and excise. My hon. friends opposite may now challenge that iand say there is a better way. It is the challenge of theory, that is all; it is the -challenge of the objector who is not in -a responsible position to put his theory into practice. Consequently, it stems to me it is not right to urge that theory beyond the proper line, which is the line of advice or the line of -suggestion. But when the Opposition goes against the experience and the authorized practice of the country, and the upheld practice in general election after general election in the Dominion of Canada, that we will raise our revenue by customs and excise, it is doing just what it would do in any general election if it took that theory and endeavoured to persuade the people that this was better than the practice of the past.
I do no-t think, however plausible the theory, that it ought to be pressed beyond a certain point. I think when it comes to the final analysis, that if gentlemen opposite think that -more money is- needed, they ought not to press their objection to that money being voted, .simply because they say they do not approve of the method by which it is to be collected. . To these gentlemen opposite I say: you approved of that method during all your political history in the past, and you never in this House, ot in the press, in addresses -to the electors, advocated any other;.you bowed before the inevitable, and that* inevitable was the will of the sovereign people of Canada expressed many a time.
Then, it all resolves itself into this: the Opposition of this country, not shouldering the same responsibility that the Government does, not to be held responsible for measures and for funds, are able to say at any time to the people: There are the men you chose to rule you and to carry on the operations of Government; they did thus and so, and they alone have the responsibility. You of the Opposition have the right to say that, and you can spv it Then [Sir G. E. Foster.)
is it not somewhat of a responsibility to press the battle to the gates and to declare that though the Government, faced witn the responsibility, say they need more money they shall not have it, or, that you gentlemen of the Opposition should say: we would not mind giving to you the money provided you raise it in a uifferent way, and in a way different from that in which it has ever before been raised in this country. All I am pressing for is, that there is a certain point beyond which the Opposition in the House of Commons of Great Britain never yet have gone, and never, to my mind, will go. They will hold the Government responsible; their theories may be different and their views may be diverse, but they say to the Government: we put these views before you, we ask you to look into them, there are our suggestions, that is our advice, but it is your responsibility and if you say that so much money is required, to fight out this war, and if after considering it carefully you say we must raise it in this way, which we think best, then as takes place in Great Britain and any great deliberate body, the Opposition would say to the Government: You can have the money and for your course you take the responsibility.
My right hon. friend will go back on this practice and he will say: I am not objecting to your rasing the money you want if it absolutely necessary, but my point is that it is not necessary, and that you can get along with economy and retrenchment. And I said to myself as I sat in my seat and listened to that beautiful plea by the right hon. leader of the Opposition: "economy and retrenchment," where have I heard these words before? Out of whose lips have they fallen, from whose silver tongue have they flown into the airy spaces of this House and into the wider spaces of the hustings? And behold I had the same personage in view, the same eloquent lips, the same silver tongue. And I remembered the years, and years, and years when the Liberals were in the cool shades of Opposition and longing for the firesides and warm places of office, the cry was economy and retrenchment, economy and retrenchment. And I could not help but remember my experience in 1896, when hon. gentlemen opposite got into power, that not a single one-thousandth part of a second was allowed to pass before th-at motto of economy and retrenchment was laid away on the shelf, swaddled in grave clothes, never to be unwrapped until there came a political harsh wind in 1911, and then it was brought out and unwrapped and

again set up in the market places. And I said to myself as a reasoning being, what is the conclusion I make from that? Why the conclusion was driven home upon me, as upon on all those who listen to me, and as upon the people of the country, that the advocacy of economy and retrenchment by my right hon. friend now has just as much substance in it and no more than it had from 1880 to 1896.
Some one on the opposite side of the House has said that he hates extravagance. For myself I say, if it is worth anything, that I dislike extravagance in the individual even though he is using his own money, because in some way or other it is borne upon me that after all no man's money is absolutely his own to be spent absolutely as he wishes to spend it. I think there is something in the community of interest which points to a man, even in his private expenditure, having regard to something more than even his own wishes and his own desires.
1 am not pressing that; but, when you come to talk of the disposal of a country's money I am absolutely certain that I hate and deplore extravagance; Ix believe it is prejudicial to the best interests of this or of any other country. I cannot help but believe that. What took place? For fifteen years these gentlemen were in power-fifteen years of the most lavish expenditure such as this country never witnessed before. Nobody will dissent from that statement.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Nor since.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I am glad to have the authority of my hon. friend that, from Confederation up to 1911, the extravagant and lavish expenditure of those fifteen years was never equalled, certainly never excelled, in any former period of our nation's history.


George Perry Graham: "Former" is all right.


George Eulas Foster: That is, I have the assent of my hon. friend to the statement that they were lavishly extravagant.


George Perry Graham: From 1911 on.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend
the member for Red Deer (mr. Michael Clark) said that he hated extravagance and that he did not uphold everything that had been done during the Liberal regime; but he said: "The Minister of Finance has put our extravagance to the blush. We were extravagant, but they have been lavishly extravagant."


Edmond Proulx: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: I am glad to
have the assent of my hon. friend. This is the point that I wish to draw to the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite, especially of my hon. friend the member for Red Deer. My hon. friend said: " The Minister of Finance talks about his three-year surpluses. Who made those surpluses for him? They were made by Laurier."


Edmond Proulx: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: I am glad to have the assent of my hon. friend to that. That is exactly the approval I would like to have from my hon. friend the member for Red Deer if he were here, because my hon. friend started out to prove the hypothesis that protection was the sworn enemy of revenue. Yet protection, carried on for fifteen years by the hon. gentlemen opposite, not only supplied them lavishly with money to spend, but actually continued the process for three years thereafter on accelerated motion.
I was going on to develop the idea that, in this home situation which we have before us, there is a responsibility upon the members of the Opposition as well as upon the Government, and that the home situation, as we have outlined it, is one of the really hard situations with which we have to contend at the present time. Do hon. gentlemen really believe that, if they give us the vote of $100,000,000 and the interest money, say $6,000,000 or $7,000,000, and the pension money, say $3,000,000 or $4,000,000, that is all they should vote us, on the ground that that is all that is required to sustain the burden of the war? There are two or three indications which made me think that some of my hon. friends at least would not go so far as that. If they were going so far, why did the hon. member for Red Deer spend a portion of his time in arguing for a land tax and for an income tax, and why did the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. MacNutt) and some other hon. members do the same? Why should they argue in favour of a land tax or an income tax if sufficient provision were made now for the $100,000,000 and for these two other items of which I have spoken? I am bound to believe that those gentlemen really do not believe that this sum of money is sufficient to prosecute the war and to sustain the burden of its consequences. They object on the ground that economy and retrenchment would give a way out. What is the chasm between the proposed expenditures, brought down to their lowest figures, or as low as the Government has found it safe to bring them, and the revenue relooa

quired, and how can it be reduced? $130,000,000 of revenue for this year, $60,000,000 of hiatus or deficiency between that revenue and the expenditure required for home purposes. Next year $120,000,000 of revenue, and $80,000,000 of a deficit between that and the estimated expenditure. Can we by retrenchment and economy fill that void? I invite my hon. friends just to go [DOT] over the various services. My right hon. friend said: " I am not in favour of closing out all these public expenditures." The railways must be carried on, granted- canals must be carried on-granted. The post office must be carried on. Public works to a certain extent must be carried on. The whole appropriation for public works is $22,000,000. Harbours and river service must be carried on. The requirements of trade and commerce must be met. It would be foolish at this particular juncture, in order to fill the void, to stop the work and effort of the Department of Trade and Commerce to provide markets and to sustain the distribution of the country. So in all tire great spending and administrative departments, it will puzzle hon. gentlemen opposite to make any great cuts from those I have mentioned, and still maintain the efficiency of the service. It is just as important to keep a home-base strong and intact as it is to look out for your base which is nearer to the front. When you come to public works, with an estimate of $22,000,000, cut it in two, and yet you have only $11,000,000 to your saving. Make the greatest diminution you safely can in the expenditure of all the other departments, and it will puzzle you to produce an economy of $30,000,000 and still do your duty by the public administration and services of the country. Do that and yet you have a deficit of $30,000,000 to be made up. I hold-and I think hon. gentlemen who look at the matter dispassionately, and the country as a rule will be disposed to stand by my suggestion-that it is not proper at a time like this for a government to leave home services neglected; to leave itself without a fair margin of funds for current and special and unforeseen expenditures which may come as this war progresses.
No one knows, arguing from to-day, what may be the situation to-morrow;.and I think the Minister of Finance was down to the lowest limit when he tried to make provision for $30,000,000 towards that deficit of $60,000,000 this year and that deficit of $80,000,000 next year. Put in all the retrenchments, economy and saving possible, and yet I think it would be unwise and un-
LSir G. E. Foster.]
safe to face the year without at least that provision.
So far in my address I have tried to make two points: first, that the war expenditure is immeasurably more than what is provided for in the one hundred millions; secondly, that the home situation is so tense, so responsible, so burdensome, that it would be recklessness rather than wisdom to face it without a shot in the locker, without a provision-not adequate may be, but somewhat near adequate-to meet the situation as it faces us and will face us during the currency of next year.
Hon. gentlemen opposite say that they are opposed to raising this by tariff tax, for two reasons. One reason is that it will not produce any appreciable amount of revenue. Let us discuss that for a" single moment, we are imposing 7j per cent upon all dutiable and free goods from the world generally, and 5 per cent on all dutiable and free goods under the British preference. From Great Britain we imported last year $132,000,000 of goods, of which about $30,000,000 was free goods. From the United States we imported $249,000,000 of dutiable goods and $146,000,000 of free goods. From the whole world we brought in $208,000,000 of free goods. Now, free goods are chiefly those that are not produced in Canada and cannot be got in Canada. Under a protective tariff the rule is to put some measure of protection on what can be produced in the country. So, you have $208,000,000 worth of free goods brought in last year; and on whatever proportion of this is brought in during the next year you will gather 7i per cent or 5 per cent. That goes directly and absolutely into the Treasury. It is wholly outside of the argument to say that it will raise the price inside the country of that class of goods, because we do not produce that class of goods in Canada. Now, does any man tell me to-day that a very large proportion of our imports of free
5 p.m. goods of last year will not be brought in during the coming year? The duties on whatever goods do come in will be revenue absolute and will be lodged at once in the Treasury.
Then you have $410,000,000 of dutiable goods upon which 7i per cent and 5 per cent will be collected. Now, that is open to the favourite argument of hon. gentlemen opposite that if you put that extra duty on these goods it will raise the price of goods of that class made in this country to that level, and consequently the country will pay much more than the country gets in revenue. I do not subscribe to that argu-

ment; I do not believe it is demonstrable.
I believe that in some cases it has that effect; in some cases it has not; and in others it has a modifying influence-it is partly so and partly not so. But let me take this into account-and I think it is an item of some worth in this discussion: to-day the manufacturers of this country are hungry for business. They are not fully employed. Many of the workmen are idle. There will be the keenest kind of competition between the manufacturers of this country, because the capacity is there to supply much more than is likely to be demanded, and I think that would have its moderating, levelling influence.
Now, how are you raising these taxes? As I have said, by the old, the constitutional, the affirmed method, affirmed since the Confederation of Canada. I think it is idle to say that these taxes will not result in a very considerable addition to the revenue, and I think the claim that they are oppressive must he greatly modified. I think that my hon. friends opposite, in taking this opportunity to cavil at all the imposts that are put upon the country in war times, are catering to the creation of a feeling in this country that we can carry on war and save the Empire and the country and not have to pay anything for it. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) congratulated the Minister of Finance on his happy disposal of the war fund. Why, he said, you are right in luck; you are in green pastures; all you had to do was to go to the British Government, and they said: we will lend that to you and you can pay the interest on it. Very good, so far as that goes. But what country in the world to-day-with one exception-is bending under the titanic burden of the provision of finance for this war las Great Britain is bending under it? If it were not that the situation is just as it is, if we had it in our power to raise that $100,000,000 without asking Great Britain to lend it, we should raise it ourselves and pay our quota. But it appears that at the present juncture it is beyond our power to do this. Very well; we accept that financial arrangement and are grateful for it, and we will pay the interest and ultimately pay the principal. But for all these subsidiary and consequential demands, for heaven's sake let us pay up with a cheerful countenance.
But the point is made that these duties put obstacles in the way of trade. Yes, I suppose it is true that every tariff impost, looked at in a certain light, is an obstacle 64	REVISE
to trade. If you had no tariff duty anywhere, trade would flow free of the imposition of taxes. But the world's experience from the earliest days down to the present time is that even though they be in a sense an obstacle to trade, national policies and the best interests of nations are conserved by employing customs taxes for the raising of revenue-and trade haS to take its chances with those obstacles. But what is this new-born virtue against obstacles to trade on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite? They placed obstacles to trade in every tariff they made and in every tariff they supported; if they were put in office to-morrow they would place obstacles to trade again. But these alleged obstacles to trade are simply fractional additions to the obstacles which were put there at one time by hon. gentlemen opposite, and which have not been changed by us from that time until the present hour. So that it is a specious argument to contend that we must not pass this proposed legislation because it is putting an obstacle in the way of trade. Seven and a half per cent and five per cent are a small percentage of tax; therefore they will not be prohibitive. But if a burden is involved, it is there because we are at war and because we must take up cheerfully the payment of a certain proportion, at least in capital, of the financial burden which the war is imposing upon the Empire.
But hon. gentlemen opposite have another objection. They say that at a time when Britain is engaged in such an unparalleled struggle as that which is now taking place, it is not the part of Canada to impose further disadvantages upon British trade. One hon. gentleman-I think it was my right hon. friend-went so far as to say that this phase of the proposal was somewhat after the German conception; that Germany, with her submarines, would destroy what she could of Britain's trade and that Canada would tax the remainder. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to think that preference is only another name for free trade. Preference is only possible with a protective system. It never was meant to be free trade; it is not now meant to be free trade, and it is not understood in Britain as meaning it is not understood in Britain as meaning free trade. It is simply this: that in the competition amongst the nations of the world for the trade of Canada, Canada gives a degree of preference to Britain which gives Britain an advantage in her bargaining over other com-


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
petitors. What quarrel have my hon. friends with this disposition of the tariff 11 §208,000,000 of formerly free goods are to be taxed 7i and 5 per cent. Up to this moment the British provider of these goods was on an absolute level and equality with the foreign provider of similar goods; under this arrangement, in respect of that $208,000,000 worth of supplies, the British provider gets an added 2j per cent advantage over the foreign competitor. That is, although there has been an addition to the general rate, the result is that British trade gets by 2 1-2 per cent preference an advantage in scope and efficiency that it never had before. I have no fear at all that the Canadian public or the public outside of Canada will misapprehend the provision that has been made in that respect.
My right hon. friend was lauded as being the father of the preference idea. But he was not the actual father of it. Up to 1896-7 my right hon. friend was a free trader, and he could not be the father of preference through free trade. My right hen. friend had to come into office, forego the principles which he had preached for 17 years and institute a protective system -iand even then he was not the real father of preference. What was really done was this: a Bill was brought in under which preferential arrangements, or reciprocal arrangements, whatever you wish to call them, could be made; but they were mak-able with every nation under the sun; Great Britain was only one of the nations that might come in. I remember that when we argued that under this arrangement Great Britain and her dominions would have no advantage over foreign competitors for our trade, we were met with the reply: *there is no pent-up Utica about us; our powers are not confined; our hope is not narrowed; we are in for a world reciprocity, a world preference. Great Britain will come in, of course, but so may 20, 30, 40 other nations, if they can comply with these conditions-and a great many of them could. My right hon. friend was the father of preference by compulsion,' because when that Bill was made law he was face to face with the most-favoured-nation treaty obligations. The law lords of Great Britain informed him that there was but one way out of the difficulty. They said: take back all your reciprocity arrangements or name Great Britain specifically and leave out all the others. That was the compulsion which brought about this preference, of which my right hon. friend claims to be the father.
I wish to take up two or three of the
[Sir G. E. Foster Z
arguments advanced by my hon. friend the member for Bed Deer (Mr. Michael Clark). I am sorry that he is not present; he is a good antagonist. I listen to him with great pleasure, iand I like him to listen to my strictures; but he will read them. If my hon. friend has one failing it is that he is a little bit crazy on protection and free trade-just a little bit; sanely crazy, if you wish me to put an adjective before it. After his speech had been delivered I was walking out of the House and a gentleman who was with me said: " I liked Clark's speech, particularly one part of it." I said: " What was that?" " Why," he said, " it was that part of his speech in which he pleaded that bygones should be bygones; that we have enough questions of the present to take up our time, and that we should not waste our time in travelling the weary reaches of the past." " Well," I said, " that is an admirable sentiment; but if there is one man in the House of Commons who, however much he may commend to us the virtue of not going back to the past, longs fox it, runs in it, keeps going back to if again and again, year after year, it is my hon. friend the member for Bed Deer." He would very much like that the past should be forgotten, so far as he is concerned, in these economic' matters. I was so much mystified the other night when these two gentlemen commenced to talk economics, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance on this side and my hon. friend from Bed Deer on the other, and I got into such a perfect haze about it that I felt almost like rising and saying: a plague on both your houses; leave your economics, and just give us plain English common-sense. The hon. member for Bed Deer is great on economics, but he falls asleep at times. He wanted us to forget the past, but he himself took the old road from 1878 up to 1896, and traced protection in its deadly course by the trail that the serpent left, until he came to the year 1896. Then he lost the trail. After fifteen years he got his breath, made a run, and caught up to the serpent and its trail in 1911, and he traced it along by its trail until this present hour. Oh, yes, my hon. friend forgot a portion of the past then, and he would like us to forget that past. What he could have done was to keep straight on the trail of that serpent from the time his Government got into power until it left, because it was a protectionist Government. Both the serpent and the trail were easy to see by a man who wished to see them. But he felt a little of that possibility, and interjected a

saving -clause, which was this, that in 1897 the Laurier Government added 150 articles to the free list. Of course. With free trade you could not add to the free list. In order to be able to add to the free list you must have protection, and it has been the essence of protection from its inception up to the present time that all raw materials that are necessary for the manufacturing of products and which cannot be raised rightly in a country, shall come in free, and so the free list has grown and grown and grown, and as long as protection exists there will be a free list. Why do we not have it now under the new tariff? Because this is a war tax.
My hon. friend also took this thesis: protection is a failure as a revenue raiser. A failure as a revenue raiser? What are the facts of the case? A few minutes afterwards the hon. member for Red neer got after the Minister of Finance by telling him: You did not raise those three-year surpluses you have been talking about; they were raised by the Laurier Government. How did the Laurier Government raise all the surpluses they had and these three surpluses that they sent on, on an inclined plane, down to my friend the Minister of Finance? By free trade? By reciprocity? By revenue tariff? By land tax? By income tax? Not a bit of it, they raised them by good, old-fashioned protection. So that his own delineation of the rapid rise of the revenues of Canada, with the immense surplus that they had, is an absolute reply to his contention that protection has failed as a revenue producer.
He also says that protection has failed as an industry builder. Has it failed as an industry builder? Let me take one decade under their own administration. In 1901 there was $446,000,000 of capital invested in industries of this country; in 1911, $1,247,-000,000. In 1901 the output of Our industries was $481,000,000; in 1911 the output was $1,165,000,000. The wages in 1901 were $113,000,000; the wages in 1911 were $241,000,000. The employees at the first date were 339,000; the employees at the second date were 515,000. These aTe figures from their own census, conducted by themselves, and they do not go.to prove the assertion of the hon. member for Red Deer that protection has failed as an industry builder, nor does the common observation of the people of this country. Go to our exhibitions, walk through them, go through our country, walk in its factories, look into its multiplied and varied business, and it is a revelation to a man who has not paid special attention to it to see the excellence, 64 i
the diversity, the scope and the volume of the industrial building in this country-industrial building under a protective tariff.
But the hon. gentleman goes on to say that protection is a failure as a trade-producer-it does not produce trade; it is the sworn foe to foreign trade. Take Canada itself. We have boasted, and boasted with pardonable pride, of the immense expansion of the trade of the country within the last twenty years, all under a protective tariff. But if you want other testimony let us have it. Here, for instance, is Germany, if you will allow me to take an example from her polity. In 1872 she exported $551,000,000; in 1880, $685,000,000; in 1913, $2,402,000,000. That is the expansion of foreign commerce that Germany had, and Germany was protective to the hilt. You take the United States, Ip 1870 her exports were $376,000,000; but- in 1913 they were $2,428,000,000. The Uited States was and is a protective country and that is the history of its foreign commerce. You take Canada itself. In 1870 her exports were $59,000,000 and in 1913 $355,000,000-all under a protective tariff. Let me take the statistics with reference to manufacturers as an argument in support of my former assertion. The manufactured goods which in 1870 were exported from the United States were $70,000,000; the manufactured goods which were exported from the United States in 1913, were $1,185,000,000. Take Canada. She exported in 1870, of manufactured goods, $2,560,000; she exported in 1913, of manufactured goods, $43,692,000. This does not seem to support my hon. friend in his contention that a protective system is not a producer of trade and is the sworn foe to foreign commerce.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: What are the figures for Great Britain?


