[Stage Direction]
' Sir ROBERT BORDEN moved:
That on Monday, the 8th of March, and on subsequent Mondays to the end of the session, Government notices of motion and Government orders shall have precedence after questions and notices of motion for the production of papers.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I will not object to this motion if the date is changed from the 8th to the 15th.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: There is no objection to that.
Motion amended accordingly, and, as amended, agreed to.
17TH NOVA SCOTIA REGIMENT.
On the Orders of the Day being called:


Mr. KYTE:: I desire to ask the right hon. Prime Minister if he has received any communication from Mr. H. C. Crowell, staff correspondent of the Halifax Chronicle, with reference to the telegrams from Sir George Perley referring to the 17th Regiment of Nova Scotia, and read to the House the other day?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, I have.


George William Kyte: Has the Prime Minister any objection to placing it before the House?


Robert Laird Borden: I can if desired. Mr. Crowell sent me a telegram saying he had not had a personal interview with General Alderson, but had had correspondence by telegram, and he repeated his statements as to the conditions and desired me to read this telegram in the House; to which I replied that as the substance of the telegram had already been communicated by him to the press, I saw no reason why I

should read it to the House, and that I had sent forward a request, through the Acting High Commissioner, to the War Office that an inquiry should be made into the subject, and that Mr. Crowell should be given an opportunity of appearing at that inquiry and making good his statement.



SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: I wish to ask a
question with relation to separation allowances to the dependents of certain members of some of the contingents. In order to put the question properly, I am forced to ask leave to read a letter which I have received from the Regina branch of the Patriotic Association.


Mr. SPEAKER:: If the letter is not a
lengthy one and the hon. gentleman wishes to base a question on it, I think it would be permissible.


William Melville Martin: I shall read only the portions of the letter relating to the matter in question. It is a letter addressed to me by Mr. J. J. Franks, secretary of the Regina branch of the Canadian Patriotic Fund, dated March 1. Mr. Franks says:
My work in connection with the Regina Branch of the Canadian Patriotic Fund puts me in close touch with the wives of the Canadian volnnteers for overseas service.
There was great delay in issuing the cheques for the separation allowance for the dependents of the men of the first contingent but that was quite excusable. As great or a greater delay took place in issuing the cheques for the dependents of the second contingent men. I wrote a few forcible letters to the militia officials at Ottawa but they threw the blame on to the officers in charge of the different corps in Winnipeg for not sending in the necessary information, and I have good reason to believe that the chief fault lay in Winnipeg.
The same unreasonable delay is occurring in connection with the separation cheques for the dependents of the men of the third contingent, now mobilized in Regina, Some of these men enlisted before Christmas, about the 19th or 20th of December, nearly ten weeks, ago and no separation cheque has been received by any of these men's dependents.
The question I wish to ask is whether the Minister of Militia knows whether or not these cheques have been sent up to the present time. If they have not been sent,
I would respectfully urge upon the minister the necessity of sending this separation allowance immediately, as in any event it is very small.


Major General HUGHES:: The separation allowances are not touched by us until we 
get the full returns from the various corps, I do not know anything about the second contingent in this regard, but the third contingent papers are scarcely more than in yet, and they must be verified. All these papers have to be verified, and it takes more or less time. The recruiting for the third contingent in Regina began only after Christmas, and there has hardly yet been time to get the papers sent out. However, I will have the matter looked into by the officials of the department.



QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Mr. Speaker, I
desire to refer to a matter of privilege. My attention was called yesterday to the fact that one or more newspapers during the past week have alleged that I eliminated from Hansard a portion or portions of my remarks upon the Budget in reference to the Buy-in-Canada propaganda, I do not complain about the newspapers in ques-. tion, because, as a matter of fact, the remarks that I did make did not appear in Hansard, and consequently there was seme justification for the remarks made by the newspapers. When my attention was called to this, I was of the opinion that possibly I had been responsible for the elimination myself, but upon investigation I learned that I was not responsible, and I have tile authority of Hansard officials to say that the deletion of this portion of my remarks was not due to myself. I should not take the trouble to refer to the matter had I not been charged with the elimination of my remarks in this respect, and consequently with receding from the position which I took with reference to the indiscriminate campaign in respect to the Buy-in-Canada propaganda, both of which charges were incorrect.


Robert Laird Borden: Did my hon.
friend ever ascertain to what the elimination was due?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Due to Hansard officials,
1 assume. But I might say that when my attention was called to it by an hon. gentleman opposite, I undertook to restore the substance of my remarks in the Revised Hansard and I presume that has been done.


Mr. MACDONELL:: Are my hon. friend's remarks now included in his speech in the Revised Hansard?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes. At least, I did
everything I could to have them so included.

I do not think the Revised Hansard is out yet.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Mr. Speaker, I also desire to raise a question of privilege. Some of the newspapers have stated that I made a bull the other day in my speech on the Budget. My hon. friend from Essex (Mr. Wilcox) says that I walked out of the House and expunged the passage from Hansard. I desire to say that I did not, directly or indirectly, have any communication with the reporters on the subject. I do not think it would he proper for a member to go to Hansard and ask that a portion of his remarks he expunged. I presume that when corrections are made by members on the spot, the reporters exercise their judgment in getting out their report. I wish to assure my hon. friend from Essex that the statement he made on that occasion is entirely without foundation.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would permit me to give, on behalf of the Hansard staff, the explanation of these two incidents which was brought out this morning at a meeting of the Debates Committee. As to the incident to which the junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) has referred, the explanation is that the Hansard reporter relied on the typewritten copy of the speech handed in by the hon. member for Halifax, and forgot or neglected to interpolate in it the passage to which reference has been made.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is correct.


James Davis Taylor: As to the passage referred to by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), the Hansard reporter felt himself justified in using intelligence rather than mere mechanical skill, and, when the explanation by way of correction was made by the hon. member for St. John, the reporter let it go as explained instead of as the matter really occurred.


William Pugsley: Quite properly.


James Davis Taylor: I have before me the transcription of what did occur, but I do not suppose the House is interested in it now



THE BUDGET.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) for Committee of Ways and Means resumed from March 3.
Mr. O. J. WILCOX (North Essex)- (resuming): Mr. Speaker, it is with a degree of reluctance that I rise to take the part which I am expected to take in this debate. First of all, I desire to say that it is my hope and wish that all I may say may be in accordance with the best traditions of our constitution in regard to debate. I have no desire to speak in an unkindly manner, and should I err in the way of aggression it will be due to my youthfuloess in this House, and not to any such intention. When the right hon. leader of this Government and my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition agreed to a truce, I had the hope and conviction that that truce would be kept. Considering what is now at stake-the far-reaching and comprehensive character of the issues with which this Government is called upon to deal, the principles of freedom and of liberty which have been won for us by thte sweat and blood of our forefathers, everything in fact that is near and dear to us, and which has sprung up in the splendid democracy we have had, in the past-it would have been well for us to follow the course of proceeding which was assented to by my right hon. friend the leader of the Government when he was leader of the Opposition in 1911. I should have thought that this debate might well have endled, as did the other debate to which I have alluded, after the hon. junior member for Halifax had had an opportunity of answering the Finance 'Minister's spleech on the Budget. But, as I listened to the speech of the right hon. leader of the Opposition on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, my hopes fell; for he said that they were bound to criticise the Budget.
I think it is true to say that we are living in an age of great achievements. We have boasted of what we have accomplished in this country in the forty years since Confederation. I believe that men on both sides of this House have proclaimed that growth, that development, and that expansion to the people of this country. But now, when everything which is dear to us is at stake-our cherished principles of government, and the liberty and freedom of our people-now is not the time for -such wrangling as has takjen place in this House during the past week. It has been stated that a truce has been agreed to. I am inclined to the view that my right *hon. friend the leader of the Opposition misunderstood the meaning of
[Stage Direction]


the word " truce." I hold in my hand a clipping that appeared in one of the Liberal papers of this country on the 21st of November, 1914. I regard it as one of the smallest, the meanest pieces of political partisanship that has come under my observation during my public or private life. It reads as follows:
Recently we have seen him (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) stumping in Quebec, calling upon the French Canadians to enlist for the European war.
The proper thing for my right hon. friend to do, a noble thing for him to do, but listen to the next sentence:
The whereabouts and the action of the other * party's leader at that time were remarkable by contrast. Sir Robert Borden has been -golfing and dancing in Virginia and there has been no one to assume -the leadership of his people at a time when the public sentiment needed to be stirred as never before in Canadian history.
A truce ! A truce ! Let me give another quotation. My hon. friend the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) last night grew eloquent repeating the old story that he always gets off. The following appeared in the Brockville Recorder:
This is a sorry comment on the vision of the Minister of Militia who should have known or found out the usual climatic conditions of Salisbury Plains.
This is a charge against my hon. friend the Minister of Militia (Major General Hughes). I will venture to assert in all fairness that no man in public life has had greater responsibilities cast upon him than Major General Hughes since war broke out. It is true he is not perfect; none of us are perfect. If we were perfect we would have no business in this chamber. We are human. The minister is human, and the criticism is-
Mr. FOWLER:: Inhuman.


