Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Customs):

When the Orders of the Day were called yesterday, I explained to the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), that I had instructed the Deputy Minister of Agriculture to send a special inspector. to Washington to investigate the claims made by the American officials with regard to the potatoes condemned at Boston. I discussed the matter with the Deputy Minister of Agriculture this morning and I find that the potatoes, after being condemned, were immediately purchased by some person in Boston and at once shipped to Cuba; so that when our inspector arrived at Boston to make his investigation the potatoes were not to be found. Mr. O'Halloran, the deputy minister, tells me that the potatoes were inspected by two United States federal inspectors. They condemned thd potatoes. They sent samples to Washington and the report of Mr. Orton, the plant pathologist of the Department of Agriculture in Washington confirmed their report. It was on this confirmation of their report that the potatoes were condemned. Mr. O'Halloran tells me that they are endeavouring to get samples of potatoes from Cuba, the country to winch they were shipped, and when they succeed in getting the samples v'e will be able to give a further report.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

I would like to inform the House that additional information has been received that the troops numbering about 4,000, who were despatched some time ago, have reached Great Britain in safety; that they are stationed at different points, where very suitable accomodation has been provided for them, and that they are all in good health and spririts.

Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:

I desire to ask the Government when we may expect the publication of the names of those who have enlisted, including those who have already gone to the front as well as those who are in Canada. It is a matter of a good deal of interest to many people in Canada, and if the list could be issued in parts it would be of great advantage to the public.

A great many of the lists are ready now, but we are waiting until they are completed before issuing them. I had expected that they would have been ready before this, but the Printing Bureau is pretty well loaded up with work. We will press the matter forward as rapidly as possible.

Mr. G. H. BRADBURY (Selkirk):

Mr. Speaker, when the House rose on Friday night I was drawing attention to the criticisms offered by the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) and the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). I had remarked upon the temerity of the hon. junior member for Halifax for having challenged this side of the House in the matter of implementing its pre-election pledges. I think that a party with such an unsavory reputation as far as its preelection pledges are concerned ought to hesitate before making any such statement as that which was uttered by the hon. junior member for Halifax. I also criticised the attitude taken by the hon. junior member for Halifax regarding the cutting down of the Estimates for public works; and I wish to quote his words now, and when I do, perhaps what I said on Friday night will be better understood. Speaking of the Estimates of the Public Works Department, the hon. junior member for Halifax said:

Can the Minister of Public Works himself submit to the House any fair defence for his request to Parliament to vote practically $20,000,000 for public works expenditure in 1914-15? I do submit, and in fairness, I think, having: in view the circumstances prevailing- throughout Canada this year, and throughout the world for that matter, that instead of the Governm.nt's asking for an expenditure of $20,000,000 for public works, they

[Mr. Sneaker.1

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. Many of these projected works were without justification, the necessity for others have at least temporarily passed away by reason of the declining business of the country. Expenditures for these purposes should have been reduced to the minimum this year and next year.

The hon. member for St. John, taking the lead from the hon. junior member for Halifax, follQwed along the same lines. He had been advising my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) to cut down the expenditure on public works. The minister asked him across the floor of the House if he would be willing to have the Estimates cut down for his own county, and his reply was:

I would not be worthy of my position as a member of this House if I did not answer " Yes " to that question. I would not be worthy of the confidence of the people of. my constituency if I were so cowardly that I would. not dare to stand up in my place and give an answer to that question in the affirmative. Therefore I say that in these times of stress and trouble the amount proposed for St. John harbour of $1,500,000 might very well be cut down during this year to $750,000. The work could go on, and a 'great deal of work could be done for that money.

When he was making these observations, I interjected a question across the floor of the House, asking him if it was not wise for the Government of this country to spend money when times were hard to provide work for the working people of this country. His answer was:

That is right, if you have the money in the Treasury. But is this the time to tax the people of this country, when, as I have said every dollar, every cent, they can spare is being given to charity'.