George Eulas Foster: I am making an argument with reference to the argument made by the hon. member for Red Deer that protection is the sworn foe to trade and foreign commerce; that is all I am now doing.
But the most singular statement made by the hon. member for Red Deer was that protection is a failure as a fleet builder; that is, protective states do not build fleets. Well, the second largest fleet in the world, on the 1st of August last, was the German fleet, absolutely built under the late years of Germany's protective policy. The next largest fleet, and now, probably, the second fleet in the world, is that of the United States, built by a protected country from funds which were gathered in a pro

tected country. Australia has built a small fleet, which only a few days ago covered itself with glory. Australia is a protected country, too. In fact, if you take the countries of the whole world, the exceptions to big fleets are found in China, in Turkey, in Holland, in Belgium-countries that are free trade or so near to free trade that they cannot be classed among protected countries. This is just a sample of the strange doctrines enunciated by the hon. member for Red Deer, and I thought it was well that they should be 'brought to the public gaze and counter facts placed against them.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I have kept this House longer than I had expected, and quite too long. I have not finished up with any perfectness some of the arguments I have advanced. I leave, as I know I can well leave, very much to the thought and the deduction of the intelligent members of this House. To them a suggestion is the next best thing to an argument at any time, and sometimes far better than a laboured argument. I have but one word to say in conclusion, and that is this: to-day Canada and. the Empire are engaged in a colossal contest, the inner meaning and possible consequences of which not one of us .has an adequate idea. .But we know that that contest is on. We know that in that contest Britain and the British power is fighting for its very life. .You can hear the quick short pants of the contending forces, and you can easily translate that to the breathless vigour of an empire in a series of nations which feel that in this long line of contests they are fighting for their very life. We are in the midst of that war. Our own friends, our brothers* our sons, are there, or soon will be. There is glory on .the fighting line, but there is death in the fighting line as well. As we take up our papers from day to day and read that fraction that comes to us, the sorrowful, saddening, and yet glorious fraction of what comes to-us, it brings us every day aim every hour nearer to some adequate comprehension of the mighty struggle, of the blood and tears and tribulation, through which alone final victory can be won. What I plead for in this House, in this country, everywhere, is that the best of the Canadian Dominion, Liberal .as well as Tory, outside of race or of creed or of political faith, may look upon the verities of this war and may learn to value, as in only such cases we can learn to value, the comparative merits of the trivial and of the absolutely important. These things 
I plead for; and until this war is. determined, let us all. in this House and in this country, as much as in us lies, bend our^ backs to the burden, putting behind us what is trivial and not of moment, and facing steadfastly the mighty issue in which the proudest and highest and best of the civilizations that the world has aver developed is fighting for its life and its continuance, in the trenches, and under circumstances of terrible difficulty and peril.


Mr. W. F. CARROLL (South Cape Breton) (resuming):: question of Canada's contribution to the naval defence of the Empire. This question is a domestic question, and it was an acute domestic question in these years. I have not heard of the leader of the Opposition, nor of the Prime Minister either, engaging in controversy as to the respective merits of the policies of the Liberal party and of the Conservative party on this question, but since this debate has commenced, from the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) up to the Minister of Finance, the subject has been discussed in this House, and the Minister of Finance stated in his speech that it would require the right hon. the leader of the Opposition to move very many amendments to the British preference to square his conscience with the stand he took on the naval question. I have no authority to speak for the Liberal party, but I believe I speak for every man within the fold when I say that we have no apology to make for the stand we took in 1909 and again in 1912 on the naval policy of Canada. We certainly were in good company in 1909, because in that year the Minister of Trade and Commerce delivered a very able speech in this House on the subject, and he moved his resolution, which the Liberal Government then in power accepted, and which the Liberal party has since lived up to.
My hon. friends opposite consider it a wise policy. Let me point out that time has vindicated the stand taken by the Liberal party by the fact that for the past few months, in a large industrial centre in this country, there are being built for the British navy ships which the hon. gentlemen in 1912-13 contended could not be constructed in tnis country within a quarter, yes, within a half of a century. Time has vindicated the stand taken by the Liberal party on another point of its naval attitude; that is, in protecting trade routes. Has it occurred to hon. gentlemen opposite and to the Conservative press and to the Conservative party generally that one of the greatest naval feats performed since the war broke out in August 1914, was the capture of the German ship Emden, the horror and dread of British commerce on the seven seas, by a ship manned by an overseas contingent and maintained by overseas dollars? I refer to the ship Sydney, owned and controlled by the Australian Commonwealth. In these two particulars, time has vindicated the stand that we took, and I believe that time will vindicate every stand that we took on the naval issue in both the discussion of 1909 and that of 1912 in this House. Had our

advice been accepted, we would not have been compelled to buy ships from the little country of Chile,-a South American republic, which she said were nof good enough for her, but which were good enough for Canada; we would be building those ships ourselves.
I have no apology to offer to this House or to this country for what little I may have done in opposing, or in obstructing, if you will, the legislation brought down by the present Government in so far as naval expenditure is concerned. I do not know why the issue has been raised by my hon. friend the member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), and I do not understand the slur cast across the floor of the House by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance in that regard; but whatever stand my hon. friends opposite wish to take, if they want to make it an issue in the next campaign, so far as my constituency is concerned, I want no better issue.
The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, in his two hours' speech in this House, attempted to show that, in addition to the $150,000,000, $100,000,000 which we have not yet been asked to vote, although we are discussing it, and although we are told that we are not doing the proper thing because the resolution has not yet been brought down, $30,000,000 or $35,000,000, which it is said the Government will raise from this increased taxation, will be needed for war purposes. What proof has he given us of that? He went on to show how this war had dislocated things in this country; how the borrowing power of Canada abroad was absolutely cut off, and how our producing industries, with the exception of agriculture, were affected by the war. What has that argument to do with the question as to whether or not we require $30,000,000 in addition to the $150,000,000 for war purposes? My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce was attempting, in his own shrewd, ingenious way, to mislead the people of this country in that regard. He tells us that immigration has been stopped, that exports have declined. Immigration into this country stopped before the war. It practically stopped in 1913, because in 1914, before the war, instead of encouraging immigration, this Government was busily engaged in finding ways and means by which men could be deported from Canada. So far as I have been able to follow the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, I have not been shown how this $30,000,000 is required for war purposes. When he comes to the end of his speech, he suggests to the House that this $30,000,000 is not

required for war purposes, because, he tells us, the real hardship, the real trouble, the real danger, is in home affairs. We have some $80,000,000 of a deficit to meet, and if we do not increase taxation, how are we to meet it? As far as the war is concerned, we are well supplied. We can go to the Mother Country and borrow $100,000,000; but there is a condition at home to be met, a condition of depression of trade brought on, not so much by extravagance as by the failure on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to have a shrewd foresight as to what was going to happen in this country.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William F. Carroll: The Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce deprecated the bringing out of issues which, as he said, exist between the two great parties in this country. I am afraid he did something worse. He went to the national closet of discarded things, and opening the door brought forth something resembling a skeleton and labelled "Free trade." This he stood on the floor and began to throw stones at it, as if free trade were a part of the policy of the Liberal party. He forgets that in 1894 the Liberal party laid down a fiscal platform' which was, tariff for revenue purposes. The Liberal party had been defeated in the election of 1891 on the issue of free trade as it is in England. When they came into power in 1896 it was not on a policy of free trade as it is in England, but on a policy of tariff for revenue purposes. So, when the minister brings forth free trade and contrasts it with protection he is doing something worse than that which he charges against the Liberal party in this House, the discussion of issues that exist between the two parties. As I have said the Liberals came into power in 1896. We have it on the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that they placed 150 articles on the free list and that on many other articles they reduced the duties. So far as I can see, they fulfilled their pledge of tariff reform and a tariff for revenue purposes. But suppose that the argument of the hon. gentleman is right, and that the Liberal party when it came into power did conform to the policy of the Conservative party, that it did copy the protective tariff and did carry out in its fulness the National Policy. Does it not, then, occur to my hon. friend and to his supporters how much greater a success the Liberal party made-on their own showing-of the National Policy than did the friends of that policy, the Conservative party? We have it on the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that between 1901 and 1911 the commerce of Canada expanded to a wonderful extent, that capital flowed into this country in unprecedented volume, and that the salaries paid out to the labouring men of this country trebled, and trebled, and trebled again. According to what the minister himself tells us the National'Policy was worked out with greater success by the Liberals than by its fosterfathers and pretended friends on the other side of the House.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce *asked a question of my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark). If there is one thing that especially distinguishes my hon. friend from Red Deer it is his consistency in upholding the principle of free trade. His principle was the same when the present leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was in power as today. The Minister of Trade and. Commerce asked the hon. member for Red Deer what would be the condition in Canada to-day if a free trade policy were in effect. I dare say that if my hon. friend from Red Deer were in his seat he would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce what would be the condition of affairs in England to-day if a protective policy were in effect there. Under a high protective policy in this country we are unable to raise a hundred millions to send across to help the Mother Country in her stress. On the contrary, we go to that free trade country and borrow fifty millions, and now we are going to borrow a hundred millions more. These arguments pro and con on protection and free trade, while the matter is not an issue between the political parties, show that much may be said in favour of free trade as against protection.
The hon. minister deplores extravagance in individuals and hates extravagance in Governments. Does it occur to the hon. gentleman that there is a difference between the extravagance, whether of an individual or a Government, who .spends more money than is being taken in, and the extravagance, as he calls it, of a Government that, from 1896 until 1911, lived well within its means and had surplus after surplus iall those years. In the time when the Minister of Trade and Commerce was Finance Minister, he had deficits, deficits, deficits! The Liberal, party came into power and all that was changed, and

that on a lower tariff basis._ So, the argument put by the minister is, after all, not so strong as he would have this House believe it to be.
Some lion, gentlemen in this House think that, because we were willing last year to vote fifty millions without a dissenting voice to assist in carrying on the present war, and because we are ready to vote a hundred million without a dissenting voice -or if there be a dissenting voice it is found on the other side of the Chamber- they think that, forsooth, we should not criticise any proposals brought down by the Government under which they expect and intend to raise certain money which they label " War taxes." During the extra session of Parliament in August last, I took the ground, in a very short speech in this House, that this Government should not increase the tariff on the foodstuffs and clothing of the people. I gave my reasons at that time, and I stand on the same ground to-day. I pointed out that there were other ways of raising revenue besides imposing taxes upon the bread and the meat which are the food of the people and upon the shoes and clothing that they wear. I pointed out then-of course I do not say that the Minister of Finance followed me- that stamp taxes of various kinds would be the best means of raising revenue. We are told that we are doing wrong because we dare to criticise the manner in which the Minister of Finance is raising the new revenues which he labels " War taxes." And the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), in his speech of a few nights ago, said there were plenty of things in this world that could be criticised, and that the Liberal party in this House, instead of criticising the tariff of the Minister of Finance, should criticise some of these other things-for instance, the earthquake in Italy, and things of that nature. I believe that the tariff proposals of the Government, if given effect to, will be as disastrous in their results upon the people of Canada as the earthquake in Italy was to the parties immediately affected. And, so far as I am concerned, I feel it my duty -and I am sincere and honest in this,-I feel that I am voicing the feeling of my constituency from one end to the other- to criticise and oppose this tariff brought down by the Minister of Finance.
Let us come to close quarters on the question as to whether or not these proposals are necessary to raise a revenue for
	i
Canada's participation in the war. Let us face the issue fairly and squarely. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has said that $6,000,000 are necessary for the payment of interest on the $150,000,000 and that $3,000,000 are necessary to form the nucleus of a pension fund; a total of $9,000,000. The Minister of Finance says further that an additional revenue of $40,000,000 will be raised by the imposition of these taxes. Will some hon. gentleman on the other side of the House show me how the $31,000,000 are going to be used for war purposes? The Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke to-day as if there were some secret in connection with the disposition of this amount. If there are other purposes for which these $31,000,000 are going to be used, why does not the Government take gentlemen on this side of the House into their confidence? What is the use of telling us that $40,000,000 are absolutely necessary to carry on the war so far as Canada is concerned when the greatest necessity hon. gentlemen can show is that of $6,000,000 for interest and $3,000,000 for pension fund? Where is the remainder going? I repeat that I invite some hon. gentleman on the other side of the House to show me in what way these $31,000,000 are going to be used for war purposes.
The first of the three ways in which the Finance Minister expects to raise additional revenue is the imposition of special taxes upon banks, trust companies and certain insurance companies. I am perfectly in accord with the Minister of Finance in the matter of a tax for war purposes-or for the raising of any legitimate revenue-upon banks, trust and loan companies and insurance companies. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House tell us that tne big interests, the big corporations, the wealthy people of this country, are the people who are going to pay these extra taxes. I think I can show them that that is not the fact. Banks, trust companies and insurance companies are the only corporations that are taxed; they are the only wealthy people who are subjected to taxation. Does the Finance Minister propose to tax telegraph and cable companies? He does not. He says that every telegram originating in Canada shall bear a tax of so many cents, and he gives the companies authority to charge the additional toll and to collect the same from the person sending the telegram. Why does he not impose a tax upon telegraph and cable companies?
Then we come to the railway companies. If there is one class of corporation in this country that might fairly be taxed; if there-

is one class of corporation that has been waxing rich at the expense of this country, it is the railway corporation. Against railway corporations I have nothing to say; they are doing great good; they are helping to develop the country. But in such a time of stress as this, when, as my hon. friend says, the rich interests of Canada are being taxed, why are the railway companies subjected to not one cent of extra taxation? It is true that every purchaser of a berth in a railway car, every purchaser of a chair in^ a parlour car and every purchaser of a railway ticket must pay a tax. I do not complain about that; if I have any fault to find it is that the minister should have exempted purchasers of second-class tickets from this tax, because, as a general rule, they are not able to pay. But has it occurred to the Minister of Finance that the railways go scot free in this matter? The same applies to steamship and steamboat companies. Any one buying a steamboat ticket must pay an extra tax into the treasury; against that I do not object. But has it occurred to the friends of the Minister of Finance that the steamboat companies, many of which are heavily subsidized by the Government, are not paying one cent into the Canadian treasury by way of extra taxation? Let it not be heard again, then, that the big corporations and the rich people of Canada are bearing the brunt of this special taxation.
I am perfectly in accord with the imposition of a stamp tax on checks, receipts and deposit receipts. As to the extra rate on letters and post cards, I do not think that will be burdensome to the people, but I would rather see the Minister of Finance go back to the time previous to 1896 when we had a three-cent rate, which would not be so inconvenient to the people as the proposed method.
I wish to point out that proprietary and patent medicine is the only article of commerce which bears a stamp tax. Proprietary and patent medicines are subject to an increased tariff of 7i and 5 per cent, and in addition must hear a stamp tax which will amount in the aggregate to a very large sum. I do not think that this is quite fair; the Minister of Finance went far enough when he proposed a 7i rate upon proprietary and patent medicines coming into Canada. I have received many protests by telegram and letter against this proposed stamp tax, and I hope that the minister, before he brings down the Bill which will crystalize these proposals into
legislation, will consider the' advisability of making a change in his proposals so far as proprietary and patent medicines are concerned. On every bottle or package which costs ten cents or less the tax will be one cent, and one cent for each ten cents of retail price.	I think that goes too
far. Public opinion has been directed *against patent medicines manufacturers and dealers,	hut I think that we
are now getting a better class of patent medicines than we were getting in years past. They are, after all, medicines which the poor man uses extensively. If he goes to the doctor to get something for his cold or bronchitis, the doctor will charge him one or two dollars, and in addition he will have to go to the drug store and pay for medicine. But if he goes to the drug store in the first place, he gets the patent medicine without paying doctor's fees, and in some cases his distress is relieved just as effectively as if he had obtained a prescription from the doctor.
There is some doubt as to whether or not this stamp tax will increase the revenue of the country. I think it has already been pointed out that in 1896, the year in which the late Conservative Administration went out of power, the then Finance Minister, now the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), was approached by delegations with a view to the introduction of an imperial penny postage rate of two cents ; but in his Budget speech of 1896 the hon. gentleman referred to the subject in this way:
i
There is now a deficit of nearly $800,000 between the total receipts and total expenditures from post office services and this I fear makes the time somewhat distant when what otherwise might be fairly asked for might be granted, that is a reduction upon postage rates in this country.
What happened? In June of the same year-the Budget was delivered in April- my right hon. friend who now leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) led the Liberal forces in this country to success and formed a Government. In 1897, or possibly in 1896, Mr. Mulock, now Sir William Mulock, the then Postmaster General, introduced the imperial penny postage. In 1896. when the then Finance Minister said they could not afford to give reduced rates of postage, what was the condition of the Post Office Department? In that year they had a deficit of over $800,000; but from the time the imperial penny postage was introduced by Sir William Mulock there were surplusses in the Post Office Depart-


Mr. GRAY:: Has the price of raw wool advanced very much owing to the war?


William F. Carroll: I presume that it has. I thought my hon. friend was going to ask a question about the gummed slip. I am meeting the arguments advanced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his friends behind him, that the manufacturers of this country would not take advantage of the increase of duties to unduly enhance the prices of their manufactured goods. Had I time I would go into the question of the manufacture into the finished product of the raw material imported into this country, and consider how much manufacturers of underwear for example, are entitled to get after paying the increased duty on wool and other raw material; but I presume that somebody else will take up that question. To continue: at that very time also the Ideal Bedding Company, of Toronto, makers of brass and iron beds, wire mattresses, spring beds, institution beds, cots, cribs, steel couch beds, mixed and felt mattresses, etc., issued the following letter from Toronto, dated February 26, 1915:
Gentlemen,.-We thank you for your order of the 22nd instant, and take pleasure in entering same at our present prices as indicated in circular letter which was sent out to you recently.
Our price list is now under revision and will be issued early in March. Owing to tariff changes, prices will be advanced ranging from 5 to 12 i per cent.
So that this manufacturing firm is not charitably disposed towards the consumers
of this country; and they do not hide the fact, for they say in language bold and plain that their increase will be from 5 to 12J per cent, and that it is due to the tariff changes. I have another circular in my hand, dated February 15, 1915, issued oy Staunton's, Limited. It is headed, " Notice of Advance in Prices," and says:
Dear Sir,-Please note that on August 28th last, we were forced to advance prices on certain patterns as per particulars noted hereunder. Since that date all orders have been booked at the new figures which will apply also to all repeat orders you may send to us.
In view of the still further advances in cost of manufacture, due to the new war duties and taxes, we may be forced to make other changes in prices and have to notify you that all prices are subject to change without notice.
And then he gives a lot of figures apparently about wall paper, so I suppose this firm is in the paper manufacturing industry. In addition to that, I have had placed in my hands a communication from a retail dealer in one of the maritime provinces stating that between March 1 and March 15, he would advance the price of boots and shoes by 5 per cent, and rubbers by from 5 to 10 per cent. That is another instance of how charitably disposed the manufacturers are to the consumers of this country.
As I have said, if some hon. gentlemen opposite can show me that this $40,000,000 which the Finance Minister proposes to raise by his new taxation is going to be devoted to war purposes, I will withdraw every word I have said against these taxes. But this money is not going for war purposes. The very extreme limit, as was pointed out by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce this afternoon, is $9,000,000; $6,000,000 for interest, but perhaps that was a trifle low, and $3,000,000 for the nucleus of a pension fund. That makes $9,000,000. What is going to become of the other $31,000,000? It is going to be used to make up the deficit of the present Administration; and there is no use denying that fact. Hon. gentlemen opposite have spoken of extravagance and reckless expenditure. The Minister of Finance told us that the late Administration had left a burden upon his shoulders. He said: it is true that when we came into power we found some money in the treasury, but very many liabilities. Well, Mr. Speaker, the only distinction I can see between the administration of the two parties is that now there is no money in the treasury, and very many more liabilities. And what is the cause? Let any man in this country sit down for just a moment

and, consider that the Liberal Government from 1897 down to 1911 could meet all the ordinary expenses of this country and have no deficit, whereas it took the gentlemen who now control the destinies of this country only three years to make a change in all that. That is something which the people of this country should consider, and we are here to assist them in solving that problem.	.
Let us look at the Public. Accounts. On pages 20 and 21 of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 1914, it is shown that during the extraordinary period of expansion between 1896 and 1911, when the Laurier Government was in power and Mr. Fieldjng Minister of Finance, the increased expenditure chargeable to consolidated fund was never greater than $8,000,000 in any one year. The ordinary expenditure of the Laurier Government during the last four years was as follows: In 1908, $76,641,000; in 1909, $84,064,000; in 1910, $79,411,000; and in 1911, $87,740,000. The Conservative Government came into power in 1911, and became responsible for the expenditure of the year ended March 31, 1913. If there was extravagance in the Estimates brought down by Mr. Fielding in 1911, that was the time for my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce to strike his pen through those Estimates and to reduce the extravagance which he said existed under the former Government. If there was extravagance under the late Government it existed more in the year 1911 than before that time, and yet the present Government instead of cutting down the Estimates prepared by Mr. Fielding in	1911 presented them to
this House in the session of 1912, and passed	them item by item.
In 1912 the expenditure on Consolidated Revenue Fund Account was $98,161,000, in 1913 it went up to $112,059,000, and in 1914 it reached the great sum of $127,384,000. If it was extravagance on the part of the Liberal Government in 1911 to expend $87,000,000 is there any word in the dictionary-and if there is the Minister of Finance will find it because he is an expert in using extravagant adjectives-which would adequately describe the extravagance of this Government in 1914 when it expended $127,000,000? The Minister of Finance estimates that on March 31, 1915, the expenditure will be $140,000,000, that it will require the same sum for the financial year 1916. The question naturally arises as to whether this Government has done as much for the people of thia country