Mr. WILCOX:: Yes, it is inhuman. Now, I have Webster's close by me here. What is the meaning of this word " truce?" I said a moment ago that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition should have some regard for the action of his followers. He is still the leader, although I sometimes think my genial friend the member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) has clothed himself with the robes of leadership. What is the meaning of this term? Truce means pledge of fidelity, faith. Imagine the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) the other night calling oat in a loud voice: Come on with your election. Pledge

of fidelity! The hon. member for South Renfrew last evening said: If you want an election, come on. Pledge of fidelity! Then, truce is a Teutonic word; intermission of action, pain or contest, temporary concession, brief, quiet. When I think of what has occurred by hon. friends I think of that definition-brief, quiet. Truce? They have been endeavouring to undermine this Administration which I venture to assert, has had the greatest responsibility cast upon it since the 4th August, 1914, that has been east upon the shoulders of any individuals who have yet been called upon to govern the Dominion of Canada. But there is another word. It is trousse. I think that the leader of the Opposition has mistaken the word, because the latter word means small implements that are used for surgical purposes. The people of this country realize what is going on in this House. They understand fully the motives of hon. gentlemen opposite. There is a lack of sincerity that is known throughout the length and breadth of this land. Think of the argument of my hon. friend from St. John, and apply that to the idea of a truce. My hon. friend from Assiniboia talked about extravagance and big taxes, and snent hours of the valuable time of this House in endeavoring to unload upon this Government the responsibility for the condition that exists as a result of the great war.
Well, Sir, to paraphrase what was said in the Senate of the United States some time ago: when this land, now fair, now beautiful, the most prosperous of all the belligerent powers, which are engaged in the greatest struggle known to civilization, shall have become desolate, prophesied by the hon. gentlemen opposite-big taxes, big burdens on the people,-of course there will be one remedy and that is squid. But, Mr. Speaker, let me remind you that that condition will not be brought about in this country by the wanderings and meanderings of hon. gentlemen opposite. They do not particularly care about what they call the big expenditures, because they realize as well as we the conditions which exist in this country. They know what the revenues of this country have been in the past, they know that the revenue of Canada for the past year has not been as great as in former years, and they know the reason why. It does seem to me that there is a lack of sincerity on their part, because as I see it, they are endeavouring to make the people of this country believe that the Gov-

eminent is responsible for the declining revenue, and therefore they say to the people: Put these rascals out and put us in.
I want to say a word to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, and to say it courteously; I would remind him of that very pleasant visit that he made to Tilbury during the election of 1908, when he addressed 5,000 people gathered there from the four constituencies that centre at Tilbury. The pathetic appeal he made to them on that occasion was: This is my last appeal to the Canadian people, I appeal to you this last time for your support before returning to private life, where I hope to live in peace the remainder of my days. Did the right hon. gentleman mean that? I do not believe he did because he came back in 1911, and we are always glad to meet him in Windsor and in the county of Essex, and he has a good many friends there, but not so many friends now as he had. In 1911 he again appealed for one more term to finish his work. And, after the election what excuse did he give to the people of this country for not living up to the pledge he made to the electors of Essex and Kent? He said he had consulted his wife, whom we all hold in the highest esteem and regard, and that she advised him to keep on. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is very great evidence of the congenial disposition of my right hon. friend, that he is so susceptible to the influence of his wife, but I do not know that the people of Essex took the right hon. gentleman very seriously when he made that statement. However, there was the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) looming up for leadership, and from the experiences we have had in this House we might consider that the hon. gentleman has almost assumed the role of leadership. I confess that when my hon. friend from St. John is in the House, I know of no man who can engender a greater amount of bitterness in the debates than he can. When the hon. member from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) was speaking on the Budget and criticising the big taxes, wasteful administration, and so on, I thought I could see the shades of Sir Richard Cartwright and visions of the Hon. William Paterson, who between the years 1867 and 1896 led off with just that same kind of talk as the campaign cry of the Liberal party. Well, Sir, it never brought any result other than long terms in opposition. Mr. James G. Blaine, the great American stateman, said in one of his books:
44J
It never pays to be a blue-ruin man in the United States. The people are not influenced by that sort of talk. They have an abiding confidence in our future and when dismal accounts are spread broadcast, they simply lose confidence in the authors thereof.
In the campaign of 1893, the Liberal party took about the same position they are taking to-day, and they talked of big taxes, big expenditure and debt. Here is an extract from the Liberal literature of that day:
We cannot but view with alarm the large increase of the public debt and of the controllable annual expenditure of the Dominion, and the consequent undue taxation of the people under the governments which have been continuously in power since 1878, and we demand strict economy in the administration of the government of the country.
We all know what happened when the Liberals came to power; we all knew that between 1896 and 1911 the expenditure of this country increased by leaps and bounds and that the public debt thereof was added to. Now, here are the words of my right hon. friend:
If we get into power we will follow the example of Mr. Mackenzie; and I say that although we may not be able to bring the expenditures to what they were under him, we can reduce the amount by two, yes three million of dollars per year.-Wilfrid Laurier.
He was not Sir Wilfrid then.
For my own part, I do not hesitate to tell him that I consider a yearly expenditure of forty million dollars, or thirty-eight million dollars, altogether for the present resources of Canada. I say that it is a disgrace and a shame to the Government that have been entrusted with our affairs that they come down to ask us and ask an expenditure of $38,300,000 a year for federal purposes. Sir, the thing is utterly unjustifiable.-Sir Richard Cartwright.
Now, is it not a fact-and I call on hon. gentlemen opposite to witness-that Sir Richard Cartwright spent part of his public career in depicting Canada as abandoned by Heaven to all manner of evil fortunes? And what did he gain by it except a long period in the cold shades of opposition, followed by a spell of office which he had to recant by humbly adopting the very policy he had blamed for its imaginary woes.
In 1909 we were taking- $6,115,000 more in taxes out of the people than we should, and we spent $7,571,000 more than we should. An era of economy in expenditure should at once be entered upon.-Wm. Paterson.
Just such argument as we have to-day. The fact is that the outbreak of this war, this world struggle, frustrated every plan of hon. gentlemen opposite. They declared for a truce and started all over again, and all they have to fight on now is the present Budget which was brought

down since the war broke out. Now I do not think that conditions are so bad; I know they are not so bad. I believe that my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) in the remarks which he niade upon the Budget was so far from the facts that when he reads over those remarks he will not take them seriously himself. The outbreak dis-
4 p.m. turbed trade in this country as it disturbed trade in every civilized country in the world. The shock to international finance was enormous. In the general loss of confidence there arose an instantaneous and universal demand for gold all over the world. Huge volumes of securities were thrown - upon the market and sold for what they would realize. Liquidation proceeded upon a colossal scale until the prodigious losses of individuals and the vast drains of gold from the financial centres compelled the closing of the housds of exchange of'the world. This is the condition which this Government had to meet, and by reason of this condition the imports upon which we raised the revenues of our country did not reach their former level, and consquently the tariff, which constitutes the medium by which the revenue of this country is raised, was ineffective to produce a sufficient amount to run the affairs of the country. I think that is a reasonable and adequate explanation of the conditions that actually exist.
Now, my hon. friend from St. John city dwelt at length upon the years 190P-9,
1909-	10, 1912-13 and 1913-14. But he had nothing to say about the Estimates of
1910-	11 which he himself had assisted to prepare and which the Administration adopted. The very principle which he condemned in the Estimates of 1908-9 was involved in the Estimates which he himself presented. The revenue of this country in 1909-10 was $101,503,710.93. In
1910-	11 the revenue was $117,780,409.78, an increase of $16,276,698.85. The' revenue of
1911-	12 amounted to $136,108,217.36, an increase of $18,327,807.58. That year the Finance Minister was able to apply to the reduction of the public debt the sum of $122,591.32. The revenue in 1912-13 had increased under this progressive Administration to $168,639,903.45, an increase of $32,000,000, and in that year the Government had a surplus of $55,000,000. And in that year, after meeting all the obligations which they themselves had created, and also meeting the obligations which came over to this Government from the
f M r. Wilcox,}
Government of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), the sum of $25,300,000 was applied to the reduction of the public debt. In 1914-15, the current year, when this great world's crisis arose on the 4th of August, thte public revenue is unfortunately reduced to $120,000,000. The Government, therefore, have not the necessary funds to carry out the programme which, having regard to the growth and development of the country, they have anticipated putting into effect. My hon. friend the Finance Minister made some remarks during the course of his Budget speech, which I desire to quote:
The revenue for the present year will, then, approximate $163,000,000.
Let us now consider the expenditure. First of all, the ordinary Consolidated Fund expenditure will probably reach $126,500,000, or about $14,500,000 in excess of last year. At the last session of Parliament fairly generous appropriations were made for all divisions of the ordinary services of the country. The main increases will be found in Public Works (expenditure chargeable to income) and in the expenditure on account of post office, railways, agriculture, and militia. With the growth of the country the other services have required additional outlays, with the result that for the current fiscal year, as I have stated, there will be an increase in the expenditure on account of Consolidated Fund of about $14,500,000. A revenue of $163,000,000 and an expenditure of $126,500,000 leaves a surplus of revenue over and above the amount required for expenditure upon current account of $36,500,000.
The surplus for the year, then, will be thirty-six million five hundred thousand dollars as compared with fifty-six million dollars last year.
In connection with this matter of surpluses, it may not be out of place for me to point out that from the year 1902 forward there have been substantial surpluses of revenue over current expenditure, running from $14,000,000 in 1902-3 to $22,000,000 in 1909-10, to $30,000,000 in 1910-11. For the year 1911-12 our surplus was $37,000,000, for 1912-13, as I have stated, $56,000,000, and for last year, 1913-14, the figure which I have just given, $36,500,000. So we have had during the last three years the largest surpluses in the financial history of the Dominion.
It seems to me that these figures, which are absolutely correct-nothing needs to be taken from or added to them-are evidence of the fact that this Government is giving to the country a good clean, and honest administration and that the finances of the people have been properly administered by the hon. gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches.
In connection with the surplus which has accrued during the last few years, let me point out some of the obligations which this Government has been compelled to assume