Right here I want to emphasize what I said on Friday night. The artisans and working people of this country are a selfreliant, independent class of people. They are not looking for charity, they do not wish to be pauperized, they want to be provided with work, and it would be an unpatriotic act of this Government, or of any provincial government, or of the authorities in any city in Canada, to follow the advice given by the hon. member for St. John, to reduce their expenditure on public works at this time, if they could possibly secure the money to go on with these works. A more unpatriotic position could

not be taken by hon. gentlemen representing great cities, such as Halifax and St. John, which cities must have thousands of men out of employment, than to ask the Government not only to cut the Estimates, but if necessary to eliminate them altogether and to stop all public works. What position do these hon. gentlemen occupy in connection with. the great organs that represent them in this country? I find on looking over the files that the Toronto Globe discusses this matter. The Globe is the mouthpiece of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House; in fact, its editor is looked upon as the outside leader. When there is any trouble in this House, we generally find the editor of the Globe-

Reverend.

Mr. BRADBURY:

The reverend editor of the Globe sitting in the gallery encouraging hon. gentlemen by his smiles, and perhaps even by his enthusiastic applause. Therefore I think I can refer to him as the outside leader, without being offensive. Here is what he said on the 10th of last month. The editorial is headed: " When to Spend Public Money," and is as follows:

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 today. 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 he 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.. .

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 fill 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 should be lessened by the construction of public works during seasons of depression.

And yet, in the face of this pronouncement- by the Globe, hon. gentlemen opposite are -endeavouring to induce this Government to lessen its expenditure and to reduce work in this country to a minimum, thereby throwing tens of thousands of Canadians out of employment. The reverend gentleman who wrote that article described the conduct- of hon. gentlemen opposite as " peanut politics," -and I commend -that description to them. No more unpatriotic move -could be made by any man or body of men in Canada than to endeavour to induce municipalities or governments to curtail expenditure in these trying times. I believe it to be the duty of every great city, every municipality, and every government in Canada, to spend every dollar they honestly can on legitimate works, for the purpose of providing labour for our people. We cannot afford to lower the standard of our workingmen, by making them subjects for charity.

I wish Mr. Speaker, to devote a little time to making a comparison between the records of lion, gentlemen who occupy so serenely the Opposition benches to-day, when they were in power with the record of the Conservative Government now in office. The junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) had tile temerity to chide the Conservative party for having violated its preelection pledges. I wonder where the Liberal party stands in that respect. Let me refer to some of the promises made by the Liberal party before they came into power in 1896, and how well they implemented them. It will be remembered that fust previous to the election of 1896, and many of us are old enough to remember that campaign, these hon. gentlemen, having been for eighteen long years, in the cold shades of opposition, travelled throughout Canada and in every city, every village, and every concession, preached to the farmers the doctrine of discontent, trying to make them believe that they were the men who were paying the taxes and were being bled white by this awful protective tariff, and promising what they would do to relieve the situation if they came to office. I rpiote from one of the planks in the Liberal platform of 1893!

We cannot but view with alarm the large increase in the public debt and the controllable annual expenditure of the Dominion; we demand the strictest economy in the administration of the government of the country.

That is an admirable declaration for a political platform, and one which if lived up to would have redounded to the credit of the Liberal party. But what was their record when they came to power? In 1896, when the Liberals assumed office, the public accounts show that the national debt of Canada stood at $258,000,000, and in 1911, when they went out of office, they had managed, not to decrease the national debt, but to increase it to $340,000,000, or an increase of $82,000,000 during the fifteen years they were in power. But that does not tell one-half the tale. The Conservative Government had been in office for eighteen years, and it had laid the foundation of Canada's greatness, so that prosperity was in full tide when the Liberals came to power, and with a buoyant revenue the Liberal party that was pledged to reduce taxation and expenditure took out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country, in the ten years immediately preceding their defeat in 1911, $311,486,000 more than the Conservative party took in any ten years previous to 1896. Therefore, when you add this

to the $82,000,000 of national debt, which they heaped upon this country, you can form some idea of the manner in which the Liberals implemented their pledge of economy to the people of Canada. I believe the Liberals never intended to carry out that pledge; it is quite clear to-day that the pledge was made to catch votes, and in that they succeeded. But the Liberal party stands before this country guilty of having violated every pledge they gave to the people of Canada previous to 1896. But that is not all. These gentlemen opposite have now the temerity to charge the Conservative Government with having increased the public debt 'since it came into office. True, this Government has increased the public debt, but let us see why. I find, on looking over the official returns, that on the 31st of March, 1912, the first year the present Government was responsible for the expenditure, the public debt stood at $339,919,460, and on the 28tli of February just past, the debt had risen to $401,891,909, or an increase of $61,972,000 in the last three years.