through this huge expenditure as was done by their predecessors in office with a much less expenditure? I do not believe it has. If the prediction of the Finance Minister comes true that he will get $40,000,000 from this extra taxation then it will mean an additional tax of $6.14 on every man, woman and child in Canada. The Government expects to get from this extra taxation $31,000,000 which most undoubtedly does not go for war purposes, and even then tney will be in the hoie some $50,000,000. Let us look at where those additional expenditures went. Surely there is not a 'man on either side who will say that there was not more railway construction in Canada between 1904 and 1912 than there has been spent since but let me contrast the expenditure by the Liberal and Conservative Governments, on railway subsidies. During their fifteen years in power the Liberals granted railway subsidies totalling $25,140,000, and then tne party of retrenchment came in and during the three years 1912, 1913 and 1914 they granted railway subsidies totalling $24,830,000, or almost as much in three years as was spent on this account during the fifteen years of the Liberal Government. There is at least one item among the railway subsidies granted by the present Government for which no defence can be offered and that is the subsidy to the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway Company, an Ontario government-owned railway, a railway built and operated by the Ontario Government and which at tne time was paying good dividends. To this railway the Conservative 'Government doled out subsidies aggregating about $2,000,000 and I defy any man in this House to defend that transaction.
There [DOT] has been considerable discussion in this House as to the advisability of the great increase in the Civil Service of this country, but no one has been able to make out that the work of the country has developed with such immeasurable strides during the past three years that it requires 10,000 civil servants more than we had in 1911. Certainly the people from the part of the country from which I come have the idea that this Government is not doing as much for the people as their predecessors did, and they fail to understand how it requires an addition of 10,000 more civil .servants to man the public offices.
I would not perhaps so much blame the Government for their extravagance since 1911 under ordinary conditions, but we have been told in this debate, and we were told by the Prime Minister in 1912, that war

with Germany was imminent. He told us that be heard the thunder of the guns, and that he saw the war clouds on the horizon and Germany in conflict against Great Britain and her Allies. Endowed *with such foresight, was not that the time for the right hon. gentleman to take to retrenchment and put an end to extravagance? To-day the Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that the war came suddenly as a thunderbolt from the sky, but the Prime Minister told us that he *saw it coming three years ago, and I leave these two gentlemen to reconcile their difference between themselves. Before the Conservative Government came into power in 1911 the Prime Minister isaid that the increase in what is known as ordinary controllable expenditure from $36,000,000 in 1896 to $87,000,000 in 1907 was proof of extravagance beyond any possible defence. If the right hon. gentleman was in earnest in making that statement he. should have bridled the extravagance of bis Government when it came to power, but he did nothing of the kind. It is clear that he made no effort to control the extravagance and unbridled expenditure of his Government.
There are a few other observations I wish to make before closing. My hon. friend from South Toronto (Me. Maedonell), in replying to my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), isaid that the labour men of this country were favourable to the proposals of the Minister of Finance in his Budget. I do not pretend to know what authority the hon. member had to make that statement. He probably had the authority of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association; but he certainly did not have the authority of the labour people of this country. With the prices of foodstuffs and the price of clothing going up, as I can prove by letters of manufacturers, with unemployment and hard times, with the trades-people of this country working only half time, it cannot reasonably be expected that they will bow down and say: burden us up some more, Mr. Minister of Finance; it is true that we are making only half the money that we were making more than three years ago; but go ahead, we can stand more burdens to-day with one dollar than we could then with two dollars. I do not believe that the hon. member for South Toronto had any authority to speak for the labouring people of this country. I do not believe that they are in favour of these proposals in so far as "taxation on foodstuffs
and clothing is concerned, and I do not blame them for not agreeing to the motion.
There is no class of people more anxious and willing to pay the legitimate demands of taxation than the miners and steel workers and fishermen of Nova Scotia. They ire willing to pay those taxes and to undergo those burdens when they have the capacity to do so; but is it fair to ask them and other similarly situated labourers throughout the length and breadth of this land to pay an increased taxation, ranging from 5 per c-ent to 12 per cent, on the bite of food they eat and on the mite of clothing they put on their bodies, when they are earning half the wages that they earned three years ago? The 'labouring people of this country are not going to stand for such a thing. We are told: oh, the farmers of the West are reaping benefits from this war; they are getting handsome prices for their wheat. The moment they get those prices, the Minister of Finance comes around with a hat and says: Mr. Farmer, you are getting an enhanced price for your wheat on account of the war, and you must contribute a portion of'your profits to the Government. He increases the taxes to all the consumers of this country; but he lets the railway and cable and telegraph corporations and the great steamboat companies of the country go without one bit of taxation.


Mr. CARVELL:: No passing of the hat
with him; he takes a club.


William F. Carroll: I was putting it mildly. As far as voting the $150,000,000 for war purposes to assist the Motherland concerned, there is no dissentient voice on this side of the House. The Minister of Trade and Commerce need not plead with us; he need not tell us what'the result of this war has been on the commerce of this country in order to get us to vote this money. We will vote it freely and we are willing to vote twice as much if necessary; but we call a halt when the people of this country are asked to be taxed $31,000,000 over and above what is necessary to carry on the war.
Some hon. gentlemen opposite, in the press and on the floor of the House, seek to spread the idea that we on this side of the House are not patriotic, that we are not loyal to the Motherland. I am not going to use much breath in combatting that idea. All I can say is that many of us have sent our brothers or our sons to the front, and that they are now fighting in the trenches in defence of that Motherland. Surely it is weakness on the part of any public man or

of any newspaper in this country to cast aspersions and slurs at my right hon. friend and the people who support him and the people who are so loyally supporting the Government in voting this $150,000,000. There is in this' country a class of politicians that I would like to call political snipers, who, so to speak, are trying to 9 p.m. bring down the reputation for patriotism and loyalty that has always characterized my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. Statements have appeared in the press and circulars have been sent out of this House, at least to one constituency of which I know in the province of Manitoba, to impress upon this country that we, the Liberal party, headed by our right hon. leader, are against doing anything for the Motherland. I would like to number amongst those political snipers and to make their chieftain the hon. member for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler). At a meeting held a day or two ago in the city of Ottawa, he made this remark, which is worthy of the hon. gentleman :
He said that Hon. Hr. JBeland, who is now a pr soner in Belgium, did not go to Belgium to take part in the war, but to get a wife. If he had b en in Canada when the war broke out, he might and might not have volunteered to go to the front.
I acknowledge that I am a partisan; but I think that no hon. gentleman on this side of the House and that very few hon. gentlemen on the other side would get up in a public meeting in the city of Ottawa or elsewhere and make such a remark about a political adversary as was made by the hon. member foT Kings and Albert. Dr. Beland is to-day a prisoner of war, captured by the Germans. Previous to that he was made a lieutenant-colonel by the hon. Minister of Militia. No one knows better than the hon. Minister of Militia and few know better than my hon. friend the member for Kings and Albert that, if Dr. Beland had not been captured, he wfiuld to-day have been giving relief to the stricken people of Belgium and to the stricken soldiers of Great Britain and her allies. I speak of this only to show how small some people can become when they want to create an unfavourable impression against their political opponents. Let us hope that those Canadian political snipers will have the same effect in lowering the esteem for my right hon. leader amongst the people of this country as the German snipers will have in lowering the

prestige and power of Great Britain in the trenches of Flanders.
We are voting $150,000,000 towards helping our Motherland to carry on this war. This Government would be well advised if it would take into consideration and put into effect some system whereby it could at the present time give some aid to the stricken Belgians. Perhaps we in this country do not appreciate what the little Belgian army has done for us. Perhaps we do not appreciate that at Liege the Belgian army saved France, and by saving France saved England, and by saving England saved Canada from the impress of Prussian militarism. Belgium could have made a formal protest against the breach of her neutrality by the German forces. She would not have lessened her honour amongst the nations of the world by doing so, because she was scarcely large enough to do anything more formidable than that. She chose, without a moment's hesitation, the nobler part, and sent her little bands of soldiers to confront the hordes of oncoming Germans. She held them at bay for weeks, until France was able to recruit her army and England was ready for action. Had it not been for this, few of us can comprehend what might have happened in this world before this time. France would have been crushed; Russia would have been overcome before she had had time to mobilize, and the British Empire, perhaps, left to fight a lone struggle for existence. But she did all this at awful sacrifice to herself. Her cities were ravaged, her cornfields destroyed, her women and children killed. To-day she is getting some little assistance from Canadians individually. In Nova Scotia we carried on a movement to send supplies and clothing to the stricken Belgians. But individual effort cannot do for Belgians all that Canada can do for them. We have an organized Government, and I hope we have unlimited credit. I believe the Government would be well advised if, in voting this $100,000,000, they would add $1,000,000 or $2,000,000-and borrow it in the old land if necessary-to assist the Belgians and to procure for them food and clothing. I simply throw out this hint. I will vote for such an appropriation as gladly and cordially as I will vote for the passing of the hundred million dollars.
Mr. JOSEPH A. DESCARRIES (Jacques-Cartier) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, for a new member to rise for the first time in this House and address his fellow-inembers is always a-solemn moment. For that reason

my thanks are due my honourable friends for their-so kind reception, and their applause is for me an encouragement.
True it is, Mr. Speaker, that I am,one of the youngest members of this House, but bygone years have already left their snows on my head, and on such an occasion, I must not allow shyness to get the best of me. My plain task is to perform my duty as member for the beautiful and important riding of Jacques-Cartier, the electors of which have sent me here as their representative.
At the outset, I must be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to recall with deep feeling the memory of the statesman, of the distinguished gentleman, who was the ex-minister of Public Works, the Hon. Mr. Monk, who had been given by the electors of Jacques-Cartier a mandate, which at their request I am here to. continue. The genial manners, the talent and the love of study which were characteristic of the ex-minister are still remembered by all the hon. members. A single word may typify his whole career: he was a man who kept faith.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is as representative of Jacques-Cartier, that I intend to enter into the debate which has engaged the attention of the House during four long weeks, on the subject of the budget, as laid down in the speech of the Hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. White). Before and up to that speech, there seemed to exist an admirable consensus of opinion between the two great parties that face each other in this House.
Last August a special session of Parliament was called, and there prevailed the most perfect harmony. The members on both sides were at one in their enthusiasm to vote the budget submitted for their approval, a budget rendered necessary by the war, to enable aid to be sent, on behalf of Canada, to the British Empire.
What then has happened since that day to break the political truce between the two parties? Has the Hon. the Minister of Militia (Mr. Hughes) wasted the lives of Canada's youth, of the soldiers sent to the defence of the Empire? Have the moneys voted by the House been diverted from their object? Nothing of the sort has been alleged, but on the contrary flattering expressions of approval have been bestowed on the Hon. the Minister of Militia. His ardour in the performance of his task has been praised and wonder has been expressed at his success, in, within a few weeks, raising almost a whole army which was sent to France and England to aid in repelling the enemy intent on conquering first Belgium and then France, the French Canadian's original motherland.
Our soldiers on the battle line have excited the admiration of old veterans for Canadian courage and valour.
What then is the reason of it all? Our friends on the other side of the House, while protesting loudly their patriotism and their desire to assist the Motherland, are profuse and bitter in their complaints against the Government. They have been seized with a hankering for power in the very turmoil of the war. At a time when Great Britain has need of our assistance, and tne Administration must dispose of all its forces, these gentlemen are attempting to storm the fortress of Government, and get into power. To obtain their end, they censure the Government who, they claim, intend to impose on the people oppressive taxation while providing for little revenue, And instead of fostering trade with Great Britain, the Government hampers it by an increase in the preferential tariff. According to their contention, patriotism is unknown in the ministerial ranks, and the Opposition have a monopoly of enthusiasm. The Government seemingly has done nothing and its overthrow has become a necessity.
What arguments are put forth in support of their views? They may be summarized in a few words: First of all, there is no necessity for further taxation. Our present revenue would be sufficient to meet the required expenditure, had not the Conservative Government been spending so lavishly. Put a stop to all this extravagance; let the expenditure be cut down and equilibrium will be restored between revenue and expenditure. Such is their first argument. The second is that our financial difficulties are not the result of the war. The third is that the new method of taxation proposed by the Government is based neither on justice nor on scientific principles. Fourthly, these gentlemen contend that there should be no increase in the preferential tariff favouring Great Britain.
As a young member, it is not my part to search the records of this House in order to furnish all the details and figures in regard to this question. It -will be sufficient for me to outline in a general way my views on the few points which I have raised. Is the Government guilty of extravagance? So these gentlemen claim, but is it a fact? It
102*
COMMONS!
is the people's right to enquire into the truth of this statement and it is the right of the people's representatives to find out if the Government has really been prodigal of the public money as is asserted by these gentlemen. If the Government has thus been lavish, it should not be kept in power. Let us therefore examine if such is the case.
What heritage have the Liberals left behind them when they had to relinquish the reins of power? Had not indeed their successors to face thousands of millions of obligations, both direct and indirect? And first what of the Transcontinental Railway? That section from Moncton to Winnipeg was to cost only $60,000,000 and, as stated by the hon. leader of the Opposition only $13,000,000 if only the interest were taken into account. Now, this railway alone has cost at least $200,000,000. Nor is that all. Has not the Liberal Government guaranteed bonds to the extent of $125,000,000? They say we have been extravagant. But in 1896, when our political opponents came into power, has not the hon. leader of the Opposition, who is in the same position to-day, been heard to exclaim in this House and before the people, when the public expenditure amounted to only about $40,000,000, that it was extravagant? Then, addressing the people and the members of this House, did he not say: Put us into power; give us an opportunity of governing the country and the cost of the public administration will be reduced by $3,000,000. Now, what happened? In a few years, the Liberals had increased the annual expenditure to nearly $100,000,000.
Is the increase in the expenditure a sufficient reason to charge the Government with extravagance? If such is the case and such is their reasoning, then it spells the condemnation of the late Government's policy. But an imputation of that kind requires for its justification something more than a bare statement: it must be proven to be well founded. It must be shown in what case there has been extravagance, what retrenchment should have been made, what particular item was unnecessary. Now, none of the members opposite has shown that to be the case. Has any one even attempted to do so? No, Mr. Speaker.
The Conservative Administration is taxed with extravagance; but how comes it that during the three years of Conservative rule a greater surplus was realized by this Government than was ever shown by any previous Administration. In 1911-1912, the sur-

plus was $38,000,000; in 1912-1913, $56,000,000; in 1913-1914, $36,000,000: a total in round numbers of $130,000,000 in three years.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the previous Liberal Government had dug an abyss. During these same years, from 1912 to 1915, the Conservatives had to pay, for undertakings of the Liberal regime, the following sums: for the Transcontinental Railway, $56,000,000; for the Hudson Bay Railway, $9,000,000; for the Quebec bridge, $10,000,000. These amounts make up a total of $75,000,000. Nor is that all: to make up for the deficiency in the price realized on the sale of the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, $5,000,000; for the purchase of the debentures of the Grand Trunk Pacific, $33,000,000; to complete the line, $15,000,000.
We are called extravagant: but who has been guilty of extravagance, Mr. Speaker? Let us consider the national debt from the 30th of September, 1911, to the 31st of July, 1914. Under the present Administration there was an increase of the national debt of only 8 millions. Before the year 1911, during a period covering two years and a few months, that is during the same length of time, the national debt under the Liberal regime was increased by 70 millions. These gentlemen sitting on your left, Mr. Speaker, allege extravagance on the part of the Government. What are the facts? In 1914-15, the estimates amounted to 210 millions; in 1915-16, to 180 millions, a saving of 30 millions. No extravagance there surely!
Now, Mr. Speaker, what do we hear on all sides, and repeated by all the members of this House? Hard times! lack of employment ! Are we not bound to provide work for the poor people? But do the Liberals, who so loudly bemoan the fate of these unfortunates; who express their pity at the sight of closed factories; who say that trade is stagnant, and money scarce; do these Liberals pretend that the time is opportune' to put a stop to all public works? Yet if the Government listen to them, 22 millions-that is the figure mentioned by Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier-22 millions of these public works, such as post offices, customs houses, drill halls, etc., will be cut off. Why! take those cities which boast of a progressive and enlightened civic administration. How do they cope with hard times? Do not their endeavours tend to provide their labouring citizens with the means of earning their living and that of their families? Do they not appropriate as large a portion as possible of the municipal funds to public undertakings that will

provide work for their unemployed? Is this indeed the time to cast doubts on Canada's future? Is this the time to stop the country in its progress? Are not its resources truly extraordinary? I say that a wise government should, during years of distress, exert itself to the utmost of its power, and through the carrying out of public works, provide employment for those who cannot secure it elsewhere. But such is not apparently the policy of our Liberal friends. The hon. leader of the Opposition himself would cut off $22,000,000 of the money intended for such public buildings as post offices, customs houses, drill halls, scattered throughout the country and giving employment to a large number of workingmen. He says these works in small towns and in different places ought to be stopped. On the other hand, the hon. member for St. Mary's (Mr. Martin), mayor of Montreal, would have the doors of the Dominion treasury thrown wide open and money supplied him by the bushel to provide food for the unemployed of his city, a strange contradiction indeed which cannot be explained except by these gentlemen's eagerness to reach power.
The Government has cut doifrn the expenses of legislation, immigration, railways and canals, harbours, naval service, crown lands and various other branches of the public administration.
I say it is the Liberal party that has shown extravagance while on the contrary the present Administration is endeavouring with the utmost prudence and wisdom to lead the country through these times of stress to progress and prosperity.
It is claimed, Mr. Speaker, that the war has nothing to do with the financial difficulties we have to face. I say that by itself is sufficient proof that our hon. friends on the other side of the House are not to be taken seriously and that their sole aim is to embarrass in every possible way this Government. They say there is a deficit of $60,000,000 in 1914-15, and they predict another deficit of $80,000,000 for 1915-16, besides the war expenditure which will amount to $150,000,000. The war, they say, cannot account for the excess of $140,000,000 of the expenses over the revenue. But if the war is not the cause of this deficit, how is it that it is during war time that the first deficit appears, since up to that time we have recorded the largest surpluses of all Administrations. This argument is but child's talk. Look up the customs receipts during the one year of 1914-15 and you will see a 65
decrease of $32,000,000. And the same as to all other sources of income. How could it be otherwise? The world's commerce has been stopped by the war and Canada's trade would not be affected! To think this possible is absurd ! Indeed! But for the English which has kept the trade routes opened, whereat should we be? Industry is paralysed and it is barely kept alive by orders occasioned by the war. Could the Minister of Finance have remedied this evil? No. His policy is the best possible; he has entered into an agreement with the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, whereby the necessary funds to cover the war expenditure are supplied to Canada at the same rate as that paid by Great Britain herself. And in order to allay the effect of the war on the Canadian exchequer, the Minister of Finance suggested new duties and taxes, and this is nothing to wonder at, Mr. Speaker; when, even the United States have to devise a war tariff to provide for a diminished revenue. But it is on that ground of taxation, that hon. gentlemen on the other side have based their attacks. Their contention is that the system of taxation as proposed is neither equitable nor scientifically justifiable. To prove this, the ex-prime minister of Canada forsakes his customary dignity and stoops to the expedients of the demagogue. Speaking on the special tax to be imposed on railway tickets, he caters to the lower instincts of the populace. He draws a picture Of the sumptuousness of Pullman cars. He tries to excite against the rich the envy and covetousness of the poor. In his description the children of the wealthy are without feelings, without patriotism, unable to earn a cent by their own efforts, passing through life careless, heedless, with only one thought: to live in affluence at the expense of the poor people oppressed by their greedy parents. And why this diatribe? Because the Minister of Finance proposed a tax of five cents on railway tickets. Passengers in Pullman cars pay for their seats and their berths besides paying the five cents which are paid equally by all passengers. There is not a great difference in this country between first and second class passengers and if a higher tax were imposed on first class tickets, it would fall equally on persons of medium means. But, it is stated again, your tariff is not designed to increase the revenue but to benefit the privileged and wealthy classes. In the terms of the hon. leader of the Opposition, it is framed to raise a minimum of



revenue with a maximum of hardships and losses for the country at large. It is again the struggle between protection and free-trade.
Harping always on the same chord, the hon. leader of the Opposition alleges that under the tariff a duty is imposed on the necessaries of life. Why, does he ask, tax articles which are not imported? A duty is put on spirituous liquors, but the excise duty should have been raised. And for what reason? In order, he says, to prevent the manufacturer from getting rich at the expense of the common people. Always the old grudge! He forgets that protection it is that has made our country what it is to-day; that to it we owe the growth of our cities; that it has saved Canada from the soup-kitchens of the Mackenzie Administration; that it has built and fostered in the large cities, in all the provinces, hives of industry where the workingmen earn a decent living for their wives and children. Protection has made Canada a magnificent country, the pride of its sons and of the empire.
But, Mr. Speaker, to hear the critics of the Opposition, the preferential tariff should not have been raised. This increase is to the prejudice of the Empire. The Empire! This word excites our hon. friends' enthusiasm to its highest pitch. Ask $200,000,000 for the war, they exclaim in unison, and we will vote it; buit do not in anyway increase the tariff against British goods. What folly is yours? Is it not enough that Great Britain should have to fight the submarines which seek to destroy its commerce, without forcing her to pass her goods into Canada over a tariff wall.
This meaningless verbosity and pompousness, Mr. Speaker, might be expected of a tyro in the art of literature but that it should come from the leader of the Opposition is beyond belief. And surely he must know that if the general tariff is increased, the preferential tariff must be increased proportionately, in order to keep between the duty on English-made goods and goods from other countries the same relative difference as existed in the old tariff. But the same policy which prompts the Liberal party to cater to popular prejudices, also induces it to make a loud display of its loyalty to the British Crown. But no one is deceived. The debate on the budget has revived the struggle for power between the two great political parties. As representatives of the people, we are called upon to say which of the two parties is in harmony with the country's aspirations.