We say that we are not responsible for the liabilities which my right hon. friend the present leader of the Opposition and his Government created. The legacies which were handed over by this Government to the present Finance Minister had to be accepted; the necessary money had to be raised by means of the machinery ordinarily used for that purpose in the country. I think it is not reasonable to place upon us the onus of responsibility for $178,000,000 of liabilities which were incurred by my right hon. friend's Government, and which the present Government was compelled to assume, as follows:	National Transcontinental railway, $56,000,000; Hudson Bay railway, $9,000,000; Quebec bridge, $10,000^-000; total, $75,000,000. To that $75,000,000 must be added the $5,000,000 of implementing money in connection with the sale of bonds to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, the $33,000,000 used for the purposes of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company debentures and the $15,000,000 loaned to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for the completion of the line. These liabilities amount to the enormous sum of $178,000,000-$16, for every man, woman and child in Canada. The amount is still growing; the National Transcontinental railway, the Quebec bridge and the Hudson Bay railway are still unfinished. In view of the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite incurred these enormous liabilities and handed them over to us, the allegations and charges against the Minister of Finance made by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) and the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) do not come with very good grace. The Minister of Einance has given to this country as clean, as honourable and as honest a service as has been given by any gentleman who ever graced the dignity of the position of Finance Minister of Canada. We do not propose to allow my right hon. friend and his confreres in oflice to charge this Government with wilful extravagance when the large amount of money which is required is to meet obligations which hon. gentlemen themselves incurred. I could give many examples, but I want to give one in particular. In 1904 my right hon. friend addressed a large and influential meeting at Chatham. I have before me a clipping from the Liberal party paper, the Windsor Record, which reported ad nauseam his address on that occasion. It was fluent, it was eloquent, it was graceful, but it did
not just pan out as he expected it would.
Let me read from the preamble of my right hon. friend's address in launching his Grand Trunk Pacific railway scheme:
There is nothing so sweet or so true to the heart of man as is his native country. Even the old men amongst us who have come from the other side of the ocean, and have brought with them from far away an undying love for the land of their ancestors and the land of .their birth, And that Canada becomes dearer to them as Canada advances and as the name of Canada spreads.	.
That is true. These are lovely words. This was fertilizing the soil for the statement that my right hon. friend was about to make before 5,000 people. Here is the Windsor Record's report of his address in presenting this scheme to the people of Canada. He said:
It is true, and one is bound to be honest in these matters, if a man in the city of Chatham were to borrow $10,000 to build a house, and he bui.t it, and as soon as it is built, if he could find a tenant who would pay him 3 per cent or 4 per cent on the cost of the house, if he borrowed the money at the same rate, he was not out of pocket a single cent.
That was the reasoning. Here is the statement to which I desire to draw the attention of the House:
According to our contract the whole amount of money that will be taken from the Canadian tax payer for the construction of that immense railway from ocean to ocean will be simply the sum of $13,500,000, a sum less than our surplus last year. (Great applause).
I desire to state briefly the cost of this road from the statement of the leader of the present Government in speaking upon this question in 1904. What is the proposition? What is the position at present? Let us examine it for a moment. We are committing this country to obligations to the extent of $150,000,000. If we consider the probability that the bonds must be sold at 90 cents we are committing this country to obligations of the extent of $170,000,000; and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the other partner to the contract, is committing itself to obligations to the extent of only $14,500,000, or a little less than $15,000,000. What is the result of the contract at present? The result is that 1,500 miles of railway built in the western part of Canada as part of an enterprise to which the Government contributes $150,000,000 or $170,000,000, and to which the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company contributes say $14,500,000, is to become the absolute property of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. If we are going to expend $150,000,000 or $170,000,000 for the construction of this line and hand over 1,500 miles

of the most profitable portion of it to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, what is the objection to our incurring the other $14,500,000 and owning the whole road?
I wish to draw the attention of the House to another phase of this question. My right hon. friend who led the Government in 1904 went to the people in my county, and in the quotation which I have read, which he will not dispute, he informed the people of that *consituency that that road would be built ior $13,000,000. I want to place on Hansard just what this road did cost from the official return laid upon the table of the House by the Minister of Railways and Canals:
Statement showing the cost of the eastern division of the National Transcontinental railway for the purpose of basing the amount of annual rental which the Grand Trunk Pacific railway will be required to pay under their agreement; based on the estimated cost submitted by the chief engineer at $161,307,800 and on the supposition that it will be completed and handed over to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway on the 1st January, 1915, and capitalizing the expenditure at 3 per cent as provided in the agreement for the purpose of the rental.
Estimated cost of complete road exclusive of interest	at
December 31, 1914	$161,307,800.00
Interest during construction at 3 per cent to December 31,
1913	 15,136,289.00
Estimated interest on expenditure to December 31, 1914	..	5,293,322.67
Capital cost for rental purpose
at January 1, 1915	..	..	181,737,411.67
Interest on $181,737,411.67 at 3 per cent capitalized for 7 years (January 1, 1915, to December 31, 1922)	 41,776,681.31
Capital cost estimated to January 1, 1923, for rental
purposes	 223,514,092.98
Rental based on above ..	..	6,705,422.79
If the road does not earn 3 per cent in excess of working expenditure for the three years ending December 31, 1915, then the interest is added to capital for three years longer, adding $20,725,791.30 to capital cost; making the estimated cost of the railway for rental purposes, $244,239,884.28. Rental based on above, $7,327,196.54.
No allowance has been made in the above for betterment during ten years from January 1, 1915, to December 31, 1925. Should any betterments be made these would have to be added to the cost for rental purposes, and rental increased -accordingly.
This country under the bargain made by my right hon. friend must pay without recourse on the bonds guaranteed on the mountain section $56,342,000. Interest at 3 per cent for seven years, which amounts to $11,831,820. The country must also pay the cost of implementing the bonds under the agreement of 1904, clause 8, which will probably amount to about $12,000,000, but
[Mr. Wilcox. 1
which I am placing at the lowest estimate, $10,000,080. This gives a total of $259,929,019, which does not include the Quebec bridge, the cost of which has been placed at $17,000,000; it does not include the interest for three years on $188,528,470 at 3J per cent in case the net earnings of the eastern division are not sufficient to pay that rental, which would amount to $21,209,343, these two amounts totalling $38,209,343. Thus we have a grand total of $298,138,462 as the actual cost to the country of a road that was to be built at an actual outlay to Canada of $13,000,000.
In view of the great liabilities which the present Administration haS had to take over from the late Government-the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Northern Railway, and the many other great national works to which I have alluded-it seems to me that the criticism of hon. gentlemen opposite will not be taken very seriously by the people of this country. I should just like to quote, as evidence of how my hon. friends opposite carried on the Government of this country, a statement made by Senatoi Taylor when he was a member of this House:
Mr. George Taylor (Leeds) :	Mr. Speaker,
on the 14th December I moved a motion in this House asking for a return and the House granted an order which reads on the back:
Return to an order of the House of Commons, dated the 14th December, 1910, showing what amount has been paid by the Government during the -last fiscal year for travelling expenses with the names and the expenditure in each case, under the following heads, viz.:
Railway, steamship, and other lines of transportation ; private cars; pullman cars; tips to waiters; meals and hotel expenses for the following persons; ministers of the Crown; civil servants of all grades; immigration agents; and other persons employed by the Government on any special or other work.
It is signed by Charles Murphy, Secretary of State, but he adds to the return this statement :
And then Mr. Taylor gave the following list of supplies furnished in 1910 for the private car of the Transcontinental Railway Commission:
Trip.	Provisions.	Liquors.
1.	Plush for private car, $132.
2.	Reid	$19	50Lapointe	
3	30

Bate & Co	 $ 84 85
3.	Bate & Co	
72 174.	Moreland	$5	00Lapointe	
6	60
11 60
Bate & Co	 64 40
5.	Yonge	$14	94Lapointe	
4	75
19	69
Bate & Co	 94 05

6.	Moreland	$21	00Lapointe	
46	00Matthews	11	00
78 00
Bate & Co	 242 05
7.	Bate	&	Co	
126	008.	Bate	&	Co	
108	009.	Bate	&	Co	
147	0010.	Bate	&	Co	
99	1211.	Bate	&	Co	
102	0012.	Bate	&	Co	
120	1613.	Moreland	$18	00Lapointe	18	00
36 00
124 45
$168 09 $1,384 25 Total supplies	$1,552 34
That was paid for supplies for the private car of the Trancontinental Railway Commission, for five trips which has assisted in spending two hundred and ninety odd millions of dollars on a railroad which was to have cost the people of this country, according to the figures I have already quoted, only $13,000,000. And that is only one sample, and many others could be given, of what hon. gentlemen opposite left to this Government. It seems to me that criticism of the conditions that exist in this country at the present time does not come with very good grace from hon. gentlemen opposite.
My hon. friend from St. John made a desperate attack upon the Government for raising the duty on fertilizers. He went into the realms of science as usual, and found out that squid was a very valuable thing for removing insect pests. My hon. friend has made allusion to that to-day, and I accept his statement. Nevertheless, my hon. friend made considerable reference to it. He absolutely thought that squid would be a panacea for all the ills to which the fruit life of this country is subject, and he based some argument upon it. But as my hon. friend has stated that he was mistaken-


William Pugsley: I am listening with interest to the very eloquent, interesting and informatory speech which my hon. friend is making, but if he will pardon me-


Oliver James Wilcox: My hon. friend is not going to interject a speech into my address if I have any rights in this House. If my 'hon. friend wants to ask me a question, I shall be courteous enough to allow him; but he is not going to interject a speech.


William Pugsley: I wish to ask a question on the subject of fertilizers, and I wish to ask it now because I may not have the
opportunity later on. We cannot tell when my hon. friend will come back to it again.


Oliver James Wilcox: Let my hon. friend ask the question.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend has made the statement that the increased duties upon the imports of all the materials which enter into the manufacture of fertilizers, and upon the manufactured product itself, will be only $4,625.40. I want to ask my hon. friend how he reconciles that figure with the statement contained in the Customs Department report for the year ended March 31, 1914, which gives the value of the fertilizers, compounded or manufactured, brought into Canada during the year at $602,142. The duty on that would be upwards of $42,000, not $4,625.40, as stated by my hon. friend. How does my hon. friend reconcile those two figures?


Oliver James Wilcox: I thought it was a question about the squid.


William Pugsley: It is much more important than the squid.


Oliver James Wilcox: I was just coming to the fertilizer. I will be through with the squid in a moment.


George William Kyte: Squid is used as a fertilizer.


Oliver James Wilcox: I think I can give my hon. friend a satisfactory explanation of those figures.
Fertilizers, imported	$602,142
Duty	  58,248
War tax 7J per cent	 45,160
Phosphate rock	 16,000
War tax	 1,200
Fertilizers unmanufactured .. ..	3,073
War tax	 231
Total importations	 621,215
Total war tax	 46,591
That makes a total importation of $621,215 and a total war tax of $46,591. I think that is correct. That is a few more dollars than my hon. friend stated but in the Hansard as quoted there is one figure left off. It reads $4,000 instead of $40,000.


William Pugsley: Instead of $46,000.


Oliver James Wilcox: Yes.


William Pugsley: That is a complete
answer to it.