But, Mr. Speaker, how was this debt increased and what was the cause of the increase? Tne increased debt under the Conservative Government, was incurred

entirely for the purpose of taking care of liabilities left to it by the Liberal party when it went out of office. It was a legacy, Sir, left to this Government, and this Government was in honour obliged to accept it and provide for it. I shall give to the House a statement of what it has cost this Government to care for some of the undertakings that the Liberal Government rushed into so recklessly, previous to their defeat in 1911. In order to care for these liabilities left them by the Liberals, it was necessary to provide no less a sum than $178,000,000. For the fiscal years 1912-13 and 1914-15 we find the following expenditures on works which were in progress when the present Government came to power; on the National Transcontinental railway which was undertaken by the Liberal Government against the advice of the Conservative party; the present Government expended $56,000,000, and on the Hudson Bay railway $9,000,000.

Mr. W. M. MARTIN:

Does the hon.

gentleman object to the construction of too Hudson Bay railway?

Mr. BRADBURY:

that have been entrusted with our affairs that they come down to us and ask for* an expenditure of $38,000,000 a year for federal purposes. Sir, the thing is utterly unjustifiable.

I could go on reading pledge after pledge made by these hon. gentlemen to reduce the public expenditures of this country. I hold, Mr. Speaker, that a public pledge given by party leaders to the people of this country on the verge of an election is just as sacred and should be lived up to just as carefully and as scrupulously as a promise or pledge given in any business transaction.

But what has been the record of hon. gentlemen opposite on this question? In 1897, the first year in which the right hon. gentleman who to-day leads the Opposition, was responsible to the people in this country, the current expenditure was $38,349,760. That is the amount at which the right hon. gentleman found the expenditures of the country when he took office. The capital expenditure was $3,523,000, which makes'a total of $41,872,760. In 1902, five years afterwards, the Liberal Administration, with its promise to the people to reduce expenditures still warm on its lips, had increased the current expenditure to $50,759,392, and the capital expenditure to $10,078,638 or the total to $60,838,030. The expenditures still kept going up until 1911. It was a growing time, and the Liberal party was spending the people's money like a drunken sailor throwing away his money recklessly. In 1911 the current expenditure had risen to $87,000,000, and the capital expenditure to $35,000,000, or to a total of $122,000,000. But in 1912, the current expenditure for which the late Government was responsible, had risen to $109,000,000, and the capital expenditure to $46,000,000, or to the total of $155,000,000. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite criticise Conservative ministers for having brought down an estimated current expenditure for this year of $140,000,000. This is the record of the Liberal party as to the manner in which it has implemented its pledge to reduce the expenditures of this country.

I would like for a moment to draw the attention of the House to the percentage of increase in expenditure. The total disbursements under the late Government increased by 178 per cent in the fifteen years it was in office. The increase per head was 85 per cent. Let me give a ten-year record, which is worth placing on Hansard. The ten-year record of expenditure under the Conservative party previous to 1896 shows that it had expended on public works in this country $423,358,000; whereas the late

.

Government, pledged to reduce the expenditures, during the ten years after it had. come into office, had spent $919,748,517, or an increase of $496,390,517. The per capita expenditure in 1896 was $8.80, and in 1911, $16.40, just double what they found it on assuming office-

This is the record of the Liberal party, showing how it implemented its pledge that if returned to office it would reduce the public expenditures. I do not know that I should have taken up even ia moment of the time of the House in reviewing tbjs question-for the people are thoroughly conversant with it-had it not been for the taunt thrown across the floor, the charge made that the party now in power deserves censure for not having implemented its pre-election pledges. -

Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:

The hon. gentleman has not attempted to answer that.

Mr. BRADBURY:

I have answered it by denying it, and by showing that hon. gentlemen opposite cannot prove it. The onus of proof lies upon the hon. members who made the charge.