Which party built Canada, and has led it to its present state of greatness and pros-pertity? The party of Lafontaine, Macdonald, Cartier, Tupper and Borden. Who brought about this confederation of which we are so proud? The Conservative party. Who inaugurated this system of protection which has made the country great and prosperous? The Conservative party. Who extended the boundaries of this Dominion by the acquisition of the Northwest Territories? Again the Conservative party.
I say that the hon. the leader of the Opposition and his followers have lost the confidence of the electors of Canada and especially those of the province of Quebec; I can speak of that province from closer acquaintance, as I reside therein and the county I have the honour of representing in this House is part and parcel of it. At one time almost the whole of that province was won over to the Liberal party; but the question then at issue appealed to the national and religious sentiment of the electors; it was the famous Manitoba school question. The hon. leader of the Opposition, as he was also then, stood before the electors of Quebec and promised, in return for a strong support from that province, that he, as a French-Canadian and a Catholic, would settle this school question advantageously for the people of Manitoba and to the satisfaction of the population of Quebec. Is it then to be wondered at, Mr. Speaker, that these fiery appeals were successful; that the province pinned its faith in the word of one of its sons, an orator, who, as head of his party, revealed himself a powerful man, invested with all the authority necessary to carry his will into effect. The province confided in him and put him in power. Has he settled that school question in the manner he had pledged himself to do? Assuredly not. He sacrificed the interests of his compatriots and with the object of reaching power, struck a bargain in which the victims were given only scraps of their rights and privileges. Then the present leader of the Opposition ruled this country for many years. All that time the old province of Quebec never lost hope that the pledge given would be redeemed. But nothing was done and one day, in 1911, the hon. leader of the Opposition and his party purposed to hand Canada over to the Americans by means of free-trade with them or reciprocity. What happened? The reply came from the Canadian people, who overthrew the Liberal rule, which my hon. friend is attempting to restore by appealing to popular passion at a

time when the Empire calls for the united energies of all and everyone and when an unswerving loyalty is the imperative duty of the hour, he makes pretence of a deep interest in the needy classes, but this new love bears the stamp of untruthfulness. The utterances of his followers are a tissue of contradictions. We are witnessing a revelry of insane appeals to demagogic prejudices of the populace. Big drums and small drums, flutes and trombone sound a jarring medley. Every one plays as he likes; there. i3 no more any leader; every one speaks for himself, but all aim at the same object, not the triumph of Great Britain over the enemy, although they loudly protest that to be* their goal; but all of them have a common and long cherished aim which was clearly enough expressed by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) when he exclaimed : Let us hope that we shall be rid of this war and this Government at about the same time. But in their hurry these hon. gentlemen would anticipate the issue of the war. Undaunted by the prospect of injuring the British cause by impeding the Government in carrying out its programme of aid and succour, they purpose to overthrow the Government in the very turmoil of the conflict, when all its energies are bent on the execution of its patriotic policy, both national and Imperial. On a mere pretext, for the last four weeks, they have been beleaguering the Administration when a suspension of hostilities had been agreed to and a truce proclaimed. They have played on us the same deception which the Germans practised on the brave Belgians. They suddenly unmasked their batteries and without warning opened fire on the Conservative stronghold. But let them go at it to their heart's content. The Conservative party is strongly entrenched, behind its past achievements and the great expectations justly placed in it; in the love of the Canadian people whose best interests it has always served; in its own determination to see that justice be rendered everyone.
The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues may well walk with heads erect, for the people of Canada are with them; and in a future that cannot be far distant, the verdict of the people will be voiced in unmistakable fashion by the return to power with an increased majority of the Rt. Hon. Mr. Borden, because he has never failed, since he is at the head of the Government, to consult the best interests of Canada and the Empire.


James Joseph Hughes: If
these were ordinary times, and if the Budget which has been presented to (he House by the Finance Minister were an ordinary Budget, I would not take any part in this discussion; but the times are not ordinary and the Budget which the Minister of Finance has submitted to the House, and the speeches with which it has been supported, have been of such an extraordinary character that I do not think I would be doing my duty as a member of this House if I did not say a few words in regard to it.
Unfortunately, I could not follow the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just addressed the House (Mr. Descarries); consequently I cannot reply to anything he said; I leave that to the hon. gentleman to my right (Mr. Lafortune), who will, I understand, address the House this evening. I have read with some care the speeches of the Finance Minister, and I have come to the conclusion that he is a wonderfully clever and capable man; in fact, he himself has told us so. He has told us that upon his broad shoulders has been placed a burden heavier than that which has been placed upon the shoulders of any other man in his position since Confederation. The responsibilities, the obligations and the liabilities which the hon. gentleman had to assume when he took office would have crushed an ordinary man. But the hon. gentleman did not complain. He tells us that he saw his way clear through from the beginning. He says he saw his way clear through the financial stringency and the hard times of 1912-13; that he saw his way clear through in August last when the outbreak of this terrible war threatened with ruin the finances and the commerce of the whole world; that he sees his way clear through all difficulties to-day, when kingdoms are being shattered and empires are tottering. I am really lost in admiration and wonder. In the words of Cassius, I ask:
In the names of all the gods at once,
Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed
That he has grown so great.
The Finance Minister further tells us that the uncontrolled prodigality, the utter wastefulness and the unbridled' extravagance of the late Government would have ruined this country beyond redemption if they had remained in office a little longer; that he was called in just in the nick of time to save the situation. What a fortunate thing that Canada had such a man at such a time! I do not know how we could

have got along if the Finance Minister had not been discovered. Mr. Speaker, yon have read history, and you know that almost every page, particularly of sacred
10 p.m. history, is replete with instances of how Providence in supreme crises-this is a very consoling thought to us-never failed to raise up great men to lead nations and peoples. The only difference I see 'between those times and the present is that the 'great men of the olden time, so far as I know, never found it necessary or even advisable to announce or proclaim their own greatness. That was probably an oversight on their part; our Finance Minister did not forget that, however.


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: There was no Hansard in those days.


James Joseph Hughes: That may have been the . reason. The hon. minister pointed out to us his capability; his prescience. 'So far from detracting from the hon. gentleman's reputation, I think these words of selfpraise rather add to it, because they show that in the mid-st of his multifarious duties, responsibilities and obligations, he does not forget the smallest detail -which has particular reference to himself.
The hon. gentleman has read political economy, and is a master in finance. In the following words he tells us how to ascertain the solvency of an estate:
In estimating the value of an estate, do we not take into consideration liabilities direct and indirect, debts owing, notes of hand, endorsa-tion, guarantees given by the decedent who left the estate?
Of course we do, hut we take into account also the assets and resources of the estate, hoth direct and indirect. These the hon. gentleman apparently overlooked, because later in his speech he declared in triumphant tones that he himself discharged -all these obligations and liabilities and added hut $8,000,000 to the public debt. At the risk of being arrested, perhaps, for lbse majeste, I venture the assertion that there are one hundred men in Canada-yes, perhaps many more than one hundred-who, under circumstances similar to those in which the hon. minister found himself, would have discharged those obligations and liabilities without adding anything to the public -debt, or who would have reduced the public debt by two or three times $8,000,000. It is my purpose to prove that statement by the public accounts and by the speeches of the hon. gentleman himself.
In looking over the first Budget speech delivered iby my hon. friend, I observe that

it was very different from the -speech which he delivered the other day. I think I should read an extract or two from that speech, which he delivered on March 13, 1912, five months after the present Government resumed office and, of course, five months after the Finance Minister took his present position. He had five months in which to inquire into the solvency of the estate of which he became manager, both in respect of its liabilities and assets; he had five months to inquire into and -make himsel-f familiar with the financial conditions of the country. This is what he said:
The estimated revenue for the current year, with which I am now dealing, being $136,000,000, there will therefore be a surplus of consolidated fund revenue over consolidated fund expenditure of $39,000,000 available for capital and special outlays. I am sure I can congratulate both the House and the country upon what is undoubtedly a record year for the Dominion. I do not know how to quite share that congratulation up, hut as my right hon. friend (Mr. Borden) came Into power on the 6th of October, and my right hon friend the leader of the Oppositon was In power prior to that date, there is probably glory enough to go round and it would be the judgment of Solomon that each be entitled to one-half, at all events to a part of the credit for the return which I am now presenting to the House.
That was the situation, that was the financial condition of the country, five months after the hon. gentleman took office. Then he went on to give a statement of the exact figures and said:
Now, Mr. Speaker, what does this mean? It means that out of the abounding revenues of t his country we shall provide for the ordinary current expenditures of the Dominion, for all those large capital outlays which I have mentioned, and which this growing country has required during the year for services of every kind, and at the same time that we shall be able to make a reduction of the public debt to the extent of $1,150,000. "That means, we have more than paid our way, and our surplus has been such that all capital and special charges have been extinguished.
Would you suppose that the Finance Minister would make a speech of that kind, and make this statement, as he did the other day?:
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the late Government were the inventors, the originators, the parents, the progenitors and the propagators of the most inordinate reckless, purblind and wilful extravagance that this country or any other British country has ever known.
I want to read to you an extraet from the Budget speech of the next year to show you the hon. gentleman's opinion of the late Government and of the position of the country at that time. He referred in this speech to the National Transcontinental railway. Before reading his remarks of

May 12, 1913, I should perhaps refer to a short statement made by him in his speech the other day on the same subject:	He
was addressing his remarks directly to the right hon. the leader of the Opposition and said:
I say to him now that his railway policy, in its potential consequences, is fraught, and has always -been fraught with the utmost danger to the Dominion of Canada.
I think he referred chiefly to the National Transcontinental railway; but I have always understood that the hon. gentleman who now holds the position of Finance Minister supported that proposition, supported the Government in its railway policy and in its general legislation in all those years, right down to the year 1911, and it therefore seems strange that he should discover all at once that the policy which he had supported ana the party which he had supported for so many years had gone so extremely and outrageously wrong. I do not know when he discovered it and had this change of heart. Inere is a state in Germany called Hesse whose people are callea Hessians. The soldiers from that particular part of the country, for hundreds of years, have fought under every banner and every general in Europe and America. They have fought wherever they could get the best pay. They were ready to enlist under any banner, because they had no convictions and no principles to abandon.
This is what the hon. gentleman stated in regard to railway building on the 12th of May 1913, that is one year and seven months after he became Finance Minister:
The expenditure on the Transcontinental railway reached the considerable sum of over $21,000,000, but as the years of heavy construction have passed the outlays for this service will in the future decline materially.
And a little further on he says:
So far I have dealt with the affairs of the fiscal year 1912-13, and I am sure the results must have been most gratifying to the House, inasmuch as, notwithstanding the generous appropriations which were made for all the services of the country, the net result was practically an equilibrium between the revenue on the one hand and expenditure of all kinds on the other. I am happy to announce that the outcome of the last fiscal year, which ended on March 31, will prove even more satisfactory as reflecting by far the highest pitch to which our national revenues and prosperity have yet attained. The revenue for 1912, as I have stated, amounted to $136,108,217.36. X have every expectation that when the books of the fiscal year 1913 are closed, it will be found that the total revenue will have reached the splendid total of $168,250,000, or an increase over the year 1911-12 of over $32,000,000. Some indication of the magnificent growth of the Dominion may be gleaned from the fact
that this increase in revenue during the period of one year almost equals the entire revenue of the country twenty years ago.
The augmentation of revenue to which I have referred has not been irregular, spasmodic or intermittent in its nature, but has steadily characterized each month of the entire fiscal year. It was, of course, mainly derived from customs receipts, but the other sources of revenue-excise, post office and railways-also gave us very substantial increases.
That was the position of the country and the position of the estate of which the hon. gentleman became manager one year and seven months after he assumed office; and yet we are told, he told us the other afternoon, that the uncontrolled prodigality, the utter wastefulness, the unbridled extravagance of the late Government would have ruined the country beyond redemption if his services had not been obtained. I shall leave that phase of the question for a moment and refer to a sentence that I find in the speech delivered by the hon. gentleman when he submitted his Budget on the 11th of February. It is as follows:
We believe the tariff Increases which we propose will be not only effectual in producing greater revenue but will be strongly efficacious in stimulating Canadian industry and agriculture and in relieving unemployment.
That was the first time in my life that I ever heard that increasing the taxes would produce prosperity. Why the hon. gentleman withheld that remedy far so long I do not know, for he has told us that there were hard times and a financial stringency in 1912-13, and we know that there were hard times and great financial stringency last autumn. The hon. gentleman had this remedy up his sleeve or in his pocket or under his hat all the time, yet Parliament was not called, nor the remedy produced. Perhaps the remedy was withheld until difficulties had accumulated, so that when it was applied it would be all the more striking. I admit that high customs duties may give an artificial stimulus to some industrial concerns, and thus induce people to come off the laud and congregate in the towns and cities; but how that can stimulate agriculture I cannot understand; and I understand the hon. gentleman favours the " back to the land " movement. How he can induce people to settle on the land when he is persuading them to eome into the towns and cities passes my comprehension.
I agree, as far as my knowledge goes, that the increase in the customs duties may and probably will increase the revenue. But if the manufacturing concerns in Canada take full advantage of the increased customs

duties by raising the price of their manufactured articles to that extent, that would not prevent importation, because the importer, generally speaking, would then be relatively in as good a position as he is now. But at what a cost would this increased revenue be obtained! The price of the imported article and the price of the homemade article would be increased to the full extent of the increased customs duty. It is estimated that.four or five times as much is manufactured in Canada as is imported; in some lines the proportion is higher, but generally speaking we manufacture four or five times as much as we import; so that for every dollar raised for the public revenue under those circumstances at least four or five dollars would have to be paid by the people, and would find its way into the pockets of somebody at the expense of the consumers of the country. Again, let us suppose that the manufacturers do not take full advantage of the increased customs duties, and the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) told us the other night that the concern with which he is connected would not raise the prices of their manufactured articles. In that case, the importations will be greatly reduced, and the Finance Minister may not get the revenue he expects. Suppose the manufacturers take advantage of the increased customs duties to two-thirds or three-quarters of the increase, the revenue would then be increased, but there would be the disadvantage of the increased price upon all imports and upon all manufactured articles in Canada; and the consumer would lose probably three or four times what the revenue had gained. But that is not the worst feature of it, according to my way of thinking. The worst feature is that the Government is in a large measure placing in the hands of a body .of irresponsible citizens-I care not how respectable they may be-whose personal interests are directly opposed to the public interests, the power to say what the revenues of the country shall be. In other words, they are farming out the collection of the taxes. Some years ago I read in some book that that was the system that prevailed in Turkey, and in Egypt before the British occupation. The tax collectors,
I forget their technical name, were sent into the outlying districts and provinces and allowed to collect as much as they could, provided they remitted a certain portion to Constantinople, the headquarters, to be spent on luxuries there. We sympathize with the 
people who had to submit to that kind of government; but is our system of raising the revenue vastly different from that of the Turks? When we are in a large measure handing over one of the vital functions of government to an irresponsible body of citizens, can we be so sure that we obtained responsible government in this country some seventy or eighty years ago?
I wish to quote again a statement made by the Minister of Finance, because it is worth repeating, and to refer him to the public accounts which were prepared by him or by the Government of which he is a member. In his speech the other night he said:
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the late Government were the inventors, the originators, the parents, progenitors and propagators of the most inordinate, reckless, purblind and wilful extravagance that this country or any other British country has ever known.
That is certainly a most astonishing statement to make; and if the late Government were guilty of all that extravagance I would ask my hon. friend to supply me with language to describe the extravagance of this Government for certainly I could not do it justice. I invite the hon. gentleman's attention to a few of the items in public accounts. Take civil government, for instance. That is a branch of the Government service in which there should be very little increase from year to year, for it comprises the salaries and contingencies of the offices at Ottawa and of the High Commissioner's office in London, and the salaries of the lieutenant governors. It is, therefore, a branch of the public service in which there should not be much increase from year to year, and I find that for 15 years under the late Administration there was very little change, the average yearly increase from 1896 to 1911 having been in round figures $200,000. The average yearly increase for the three years of this Government was upwards of $380,000, nearly twice as much as the yearly increase under the late Government. As far as I can understand these things, there is no justification for that at all; can the Minister of Finance suggest any defence?
I will take some of the other accounts just in the order in which they come, though not in the order of their merit. I find that from 1896 to 1911, under the Liberal Government, the average yearly increase in the expenditure chargeable to Consolidated Revenue Fund was $3,400,000, and under this Government it has been $13,200,000, or $9,800,000 per annum greater than during

the Liberal regime, or 290 per cent greater.
I would be pleased if the Minister of Finance would tell us how to describe that. The Minister of Finance says that the late Government was guilty of unparalleled prodigality, utter wastefulness, and unbridled extravagance; but, in view of the record of the Government of which he is a member, it is pretty hard for me to describe what it has been guilty of. I suppose it could be charged with strict economy, great carefulness and close supervision over the expenditures of the country, if one did not care to tell the truth. Let us see what the Conservative party promised the people of Canada they would do should they come to power. In the Montreal Gazette, just before the elections, there was a statement signed by the present Prime Minister which read:
The Liberal Conservative party gives its pledge to carry out the following policy if returned to power:	*
1. A thorough reorganization of the method by which the public expenditure is supervised. The increase in what is known as ordinary controllable expenditure from $36,500,000 in 1896 to nearly $87,000,000 in 1911 is proof of extravagance beyond all possible defence.	[DOT]
Then here is an extract from the election handbook issued by the Conservative party just prior to the last election:
If there is one thing more clear than another in the government of a democratic country it is that political leaders should be held to a strict account for their pledges and platforms. These form the basis of a contract between them and the electorate. These undertakings are solemnly given. They are not actionable in courts of law and therefore all the more should they be held cognizable in the great moot courts of the people and their terms rigidly exacted.
I remember a few days before the last election, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries came to my little town and held a meeting there. The weather was fine, and a large number of farmers gathered to hear them, and the meeting was held in a field. Mr. Borden declared that if he should come into power he would carry on the business of the country for at least $10,000,000 a year less' than the Liberal Government was expending, and he said he would do it without any injury to the public service.


Mr. BRADBURY:: Have you proof of that?


James Joseph Hughes: I was present and heard the statement.


George Henry Bradbury: Have you any other proof?


James Joseph Hughes: The present Prime Minister made practically the same statement in the Montreal Gazette, which is signed by his own hand.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not believe that the hon. gentleman can find anything to that effect signed by Mr. Borden with his own hand.


James Joseph Hughes: Did you not hear me read it?


George Henry Bradbury: I did; it is not the same thing at all.


James Joseph Hughes: The statement I read a few minutes ago appeared in the Montreal Gazette on the 15th August, 1911.


George Henry Bradbury: Is it signed by Mr. Borden?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, is the hon. gentleman satisfied now?


George Henry Bradbury: Read it.


James Joseph Hughes: It reads:
The Liberal Conservative party gives its pledge to carry out the following policy if returned to power:
A thorough reorganization of the method by which the public expenditure is supervised. The increase in what is known as ordinary controllable expenditure from $36,500,000 in 1896 to nearly $87,000,000 In 1911 is proof of extravagance beyond all possible defence.


George Henry Bradbury: There is no pledge
there to reduce it.


James Joseph Hughes: If it was proof of extravagance beyond all possible defence and if the right hon. gentleman did not intend to reduce it, then he was simply trying to fool the people.


George Henry Bradbury: He was talking about your extravagance.


James Joseph Hughes: If that was extravagance, how would you describe the increase in the expenditure under the Conservative Government to which I have just called attention?


George Henry Bradbury: The money was well
spent.


James Joseph Hughes: The trouble is that it
was not, if it was well spent there would not be so much to condemn in it. Let us take another account and here are the taxes which come directly out of the pockets of the people. I find that the yearly increase under this head which the late Government made for the fifteen years they were in power was $4,140,000, while the increase in the same account under the present Government is $12,550,000 a year, or over 200 per cent more. And yet the hon. gentleman says that the late Government is extravagant and that this Government is economical. But we have evidence against that in the public accounts which, as the Minister

of Finance has told us, cannot be controverted. Take the next account, that is in connection with the collection of revenue, and I find that the yearly increase under that head for the fifteen years the Liberal Government was in power was $1,000,000 a year, or $15,000,000 for the fifteen years; while under this Government the increase in three years has been $15,000,000 or $5,000,000 a year, or 400 per cent more. What does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bradbury) think of that? Then let us take the accounts under the heading "other expenditures", which I suppose covers miscellaneous expen'diturese The yearly increase under that head for the fifteen years the Liberals were in power was $2,000,000. Under the Conservative Administration the yearly increase was $7,500,000, or 275 per cent over and above the increase under the Liberal Administration. Let it be noted that all these statements refer to the fiscal year ending March 31, 1914, four months before war was declared. The war, therefore, cannot be charged with any portion of this extravagant expenditure.
The Prime Minister himself declared that the late Government was extravagant beyond all possible defence. The Minister of Finance, in the face of that record, made the statement which I have quoted two or three times. In the early part of my remarks I said that there were 100 men, perhaps 500 men in the Dominion of Canada, who, not only without increasing the public debt, but with reducing it, could have discharged all those so-called liabilities, obligations and responsibilities which the Minister of Finance declared no man but himself could carry. In the expenditure chargeable on Consolidated Fund Account, you will find the yearly increase under the Liberal Administration to be $3,400,000, and under this Government to be $13,200,000. If this Government had been satisfied with the yearly increase made by its predecessor, it would have saved in round figures $10,000,000 per year.
I do not know what defence can be offered for such extravagance. If the money was properly spent, it would be to the advantage of the country to some extent, hut we had an example of how some of it was spent when we were informed by the chairman of the Civil Service Commission-and his statement was found to be correct by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) who took the figures from a return brought down by the Government-that the

Civil Service had been increased by about 11,000 employees.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The chairman of the
Civil Service Commission has pleaded guilty since then.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. member for
Guysborough found that the statement made by the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission was more than correct.