Oliver James Wilcox: There are about 800,000 farmers in this country. My hon. friends opposite argue that it will be a great burden upon the farmers, but if we take the importation at $46,000, where as a matter

and the art is the putting of that knowledge into operation. The Minister of Agriculture, progressive and aggressive., placed in the Estimates $10,000,000, in order that the science of agriculture in its fullest details might be instilled into the minds and into the hearts of the farmers of this country, so that there may be brought about increased production which will be beneficial to all the people of Canada.
They have improved the steamship service to the West Indies and reduced cable rates to those islands, a great boon during the present war.
This Government have inaugurated a greatly improved tri-weekly mail service between Canada and Great Britain. They have also madte arrangements in regard to insurance on the St. Lawrence and reduction of rates to Halifax, a thing highly beneficial to the people of this country.
They have a dry-dock under construction at Quebec, with similar dry-docks proposed for Halifax and Esquimalt.
This Government has undertaken the development of harbours at St. John, Quebtec, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Port Arthur, Fort William, Vancouver and Victoria. Imagine an Opposition talking about extravagance on the part of this Government which has only been in poWier for three years, which had to assume responsibilities in the interest of national growth, and to enlarge harbours in all these places I have named. My hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) the other day stated that this was the first year in the history of Canada when more wheat went down the St. Lawrence to Montreal than went by way of New York, largely due to thle progressive policy of this Government and the development of our national ports and harbours.
And there is the Naval Bill. I will not take timte to more than allude to that this afternoon. But I have quotations here from the press to show the position of my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), who last evening got so warm on account of the truce. And, as to that, the Chief Whip of the Liberal party, who is under the direction of the right hon. leader of that party, went to South Huron in November, and at a Liberal meeting there, delivered a political speech. He took the ground there that if the policy of my right hon. friend of 1909-10 had been adopted, a Canadian cruiser might have had the glory of sinking the Emden.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Oliver James Wilcox: I had not intended to go into-


William Pugsley: What ship sank the Emden?


Oliver James Wilcox: address on the Budget he does not take a loftier view of the subject than that which has been taken by hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken in this debate. I know that I am speaking his sentiments and those of the whole people of this country when I say:
To our British institutions and traditions we'll hold fast;
We will follow old Trafalgar:	nail our
colours to the mast.
We'll clinch the ties that bind us and give the world no cause to think
That our Empire's chain will sever at its firm Canadian link.
Mr. 0. TURGEON (Gloucester, N.B.): In rising to address this House on the question which is under consideration, you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to divide the Budget speech of the hon. Finance Minister into two parts, the one part relating to the war and the other to what the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) calls the civil Budget for the year 1915-16. That part of the Budget which pertains to the war involves the Government's asking for $100,000,000 for the maintenance of Canadian soldiers at the front. Every British subject in the world to-day is only too proud to assist in the defence of the Empire and we on this side of the House, expressing the unanimous feeling of the whole country, will vote the $100,000,000 for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the Government in connection with the war during the next year as readily as we voted the $50,000,000 last autumn. I would vote $200,000,000 as freely as I will vote $100,000,000; my only apprehension is that the Government should have asked for more, thus not exposing themselves to the risk of running short of money. No one iji Canada, the proudest of the sister nations of the Empire, would for a moment contend that we should not exercise every possible effort to assist the Empire in the present crisis. England entered into this war only after exhausting every effort to bring about conciliation between the belligerent powers. She is at war to-day for the maintenance of the integrity of smaller nationalities and to uphold principle of adherence to international agreements. When the violation of Belgium's neutrality was threatened by a foreign nation, the Prime Minister of Great Britain no doubt remembered those noble words of W. E. Gladstone when, on an occasion somewhat similar to the present, he said: "Britain cannot merely look on while the sacrifice of independence and freedom is in consummation." Great
| Mr. Wilcox.]
Britain would have been false to her great mission in this world if she had not taken the course which she has taken in connection with the war which is now in progress. When I say we are here to help England, we are also here to help Canada. In helping England we help Canada, as it is our waT just as it is the war of England. I was pleased the other day to hear the hon. member from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) say that it was the duty of Canadians at the same tune to defend our heritage, the wealthiest that Providence has ever offered to humanity, with institutions under which we are free to cultivate the highest ideals of Christianity, institutions the most liberal human hearts have ever cherished, institutions under which the rights of minorities are protected and all privileges of language and religion secured by perpetual ti eaties and the law of the constitution: and no man in the House will deny that it is Britain which has given to Canada those great institutions and which she is bound to respect and protect and preserve to the very last hour of her existence-and she is now fighting for her existence. We know that if our treaties and our constitution were once translated to the control of the Kaiser they would be treated as mere scraps of paper, which he would bum with the same barbarity with Which he burned the cathedral of Rheims, and the other churches of France and Belgium. Every soldier who has gone or will go from Canada to engage in this war rests under that dual responsibility to the Empire and to Canada. It is useless to say that any one m this House or outside of it in Canada is not as desirous as any member of the Government to give all the money possible to aid in carrying on the war. The Canadian nation is willing to give, is willing to pledge its future in order to assist in relieving the Empire of the burden under which it labours to-day.
Having thus referred briefly to the war features of the Budget, I wish to discuss for a few moments some matters of international administration. But first I wish to warn the Government that in the expenditure of the money raised for war purposes they must be constantly on their guard against possible middlemen, possible agents, possible brokers who, like their fellows in every war that has occurred in any country, have sought to take advantage of war conditions to amass fortunes for themselves. I congratulate the Minister of Finance on having been able to place Can-

ada in such a position that the Mother Country has undertaken to furnish the $100,000,000 necessary for our war expenditure this year as well as the $50,000,000 which is now almost expended. But I would thank more particularly the members of the Government of Great Britain, who have been so generous in financing the allied countries in this war and have also advanced money to enable Canada to defray the expenses of administration in our own country. I believe it will inspire every Canadian to pay with double courage the amount of money which may be necessary to do our share towards carrying on the war.
We have heard a great deal since the Minister of Finance gave us his Budget to' the effect that we should not criticise anything being done by the Government. This is not the time to criticise any expenditure in connection with the war; we voted the $50,000,000 at the special session in August practically without discussion; but when it comes to our own internal affairs, which must go on during the war, it is the duty o'f the Opposition to make full inquiries into all expenditures and to see that the Government of the day preserve a proper balance between the expenditure and the revenues of the country. It is under circumstances of such stress as we are undergoing to-day that a Government must show the greatest wisdom and foresight. We have been told that the revenue has decreased on account of the war and that all the trouble existing to-day in the financial condition of Canada dates from the 4th of August when the proclamation of war was made. While it is undoubtedly true that for some weeks after the declaration of war our trade was interfered with, that trade has since been restored to a large extent owing to the control of the seas by the British fleet, and no man in this House will denv that serious depression -and a decrease of business existed in Canada long before- the declaration of war. The figures of the Department of Trade and Commerce under Ahe direction of the able minister at its head shows that before the declaia-tion of war there had been a great falling off in business. For the twelve months ending the 31st of July last, the decrease in the customs revenue compared with the same period of the previous year was $20,000,000. The imports for the same twelve months were $577,906,000, some $114,000,000 less than the imports for the preceding twelve months.
I have taken those figures from the Department of Trade and Commerce. The Government have seen the revenues falling since July 1, 1913, but no measures were taken to meet the situation in the session of 1914. When this Government came into power, only three years ago, they found a surplus of $40,000,000 left them by the Liberal party. The next year they bad a larger surplus. And now to-day they complain, as we have just heard from the hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Wilcox), that they have had to carry out undertakings left to them by the preceding Government. We left them $100,000,000 of surpluses, which had been collected during the years when the sails of the ship of state were still feeling -the inflation of the Liberal prosperity. But what has this Government done with that money? They have not built the Georgian Bay canal even. They complain of having had to spend money on the Transcontinental railway. We had a thorough discussion about that last year. When hon. gentlemen opposite came into power we had already built eighty-five or ninety per cent of the -Transcontinental railway. They have now been three years in power and have not finished it yet,- and part of the money that they have spent on it has gone to a commission which so far has proved nothing as to the quality of the road. Talk of prosperity! Last year it was my lot to spend two months in the West. I was there in June and July before the war broke out, and visited many of the farmers. Was there any great prosperity there? No. Prosperity had vanished from the West the year before. There was no great talk of prosperity from one farmer or the other. The first thing a farmer would say when approached on the question would be: We want wider markets; if we had them we should not be in such a bad position as we are in to-day.
Under the old Government the ordinary expenditure varied from $76,000,000 in round figures in 1908, to $86,740,000 in 1911. For the year ending March 31, 1912, our expenditure was $98,161,000. In 1913, $112,057,000; and in 1914 it rose to $127,384,000. That meant an additional charge of $6.14 per head of population. Has there been extravagance? We know that during the fifteen years of Liberal Administration the Liberal party granted railway subsidies to the amount of $25,140,000. The present Government in three years granted subsidies to the amount of $24,830,000. During the fifteen years of Liberal Admin-

istration the interest on the public debt was increased from $10,645,000 to only $12,536,000. Now, the Finance Minister announces that next year the interest on the public debt will amount to $21,500,000. In 1911 we had an expenditure of $87,000,000, and with that expenditure we had prosperity all over the country. Every man in the East and the West was happy and prosperous. In the small provinces just as much as in the larger. Ontario was so prosperous, indeed, than when my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition wanted to further the prosperity of the country by giving our farmers larger markets, hon. gentlemen opposite and their friends in Ontario said:	Leave well enough alone; the country is prosperous enough. The country was so prosperous that they did not want to interfere with it. To-day, with an expenditure of $127,000,000 all we can do is to talk of unemployment. We hear nothing but unemployment from every province. Look around, Mr. Speaker, and see the state of unemployment, and then look up to Heaven for inspiration, for it is vain to look to this Government.


Mr. BURNHAM:: That is the next place.


Mr. TURGEON:: Yes, that is the best
place, to be sure.


John Hampden Burnham: I said the next place.


Onésiphore Turgeon: The war has not affected the industries of Canada so very much, although I am doubtful as to the future. In fact the war has given employment to many of our people. The equipment of our contingents and their maintenance abroad, for which we have borrowed $50,000,000 from the British Government, has helped the Government of Canada to' reduce unemployment to a considerable extent. The contracts we have got from the British and French Governments have enabled factory owners of this country to keep their employees at work, if not full time, at least half time. If we had not these contracts, however where should we be? The other night the hon. member for St. Mary's, Montreal, (Mr. Martin) told us about the condition of the workingmen of Montreal. But I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what would have been the conditions of those men, and of the workingmen of Toronto, if we had not obtained contracts from the British and French Governments, and from our own Government? Not only that, but we are building eight submarines in Canada today for the British Empire. Eighteen hun-

dred men are employed in that work, 900 by day and 900 by night, and there is a possibility of getting further contracts. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite used to say it would take twenty-five years to build ships in Canada. One of those submarines will be ready as soon as navigation opens on the St. Lawrence, and another will follow in a short time.


William Pugsley: I think they are being
built by the Fore River Shipping Company, at Quincy, Mass., under contract with the British Government.


Onésiphore Turgeon: They are being built in Montreal for the British Government and are giving employment to Canadians in Montreal.


William Pugsley: And to a good many
Americans.


Onésiphore Turgeon: 
William Pugsley: A sort of taking name.