Arthur Meighen: You cannot depend upon him.


James Joseph Hughes: He took the figures from the returns prepared by this Government. I do not know whether you can depend upon those returns or not.


Arthur Meighen: They are all right.


James Joseph Hughes: 
Arthur Meighen: Do they say they want to vote ?


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. gentleman is trying to be facetious. I have proved-


Arthur Meighen: Nothing.


James Joseph Hughes: I have proved the correctness of the statement made by the Toronto Globe a short time ago, that this Government was spending money like a drunken sailor. That statement is below the mark. The Globe should apologize to the drunken isailor. A shipload of drunken sailors could not spend money as this Government is doing. It is not my statement; the records are there and can speak for

themselves, and the hon. Solicitor General can try to give some explanation, if he wishes to do so; but it does not seem possible to justify the expenditure of the last three years.
If this unbridled extravagance has been maintained under this 'Government in time of peace, we may well ask what has been done in time of war. We know already a little of what has been done-we know that small druggists and drug clerks dn the city of Ottawa-in -a night-in the twinkling of an eye-have blossomed into wholesale druggists, 'and have obtained orders from the Government ranging from fifteen to forty thousand dollars, on which profits of 40 per cent to 80 peT cent have been made. We know that dozens of automobiles have been bought at very high prices, and that many of them have disappeared as completely as if the ground had opened and swallowed them. We know that sets of motor tires have been purchased for more than six hundred dollars a set, the wholesale price of which is less than three hundred. We know that members of Parliament and others, who would not know a hackney from a clydesdale, were commissioned to buy horses for the army; that many of the horses so bought were found to be unfit for duty and had to be 'Sold for what they would bring, and that many of them disappeared altogether.
Mr. A. De WITT FOSTER: Will the hon.
member offer to the House some proof of that statement ? If he refers to any act in which I have participated, I have already placed my denial on the pages of Hansard, and it is quite unfair for the hon. gentleman to make a statement without producing the proof.


James Joseph Hughes: The proof of this will be amply shown before the Public Accounts Committee, if any assistance is given by the party in power to have the facts brought out.


Arthur Meighen: You had better wait until then.


George Perry Graham: We will all wait.


James Joseph Hughes: We know that a young lady typist in the office of the Minister of Militia and Defence patented a shovel; and that as soon as the minister examined it he found it to be so useful for trench-digging and other purposes that he immediately ordered 25,000 of them-and he is still ordering more shovels. We know that the war grafters have hung like a cloud of locusts around the Government, and around the
troops; and that while spouting loyalty with their lips they have taken their blood-toll wherever they can find it. We know that the brave men who have offered their lives for their country have been given equipment that has cost enormous prices, but is entirely unfit for service. We know that they were supplied with boots that soaked in water like a sponge; and that if it had not been for the intervention of the home Government they would have been sent into the trenches in France and Belgium maimed and crippled for life before they saw the enemy. We know that the Auditor General tried to save the people of Canada from being robbed to the extent of hundreds of thousands of dollars; but we have not discovered where he got any assistance from the Government or from any member of the Government. We know that many of these practices are still going on, and that the Government is not ignorant thereof; but ignorance in such a case would be no excuse-it would be nearly as culpable as actual participation in the guilt.
The Government as a whole is responsible, and every member of the Government must take his share of the responsibility for these things. The Treasury Board must take its share. The Finance Minister must take his full share. But there is one man who above all the others must bear the odium of the guilt and the disgrace, and, as Nathan said unto David, so I say unto the Prime Minister, " Thou art the man."


Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise
to take part in this debate, my first utterances have special reference to the hon. ithe Minister of Finance (Mr. White), who enjoyed the most unusual privilege of being called to the cabinet in preference to certain friends of his, men of weight and ability, men with a wider range of experience, better informed, and having to their credit many years of parliamentary life; men well up in years who had long waited, no doubt, for recognition by their leader. But the hon. minister had qualities which placed him above all those gentlemen: he was a Liberal and all his life had been at the school of the distinguished followers of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. So early recognition was to be his, and it is no surprise that he should have taken precedence over his colleagues. He belongs to the privileged class, which explains the liberties he allows himself when referring to his erstwhile friends. I may say to him: it is your right, but you are

wanting in gratitude for -the party with which you had always been connected, the pafty in which you have received youi political education.
It was a pleasure to listen to the speech of the new member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Descarries), a man of parts, a distinguished member of the Montreal bar and with whom I have the honour of being well acquainted. He is one of my good friends, and also, I beg to tell him, the representative of the electoral division in which I reside. Therefore I owe him all the respect and consideration due from an elector to the member for his county.
His opening remarks were just and most appropriate. He alluded to the late Mr. Monk, ex-Minister of Public Works, in tones both solemn and grave. It was fit and proper and with the same feelings I wish to pay honour to the memory of the distinguished citizen who, before my hon. friend, was the representative of my county. -But the hon. gentleman has sinned against the canons of history in curtailing the truth. He stated that the late Mr. Monk was a distinguished man: I agree; quite so. A man of uncommon worth: But he has forgotten to state the reasons for his retiring from the Government. The hon. gentleman from Jacques Cartier who has just entered Parliament, loses sight of certain particulars. He was not here when the ex-Minister of Public Works twitted on the dissensions in the ranks of his party and among the ministers, replied from his seat in the House:	" Do not fret! I am
riveted, bolted, padlocked to my seat." Yes, hut his rivets had no heads, his locks no keys and his bolts no nuts. The next day he made his last bow to his colleagues and departed.
The intimate confidences of the ex-Minister of Public Works show that he was disgusted with his friends and their policies.
Mr. Monk was a man of talent, intelligent and honourable, true to his public statements and faithful to the pledges he had made to the electorate. Have his (friends followed his example? This the hon. member for Jacques Cartier failed to disclose. Yet this is an important point. One thing however is certain, he the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, has not followed in the footsteps of the late minister.
My hon. 'friend speaks of patriotism. Patriotism is a noble sentiment. The word fits well in a speech of the 24th of June. On that day we loudly proclaim our respect for our clergy, our schools, our institutions and our language. This on ,the -24th of 
June. But, Mr. Speaker, their cheers of the 25th are: Hurrah for Borden! Hurrah for his policy! But 1 say every day of the year. Hurrah for Laurier! Hurrah for his policy! And by these I stand publicly on the 24th of June as staunchly as on the next day.
Can the hon member recall what he stated during the campaign of 19X1? These gentlemen, nationalists of all grades, have in the meantime forgotten many things. At that time the hon. member was heard to cry out: Electors of Jacques Cartier, let us have no navy! Down with the navy! No contribution to imperial defence without consulting the people. These clamours have now escaped his memory. How times have changed! One day must not be held accountable for another. Once on a time there was a certain man, a demagogue, who had succeeded in throwing into confusion public opinion by shouting:	Down with
the Laurier navy! and no Borden contribution to imperial defence previous to consulting the people. And all this the hon. member has forgotten. Of the leader whom to-day he rightly regards with respect and whose eulogy he makes, he then said: Down with Borden! We shun Laurier's policy but we abhor Borden's which is worse. Is it not strange, Mr. Speaker, that tve should hear nothing of this? A singular deficiency of memory, indeed.


Mr. DESCAERIES (Translation):: It cannot be proven that I have ever uttered such words.


David Arthur Lafortune: What! But all this is ancient history. I expected your denial, because all those who attacked the Canadian navy have afterwards repudiated their utterances as you have just done. We have never been Nationalists, they asserted. When the hon. member for Champlain was asked if he was a Nationalist, he denied it and he was appointed Deputy Speaker.


Joseph-Adélard Descarries: I
would like to ask the hon. member if he has ever been a Conservative?


David Arthur Lafortune: As you have been a Liberal.


Joseph-Adélard Descarries: Never.


David Arthur Lafortune: The
opportunity is now given me to remind him that he has not always been a good Tory. Why open a discussion on this subject when the hon. member once fought against

his old leader, Mr. Mousseau, shielded behind Mr. Laflamme.


Joseph-Adélard Descarries: Never.


David Arthur Lafortune: What
change time works in a man! The hon. member for Jacques Cartier is well known. He has furnished the subject of a pamphlet, a poem, where he is represented as a poli

 tical chameleon. I should have been silent on this subject; but the hon. member is playing with fire when he states that I have once been a Tory. He asserts what is not true and knowingly. But I know whereof I speak when I say that the hon. member has belonged to every party and to every clique. The hon. member, as was his rights, has along with his friends overrun his county from end to end. He was accompanied by Mr. Bourassa (this was in 1910) and the late Mr. Monk, who, in his presence and with his approval, declared: we owe nothing to England.
I was in this House when the ex-minister stated:	we owe nothing to England, no
navy and no contribution. I am aware that the hon. member has not heard these statements but I have; and at Saint Henri, the late member, accompanied by his friends, held large meetings and there were shouts of: Down with the navy!. . . . The navy be d . . . ! It was even prophesied that the members who voted for the Bill would be cursed by their children. And that kind of talk was applauded by those gentlemen. And when they were taken to task for their change of front, they replied that they would not follow a fool who knew not his own mind. Thus they spoke of Mr. Bourassa who by his ability and efforts had secured the return of a large number, who otherwise would never have occupied seats in this House. To be called a crank by his friends was the only return he received for his help to them. But, I say, Mr. Bourassa is a man of ability, of weight, of industry. I have cause to complain of his actions towards me-


Mr. BOULAY (Translation):: Can the
hon. gentleman name a member who spoke of him in that way?


David Arthur Lafortune: All
Nationalists, from first to last.


Herménégilde Boulay: I should
like names.


David Arthur Lafortune: Why
give names. You know one another. You could be seen almost on your knees, hands raised high in prayers, invoking the Virgin to curse the Laurier navy, and swearing
that never would you vote a penny without having first consulted the will of the people.
During the last session, I inquired whether it was the Government's intention to repeal the Naval Act, they said: Stand. A second time my request met the same fate: stand; and again a third time: stand. The session adjourned: stand. And the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. Lesperance) who had introduced a Bill for the repeal of the Naval Act, never again mentioned the subject. Nothing but: stand. And stand it will for a long time to come. Such is the sincerity of the Nationalists. However, Mr. Bourassa stuck courageously to his guns. At the time of the hon. member's election by acclamation in Jacques Cartier, his portrait as depicted by Mr. Bourassa in Le Devoir would have been a flattering revelation to him. I will not repeat the compliments for fear he might feel insulted; but it makes painful reading. As a lent exercise, and an act of penance and humility, I recommend to my hon. friend a careful reading of that article.
I wish the hon. member had been in Drummond and Arthabaska to hear the invectives to which Sir Wilfrid Laurier was subjected on the part of his friends: Not a cent shall we give to England. Laurier is but a heartless wretch who would send his country's sons to be cut to pieces for the sake of England.
The triumph of the Conservative party may be attributed to the seditious language of Mr. Bourassa and his friends. He was accompanied by distinguished orators such as the member for Dorchester (Mr. Sevigny), whose eloquence moves even himself to tears; and such as the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Rainville). Mr. Rainville comes from an old Liberal family, and on this account he felt justified in saying throughout his county: I am a true Liberal, not of the worthless kind like Laurier and Lafortune, but of the true type like Henri Bourassa. Such language may be pardonable on the lips of Conservative Nationalists but not of old Liberals.
But Judases there are in every land, as there was one even in Holy Land. Everywhere there are deserters. Here some men retire in the evening Liberals and wake up in the morning Conservatives. The member for Jacques Cartier has insisted on his party's sincerity. What heritage, he exclaimed, have you left us? The legacies we have left them are easily inventoried: A clean slate, and the honour,

the integrity and the prosperity of our country. We have not left them scandal over scandal like the Curran bridge, the McGreevy affair, the Louise basin, the National printing supplies, the Tay canal. They entered into an estate made up of honourable dealings and works of public importance. The I.aurier administration has no Pacific scandle to show.


Herménégilde Boulay: And what
about the Transcontinental?


David Arthur Lafortune: The
Transcontinental? The Government ought to be ashamed of itself for having instituted an inquiry declaring first that they had laid hands on the Liberal grafting machine. There were not enough scandals with which to take the attention of the machine. The hon. member spoke of $200,000,000 as the price of that railway. And what if that were true? It only proves that $200,000,000 were spent by the Liberal Government, and not that they were spent injudiciously. We are entitled to fair play. The Transcontinental enterprise Laurier alone was big enough to undertake, it. The Liberals cannot be held responsible for such scandals as that of the Louise basin at Quebec, which resulted in the conviction of Messrs. McGreevy and Connolly. Mr. MrGreevy found the prison air unhealthy and later, with the help of the Conservative party, he was re-elected to this House.
Again the Liberals have not been guilty, as the Conservatives have at Saint Albert, of selling to a political friend for $10, property assessed by the municipality at $300,000; this is new to the hon. member. What was the minister's explanation when he was blamed for it? I know nothing about it, he said; it was done by one of my employees and the transaction passed unnoticed. Would you call that good administration?
At the sight of the men who supported Mr. Bourassa, the question suggests itself to me:	Where do they stand to-day?
Bourassa can hardly be blamed; he had to find a livelihood; he was almost ruined; he said so himself. He was in need of an organ; his nationalist friends came to his aid with $100,000. He overran the province of Quebec successfully. He showed himself an orator of unusual power, but he could not defeat me.
He came into my county swaggering and boastful but reaped only a failure. I do think that if he had not entered the fight against me, I should have been beaten.

But I exposed so clearly his deceit and bad faith that I obtained an easy triumph.


Herménégilde Boulay: There must have been some truth in what he said since your own wife applauded him.


David Arthur Lafortune: She
applauded him because he is an eloquent man, a talented man high above any of you.
His policy was that not a cent should be given without an appeal to the people.
Meanwhile his stand has been a consistent one and reliance may be placed in his word.
To-day these genltlemen wave the British flag. It is their business, but I prefer the man who keeps his word. The cry was spread that the Canadians were about to be sent to foreign lands to be cut to pieces by shot and shell. The triumph of the Conservative party was brought about by seditious appeals to the people. Bourassa took the lead and had it not been for his eloquence, many who are sitting in this House to-day would have been left at home. The hon. member for Dorchester (Mir. Sevigny), who is to-day deputy speaker of the House of Commons, a distinguished gentleman, a talented orator, declared before the electors, with tears in his voice, that he was opposed to the navy. And according to the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Rainville), who belongs to an old Liberal family, the Liberals were not worth a great deal; he alone deserved the confidence of the people. There have been traitors in our ranks. Judas is of all times and all countries. Some we know who, Liberals when they retire in the evening went forth in the morning Conservatives. They bring to my mind the five turncoats of Quebec. In the evening they voted confidence in Mr. Joly and next morning their votes went for Mr. Chapleau. They all had their reward. One received a judgeship another was called to the cabinet: each one received his price.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier spoke of his friends sincerely and of the legacies left by the Liberals when they gave up the reins of power. But what harvest did the Liberals reap in 1896 from the Conservatives' sowing? We at least have no Curran bridge, no McGreevy affair, no Pacific scandal, and none of those other scandals too numerous to enumerate, but which the whole country has witnessed.
Hon. gentlemen opposite thought they had at least unearthed in the Transcontinental railway a burrow of graft and maladministration, but since the report has

been tabled, nothing more has been said about it. The Transcontinental railway is a national enterprise and Laurier was the only man able to cope with this gigantic task.
The Pacific scandal has crushed the Conservative party under public odium. The party's chieftain, Sir John A. Macdonald, a statesman, was heard to exclaim: " These hands are clean "; but others were not able to say as much. Yes, many hands indeed were found to be unclean when the McGreevy-Connelly scandal was ventilated.
With the coming to power of the Liberal party instead of bankruptcy and wholesale emigration to the United States, manufactories dotted the country; a wide development of industry took place, the Canadians came back to their old homes, wages and salaries increased, and an era of prosperity dawned over the country. But when with time we had to somewhat modify our policy, what did the Conservatives say? Let well enough alone. This admonition bears witness to the excellence of the Liberal Administration; it is a certificate of efficiency.
But when the late Government negotiated a treaty with the United States, the Conservatives' clamour was that it was scandalous. Do nothing of the kind, they said to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, let well enough alone. What about this for contradiction after they had during a .quarter of a century pretended that he was not capable of managing the business of the country?
Now, Mr. Speaker, what explanation can be given for the presence in this House of men who lately had' only vituperation for their leader, saying:	Laurier's policy
is disastrous, but Borden's is worse. And when asked if it were not Borden who would be the next Prime Minister, they replied: Not by any means; we don't want him there; it must be either Mr. Monk or Mr. Bourassa for us. And the member for Chambly and Verchferes went from county to county, saying: I am a Liberal; I approve Mr. Monk's policy and not Mr. Borden's; Mr. Borden does not know his own mind. But on the morrow of the 21st of September, these gentlemen could be heard to , shout:	Hurrah for Borden! Rule
Britannia! and yet they are not ashamed, they do not blush to-day. But let them beware; the electors have a retentive memory, the newspapers have recorded all they have done and all they have said; their record is engraved in the minds of the people and, I declare, the people's judgment is supreme.


Herménégilde Boulay: The people's verdict was rendered in 1911. They asserted their rights by running you out of power.


David Arthur Lafortune: Yes;
buit the verdict is liable to be reversed and you will have to account for your pledges.
The member for Jacques Cartier was asking in his speech what had been done with the Manitoba school question. How rash it is of him to stir these embers? Had he been here when I asked the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) what he intended to do regarding the Manitoba school question, he would have heard the answer: stand. A second time I queried: now that you are in the cabinet, what position will you take on the school question? Again,, stand! But a third time, I managed to get an answer. Listen, my hon. friends, to the answer framed by Mr. Monk: As to the Manitoba school question, we have nothing to do with it, the question has been once for all settled by the Laurier-Greenway agreement; nothing more can be done.
Why! you have scoured the province of Quebec, you have declared from the doorsteps of every church, that if you came to power you would soon settle the question of the Manitoba schools. Yet the member for Jacques Cartier has told us to-night that it was not settled. Why then not settle it now?


Joseph-Adélard Descarries: The settlement will come.


David Arthur Lafortune: Yes;
we shall see it come, as sister Anne who saw the dust of the road and the grass of the fields, but saw no one approaching. There was in this House a man of greater importance ithan the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and when he stated that the question was settled, he knew whereof he spoke. When the hon member states it is not settled, he insults his memory.


Joseph-Adélard Descarries: I only said that the Liberals had effected a bad settlement.


David Arthur Lafortune: I appeal to the hon. member to ponder over the words of His Holiness Pope Leo XIII: My children, accept the arrangement which is offered you; it is not complete; but Under the circumstances I advise that you accept it and pray to obtain full justice. Now that these gentlemen have been in power for three years, have they even made an attempt to bring about a full settlement? The hon. member does not seem to know what

was done wdth the schools of Keewatin. My hon. friend seems to have kept aloft from public questions. I do not want to take an unfair advantage of him. He is young; he is new at the game; but he must not go too far in taunting the Liberal party; he should beware of calling us demagogues. When he has played the political game a little while longer, he will feel more generous towards his opponents. Mr. Bourassa would gain also by a little more generosity in debate. He spoke ill of me, but not enough to make me be unfair towards him. He insulted me; let it pass. Mr. Bourassa is a worker. He spends his nights writing and reading without any profit to himself or others. He tires his brains to the point that he had to take a rest elsewhere. This is the secret of the short trips he makes now and then. But really he is an extraordinary man. At Saint Jerome, addressing an audience of twenty thousand people, he took the Hon. Jean Prevost to task and said he was of dissolute habits.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh ! Oh!


David Arthur Lafortune: Yes,
dissolute. I was there. He charged Mr. Prevost with having returned from Belgium with young lady secretaries. Is that not the same thing? and the way it was said, there was no mistaking the meaning. It was clear French to us.
All these gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, will before long have to render an account of their actions to the electors. Let them not think that the public will forget. The people may be deceived in a moment ot passion; their good faith may be ensnared once, nut not twice. Those who at the cnurch doors swore they would stand by the will of the people and afterwards made light of their promises will receive in due time their punishment. Those who had masses said and the Blessed Sacrament exposed for the defeat of the Laurier Administration; those who shouted:	Accursed
navy! and dragged in the mire the name of the Liberal chieftain will one day have to render an account to the electors of their words and actions, and it will only be justice. Sir Wilfrid Laurier loves his country; he has always fought the battles of his fellow-citizens. He fell a victim to the vindictiveness of his opponents; but the great day of his rehabilitation is at hand.
The hon. member spoke of his leader's respectability and the harmony that reigns in his party. The harmony was nothing to boast of when Sir Mackenzie Bowell stated from his seat in the House that among those who surrounded him was a nest of

traitors, serpents and reptiles. The hon. member was silent on this point. He has forgotten the history of his party. He should refreshen his memory. Never has the Liberal party given the spectacle of similar scandals. It has always been free from serpents and reptiles.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has claimed for his party the honour of having made Canada the great country it is to-day. In 1878, when Alexander Mackenzie went out of power, the Conservative party inaugurated the National Policy. From 1878 to 1896, the country was in dire distress. The people were poor; industry was languishing; factory hands had one or two days' work a week; the French-Canadians in sheer discouragement were migrating to the United States; farms were being sold and the parishes abandoned. Desolation spread over the land. With the National Policy the great West remained undeveloped.
In 1896, Sir Wilfrid Laurier came to power and with the same tariff, the same Laurier, who is now the butt of your criticisms, transformed the country. We are not against protection in itself, so long as it is sensibly applied. Manufacturers, representative people in every walk of life, came or sent delegations to the Government asking that protection be not abolished. Sir Wilfrid Laurier reduced it 17)- per cent. Now, Mr. Speaker, how comes it that the hon. gentlemen on your right with the same tariff, and in the same country, obtained results the very opposite of ours which had culminated in a great and prosperous Canada. Where is the explanation? Is it not proof that they had not managed the country's affairs as prudent men of business should do? The hon. member for Jacques Cartier recalled the great names of Lafontaine, Cartier, Macdonald, Tupper and Borden. That they were distinguished statesmen is admitted by every one; but I must make an exception as to the last named politician. So far as he is concerned I abide by the testimony-of his Nationalist friends.
I am not one of those who pretend that the Conservative party has done nothing for the country. I concede that great national undertakings have been carried out by the Conservatives; but for all that, it ill fits the member for Jacques Cartier to say that the Liberals are demagogues.
I expected better from his first speech. He went on the wrong track. Another time he may be more careful.
The hon. member has brought forward the question of the Manitoba schools. But

what will you do regarding the question of the schools in Ontario? At the present time collections are made in the churches of the province of Quebec to help ithe causa.


Mr. PAQUET (Translation):: Will my
hon. friend state whether he thinks that under the British North America Act, the Government can do something in this respect?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Why,
then, did the hon. member refer to it in his speech last Friday?


Eugène Paquet: My answer is I believe that personally we can do something; but does my hon. friend hold that under the British North America Act, we can interfere, when the Ontario minority is not appealing to the Governor General in Council?


David Arthur Lafortune: This is something new. These gentlemen spoke differently when.the Manitoba school question was at issue.


Eugène Paquet: I ask my
hon. friend to keep to the question he has raised regarding the rights of the Ontario minority.


David Arthur Lafortune: I ask
my hon. friend to seek his information from the member for Jacques Cartier or the member for Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche). The latter is a distinguished lawyer, who knows more law than the doctor. The member for Nicolet has not taken the same position on this question that the hon. member for IAlslet has taken. I prefer the opinion of the member for Nicolet to that of the member for L'Islet as to the interpretation of the British North America Act. The learned doctor knows more about maple sugar and maple syrup than about the British North America Act. Let each one confine himself to his trade, let each one follow his profession; a cobbler must not set himself to shoeing horses.


Eugène Paquet: The hon.
member might reply, not to Doctor Paquei of Saint Aubert, in the county of L'lslet, but to the member for L'Islet.


David Arthur Lafortune: They
are of the same family and let them wrangle with each other.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has attempted to show the deep affection of the Canadian people for the Conservative party. This affection has come rather late. Have (the people been so very fond of the Conservative party since 1896? This party
came out of the elections of 1900 and 1904 crushed under an overwhelming defeat. In 1902, it was again beaten at the polls. The affection of which my hon. friend boasts came in 1911, and was born of falsehood and deceit. It is like a step-mother's love, of short duration.
The hon. gentlemen say that in 1911 their triumph came unexpectedly. Success came to them as a surprise, because their cause was bad. But there is strength behind an unchallenged lie. Bourassa had rushed all over the province stirring the people over the terrible consequences of war; nobody answered him; the Liberals let him alone. A man of Bourassa's ability, a powerful orator, fills the province with his eloquence and no one replies to him. Is it to be wondered at, Mr. Speaker, that people have put faith in his statements? Everywhere Bourassa boasted that Laurier and his friends did not dare take the platform and contradict him. And the people would naturally say: Bourassa is right, otherwise the Liberals would take the trouble of refuting him. But, Mr. Speaker, when he came into my county, your humble servant whose knowledge is limited, who is no match for him, at least courageous enough to meet him and forbid him to speak in his county unless he himself spoke on the same platforms; and D. A. spoke against him fearlessly. D. A. did not hide as many did. D. A. stood up and still stands, and I invite him at the next election to come in my county if I am again a candidate. I am not a man of great parts. I have no pretensions to science or eloquence but in justice I must be credited with a good deal of spirit.
When the Keewatin school question was before the House-and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier who alluded to the Manitoba school question should not have forgotten this point-did the Conservatives proceed to settle it as they had promised to do? They had the authority; why did they not exercise iit? Did not Bishop Charlebois ask the Government to settle the question? The Government did not make a move. The schools of Keewatin were sacrificed. I heard some priests applying to the Government the epithet " sans-coeur "; the fathers of Saint Lawrence told me that these gentlemen had deceived them odiously.
The question is akin to that of the French language in the schools of Ontario. The attempt is made to deprive the French-Canadians of their language in the schools, as if under the Treaty o'f Paris, at the time of the cession of Canada to England, the use of our language had not been


Mr. RAINVILLE (Translation):: I rise to a point of order, I hope the hon. member will understand that it is not to the credit either of the House or himself to introduce Lady Laurier's name in the debate. For the sake of decorum in this House, I ask the hon. member to have enough dignity and decency to refrain from that sort of talk.


David Arthur Lafortune: Hear
the member for Vercheres speak of dignity!
I was saying that when the colleagues of the learned member were attempting to prevent the leader of the Opposition from speaking after you, Mr. Speaker, had given him the floor, Lady Laurier wept at the sight of the treatment meted out to her husband.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think is is hardly
compatible with the dignity of the House to refer to those who occupy seats in the gallery during the sittings of the House.


David Arthur Lafortune: I submit to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I shall leave this subject aside.
When I saw that the leader of the Opposition was prevented from speaking, I could not but think that it was a most regrettable and most painful proceeding; yet the hon. member applauded long with his friends. Such action was without excuse and I say that those guilty of it will pay back a hundredfold the insult and outrage offered to the leader of a great party. There may be some difference of opinion between us but we should be fair to one another, and since the Speaker had found it fair and reasonable to grant the floor to the leader of the Opposition, his right to speak should not have been taken away from him by a mere majority vote. Such things should not

happen and such a course cannot be tolerated indefinitely and without amends being made.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Eight
per cent.


David Arthur Lafortune: Nine
per cent.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Oh! I can outbid you; I say ten per cent.


David Arthur Lafortune: As I
have still much to say and many questions to deal with, which may require some little time, I will, with the consent of the hon. minister move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. ROGERS:: I understand that the
whips have come to an arrangement by which two other hon. gentlemen are to speak to-night. I hope, therefore, that the hon. gentleman will be able to finish his speech.


David Arthur Lafortune: I am ready to go on, but you will have to be patient. It will take me more than an hour to finish.
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, I represent a county essentially agricultural, and the remarks I am about to make are in the best interests of that county and of the farming community in general. I think that when a member is elected, he is no longer Liberal or Conservative, but he is the representative of the whole county and must look after the interests of every one. It is the same thing with ministers of the Crown. In a county represented by a Liberal member there are not Liberals only, but there is a mixed population to such an extent sometimes that the majority is very small and there are no longer Liberals and Conservatives, but solely electors.
I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Finance very particularly to the tobacco industry which in recent years has made great progress. Years ago our annual production of tobacco was only one or two millions of pounds. Now it is eleven millions of pounds and that the producers may succeed, we must give them a share of protection. I grow tobacco myself. 1 planted ten acres last year and I gathered . in ten thousand pounds which are being prepared for the market. It is not generally known how expensive this crop is. With the present tariff as it stands, there is no big money to be made. Only the farmer who gets up at five o'clock iii the morning and works until sunset, along with his wife and children, can succeed in'"'making a
profit that is worth while; but not all farmers can or will do that. An increase was and is asked of the duty on foreign tobaccos. The manufacturers, of course, object to an increase because the easier the conditions under which they can import foreign tobacco, the less Canadian tobacco will they need.. If this duty which we ask was imposed, the manufacturers would have to purchase Canadian tobacco in order to mix it with the imported leaf; and the Canadian producer would be benefited thereby.
I submit these remarks to the consideration of the hon. Minister of Finance and hope that he will grant the request of the farmers.
I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not here, because my remarks are especially on an agricultural topic. I would like to see in the estimates a grant to help the farmers in building curing sheds. The growing of tobacco cannot be a success without them; and the same thing should be done by the Government for curing sheds as was done for butter and cheese factories.


Edmond Proulx: Where does the hon. member want them built?


David Arthur Lafortune: I would grant a bonus to every tobacco grower who built one on his farm. This would permit him to get better equipment and to produce a better tobacco.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: If the constituents of the hon. gentleman requested that the Hon. Mr. Caron, Minister of Agriculture for the province of Quebec, should apply for a grant for the purpose, to be appropriated from the Dominion vote, I think the hon. member would get it.


David Arthur Lafortune: I am in a position to state to the hon. member for Chambly that the thing that he suggests has been done; but the Dominion grant is not sufficient. Mr. Caron has no money to help the farmers.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: It would certainly be possible to lay aside $50,000 for this purpose.
Mr. iLAFORTUNE (Translation): This is what I ask.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: You
could certainly get it out of the Dominion grant.


David Arthur Lafortune: No. 1 found this out for myself. The Dominion grant is certainly insufficient to allow the



Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec to consider my request. If a grant equal to one-half the cost should be allowed to every farmer who builds a first-class curing house, it would greatly further the tobacco growing industry. The dairy industry was fostered in many ways; the farmer was induced to discard old-fashioned methods and to build up-to-date butter and cheese factories. He was granted substantial help. Why should not the same thing be done the tobacco industry? I represent an essentially agricultural community, a beautiful and extensive country, and if I am still its representative in the next Parliament, I shall have to travel one hundred miles to visit it fully. This is enough to show that at the present moment, I am fulfilling an important duty. Montcalm country lies north of the Laurentian mountains. Within its bounds are to be found sixty lakes abounding with fish; there are forests which have never echoed the woodman's axe, actually within forests; there is a wide surface of splendid arable land and it .is one of the largest constituencies in the province. The production of tobacco is the chief industry of Montcalm county and should ever the hon. Minister of Finance wish to smoke a good pipe of tobacco, let him try the tobacco raised in my county or in Essex county. Our tobacco is favourably known, but if the farmers of the counties of L'Assomption, Berthier, Joliette, and especially Terrebonne are to succeed they must be given protection by means of an increased duty on the foreign article.
There is already a duty of 28 cents per pound on these foreign tobaccos, but this is not sufficient.
The minister has had the courtesy to receive a large joint deputation of tobacco growers from Quebec and Ontario. The delegates were tendered a cordial reception by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Inland Revenue. Splendid speeches were made and all possible encouragement was promised. The numerous delegates asked the ministers to impose an increased duty of seven cents on imported tobacco. This request is altogether legitimate. Last year
22,000,000 pounds of tobacco passed the Canadian Customs. Now, if an additional tax of seven cents a pound were imposed, it would mean a big reduction in these importations, which mean a ruinous competition to the Canadian weed.
The American tariff imposes a duty of V0 cents a pound on foreign tobaccos. It is a prohibitive duty. The markets of the United States are practically closed to our tobacco. Why then should we allow into

the country foreign tobaccos to the extent of 22,000,000 pounds? Such would not be the case if our request for an increase of seven cents in the duty were granted I do hope that, after receiving serious consideration, it will be granted. So far as I an; concerned, I hope our farmers will continue to improve their methods of cultivation so as to place on the market a product still better than what we have to-day. The minister who witnessed how earnest the delegates were in asking this protection against foreign competition, must have been convinced of the necessity of this measure. Besides the increase of seven cents in the duty, the delegates further asked the Government that means be taken to abolish trusts and combines which are so harmful to the grower. Some manufacturers get together and fix themselves the price they wish to pay. The farmer has no control, the combine is the judge and master. These trusts are powerful and the growers cannot keep up the fight they are putting up against them. They actually control the price of tobacco. Why do you see the dairy industry take so much importance? It is due to the encouragement it receives. Why not do the same for tobacco? The counties of Montcalm and Joliette afford particular facilities for the tobacco-growing industry. If the farmers had the means of getting all the necessary equipment they could market a better product. They should receive a grant to help them in building curing sheds. Let the Government make them the necessary advances on reasonable terms of repayment.
Another question to which I wish to draw the attention of the Government is that of tobacco seed. It should be supplied to the farmer. Those who know will acknowledge that it is perhaps the most important point. Good seed is essential to the production of tobacco of the best kind. At the present time, the grower goes to the store, asks for Comstock Spanish seed and is given Kentucky seed. Such errors often happen to the loss of the grower. He expects a certain kind of tobacco and gets an entirely different kind. I discussed the matter with the Superintendent of the Tobacco Branch of the Experimental Farm and he agrees with me. The tobacco seed should be supplied. The expense would be slight, but the question becomes important when so many errors are made by merchants who in perfect good faith because they themselves have been deceived, sell bad seed or seed of one variety when another variety is required. That has happened about fifty times at Saint Jacques,

Saint Alexis, Saint Esprit, and elsewhere. I maintain that the Superintendent of the Tobacco Branch at Ottawa should have enough seed to distribute to farmers, so as to prevent such mistakes. I am aware, of course, that if I ask this official for tobacco seed he will give it to me in exchange for the price, but I say it should be given free of charge. I can pay for it, but I claim it should be given to the farmers.
Another question which deserves the attention of the Minister of Agriculture is the drainage of farms in Ontario and Quebec. In those provinces, substantial grants were at first made for that purpose, but were afterwards discontinued; why, I do not know. When the Government put that policy into effect, general satisfaction was expressed. Farmers congratulated themselves, thinking that stones lying about would be removed, and that the embankments of ditches would be levelled down and the water given free access to the ditches. But that did not last. Was there friction of some kind between the Dominion and Provincial Governments? I do not know. I spent $1,500 of my own money to drain my land, hut not everybody can do that. Grain, potatoes, and corn cannot grow in water. Intensive cultivation cannot succeed in undrained land. Fruit trees also require a good drainage. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier understands drainage. He knows what beautiful orchards surround Montreal. The success of the orchards at Cote des Neiges, Notre-Dame de Grace, Coteau St. Pierre, Dorval and elsewhere was due to the land being naturally drained, while the failure at Pointe Claire, Saint Anne, Saint Laurent, lie Bizard, was due to the unfavourable conditions offered by a water-logged soil. Apple trees, plum trees and cherry trees will not thrive in undrained land unless planted on hillsides. I claim that drainage should be given the same encouragement that was given to the cheese and butter industries and to the postal service, etc. The farming community must get more consideration than it has had in the past at the hands of the Government. I called on the Hon. Mr. Caron, Minister of Agriculture for the province of Quebec, a pains-taking minister- and apparently a practical agriculturist, and he acknowledged as I do the necessity of draining the farms.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Yes, but a minister who is rather parsimonious.


David Arthur Lafortune: Rather, but one could not expect him to give what he had not. The farmers do not possess the o6i
means of draining their lands when they are flooded. The situation is not the same as is to be found at Varennes on the old homesteads. That is the finest parish in the province. But elsewhere the ease is different. Around Montreal, the land, for lack of drainage, does not even afford good grazing, because they have not the necessary ditches to drain off the surplus water. A quarter and sometimes one-half the land is not drained. All the newspapers report the earnest intention on the part of the Dominion Government to encourage the development of agriculture and secure larger returns. That is a commendable policy. The farmers must be given the means of success. Now, I claim that the Dominion Government should help the provincial authorities by granting them a fair amount to be distributed so as to secure those improvements which will render agriculture more profitable and the farmer more prosperous. It is useless to speak of progress in agricultural pursuits if the basis of them all, that is the land, is not first given proper attention. This is elementary. Begin first by draining the land, for heavy rains cause the cereals to rot and may in quick order destroy the results of your efforts. The farmers therefore should be encouraged to drain their land by giving them a grant equal to one-half the expenditure. This grant would be given only where the work has been done according to approved methods and on an inspector's certificate that it has been done in accordance with the requirements and in a proper way.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Macdonald College could furnish the necessary information.


David Arthur Lafortune: Yes,
but it is a private institution and I fear they would not furnish it. I have asked the Department of Agriculture at Quebec to send engineers to show me where the ditches should be dug out. They sent me an engineer from the Macdonald Farm who made the plans and instructed me how to carry them out.
The information given out by the Ottawa Experimental Farm should be more widely distributed; and for this purpose agricultural stations should be established. Hon. Mr. Fisher, Minister of Agriculture in the Laurier Government, had agreed to consider the proposal and to attempt the establishment of such stations.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: But he lacked the time to do it. He was satisfied with giving pledges.


David Arthur Lafortune: Farmers form a most important part of the community, and they need protection on account of their restricted means.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: You are now converted to protection.


David Arthur Lafortune: I never was opposed to protection intelligently applied. I am a good party man, as every one knows, but not such as to follow blindly. I look at this question, as at all others, from the viewpoint of the practical man. A stock of pamphlets, circulars and seed grain should be left in those agricultural stations for the benefit of the farmers. This scheme is of interest to all the farmers in the land and should have the support of my hon. friends opposite. I have failed as yet to persuade the minister, but I do not despair that before long every one will acknowledge as I do the necessity of establishing these branches of the Experimental Farm. I have no desire to depreciate the work done by that national institution, which gives excellent results and is absolutely necessary to the development of our agriculture, but I do say that with its present system of organization, it does not achieve the purpose for which it was established. I once accompanied a party of two hundred farmers who visited the farm. We saw splendid exhibits and magnificent stock: horses, cattle, sheep, hogs. But one has only time to glance at this, while he would like to stop and examine, and get a fund of information. As things are at present, it is impossible, through lack of time, to obtain the information one would wish. Our farmers are anxious to learn; they are ready to go far in the way of expenditure, provided they be given some help. This particular class of the population, it is worth repeating, deserves special protection. It is not the lawyer, doctor or notary who builds up the country, but the man behind the plough. The fact is acknowledged in all countries. The tilling of the soil is the noblest of occupations. The farmers in Canada are seventy per cent of the population, and they are afforded the least protection of all classes. Now, I claim for them no privileges, but elementary justice. Who built the schools, the churches, the presbyteries; who built everything in this country, if not the agriculturist? So it is not charity that I beg for him; it is equal justice that I demand. How was the country peopled? It is not to city inhabitants that the larger number of children are born, but to country people. While only a few little ones are to be found

in the home of the manufacturer or the professional man, the farmer's cottage shelters ten, twelve and even fifteen children. Agriculture is the source of all progress. It is the nurse of the State. But what protection does she get, when duties are imposed on agricultural implements, threshing machines, ploughs, harrows, rakes, harvesters, rollers, etc.? Such is the protection afforded. Does the legislator act wisely in putting duty on farming implements? Why not rather raise the duty on silk goods, laces and velvets? Why not increase the tax on whiskey, tobacco and all things superfluous? I state the imposts on farm appliances are a national crime.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Sevigny) (Translation):: I beg to call to the hon. member's attention the fact that there is an understanding between the two parties, and that two other orators are to follow him. It might be well if he would cut his remarks as short as possible.


David Arthur Lafortune: I am
sorry, but I feel I would not be doing my duty if I failed to say all I have to say. It will take me about half an hour longer. I say to the Hon. Minister of Finance: Take off the taxes now weighing upon agricultural implements. Impose your taxes on silks, velvets and beautiful flowers.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: The
duties on these are high enough already.


David Arthur Lafortune: Raise
them again. If a lady wants tq wear a $50 hat, let her pay for it.
There is something else I should like to see modified. Under the late Administration, fry was distributed to all those who wished to restock the lakes and rivers. That practice has been stopped. There are sixty lakes in my county, and fish is getting scantier on account of the large number of tourists. Some years ago the fry was given 'free and placed in the lakes by Government employees. To-day we cannot get it, I myself own a lake in the North. To-day the fry must be bought. Will the Government derive a great benefit from this sale? Of course not. Why not distribute the fry free of charge so as to continue to stock 'our lakes?
The poultry industry should also receive Government help. It is to be regretted that in Canada this industry is so little encouraged. Financial aid should be granted the farmers to help them in building model poultry yards. At such times as these when the supply of eggs is not sufficient to meet the demands of the market, I say it

is time that our farmers be helped to take the hens out of the cow-house into first-class poultry yards, where they would lay more eggs. If the egg market is not supplied as it should be, what is the reason? It is due to the negligence of our farmers and their lack of means to build a proper hen-house.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: It does not cost very much, and the Dominion Government allows the provincial government a grant of $25,000 which could be utilized for the purpose.


David Arthur Lafortune: I do
not know how that money is spent. If a farmer wishes to lay out a model poultry yard, he writes the department at Quebec, who sends two carpenters. They build the hen-roost. It is something, but more is required. The Dominion Government ought to determine the amount to be spent on each poultry-house, so that sufficient eggs may be marketed to supply the demand. I had some hens and built a model poultry-house that cost nie perhaps a little more than it should, hut it was for my own satisfaction. That industry must be encouraged by all possible means. The Government should make it known to the farmers that if they build poultry-houses according to certain definite rules as to plan and material, one-half the cost would after construction be paid by the Government. The barn would no more serve as a hen-roost. This experiment is worth attempting. Millions of dollars have been given to the railways; why should not some encouragement of the kind I have mentioned be extended to the farmers. Railways have been built, roads have been opened, courthouses, registry offices, penitentiaries have been erected. Why should not the farmer receive the help I have suggested? This class of the population deserves to be especially protected.
There is	another measure which	mustbe	carried	out,	Mr. Speaker. The cryis	general	that	children must be	sentto	school,	and	that the exodus	from
the rural districts into the cities must be stopped. This is an excellent policy, but in order that the child be kept on the soil, he must be taught agriculture. Why is there not a school-garden annexed to every school? Why not have on the school grounds a kitchen-garden by which to instil into the pupils the love of agriculture, as is done in Europe, as was done especially in that unfortunate country, Belgium, which has just been overthrown?