Onésiphore Turgeon: A taking name. However, we have to deal with it. The Government proposes an increase of five per cent on British imports, thus lessening the value of the British preference, and an increase of 7| per cent on imports from other countries. Since 1897, when the Liberal Government gave a preference to British goods, the trade between England and Canada has greatly increased, with corresponding benefit to the industrial people of the Motherland. There has been a growing desire among the people of Canada, the farmers of the West more particularly, for a still greater preference for British goods, in the hope that the happy day might some time come when there would be free trade between Canada and the Motherland and Canada and the sister British colonies, just as there is between the provinces of this Dominion. That desire has been expressed by the farmers in the East and in the West, and while the Government may call this additional five per cent a war tax, I can assure them that the people of Canada will not be deluded by any such statement. In 1897, when the British preference was instituted, the value of the imports from Great Britain to Canada amounted to $30 -000,000, but in 1914, these had increased to $240,000,000, and on this trade an additional 5 per cent taxation will have to be paid. We have recently heard in this House discussions on the necessity of controlling ocean rates of freight in the interests of the producers of this country, and with the prevailing scarcity of vessels on account of the war, and the abnormally high rates of freight, this is surely a very bad time to put additional taxation on British goods. By this tax you will, I believe, decrease the trade between England and Canada, and so you will have fewer ships carrying smaller cargoes and compelled to charge higher rates. A few days ago Lloyd George made a speech, in which he used this language:
It is intolerable that the lives of Britons should be imperilled for the sake of a farthing-an hour. During war, governments should have the power of settling differences so that work shall go on. If men are entitled to more money the Government should give it. I do not believe the parties involved will refuse to comply with the urgent command of the Government that there should be no delay.
In view of such a condition existing in England, does the Finance Minister think it a wise policy to legislate against British goods, in this the hour of Britain's distress.

The Conservative newspapers point to the fact that the increase on British goods is only 5 per cent, whereas the increase on goods from the United States and other countries is 7| per cent, but under present conditions tne increase of 5 per cent against Great Britain is a far greater barrier to trade between Great Britain and Canada than the increase of 7i per cent on goods from other countries is a barrier to the trade with them. In sending goods to Canada, the United States is not hampered by war conditions, for they have their railways to bring their products to this country, and the distance is comparatively short. I believe it costs between 5 and 10 per cent more to bring goods to Canada from the Mother .Country than from the United States, so that the whole British preference is practically wiped out. I ask the Minister of Finance if that thought occurred to him when he was increasing the tariff against British goods. The hearts of the Canadian people are with the Mother Country, and if we are to bear our share in the burdens as well as the glories of the war, is this not a time to refrain from further taxing British goods? Surely it is not a patriotic example to set to the sister British nations, or even to the people of the United States. I am sure that generous, loyal, proud, Australia will not view with equanimity this increase of taxation upon British goods. Australia is very sensitive in her feelings towards the Mother Country; Australia is loyal and faithful to contracts and agreements, and she is legitimately resentful of breaches of such contracts. Australia has recently adopted a new tariff, and she has given preference to British goods, which preference she has extended to all the sister British nations with the exception of Canada. What does the Minister of Finance think of that, notwithstanding the eloquent and patriotic message which the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in the name of the Prime Minister of Canada, sent to Australia on the occasion of the Australian man-of-war Sydney sinking the German steamer Emden and thus clearing the Pacific ocean for British trade? These are considerations that seem to me worthy the attention of the people of Canada. I express the impulse of my own heart at any rate, and I imagine that my feelings are the feelings of every Canadian to-day. I am sure the Minister of Finance, in the generosity of his heart, will allow me to ask him if he is not prepared to re-consider that portion of his Budget speech and strike off that 5 per cent addition to the tariff.

As six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Private Bills, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
Bill No. 8, respecting the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company-Mr. Green-in committee.
On section 1-extension of time for construction :
Mr. OLIVER:: Would the chairman of the Railway Committee please state what locality the completion of this unfinished portion will relieve?


Mr. LANCASTER:: The line will run from Edmonton to Dunvegan, thence following the Peace river valley to Parsnip river, in British Columbia, thence to the town of Fort George. The company claim to have partially constructed this line, and they want an extension of time to complete it.


Mr. ROGERS:: I think that two years is too long a time to give them within which to commence the construction of the uncompleted portion of this line.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The usual terms of renewal are two years within which to commence construction and five years within which to complete. No representations were made to us that it would be desirable to make the time any shorter.


Frank Oliver: To what point is the road now completed? We would like to know what particular piece of road this extension would apply to. I am not opposing the Bill, but I want to get the information because the matter is very closely connected with my constituency.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am not able to tell the hon. gentleman exactly to what point the line has been built. We were assured that this line has been commenced, and we were asked for an extension of time. The province of Alberta is interested in this road, and before the committee passed the Bill the Minister of Railways telegraphed the Premier of Alberta to get his views on the subject. He was asked if he would be satisfied if the charter were renewed on the following terms-giving him the section exactly as read just now by the chairman.
He answered that it would be well for the country to have the renewal granted in accordance with the terms of that section. The Premier of Alberta, therefore, knew what we proposed to do and approved our taking that course,.


Frank Oliver: What I wish to know is this: to what particular point upon the proposed line does this extension of time purport to apply?
3vir. LANCASTER: I could not answer that question.


Robert Rogers: The Premier of Alberta may be correct in his view, but large settlements have for years been anxiously awaiting the extension of this line. The settlers have grown large quantities of wheat and grain, which are still in store pending the extension of this line of railway, and I think it would be extremely unfortunate if Parliament, by passing this Bill, should leave it open to the company to postpone the commencement of the line for two years. I do not think that we ought to take that responsibility upon ourselves until we are in possession of the whole facts in connection with the matter.


Mr. CARROLL:: In the consideration of this matter by the railway committee the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) took objection to our renewing the charter for the length of time stated, but other members of the committee who were familiar with the road said that the company were rushing it to completion just as quickly as they possibly could and that they had, through the sales of bonds guaranteed by the Government of Alberta, obtained practically enough money to enable them to complete the line. The member for Strath-cona (Mr. Douglas) advised the committee that the company were proceeding with the work as rapidly as possible.


Robert Rogers: We are not discussing at this moment the date of the completion of the railway. If this clause passes we will give the company two' years within which to commence construction of the line. There is great need for a railway in that locality, and I think we should consider the matter carefully before granting this extension. If as my hon. friend (Mr. Carroll) has stated, they have the money and are in a position to proceed with the work at once, why should we give them two years within which to commence construction?


Frank Oliver: I am probably more
familiar with the conditions connected with

70G


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would it help if this were amended from two to one year? We must fix some time for the commencement. I am inclined to think from what was said by the Minister of Public Works and the hon. member for Edmonton that we in the Railway Committee might have made it one year under the circumstances, but we must fix some time. The hon. member from Kootenay (Mr. Green) is in charge of the Bill and I would not care to make the

amendment in his absence, so I would suggest that the Bill stand till Monday.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to urge any delay in the Bill, but I would have liked to obtained the information I ask for. I have been trespassing on the patience of the House in order to lay before them the. actual conditions in regard to settlement and the means of railway communication there. If the Canadian Northern railway cannot give the Grand Prairie people railway communication within the cur-rent year, means should be taken to enable the Dunvegan people to do so.


Robert Rogers: I know, as has been
' stated by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), that the people of Grand Prairie are undoubtedly in great need of railway facilities. They are suffering very severely. The construction of this Dun-vegan line takes the railway within 40 or 50 miles of the Grand Prairie settlement, and if we, by the passing of this clause, are going to extend the time for the building of this line of the Dunvegan railway as far as Dunvegan, we are going, in my judgment, to deprive the people of Grand Prairie of a railway for the next two years; and I do not think it would be the wish, intention or desire of the members of this House to do that because we have had deputations here already this year pressing strongly for an extension of the railway from some quarter, and I am inclined to believe the House may be asked to approve of a charter providing for the building of a line of railway into that particular district. I do not know what arrangements the Canadian Northern railway may have with the Alberta Government, and we are not responsible for that here. It would be impossible for us to give any information as to whether or not it is possible for the Government of Alberta to press the Canadian Northern railway to com-struct that 200 miles during the coming summer. I would very much doubt if that would be possible under the present conditions. But whether that be so or not, I think we would be making a very grave mistake in this House if we should undertake to give an extension of time for the commencement of the Dunvegan railway for two years' -while those people in the Grand Prairie section are building their hopes on the extension of this line from which they would be able to construct a branch or make some arrangement by which they would be able to connect with this Dunvegan rail-454
way. I confess I am not very familiar with the facts. But in fairness to the people of that locality, who urgently need the railway, I think we ought not to go on with this Bill, and give this extension of time, until we have more information. I think we might let the Bill stand till Monday.
Mr. PUG8LEY: I would like as one member of the committee to find out to what point the road is now completed. The Bill is a most peculiar one. It says-
The Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company may commence to construct the uncompleted portion.
The steel might be laid on a portion of the line, but if the ballast was not down or the railway stations were not built they could say that portion of the line was uncompleted, and so defer the commencement of completion of it for two years. It seems to me that some point on the line ought to be mentioned.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: When the Bill was in committee some place was pointed out. I have an idea where it is, but I am not sufficiently sure to state distinctly in this House where that point is. It was pointed out on a map on the wall when the Bill was in committee.


William Pugsley: Does not my hon. friend see in what an uncertain state the Bill will be left? The Bill provides that they may commence to construct the uncompleted portion within two years. It does not follow that the Bill applies only to that portion which has not been commenced. It might apply to two or three hundred miles on which the steel had been laid, but which was not fully completed.


Robert Rogers: I think this had better stand until Monday night.


Frank Oliver: I just wish to supplement the information I have given, because I am afraid I shall not be here on Monday. The steel has been laid from Edmonton to McLennan Junction, 260 odd miles from Edmonton. Grading has been completed and steel is now being laid from McLennan Junction to the east bank of the Smoky river. From the Smoky river the right of way is being cleared for sixty miles to the Spirit river. I understand the bonds have been sold and that the money is available for constructing that part of the line from Smoky river to Spirit river. It is already in process of construction. The right of way has been cleared and the supplies were
70S

taken in there this winter. So that part of the line must be considered to be in progress. That is the piece of road that goes nearest to the Grand Prairie section.


Mr. BRADBURY:: Is the end of that sixty miles within fifty miles of Grand Prairie?