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: She has not been overthrown.


David Arthur Lafortune: j Not utterly overthrown; but she can come to her own again only with the help that will be given her; but that she does is my earnest wish.
The Minister of Agriculture, in my opinion, should set aside in his estimates a certain sum to establish school-gardens, and appoint an inspector, a practical man, whose duty it would be to prepare pupils, not perhaps on, the same scale as at Grignon College, in France, but at any rate to give them practical lessons. A real benefit would accrue therefrom to the farming community, and there would not be so many young girls dreaming of nothing but dress, theatres, and moving pictures. How can a child have a liking for agriculture when he is ignorant of its very elementary principles? In this elementary experiments in the school-garden, the pupil will be doing on a small scale what later he will be called on to do in the larger field of the farm.
A word also on apiculture. It should be taught at school. But in this country bee-keeping is only an infant industry. No farm is complete without hives. While at Chateauguay last year I visited the apiary of a Mr. Beaudin. This gentleman had an humble beginning, but success attended his efforts and to-day he is reputed a rich man.
On reading the statistics of old European countries, we find that the yield of hay is at its best only where bees are kept. The -same holds good for the orchards. Yet no encouragement is offered here to the keeping of bees. My suggestion is that a certain grant -should be made to every farmer who constructs an apiary.
Another question which in my humble opinion is not without importance is the lack of encouragement given to ploughing competitions. It gives me pleasure to see at his seat the new member for Jacques Cartier. He will listen to me as he is wont to do, respectfully. I would ask him to stir up his friends to help towards establishing an annual fair at Montreal. The Montreal members seem quite indifferent to the question.
The Hon. minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) is a distinguished gentleman, by whom the judiciary has been honoured. He resides in the Montreal division of St. Anne's, one of the most important as regards trade and manufacture. What is he doing to promote an exhibition in Montreal?

Mr. Ames is a prominent man, a man high in his party, who represents one of the wealthy divisions of Montreal. What is he doing to forward the movement? The late lamented Mr. Monk had inaugurated a scheme of that kind. One day he called together all the farmers around Montreal. I was present and addressed the meeting. For a time I thought success had been achieved; but the usual happened, and the preparations fell through. Is it not pitiful to see Montreal, the queen city of Canada, with its population, manufactures and harbour facilities, without her exhibition. Toronto boasts of a splendid fair; I attend every year; it is both beautiful and instructive. I have seen in the one day an attendance of 300,000 at the Toronto Fair. Ottawa has her national exhibition. I am a regular visitor there too. Beautiful exhibits are to be seen, which are an encouragement, to agriculture and industry. It also records a large attendance. Three Rivers, Sherbrooke and Quebec, as well as the western cities, hold an annual fair. But in Montreal there is no place to put even a cat on exhibition. And yet the queen-city of Canada has among its representatives in this House men of great worth, even ministers; but Montreal in this respect, is completely neglected. Of course farmers are told: Keep to the soil, till the land; but the produce of your labour will not be exhibited. Toil away, spend large amounts to breed good stock, but keep your thoroughbreds in your stables; you have no place to show them. How long will we stand for this state of things? Will not the member for Jacques Cartier take the initiative of the movement, and shake the members of the Government out of their apathy? Could not advantage be taken of some important centenary to have a large exposition at Montreal?
Another cause of dissatisfaction, M'-\ Speaker, lies in the stubborn refusal of the Dominion Government to improve our roads. At first the Government intended to spend a large amount for that purpose and a scheme to that effect was put before the House. But when tne Bill was amended by the Senate, the Government refused to accept the proposed amendment. And yet that amendment was fair and proper. We were in favour of the expenditure of millions for good roads, but we were unwilling that it should be distributed under the control of the Dominion department. The amendment provided for a pro rata parcelling of this credit to the different provinces on the basis of population. And 
this should have been accepted. To do otherwise would have been an infringement of provincial autonomy.
Mr. RAINVILLE i('Translation): The hon. member suggests improvements and pleads for the farmer. He has requested the Dominion Government to enact various measures in the interest of agriculture and to subsidize it in various ways. How is it that, as regards good roads, he is of a different mind and asks that the grants be made through the provinces?


David Arthur Lafortune: I claim that the Dominion Government should give aid to the farmers, but through the intermediary of the provinces.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Even for the cultivation of tobacco?


David Arthur Lafortune: The
fiscal regulations governing tobacco come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Inland Revenue. My hon. friend (Mr. Rainville) who represents in this House, as I do myself, the agricultural element of his province, ought to stand by me in the request I have been making.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: My answer to the hon. member, and I make it in passing, is that I am most anxious to help the farmers. I wish to say that for three years past, although ,$600,000 have been received by the Quebec Government to promote agriculture, not a cent of that money has been spent in the two counties of Chambly and Verchferes.


David Arthur Lafortune: If such is the case, it is to be regretted indeed.
Mr. RAINiViILLE (Translation):	If the
Dominion 'Government took unto itself to distribute its grants, I should be delighted.
Mr. (LAFORTUNE (Translation): I contend that after elections a member of Far-liament becomes the representative of all interests. He must look after the welfare of all classes and see to it that they all get equal justice. If favours and privileges are to be bestowed; if, for instance, patronage is to be distributed and government positions filled, it is only good tactics to confer these favours on the recommendation of friends of the Government. It has been the constant practice. It may be an evil, but it has always been the usual thing. But when the welfare of agriculture is at stake, where those great predominating interests are concerned, the white flag is the one to hoist, not the red or the blue.

Merchants have often complained to me of the need for a bankruptcy law. They claim that such a law identical for the whole Dominion is a necessity. Canadian trade to-day is interprovincial. The Montreal tradesmen, through their commercial travellers, deal with Winnipeg, Toronto, the maritime and the western provinces. Those who sell their wares have a right to a uniform bankruptcy Act. But the farmer must be left out of its operation; as he is not a trader, he cannot go into bankruptcy. I realize that in the business of the merchant and the manufacturer, there are fluctuations. Some unforeseen event may happen which forces him to declare his insolvency. He makes a settlement with his creditors, and once peace is restored, he begins anew. Not so with the farmer. If things go ill with him, he is debarred from making a settlement with his creditors; he cannot begin all anew. If a bankruptcy law is enacted, therefore, the farmer should be excepted from its operation. A debt to a farmer is as sacred as are the salaries of employees. Such a law is necessary, and the merchants are urging that it be passed. The Government should give the matter early consideration. For the last two sessions, I brought an important subject to the attention of the ex-Postmaster General, who, unfortunately for me, but perhaps happily for himself, has given up politics for good. I wish to mention the matter to the new Postmaster General. To my mind an enactment is urgently required' forbidding the posting of money letters without prior registration. I always feel sorry, when as Crown Attorney I have to proceed against poor employees of the Post Office Department, who often belong to respectable families; because post office employees are generally sons of members, or of professional men who in order to earn wherewith to complete their studies, seek in the meantime a position in the Post Office Department. Almost every month some of these young men are brought before the courts for having stolen fifty cents or sometimes a dollar, and the minimum sentence is three months at hard labour. Is it not pitiful to see a young man, the son of a judge, a member, or a professional man condemned for such a petty theft? Registered letters are not stolen, because they are easily traced. In France one is not allowed to put a cent in an ordinary envelope under penalty of a fine or imprisonment. Why not do the same thing here? It would cost nothing; on the contrary it would bring some revenue to the Government.
Instead of charging five cents for registration, a three-cent stamp might be sufficient. But in any case no money letter should be mailed without being registered. The ex-Postmaster General had acknowledged the desirability of such a measure. His answer was that, after listening to my plea, he found that the grounds I put forward would justify such an enactment and that he would give me a reply at this session. He is now gone, and, I hope to occupations more congenial to him. The present Postmaster General will, I trust, read the remarks, I have just been making. The post office at Montreal, together with its branches, comprises a large number of employees. Not a week passes but some one of them is brought up who has fallen from grace. His name is kept secret, and, for the sake of his family, the matter is hushed up but he goes to the penitentiary just the same. It is altogether deplorable.
For the last quarter of a -century, no exposition has been held in Montreal. I am the owner of high-priced horses and in order to exhibit them, I should have to ship them to Toronto or Ottawa, there being -no fair held in Montreal. And to think there are in this House ministers who represent Montreal! Let something be done for that city. The Board of Trade, the capitalists, the large hotels, all clamour after an exposition. Meetings without number are held; resolution after resolution is adopted, and yet nothing is accomplished. I urge the ministers to consider earnestly the remarks I have made and see that Montreal gets its exposition. Everywhere exhibitions receive grants. With that I have no fault to find; they are a necessity. But should not Montreal get its share of the public moneys? Montreal is the city which furnishes most to the public treasury. The Canadian metropolis -seems to be the victim of a conspiracy. The farmers are told: you are the -monarchs of this land; the country looks up -to you. But the farmers in turn have a right to look up to the Government. They are interested in this exhibition. Not only should Montreal hold an annual fair, but an international exposition should be organized with permanent buildings, an exposition worthy of this great city's commerce and industries.
Such an exposition should be held at Saint Laurent, in the division of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. Fine, up-to-date buildings should be erected for the purpose at Saint Laurent. There are already to be found in that suburb a college

and a convent; the transportation facilities are many; and as it is the custom at such fairs to have horse races, there are splendid grounds which could be turned into a racetrack. At the Chicago fair college students served as guides to the visitors. I ask the hon. member for Jacques Cartier to give his best consideration to that proposal for an exposition at Montreal.
The continued British embargo on our cattle is also to be deplored. That restriction on Canadian cattle has for some years past prevented its exportation, with a consequent loss to the cattle trade. We are draining our resources to the extent of millions of dollars in order to help the old country. Why, then, should there be discrimination against our cattle, under the pretence that they are not healthy. That embargo should be raised. Why is it allowed to continue ? It is an arbitrary measure. There is no sense or justice in thus depreciating the value of our cattle by alleging that they are infected with tuberculosis. If our herds are contaminated, the fact should be disclosed here previous to shipment, and not after the freight and insurance charges have been paid. It is otherwise a gross injustice. I do not wish to appear too critical of British methods, but I wish to point out that the representations we have made have passed unheeded, and we continue to be ill-treated in that respect. The time has come when a stop must be put to such a state of things.
I said something a while ago about the necessity for a Dominion Insolvency Act. The Ontario Act regarding insolvent debtors is different from that of Quebec, and the latter again is different from the enactments of the maritime provinces on the same subject. Such legisation is asked for by all merchants. An attempt at framing an Act has already been made, and Judge Fortin, then member for Laval, prepared a Bill to that effect; but the House prorogued before the Bill had been put through. Later, in 1902, Mr. Fortin was appointed to the judiciary and the Bill was not again taken up. But Insolvency Acts ought not to include debts due to a farmer, who is not a trader. A merchant can always make a new start; it is the usual thing in trade. But the farmer cannot. His claims should, therefore, be privileged and not be included in the proceedings in bankruptcy.
The interest of the country demands that greater encouragement be given to the cultivation of fruit-trees. A special grant should be apportioned among fruit-growers, and fMr. Lafortune.]
inspectors should be appointed to supervise the improvement of orchards, especially, when they are infested with pests. Of what use is it for a diligent grower to give his trees the best of care if his neighbour, by neglecting to attend to his trees, breeds the pests which will infest the neighbourhood. Special inspectors should be appointed by the Government to see that noxious insects are destroyed. Such a measure is of first importance.
When the Government undertook to guarantee $55,000,000 of bonds of the Canadian Northern railway, I had requested that the company extend its Montreal-Raw-don line to the Transcontinental railway. These millions of dollars were voted after the company had pledged itself to extend its branch lines. In my county there is an important line from Montreal to Rawdon and we had received the assurance from the officials of the company that it would be extended to the Transcontinental. I am sorry to say that nothing has been done so far. The poor settlers of my county should at all costs be helped out of the painful position in which they are now. I (very, specially recommend the extension of this line.
At the last electoral campaign, the discussion between my opponents and myself took place over the expenditure. They alleged that the Liberal ministers had been extravagant spendthrifts; that, in the words of the Minister of Finance, their expenditure had been uncontrolled and uncontrollable. There was some fight also over the navy, and especially in Ontario, over the " ne temere." Laurier was held accountable for mixed marriages. The speech makers also brought in the school question. As mentioned by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, the pledge was given that if the Conservatives were put at the helm of the state, this question would be settled in short order. Reciprocity was also fought for and against, our opponents shouting:	"Let well enough alone." And
then there was the question of prohibition.
I for one am a total abstainer; I make use of neither tobacco nor liquor; but Mr. Laurier, who is himself an abstainer, did not wish to foist prohibition on the province of Quebec and I think he was right. But we hope that at the next election the navy will be out of the debate,-our Conservative friends will not dare introduce the subject-the ne temere will have been buried, the school question will be no more, as Mr. Monk stated, and the reciprocity treaty will not be an issue. How

strange indeed! When we were in power, the members on your left, Mr. Speaker, reproached us saying:	You promised
reciprocity and you have not brought it about; and when it was practically brought about, we were blamed for doing it, and that was one of the causes of the Liberal defeat. The object of these remarks is to lay bare the insincerity of these gentlemen. At the present time, corn is the only feed that we import for our hogs, horses and cows. Corn previously was on the free list, but the present Government has put a duty on the only feed we do not produce.
The exit from the House of the ex-Post-'master General leaves me indifferent. The present minister Hon. T. Chase Casgrain, is a worthy successor; he is an honest man, and a fine orator. I believe he is worthy of the portfolio confided to his care.
Mr. Nantel exclaimed at St. Jerome:	I
will cut off my hand before anything is given to Great Britain; but to-day that gentleman who accused the Liberals of living at the public expense is himself a member of the Railway Commission; he receives a splendid salary and is happy.
The hon. member for Dorchester has also had his reward; he performs his duties of Deputy Speaker in a dignified manner. The hon. membeT for L'lslet will soon be appointed postmaster. I rejoice with him.
In the course of my experience, there is one thing that came particularly to my notice. When, in 1897, I made an investigation officially as Royal Commissioner into the administration of the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, I found that all the prisoners were mixed up without any attempt at classification. The old offenders and the young criminals were all together. These old relapsers are in a sort the teachers of crime for the younger element.
In my capacity as Royal Commissioner, I had recommended to Sir Oliver Mowat, the then Minister of Justice, that the prisoners be put in three classes. The recommendation was to be carried out, but the thing was not done. If the hon. the Minister of Justice could only realize the evils attendant on the present system, he would without delay establish a system of classification, whereby the old criminals would be put in a room apart and the younger men in their own separate quarters. Why should they be left together to eat, to go to church, etc.? They ought to be separated. Such a reform is most desirable. The life prisoners are very dangerous men. Their sole thought is to find a means of escape; all
their life, they go on plotting and conspiring. A serious evil exists, and the only remedy is the proper classification of criminals.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member must be aware that the question before the House is the only question to which he can properly direct his attention. This debate has gone on with considerable latitude, and I have not attempted to restrict it in any way; but it does seem to me, after listening for quite a long time to a discussion of the affairs of the country, that the matter of the classification of criminals is not pertinent to the question before the House, which is as follows :
That this House is ready to provide for the exigencies of the present situation and to vote all necessary ways and means to that end, but it regrets that in the measure under consideration duties are imposed which must be oppressive upon the people whilst yielding little or no revenue, and that the said measure is particularly objectionable in the fact that instead of favouring, it is placing extra barriers against Great Britain's trade with Canada, at a moment when the Mother Country is under a war strain unparalleled in history.
That is the question which stands for the consideration and decision of the House, and it is the only one to which the hon. gentleman can properly direct his attention in this debate. I am reluctant to draw the hon. members attention to the matter, but I thought that, being a comparatively new member, he was not, perhaps, as familiar with the rule as older members of the House are.


David Arthur Lafortune: I was trying to show that the Government should effect some remedy in the matter of the classification of criminals. That is the point I was discussing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is a point which is not pertinent to the question under consideration. The matter before the House refers not to criminals, criminology or criminal classification, but to the question of duties.


David Arthur Lafortune: I comply with your decision, Mr. Speaker, and I pass to another question.
I have referred already to the schools and I say that instead of voting millions to help Great Britain, we should not lose sight of our duty towards our compatriots in Ontario. I do not find fault with the legitimate expenditure of millions of dollars, but I say that we should endeavour, by all possible means, to help in the settlement of the difficulties which divide British subjects in Ontario. The question of schools is one of language. That the Government

should keep in mind. If millions have to he spent for the war, I agree to it, but I add that something should be done towards settling that vexed question.


Mr. ROCHON (Translation):: May I ask the hon. member how the Government *could bring about the settlement of that difficulty.


David Arthur Lafortune: By taking steps to nave it determined whether the provincial government had the right to do as it has done. These gentlemen on your right, Mr, Speaker, could give the same pledge they have given when they were in opposition. The question is identical to that raised by the member for Jacques Cartier regarding the Manitoba schools.
The Government's programme, as expounded in the Speech from the throne, insists on the necessity for the farmers to remain on the farms and till the soil. That is a very commendable policy and one with which I am in thorough sympathy. But the Government, by way of encouragement, cuts down the number of representatives for the rural districts to increase the representation of cities. A strange encouragement, indeed! The farmers are told to till the soil and in return the protection to which they are entitled is taken away from them. In the cities the citizens have easy access to their representatives; indeed two hours riding In an automobile will enable one to make a complete survey of a city electoral division. An urban elector is in contact with the whole world. The newspaper brings the news of the universe to his breakfast table. In the country, on the other hand, miles and miles have to be travelled over and, as the hon. member for Terrebonne must have experienced, the roads are not always of the best.
So great was the country's prosperity under Liberal rule, that money was flowing everywhere, and the rate of interest had to be lowered from six to five per cent. Legislation had also to be enacted against usury. To the Liberals also is due credit for having introduced the secret ballot. The member for Jacques Cartier claims for his party the credit of having made Canada what it is. That is no small pretension. The Conservative majority did not see to safeguarding the small borrowers against the evils of usury. Under the Conservative rule, industries decline, while the good Liberal Administration made them thrive. With the Liberals in power, the workingmen were prosperous, in fact prosperity was general. Laurier promoted a healthy 
immigration, and guided by his wise policy the settlement of the country made immense strides. Many sons and daughters of Canada who had left for the United States have returned. Expatriation to the United States was the consequence of Conservative administration. It stopped during the Liberal rule.
My last word is that it was well that Sir Wilfrid Laurier should be defeated that he might be spared the responsibility of what is now going on and of the mistakes which are being committed. But his time will come and history will record that he was the greatest among the great. He will restore to Canada that great prosperity which it enjoyed under his Government.
I beg to thank my hon. fellow-members who have listened to my remarks with so much respect and attention. Such consideration is gratifying to one who addresses the House.