Frank Oliver: Yes. Grand Prairie is forty miles south of the line of the Dunvesan.


George Henry Bradbury: If that line was completed it would bring the road within fifty *miles of Grand Prairie?


Frank Oliver: Yes, even without being *completed. For the last 25 of the 50 miles is within 50 miles of the Grand Prairie settlement; in fact less than that. So they do not need to build to Spirit river to be within 50 miles of Grand Prairie. They would be beyond that to a certain extent when at Spirit river. A branch line to Grand Prairie would probably leave the line of the Dunvegan at the crossing of the Burnt river, and follow the Burnt river to Grand Prairie, a distance of about fifty miles. I do not wish to be understood as wanting to delay the Bill. I am just giving this information because I am afraid I shall not be here on Monday. I would much prefer to see the Bill go through than to hold it up, but I think it has been unfortunately drawn for the purpose of expressing the idea that was in view. I am quite willing to accept the views of the Alberta Government, inasmuch as thev are the people who are furnishing the money under their guarantee.


Robert Rogers: I am not objecting to that at all. I am prepared to accept the yiews of the Alberta Government. But in view of the representations that have been made as to the pressing necessity for this extension, I do . not think that we should at this moment pass a clause that will give the railway power to delay *construction for two years.
Progress reported.
Bill No. 20, respecting tlhe Canadian Northern Railway Company-Mr. Bradbury -in committee.
On section 2-extension of the time for completion:


Robert Rogers: I would like to take the
same exception to this Bill that I took to the other, because I think the Railway Committee probably did not realize the importance of the extension of railways in Western Canada. A number of lines are enum-

erated here in which five years' time is to be granted for their completion.	.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They are all commenced and partly constructed that section 2 relates to.


Robert Rogers: Yes, but five years for
completion is a long time.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is the general
thing.


Robert Rogers: s That is a very great mistake, I am afraid.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We always allow five years for completion.


Robert Rogers: I think five years is a
very long time in western Canada, and I think that we are giving very wide extensions here. Clause 3 reads as follows:
Unless the company commences within two years and completes and puts into operation within five years from the passage of this Actthe powers of construction shall cease.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is an extension of time for a line that has not been commenced.


Robert Rogers: Most of the lines in clause 2 have already had extensions from this Parliament and now they ask for five years more.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They have shown their bona fides by beginning.


Robert Rogers: Yes, but five years is a very long time for the people of the West to wait. I would like this Bill to stand until Monday.
Progress reported.
Bill No. 28, respecting the Toronto Eastern Railway Company-Mr. William Smith -in committee.
On section 2-extension of time for construction :


Edward Arthur Lancaster: All we did with this Bill was to strike out the words " or near " wherever they occur pursuant to the policy of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) who wants us, whenever possible to strike out these words and define the place where railways are to go in order to prevent the contention, not to use a stronger word, that goes on when locating railways. In paragraph (c) of section 2 we omit the words " Lake Scugog " and insert

" Port Perry," so that the road shall go from Port Perry to Lindsay.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Bill No. 29, respecting the Van Buren Bridge Company-Mr. Michaud-in committee.	'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The only amendment
made to the first section is to add the words " in Canada " and we add a section 2 (a).


Mr. HAZEN:: Has the hon. gentleman
any information about the cost of the bridge?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It will be a pretty expensive structure.


John Douglas Hazen: This bridge will cross the
River St. John, which is the boundary line between New Brunswick and the State of Maine, and, therefore, this legislation will only permit bonds to be issued on the part of the bridge which is in New Brunswick. Is it intended to issue similar bonds on that portion of the bridge in the state of Maine?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: So I understand. It is a mutual arrangement I am informed and we are only legislating to give permission to put a lien on the property in Canada. The other part of the bridge will have to be dealt with by the authority of the,state of Maine.


William Pugsley: Mr. Michaud, who is in charge of the bridge, understood it would stand until his presence in the House. Perhaps it would be well to report progress.


John Douglas Hazen: I think it would. It appears to me that if this Bill gives authority to issue bonds only against that portion of the bridge in Canada, it would not afford much security to the bondholders.


William Pugsley: I understand that by
legislation in the state of Maine, bonds will be issued to cover the bridge and franchise in Maine, and then the company having the same authority in Canada, they will include the property in the United States and the property in Canada in the one mortgage. The total mortgage is $250,000.


John Douglas Hazen: That is what I wanted to
know, whether it was $250,000 on each part of the bridge or $250,000 on the whole.


William Pugsley: 

THE BUDGET.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Mr. Speaker, when you left the Chair at six o'clock, I had reviewed the question of the British preference, and had made a suggestion to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance that he should repeal the increase of 5 per cent in the tariff rates under the British preferential tariff and solve the problem of raising revenue for the next fiscal year in some other way.
I wish now to consider the balance of the tariff, in which there is an increase of 7i per cent on all imports, a measure which in my estimation is simply protection and is not calculated to bring in any large amount of revenue. Under the circumstances and in the hard times of which we

complain, this will simply add to the difficulties of the poor man, as the tariff is not distinctive; it is a flat increase which falls upon all alike and does not protect the poor man as opposed to the rich man. The Conservative papers of Canada since the announcement of the Budget by the Minister of Finance, have endeavoured to create the impression among our people that the new tariff tells as heavily against the Canadian manufacturer as against the importer, but I say it is protective in every part. It is protective even as to the importation of the raw materials, although, under this tariff, he will not get a refund of the duty which he has paid on these raw materials when he exports his manufactured goods to foreign markets. The Canadian manufacturer will be taxed on the goods that he imports, but he will be taxed only to that extent; while the importer of manufactured goods from the Mother Country or from other markets will be taxed not only upon the raw material but on the labour and the legitimate cost of his operations, and therefore the Canadian manufacturer still remains with an advantage from the tariff of three or four per cent as against imported goods, while he has the advantage of the 7i per cent the importer will have to pay for all the goods he gets. This applies to all goods imported, to farm machinery of all kinds, except again for reapers and mowers, three or four articles which are generally bought by the larger farmers or by four or five or a dozen farmers clubbing together to get one of these expensive machines. Every other article that the farmer has to use, ploughs, forks, spades, shovels, trucks or wagons of any kind, are taxed more and more. We are calling upon the people to go to the land. We expect a larger acreage of arable land next spring. Many new settlers will go on the land and many young farmers will extend their acreage. Every one of these will be under the necessity in the early spring of buying new cultivating implements and will have to pay the duty on these articles. The western farmer buys his harvester or mower when his crop is practically ready for harvest if he has been favoured by Providence and nature he can easily get credit from the banks or his friends, and buy the harvester or whatever else it is that he needs; but the poor farmer cannot so easily get credit in order to buy machinery to properly cultivate his land. So you see how this tariff works against the poor farmer, and parti-
cularly against the new farmer; and we are expecting a great many of them, especially in the spring.
This tariff bears upon every article. It is a uniform tariff. There is no preference for the poor man. As the hon. member for St. John said the other night, the linen and woollens used by the poor man are being taxed just as much as the velvets, embroideries and silks used by the rich. The fishermen in the maritime provinces have to wear woollens nine months in the year, and those articles are taxed an additional 7i per cent. Other articles are being taxed. I would call the attention of the Minister of Finance to marlin twine, and remind him of the statement made by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) when speaking on the Budget a few days ago. He referred to the twine and corkwood used by lobster fishermen, and urged that they be put on the free list. It may be that the Minister of Finance has not thought of the condition of the lobsterfishing industry at the present time. But my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Prime Minister, who represent the maritime provinces in the Cabinet, should have had some thought for that industry. I am sure they have had during this winter correspondence enough from the lobster canners and the lobster-fishermen. This industry of the maritime Provinces is in a precarious condition at the present time, and has perhaps been affected by the war more than any other industry. For lobster is a luxury. This product of the maritime province used to find a market in France, Belgium and Great Britain, and we know that those countries to-day are not in a position to buy this expensive luxury. A great deal used to be sent to Germany, and we know that none of our lobsters can go there now. For the next year, if not for the next two or three, this industry will have to find another market. The fishermen will have to try and introduce lobster as an article of food in the towns and ' villages of the maritime provinces as well as in Quebec and Montreal. I hope the Minister of Marine will give his attention to this industry at the present time and see if these articles cannot be put on the free list.


Mr. BLAIN:: I might fiemind my hon. friend that no change is being made in the tariff with respect to binder twine.


Onésiphore Turgeon: The minister of Marine is well aware of the kind of twine I am speaking of.
This tariff is a protective tariff. The

Minister of Finance and the manufacturers of Canada are placing the people of this country in a curious dilemma. The manufacturers of Canada are appealing to-day to the people of this country to buy goods made in Canada. I do not object to goods made in Canada. When we ask for as low a tariff as possible on imports, it is because goods made in Canada cannot be sold at higher prices than goods imported. But what a dilemma the people of this country are in to-day. The manufacturers say: Buy goods made in Canada; while th'e Finance Minister says: I must have more revenue, and must therefore put a higher duty on the goods you use. If the people of Canada in the exercise of their patriotism pay heed to the Minister of Finance and import goods, the treasury of the Minister of Finance will be replenished, but the Canada-made goods will have to stay on the shelves of our merchants. On the other hand, if the consumers of this country buy goods made in Canada the Minister of Finance will have no revenue, and will hot be able to balance his accounts as h'e calculates. So no matter how we take it, this is a mere protective tariff. I do not think the Minister of Finance can possibly get the revenue h'e expects from it. Again, although the tariff may favour the Canadian manufacturer and give him the home market, it practically forces him out of foreign markets by taxing his raw material. And no nation in the world can be prosperous until it has foreign markets. The United States, with a population of
100,000,000 people, tried to be satisfied with their home market; and the home market is all right to a certain extent, but a nation n'ever reaches a very high place unless it has exports. Exports keep up the growth of the nation. Again, the people of Canada should at this time be trying to capture the markets of the world. This war should stimulate our manufacturers to search for foreign markets. While this war has closed many a market to Great Britain and Canada, it has also closed many markets to Germany. Markets that were practically, or largely, controlled by the German manufacturers, are now open to newcomers. It is the dutv of the Canadian manufacturer to devote his activities to the opening up of markets, to the sending of our goods to the South American Republics, where Germany has had control of the markets, and to other countries /the markets of which Germany will not be able to regain for some time and which neutral countries will not be able to 6upply. By this tariff you practically arrest or impede the activity of the Canadian manufacturer in the direction of extended markets. I am in favour of local markets, of home markets, but as I say to-day a special opening presents itself to the -manufacturer and if he -can command outside markets he will be able to do better in the local markets without charging -so high for his products at home because, while he is devoting his activities to securing command of the foreign markets, -he will develoo activities -also that Will -put him in a position to manufacture more cheatdv and therefore sell more cheaply in the -market of the Canadian people. You do not w-ant to h-ave a redundance of work. You cannot manufacture for your own people all the time. The products have to go out, and if you confine your activities to the home market you must necessarily operate at a greater cost than if you were to operate on a larger scale with a view to extending vour trade and -supplying larger markets.
Hon. gentlemen say that this is a war tax and that the people will submit. The -people of Canada will submit to anvthing for the victory of the British Empire, will pay anything at all, but here we -are considering our position as a people. We are not to take the position that we are bound to be -submerged by this war. We must take the position that Great Britain is able to come out of this war victorious and we hope -before many months are over that she will come out victorious and greater than ever before. We must not act to-day as though we expected to be a conquered nation -and must therefore leave out activities ito be resumed by future generations. It is the generation of to-day that has a duty to perform towards Canada and towards Great Britain and it is only by encouraging the -activities of those engaged in agricultural pursuits that you can -possibly bring prosperity to the country.
In -my hu-mble opinion we would not be in the position in which we find ourselves to-day if we had had those larger markets that were offered to us th-ree wears ago. Prosperity has declined as a natural consequence of the refusal of those wider -markets to our farmers. The Minister of Finance is in -this position, that he must sav with me and every one: We were happy and prosperous until 1911, hut now we are in a different position. As I said this evening* I do not want to be offensive, but in mv opinion the Conservative party -are rean-ing the fruits of the-ir erroneous education in 1911. I might use -stronger language but I do not w-ant to be interpreted as being a


George Henry Bradbury: Hear, hear.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I am for it. I defended it before my hon. friend was in this House, I have done it many times since and I am willing to vote for it again. But, you cannot reach the completion of the work for the season of navigation next summer. You may have the railway finished but you cannot have your harbour completed at Port Nelson, because there you require wharves and piers which will take years and years to build while, if you had placed your terminals at Fort Churchill you would practically have had a harbour ready for your purpose and would have been in a position to have opened up for trade next summer. This matter is decided now and as long as the people of the West cannot enjoy the benefit of the Hudson Bay route next summer let us go easy and wait another year to complete it. I believe that suggestion will appeal to the judgment of every practical man in Canada. While I believe the Hudson Bay railway will prove of great assistance to the trade of the West, my faith in all wordly matters is limited by practicability and we know that the trade will never be practicable for more than two or three months in the year, and as long as we cannot have the advantage of this route until July of the following year we had better wait until the war is over. These are practical suggestions and I am sure that if these items to which I have referred were removed you would not require any additional tariff taxation. Strike off many of these expenditures and practice economy wherever you can in every possible line. Develop the agricultural industry, encourage all the farmers possible to go upon the land, and you can do this by giving them the free markets for their wheat that you refused them three years ago and again last year. As I said before recess the Minister of Finance would have found that his exports would have decreased much more had it not been for
MARCH fi. 1915
the advantage of the market that we had to the south of us. If free wheat had been given to the people last year the increase in production would have been very much larger than it has been. Although it was a bad season there would have been a much larger crop and our railways would have had more grain to transport. Our railways are to-day in such a position that they certainly cannot pay their operating expenses. The railways in Canada will never prosper unless through the prosperity of the farmer, and especially the farmer in the West. It may be said that all the wheat will be wanted for Great Britain should unfortunately the war not be over by next harvest. But, if that should happen, the Government has still power to reserve the wheat, and if the war should be over by spring, the farmer will know that no matter what crop he produces he will have the American market as well as the Canadian and European markets. This Canada of ours is not made only to be the granary of the British Empire; it is destined by Providence to be the granary of the world. Last winter, when in this Parliament we asked for free wheat, we heard many speeches about restricting the cultivation of wheat, and we were told by gentlemen opposite that the farmers of the West were wheat miners, and that they should stop growing wheat and go into mixed farming. I have seen in the West last summer on the one farm immense fields of wheat and immense fields of oats, and of barley, and of flax. Again, 'the farmers of the West were advised to go into the hog industry, but I can assure hon. gentlemen that the hog industry in the West is larger than the people of Ontario think. If the farmers of Alberta and Saskatchewan did not have the free markets of the United States for their pork, it would be sent to the Toronto market, and the farmers of Ontario would be reduced to taking four or five cents a pound for their pork.
Such, Mr. Speaker, are my views as briefly as I could express them as to the position in which the country is to-day. However depressed from a financial standpoint things may be for the moment, I am a Canadian who has faith in the resources of the country, and even if we have a crop failure for a year or so, and even if we have mal-administration by the Government in power, I do not lose faith in Canada, and I believe that in the end the Canadian people will get out of the difficulty and grow rich and prosperous.
I beg to say in conclusion that as far as the war is concerned we are all here as Canadians, and all ready to vote whatever money may be required to prosecute our share in the great struggle. But we have also to look to the internal condition of the country, and it is not for us to imagine that everything must be closed down because of the war.
It is just because we are at war that we should double our energies so as to keep the people .of Canada prosperous; and to enable them to repay to Great Britain the money which she is so generously lending us now, to enable us to participate in defence of human liberty. I trust that the Government will take into consideration some of my suggestions. I feel hurt as a Canadian that under present conditions the Government should have seen fit to put an extra tax on British goods, the more so, because I repeat that by curtailing expenditure and economizing, and providing measures. to develop the energies of the Canadian agricultural population by giving them freer and wider markets, there would be no necessity for putting on additional customs duties. We have heard about a truce, and I believe that things now have gone along pretty quietly, but if any party has broken the truce, as was shown by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) last night, the Conservative party are the sinners. Perhaps I might be accused of breaking the truce if I remind my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that we had the pleasure of a visit from him at Bathurst on the 12th of September last.


William Pugsley: On a political mission?
Mr. TURGEON; I regret that the minister paid us only a very short visit. Having learned in the evening that the hon. gentleman was to be in my town the next day, and not being able to move around as quickly as formerly I used to, I ordered a carriage to take me to meet the minister at ten o'clock in the morning, so that I might pay him my homage as the representative in the Cabinet of my province, shake hands with him and give him the welcome of the county of Gloucester, but when ten o'clock came I was told that the minister toad come and gone at nine o'clock in the morning.


John Douglas Hazen: I am an early riser.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: He was not in
bed at all.


Onésiphore Turgeon: The hon. minister says
"I am an early riser," but I did not expect

him to be such an early riser. I am sure that though his visit was short he found the conditions favourable as far as the industries in the town of Bathurst and that portion of the county of Gloucester are concerned.


John Douglas Hazen: Hear, hear.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I am very glad the
minister did pay us that visit because he was able to see the buildings that are going up for the pulp and paper industries. The people of Gloucester and the people of Bathurst are not reserving their energies until after the war, they are busy all the time developing new industries. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries had scarcely left the town when I began to hear talk about an election. It may be that his friends did not report what he said accurately but at all events it was announced that we were to have an election within two months, and the leaders of the Conservative party who accompanied him prepared for a convention to choose the strongest man that could be found to defeat the member for Gloucester. His friends told us that it was done on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, but it may have been that they were indiscreet about his utterances, as sometimes they are about my own. At all events they said the minister told them to get ready for an election in two months, and if it did not happen within two months it would certainly come in the spring. At all events it is sure that shortly after the visit of the minister, the Conservative party organized a convention and selected a man whom they thought would be able to defeat the modest member for Gloucester. We were notified at the same time that the then Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) was to be present at that convention to address the electors, but in the interval his health got bad, and later on it was announced that the eloquent member for Dorchester (Mr. Sevigny) would take his place. We had the pleasure of a visit from Mr. Sevigny and he addressed the meeting after the Conservative candidate had been chosen, and he is reported by the St. John Standard to have said:
Mr. Sevigny, M.P., Quebec, was then called on and in an hour's speech in French held the closest attention of the large audience, while he set forth most eloquently the splendid record of the Conservative Government.
I was most pleased to see my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Sevigny) a while ago.

But, if he is correctly reported, his speech could hardly be regarded as being in strict accord with the truce which lhad been made. He is one of the most eloquent members of this House from the province of Quebec, but apparently he came to take part not in a recruiting meeting, but in a political meeting. I was surprised to hear discussion of the probability of an election about the middle of September last year, only two or three weeks after we had departed from this House having agreed to unite all our energies in the prosecution of the war, and when we were engaged in the work for the patriotic fund, for Belgian relief and for the proper care of our boys who were going to the front. Yesterday fault was found [DOT] with the publication of a paragraph in the Canadian Liberal Monthly as being a breach of the political truce. But this that I have quoted I think, is a case much more in point. I am glad that my hon. friend from Dorchester has now entered the House. I do not by any means find fault with him for visiting my constituency. I am glad to see by this report of his speech that he told his audience he would come again next spring.
I shall be doubly pleased to see him in Gloucester county, in Bathurst or in Caraquet as he may prefer, and I hope to have the opportunity to make things pleasant for him outside of politics. It does not trouble me at all to see the Conservatives organizing. As the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) knows, I am ready for an election whenever it may come. But I have asked my people not to talk election until this war is over. We have given our pledge not to embarrass the Government, and have assumed that we are not to have an election while the war is in progress. When the war is over the Government will be at perfect liberty to have an election, and we shall be ready to meet them; but if they bring on an election during the war they must take the responsibility for it. So far as I am concerned, I am ready for the election to-morrow, or six months hence, or next year. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows that that is but a statement of fact. On former occasions he has come to Gloucester and his masterly eloquence has been listened to by the people there with attention and respect. My hon. friend from Dorchester has also received the commendation of the people there who have listened to him, but I believe his impression must be the same as that made upon the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and that each of

<15
these gentlemen must feel that their eloquence in support of the Con-10 p.m. servative party falls without effect upon the cultured minds of the electors of Gloucester.
L'et us deal with the affairs of the coun-tiy with the same energy and good will as before; and if the Government brings on an election before th'e war is over, let them assume the responsibility for it, as I have tsaid. We have been accused of not realizing the conditions that face the Empire, whether in the Dardanelles, the North sea or elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, we do realize those conditions to-day, as we did yesterday and as we did months ago. Our wishes and aspirations join with those of the people of nearly all the world for \ a victory for the British Empire and the restoration of peace. And our hope is that that victory shall not be a mere compromise but that the war -shall be prolonged, if necessary, until the Kaiser and militarism are overthrown, -so that when peace is established it may stand forever.
So that, in the eloquent words of the great American orator, Bourke Cockran, no more dreadnoughts, no more great armaments, may exist,, but merely such means of force as are necessary to police the shores of every country, and that the millions upon millions now expended upon armament and wars may be used for the development of the nations to the glory of Christian civilization and the advancement in -morals and in happiness of the people of the whole world.