Mr. W. A. CLARKE (North Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I would be remiss in the duty which I owe to the electors in the constituency which I have the honour to represent if I did not make a few remarks in connection with the subject which is now under consideration.
In the first place, I would like to compliment the right hon. leader of the Government and his ministers upon the splendid manner in which they have transacted the business of the country, especially since war was declared. I feel that in attending to the affairs of state they have given their untiring efforts to the accomplishment of that which is in the best interests of the whole people of Canada. The manner in which the right hon. leader of the Government has taken charge of the business of the country has tended to endear him still further, if possible, to the people, who are at all times glad to bestow upon him the honour of being one of the greatest statesmen and leaders that the Dominion of Canada has ever produced. I wish also to commend the hon. Minister of Finance for the splendid manner in which he laid his Budget before the House and for the matter contained in his Budget speech.
I feel that the hon. Minister of Finance did credit not only to himself tout also to the people who are supporters of the party to which we are glad he belongs at this particular time.
I am sure that I do not owe the House any apology for not attempting to reply to the speech of the last speaker (Mr. Lafortune), but I wish to make just a passing

reference to one or two of the utterances of the speaker who preceded him (Mr. J. J. Hughes). I was surprised to hear the hon. member attempt to liken the doings of the Finance Minister in connection with his expenditures to the actions of a drunken sailor. The hon. member stated, I think, that the Government owed an apology, not only to a drunken sailor, but to a shipload of drunken sailors. His remarks in this connection remind me of an incident that took place in the province of Ontario some years ago. On one occasion the Liberal party, who were in power at that time, were asked for an apology for the actions not merely of one drunken sailor, hut of a shipload of drunken sailors who were landed at a certain point in the province of Ontario. According to the information which I have received, and which has been spread broadcast throughout the province of Ontario, these sailors did not belong to the party which occupy the Government benches in the House of Commons at the present . time. In case the hon. gentleman, who is not now in his seat, should take the trouble to look the matter up with a view to refuting these statements, I am glad to be able to refer him to the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) or to the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Smythe) or to the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Boyce). If he wants any further information about the actions of any government whose doings may well be likened to the actions of a drunken sailor, I think he may obtain all the information he wants from the hon. gentlemen to whom I have referred.
Many allusions have been made to the patriotism of the people throughout the Dominion of Canada. I feel that the greatest credit is due to the people of Canada for the splendid way in which they have responded to the call of the Empire for assistance in this time of great trial. I can speak only for the people in my own immediate vicinity, in the county in which I live, and in the adjoining portions of the province of Ontario; but I am delighted to tell members of this House, regardless of the party to which they may belong or the part of the country from which they may come, that the response of a patriotic nature has been a credit to every person who happens to live in that portion of the province.
A number of members of the Opposition
raised a great deal of objection to and criticism of the arrangement of the tariff under the administration of the Government and the Minister of Finance. Some of them seemed to be forced to express biased opinions to suit the different parts of the Dominion in which they happen to reside. As a new member of the House, I do not wish any members of the Opposition to infer that I would endeavour to make an unjust or unfair criticism of their comments on the Budget and the tariff. But I cannot avoid contrasting the feeling shown by the hon. member for South Bruce (Mr. Truax) and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), both Opposition members, both members of the Government .and both personal friends of mine, neither of whom have I ever heard say anything that was not quite agreeable to the Government's policy of protection, with the befuddled dreams and delusions of free trade uttered by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark). It must, Sir, be a severe strain on your patience to have to listen to the speeches which are delivered by Opposition members in criticism of the Government's tariff policy. To hear their speeches one would suppose there yvas not unanimity upon this side of the House on tariff matters. From my own observation, and from listening to the speeches which have been delivered in the Budget debate, I am forced to the conclusion that there is a great deal more unanimity upon the tariff question on the Government side than we find on the Opposition side. We find a good deal of opposition to the increased customs duties. Personally, having recently been in western Ontario, I found that very little criticism was offered in the country upon the increase of 71 per cent.
Some of the Opposition members argue that the increase is not going to be effective in raising revenue. Possibly that is so; but whether or not it is going to be immediately effective in raising revenue, which everybody admits is absolutely necessary for the war expenditure, I think it is going to be eventually effective. In support of this I may say that the increased duty on goods coming in from foreign countries, especially from the United States, has had the effect of putting a crimp in the manufacturers over there to the extent that some of them have already felt it was in their own interest to come to different cities in Canada and manufacture articles which they had previously manufactured in the United States and exported to Canada. I am sorry that the bon. member for-South Wellington is not present, because I am sure he could substantiate my statements, as already there

has been established in the city of Guelph where he lives a factory for the manufacture of articles that have never before been manufactured in Canada. 'It makes no difference to the financial standing of the people of Canada whether they receive the . money in duties collected at the border ports on goods coming in or whether the arrangement of the tariff is sufficiently protective to force American firms to come here and manufacture, I claim that in the city of Guelph and in the county where I live the fact of that concern being forced to come there and open operations to manufacture the goods used in Canada, for which they admit they have had a very large trade for their factories in the United States, will lead to the opening of similar institutions in other cities, that will bring in people and put in circulation money that will be required to carry on these industries, and in some way will have the same effect on the Dominion of Canada, directly or indirectly, as if the revenue had been collected at the border in the shape of customs taxes.
I wish to refer briefly to some speeches that have- been delivered by western members, although I might confine my remarks to Alberta and Saskatachewan. Sometimes I can hardly make myself believe the remarks of the hon. members from those districts when they depict the situation there financially and in every other way as deplorable.
We are glad that those who have migrated from Ontario and the eastern provinces have gone to the West, and I am sure that the people in the East will always do what they feel they should do in the interests of the people of the West. But the members from the western provinces would like to lead this House to believe that the present Government is to blame for the money stringency in the West. I for one am not prepared to admit that that is the case. I believe that this condition of affairs is due to many reasons, which it is not necessary for me to explain here, but everybody knows a few of them; for instance, the speculative' madness, the over valuation of real estate, and things of that kind.
I feel perfectly satisfied that legislation could be put on the statute books by this Parliament which would be in the interests of those provinces at a time when they need it, but I am not prepared to stand for the remarks of the members of the West who try to make us believe that the present condition of affairs out there is wholly due to the action of the Government. I remember hearing the Minister of Finance, 
shortly after the Conservative party took the reins of office, make the statement during a discussion with reference to the banking affairs of the provinces to which I have referred, that the financial condition of those provinces was not very flourishing. He stated that there was 40 per cent more money on loan than on deposit in Alberta and Saskatchewan at that time. In view of the conditions confronting this Government when they came into power, and of the conditions brought about by the war, I do not think it is fair for the western members to blame the Government for the present condition of the country.
We hear a great deal at the present time about the patriotism-and-production meetings that are being held throughout the Dominion. I quite -agree with the holding of such meetings. I think they are beneficial to the country, although I think they are hardly necessary in the central and western portions of Ontario, for the farmers in that part of the country realize that it i>s in their own interest to produce the greatest possible amount of foodstuffs; -and they are doing so.
I am quite willing to admit that the people in the West may have grievances at the present time, but I am sure the Government is willing to assist the people in that part of the country and in the whole Dominion to the best of their power. But we are never willing to admit that it would have been in the interests of my part of the Dominion of Canada to have had come into effect the trade agreements that were presented to the country by the Liberal party in the election of 1911. I believe that the policy of the Conservative party will be much more in the interests of the Dominion as a whole.
1 again wish to compliment the Minister of Finance for having made what I consider to be the best regulation of the tariff possible under the circumstances. I feel sure that the people of this country, so far from criticising the Government, will approve of the proposals brought down by the Minister of Finance, and will certainly not agree with those members who have taken what might be called an over-zealous part, if they have not put up even a little bit of obstruction.


Mr. J. E. MARCILE (Bagot) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour of the night, I believe you do not expect that I shall make a very lengthly speech upon the question which to-day is under discussion in this House and stirs the electorate of the country. But, as representative of an essentially agricultural county, I think it my duty, notwithstanding the lateness of

the hour, to claim the attention of the House a few moments, in order to expound, Mr. Speaker, my opinion and my views on the subject which we are called upon to consider just now.
The member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) has deemed it profitable for this House and for the whole of Canada to make known to us his particular views regarding the problems about which the electors are presently concerned. In fervid thought subdued tones, he informed us that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister is a great admirer of the Catholic faith and a close student of the French language; and appealing to those dispositions in the Prime Minister, unappreciated until to-day, he requested him to exercise his influence to obtain a settlement of the bi-lingual school question in Ontario. Really, Mr. Speaker, a better statement was expected from the hon. member of his stand on the subject which has absorbed the thoughts of this House for the last few days. What does he think of the new taxes laid on the people for the purpose of raising funds for Canada's contribution to the defence of the Empire, as is claimed by the Minister of Finance? What stand does he take on this mode of participation in Imperial wars? It seems to me that his former declarations, particularly those he made publicly in 1910, during the electoral campaign of Drummond and Arthabaska, should have left some recollection of certain statements contained in the speeches he made at the time. But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must have found his road to Damascus on the way to the sugar bush, and especially since the time he took his seat at your right and enjoys Government patronage. He has found out, Mr. Speaker, that he made a mistake two years ago, when he placed Cartier's cloak on Hon. L. P. Pelletier's shoulders. For the time being he takes it and places it on the shoulders of the hon. the Postmaster General. Let us hope that the minister will not find it too heavy. It is not without interest, Mr. Speaker, to consider at leisure the changes that are wrought, sometimes within a brief period, in the minds of certain men. Those who have heard the speeches delivered by the hon. member for L'lslet before and during the elections of 1911, will no doubt wonder as to whether he is the same man who had been addressing this House. In any case, I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for L'Islet will not beseech the present Postmaster General, as he has his predecessor, Mr. Pelletier, to make Confederation fruitful. I think I speak rightly, Mr. Speaker, when I state that the political
truce which we of the Liberal party have scrupulously kept since the declaration of war of the 4th August last, has been broken by our friends on the other side of the House, who have given free expression to their partisanship. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) was the first to communicate to this House his illusions and to open a discussion on the most acute phase of politics. So, at page 493 of this session's unrevised edition of Hansard, we find the following pronouncement by this gentleman:
The next week, however, it was cabled to Canada from England that the trade routes were perfectly safe, and that the people of this country could export their produce as usual. What was it that made the trade routes safe? The British fleet For years, every other overseas dominion had been contributing to the upkeep of that fleet. But the supremacy of Britain on the seas meant more to Canada, and particularly to the farmers of Canada, than it did to the people of any, or perhaps all, of the other overseas dominions; and yet this country, because of the action of the hon. gentlemen opposite, was in the position of being the only one of the overseas dominions that had never contributed a cent towards maintaining the supremacy of the British navy.
(Translation):	The hon. member for
Lambton East (Mr. Armstrong) alluded to the same question in his speech which is reported in pages 622 and 623 of this session's unrevised edition of Hansard. Here are his words:
And more than that, they were able to assist Admiral Beatty in the splendid victory he achieved in the North Sea. The cry with these gentlemen opposite was, no need; no danger; no emergency; no menace; we know what we are talking about and there is no need for the Government to undertake this proposition. But the Premier had asked the British Admiralty how he could best serve them in that regard, and he is asking them to-day. This Government to-day are carrying out the wishes of the British Admiralty, and we fare proud and glad to support them. But hon. gentlemen opposite are doing their utmost to discredit this Government in the eyes of Canada and the world at large, and if possible drive them to the country. We on this side of the House feel proud and glad that we have at the head of affairs in Canada such an honest, straight-forward and businesslike Government, a Government which from time to time gives to the people of Canada pieces of legislation as progressive as could possibly be expected from any Government.
'When the House rose at six o'clock I was calling attention to the fact that the Government had obeyed the wishes of the British Admiralty in 1911 and, had their policy not been thwarted in this House and defeated in the Senate by the Liberal party, Canada and Great Britain would to-day have been much better prepared for this war. Upon the shoulders of hon. gentlemen opposite, therefore, rests a great responsibility, and when called upon to give an

account of their stewardship in the near future, they will cut a sorry figure before the people, when they have to tell them that their policy in this House so far this session has been to embarrass and hinder the Government in promoting the necessary legislation to help the Empire to bring this great struggle to a successful issue. When war broke out we had no great dreadnoughts to place in the firing line, and for that hon. gentlemen opposite are to Name. They do not dare to vote in opposition to the $100,000,000 asked for by the Government now, nor did they dare to vote last summer against the $50,000,000 for war expenditure, but they do dare to try their utmost to embarrass and obstruct and criticise the necessary legislation. The Government now in power have done their full duty in this crisis. One hundred thousand of our brave sons have been armed and equipped and fed, and great credit is due to the men at the head of affairs who have been so successful in this undertaking. Apparently hon. gentlemen opposite are now taking up the time of Parliament with the object of driving the Government to the country, and if that be their wish, and if the Government should appeal to the country, these hon. gentlemen must expect very little sympathy from the electorate. Look at what the colonies are doing in this great war; see the splendid work of Australia!


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. ARMSTRONG:: Will hon. gentlemen opposite pound their desks when I remind them of the attitude taken by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then Prime Minister, in 1902, 1907, and 1909* before the Colonial Conferences? When he was asked at these conferences to subscribe to the assistance of the British navy and the defence of the British Empire the attitude taken by him was in direct opposition to the best interests of the people of Canada at that time, and while Australia and New Zealand were willing to subscribe from year to year towards the maintenance of the British navy, and towards assisting in the defence of the Empire.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to read the minds of the twenty-two colleagues of the hon. member for Lambton, who hail from the province of Quebec, and sit with him in this House. These gentlemen, during the last general elections, swooped down upon the parishes of the province of Quebec and denounced the Liberals who had decided upon the building of a Canadian navy designed in case of need to defend the interests of Canadian trade. If Canada's unpreparedness at the < opening of hostilities was such as depicted by the hon. member for Lambton, whose fault is it? If for a whole month our trade, at least that which happened to be in our harbours, was held up, who is responsible? Are not the guilty ones to be found among those who sit on your right to-day? are they not those gentlemen who at the time of the passing of the Naval Act in 1910, and from that day on, until after the elections of 1911, have made the most unfair campaign ever witnessed. The hon. member for Lambton 
complains bitterly of our attitude and that of the Senate during the session of 1913, regarding the proposal to contribute $35,000,000 to the British navy. That policy was assailed by the Liberal party. My friend and I fought against it and I should still oppose it were it again submitted to us. I am quite ready to go back to my constituency and submit to my electors my stand on this question; and I do not believe that a single member on this side of the House entertains any fears for his reelection on that issue. The present war has demonstrated beyond a doubt that the British navy is well able not only to take care of itself hut to give help to its allies. It is made clear to-day that Great Britain can without any contribution on our part maintain its supremacy on the seas, since she has succeeded in establishing the blockade of the North Sea, of the British Channel, and of a part of the Mediterranean. For my part, I am still convinced that the only judicious naval policy for Canada, is that put forth by the Liberal party. From the speech of the hon. member for Lambton East, one would gather, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberals have been at the helm of state from Confederation to 1911. It is common history, however, that throughout the whole time from 1867 to 1896, four years only, from 1874 to 1878, came under Liberal rule. How comes that during those twenty-five years the Conservatives never thought of making such a contribution to the Imperial navy? The reason, Mr. Speaker, is to be found in that there was at the time at the head of the Conservative party men who understood the underlying principles of our constitution, men such as are to be found to-day at the head of the Lioeral party. I mean that the then leaders of the Conservative phalanx, held as do the present Liberal leaders, that what was needed at the time, and what is needed to-day, is not a policy of contribution but a policy of organization. The Liberals, Mr. Speaker, have every reason to be proud of the stand taken by them in 1909 and 1910; they may also be proud of the electoral campaign of 1911. On this question, if ever an opportunity can be given the people to realize the error they have made in withdrawing the reins of government from an Administration which has secured for the country happiness, prosperity and peace, this opportunity is to he be found in the present war. In fact, everybody admits to-day that the naval policy of the Liberal party is the only true Canadian policy, the only policy that fits in with our national interests.
Let us now discuss another subject. There

is submitted to our consideration the resolution of the Minister of Finance, upon the ways and means to secure the money required to meet our present obligations and provide for those that are to arise. It is argued, Mr. Speaker, that our present financial situation is the consequence of the war and the new taxation to be levied upon the people has been christened war taxes. I maintain that this view is a false one, and I may point out from the admissions of the Minister of Finance himself that there is no foundation to it, because the minister has declared that all the money necessary for the war will be borrowed from the British Government. It then follows that we are not called upon at the present time to provide for this war. The truth of it is made more apparent when from the speech of the Minister of Finance there come out plain and manifest the real motives of this taxation. The true causes of the new imposts are that during the fiscal year ending the 31st instant the revenue of the country has diminished and the expenditure has increased to such an extent that during the year a deficit of 60 millions of dollars has accumulated in the management of the current business of the country, and this without taking into account the 50 millions voted last August for the defence of Canada and the Empire. The administration, Mr. Speaker, has been improvident; too much has been spent thoughtlessly; this it is that brought about the alarming conditions in which the Government finds itself to-day. But are those gentlemen sitting on the Treasury benches willing to better the situation? What are their intentions for the year commencing on the 1st of April next? The Minister of Finance states that he expects during the coming year a revenue of 120 millions of dollars. How is that to be spent? 140 millions will go to cover the ordinary expenditure and 50 millions will be entered to capital account. Was that to be expected from the Government? Is that the course that an ordinary business man would take in a similar position? I think I may state, without fear of contradiction, that not another man outside of those included in the present Government would act in such a way. And do not lose sight of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that this deficit of 60 millions of dollars for the current year, and next year's anticipated of 70 to 80 millions do not comprise any of the 150 millions of dollars voted for the war. Really, the situation is far from encouraging; but it is not without remedy. It is possible to
restore the equilibrium in the finances, but energy is required; useless expenses must be cut down; and all expenditure which is not absolutely urgent should be postponed to a later date. Thus, the Government could make a saving of many millions of dollars in reducing the civil service list; public works could be left for later consideration where there is no urgency for them, such works as 'drill halls and post offices in small localities; the construction of the Hudson Bay Railway could wait, as could also many other public undertakings too numerous to mention. The Government has spent recklessly, its duty is to apply the cure. I wish to remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that during Liberal rule, the country has also known days of stress, but the Government of the day, composed of men of energy, bent on protecting the people's welfare, has been able to weather the storm, sail through the different phases of the crisis without taxing the people for a single cent.
If the present Government had kept the ordinary expenditure at the same figure that it was in 1911, when it came into power, and it could if it would, it would not now have to face the sad necessity of imposing taxes on the people to meet the current expenditure of administration. Unfortunately, the Government lacks energy and the sense of economy, so that little hope can be entertained for the relief of the people. Since the new Administration has taken hold of power, there has been witnessed a shameless squandering of the public money. The Civil Service list has increased from five to eight millions of dollars, through the unnecessary appointment of employees who were not in any way required. There is paid in rent only for housing the employees $175,000 a year; besides what had to be paid to furnish these new offices, put in telephones, appoint caretakers, etc., etc. Will any one fairly pretend that 10,000 additional employees were required since 1911? The people will never believe it. How is it, Mr. Speaker, that it was possible for the Liberal Government, during a time of unprecedented prosperity, to administer the public affairs with 10,000 employees less than at present.
It is not my desire to enter into all the details of the management and wasting methods of the present Government; it would take too long. I will only mention that when we of the Liberal party spent at most 79 to 98 millions of dollars in one year, we had sufficient revenue to meet the expenditure, with fair surplus at that with-

out having to impose additional burdens on the people.
This, Mr. Speaker, brings me to the new taxes. What remedy is proposed by the Minister of Finance to improve the present situation? In the first place, an increase of 1\ per cent of the general tariff and 5 per cent of the preferential. This increase is expected to yield a large sum. But, Mr. Speaker, the question frames itself: If that sum is secured at whose expense will it be? Is it not the people and especially the farmers, because such increased tax spells higher prices for agricultural implements. They will also have to pay more for the goods they have to buy. Is the Minister of Finance aware that a general increase in prices has taken place since August last, that many classes of goods have disappeared entirely from the market and cannot be had, and that this state of affairs will last so long as the north of France and Belgium are not replenished and their manufactures put on the same footing as before the war. Of what good then is this duty of 7J per cent on goods that cannot be imported? So that increase in the tariff will not provide the expected revenue. On the other hand, the higher duties will mean new difficulties and still higher prices. No, Mr. Speaker, the solution offered by the Minister of Finance is not the one suitable to solve the difficulties which have arisen consequent on the Government's negligence.
But from my point of view the most bitter medicine to swallow is the direct taxation with which the Minister of Finance proposes to burden the people. In the first place, one per cent is to be collected on banking transactions. Is it your belief, Mr. Speaker, that the banks will have to bear that burden? No, indeed; the banks will get it back by increasing the rate of discount and once again the poor will pay for the rich. The minister told us the other day that to meet this tax the Bank of Montreal will have to pay $150,000 a year and the Canadian Bank of Commerce $175,000 and so the other banks, according to the sum total of the business done. Not the banks will pay that tax but the people. Take for instance the Canadian Bank of Commerce, which has a branch ,at Acton Vale, my home town; they will increase their discount so as to meet that requirement, and the clients will have to bear the loss. The banks will charge 8 or 9 per cent and perhaps more in order to recoup themselves of the outlay, which they will not pay out of their current revenue.

Now what about the railway tickets? What about the imposition of 5 cents on every ticket above $1? As the leader of the Opposition pointed out, such a tax is unequal and unfair and besides difficult to control. How can the Government collect such a tax on a ticket bought on the train?
The taxes on cheques, bank receipts, bank drafts, etc., etc., are impositions on the people, absolutely useless and burdensome. Take the employees of railway and industrial companies who are paid their salary by cheques; every month they will have to pay this tax. And why? In order to provide the Government with funds to carry on its extravagant expenditure.
The surtax of 50 per cent on letters and 100 per cent on post-card is not warranted. I was listening to the hon. member for Lambton East boasting and praising the Government for having started the rural mail delivery throughout Canada. I'would have no fault to find with that expenditure if the Government were in a position to make it; but I believe that the electors would have preferred to be deprived of the rural mail delivery and not be surtaxed. It is claimed, Mr. Speaker, that this additional stamp will be paid chiefly by the larger trade. This surmise is wrong. The higher trade makes a strict computation of all its outlay before determining the price of its merchandise, in order to realize a certain fixed profit. Everything is taken account of. Ho you imagine that this tax will be left out of the computation. The wholesale merchant will be careful to see that the additional stamps are paid by the purchaser; he will raise his prices and ultimately the one who will pay will be poor consumer.
The same is the case with respect to the patent medicines on which a surtax is laid. Here again those who will suffer are the needy. I am justified in stating that the new taxation is exorbitant and unreasonable. And the same with all the imposts which in the end always fall upon the shoulders of the largest number, and as in this country the working people and the farmers from the largest portion of the population, they it is who will have to bear the new burden.
For all the reasons I have enumerated, I shall vote for the amendment of the hon. the leader of the Opposition and against the scheme of taxation proposed by the Minister of Finance.
I shall then vote for the amendment, because I sincerely believe that the increased tariff is not designed to provide revenue

but for the sole and exaggerated protection of the manufacturers; I shall vote in favour of the amendment because I sincerely believe that the so-called war taxes are a mere pretext with which to deceive the people of Canada, that they are burdensome and their imposition unnecessary. I shall vote for the amendment because I sincerely believe that an Administration honest, energetic and fully realizing the present situation, could meet the country's obligations without imposing any surtax on the Canadian people.
On motion of Mr. Stanfield, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 2.55 a.m. Tuesday.
Tuesday, March 16, 1915.