George Henry Bradbury: I am sure the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. [DOT] Turgeon) will pardon me if I do not attempt to follow him in all that he has said. But I wish to refer to one or two of his remarks which have been in line with remarks made by other hon. gentlemen on that -side of the House. He spoke as if the policy " made in Canada " was not a desirable policy to advocate at this time.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I think the hon. gentleman has misunderstood me. I approved of Canadian-made goods, price being the same; but I pointed out the condition in which we are when the Minister of Finance says: Do not buy Canadian goods; I want- the revenue.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not think the hon. gentleman has improved the matter. What he said was this: To advocate the policy of buying goods in Canada would be to deprive the Minister of Finance of
revenue which he expected through his *policy. Now, I wish to say to hon. gentlemen on that side of the House that the " made in Canada " policy is a policy intended to stimulate the great industries of this country and to give work, to hundreds of thousands of men that are idle on the streets of Canadian towns and cities to-day. There is no doubt in my mind that it is a wise policy. If the Canadian people in -days gone by had dealt more directly with their own great industries we should have had a greater industrial Canada than we have to-day. Under the wise protective tariff inaugurated by the great Conservative party in 1878 Canada has prospered That tariff was denounced by the Liberal party for the eighteen long years when they were in Opposition, but when they attained office they took this policy as their own, and Canada prospered under the protective tariff. The principle of buying goods manufactured in Canada is in keeping with the policy inaugurated by the Conservative party and carried out during all the time it has been in office.
To one who knows anything about the two great political parties of Canada, it is interesting to listen to the arguments advanced by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. The remarks of the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) are usually very moderate and very fair, and in listening to the hon. gentleman's speech the other day I was surprised that he had the temerity to make the statements and the Charges that he did. He tried to fix on the leaders of the great Conservative party on this side of the House the stigma that rests upon the Liberal party: that of not implementing pre-election pledges. In view of the unsavoury record of hon. gentlemen opposite in the matter of pre-election pledges, I would have thought that no hon. gentleman on the other side of the House would have dared to mention the subject. During the course of his admirable speech the hon. junior member for Halifax said:
They promised time and again by their leaders that if honoured with the confidence of the electorate, they would carry on the publio services for a much less sum; and they professed much regard for the sanctity of public pledges given by political leaders. In their election handbook of 1911, I find this.
He then proceeded to read what I presume to be a paragraph from that handbook, as follows:

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 the 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 court of the people, and theii* terms rigidly exacted.
On the bas s of that item the hon. gentleman attempted to build the argument that the leaders of the Conservative party had made the pledge that if tney were returned to office they would reduce the expenditure of this country. Later he said:
Is not the conduct of the Government in the circumstances open to the gravest censure? Was not this a fitting season for the Government to practise economy and implement its pre-election pledges? The present Government party, when in Opposition, promised, if elected to power, a reduction in public expenditure. Let us see if they have observed faithfully their pledges in this respect.
I desire to say that the hon. gentleman cannot quote any statement contained in the platform laid down by the Conservative party previous to their return in 1911 asserting that if returned to office they would reduce the public expenditure.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Go to Hansard and you will find it.


George Henry Bradbury: I have looked at Hansard. I do not think the hon. gentleman can find any such statement; I venture to say that it does not exist, because no such pledge was given. What the leaders of the Conservative party said was that if they were returned to power they would handle the revenues in such a manner as to avoid waste. They condemned in the strongest possible terms the extravagance of the late Administration and the manner in which the public revenues were squandered under Liberal rule. But not a line was written or a word uttered by the leaders of the Conservative party pledging themselves to reduce expenditure. Why do I say that? Because the Conservative party realized that with the development and expansion of our growing country the expenditures were bound to increase. They realized that great public buildings would have to be erected in different parts of the country; that our waterways would have to be improved; that steps would have to be taken to develop the resources, commerce and industries of our country. The Conservative party complained not so much of
tMr. Bradbury.]
the amount of money expended by the Liberal Government as they did about the manner in which the public funds of Canada were handled by them.


Mr. LAW:: Did the hon. gentleman read all the manifestos issued by the Conservative party during the election of 1911? There were several.


George Henry Bradbury: I think I read all literature that could be rightly called part of the platform of the Conservative party. No hon. gentleman on the other side of the House can produce a pamphlet issued under the authority of the Conservative party in which a pledge of that kind was given to-the people.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Did the hon. gentleman read a certain manifesto in which the first paragraph was that the expenditure of $74,000,000 by the Liberal Government was extravagant beyond all possible defence?


George Henry Bradbury: No, but if I had read it I could readily have understood it.


John Howard Sinclair: I can show my hon. friend a copy of that manifesto, which is signed by his leader.


George Henry Bradbury: I could well understand the leader of the Opposition at that time using such language, because every man who sat on the opposite side of the House previous to 1911 contended that the expenditures were extravagant and that the finances of the country were handled in an outrageous and wasteful manner.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I can send you a library on that point.


George Henry Bradbury: The hon. junior member for Halifax advocated -that the expenditures on public works should be cut down. On page 387 of Hansard he is reported as saying:
Instead of the Government's asking for an expenditure of $20,000,000 for public works, they might have asked for $10,000,000 or less, and, if need be, they might have wiped out altogether expenditures for public works for the next fiscal year. I do not believe that the people of any province of Canada would have objected to the most drastic measures on the part of the Minister of Public Works during the present year and during the next fiscal year in connection with public works expenditure.
Then our hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) made this statement about the Civil Service:
We oould reduce the number of officials, reduce them largely, and not interfere with the

public service. "We could cut the cost of public works in two and not interfere with the public service.. . I understand that they are spending some $15,000,000 or $20,000,000 in Halifax. 1 venture the assertion that if the money was properly expended you could do all that is necessary for the development of trade in the city of Halifax for $5,000,000.
I do not think the junior member for Halifax would agree that the work in Halifax could be completed for $5,000,000. But what I want to point out is that we are to-day passing through perhaps the most critical period in the history of Canada. When we have thousands of men idle in the streets of most of our great cities, I claim that one of the most unpatriotic things that this Government could be guilty of would be to stop public works in this country or cut them down to such an extent as would limit the work that should be provided for the mechanics and labouring men of our cities. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) condemned public expenditure just as strongly as the junior member for Halifax.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not say that public works expenditure should be cut [DOT]out; I said to reduce it to what it was in the year 1912 or 1911.


George Henry Bradbury: The language I read is very plain, it is in Hansard. I do not know what the hon. gentleman meant to say, I am only quoting what he . did say. The hon. member for St. John said that this was not a time to go on with large public works, while the people of this country were spending eveTy dollar they had in charity. Mr. Speaker, the working men in this country do not want charity, the working men want work, and it is the duty of a patriotic Government, as far as possible, to give them that work. I think when the hon. gentlemen face their constituents they will find it difficult to explain to them the language which they have used in this House as regards cutting out public works in this country, which meant, if it meant anything, that the public works should cease and thousands of men be thrown out of employment. Let us see what one of the outside leaders of this great party has to say about this question. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Toronto Globe, and every one who knows anything about the Liberal party recognizes that the editor of the Globe has a good deal to do with the leadership of the Liberal party.
I find this in the Toronto Globe of Wednesday, February 10, 1915:
When to Spend Public Money.
The time to spend public money freely is when private enterprise is on the ebb. If governments and public bodies enter upon huge programmes of public works when a building boom and a rush of railway construction are in progress the inevitable result is to attract to the country far more workers than it can provide employment for under normal conditions, and so to intensify the depression which follows boom conditions. This is precisely what) is happening in Canada to-day. The Estimates introduced by the Minister of Finance make provision for carrying on public works begun in former years, but the financial situation is so difficult that practically no new works are to be begun during 1915 at the very time when the need for employment is greater than ever before in the experience of the building trades throughout Canadian cities.
It would be peanut politics to attempt to make party capital out of the situation. No Government in Canada, Liberal or Conservative, has ever deliberately curtailed expenditures upon public works in good times so that it might more freely provide employment during seasons of depression. In all probability this failure to take thought of the morrow has been the result of the belief of politicians that hard times dog their opponents only, and that the remedy may well be left for their opponents' consideration. The interests of the nation should be placed above party, however, and The Globe would like to see a healthy growth of public opinion in favour of husbanding the resources of the Dominion, the provinces, and the municipalities in boom periods so that public works may be undertaken at seasons of the greatest need. The work carried forward at such seasons would be done more cheaply and more thoroughly than under conditions of abnormal activity, and would render unnecessary the spending of vast sums on maintaining willing workmen in idleness.
My Mend from St. John would allow the people of Canada to dole out charitv to the mechanics and working men; but The Globe, the Liberal organ, holds that it is peanut politics to preach a doctrine of that kind. The Globe says further:
There are many organizations engaged in the study of social conditions-Conservation Commissions, Unemployment Commissions, Social Service Commissions. They could do nothing more calculated to All up the valleys of depression than to secure that public employment shall be at the minimum in Canada when private employment is at the maximum, and that the stress of hard times shall be lessened by the construction of public works during seasons of depression.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to have it iso arranged that the public works shall be at the minimum, that the public expenditures of Canada shall be cut in two. One hon. gentleman went so far as to sav that one large item of $5,000,000 in connection with the Hudson bay should be out out

altogether. In view of these statements it is hard for roe to know which oartv to believe, the Liberal party in this House oi' the Liberal leaders out of the House. It reminds me of the story of the gentleman who was visiting a neighbour's house and was charged by a vicious looking dog which went at him as if it was going to eat him. The host came out and said, "Oh, don't be afraid of him; can't you see he is wagging his tail? " The visitor replied, " Yes, but I do not know which end to believe." It is the same to-night, I do not know which end to believe, whether I should believe the junior member for Halifax and the hon. member for St. John, and the other members who have advised the Government to cult down expenditures and leave the workingmen to the charity of the people of Canada, or those who advocate a wise continuance of public works.
As it is getting late, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Rogers the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.
Monday, March 8, 1915.