Mr. PAQUET (Translation):

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

Mr. PROULX (Translation) :

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

Mr. PAQUET (Translation):

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

Mr. PROULX (Translation) :

They are not paid $10 extra for living expenses.

Mr. PAQUET (Translation):

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

Mr. Bergeron at the rate of $20 a day.

Mr. PROULX (Translation):

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

Mr. PAQUET (Translation):

The hon.

' gentleman will be entirely free to say anything he pleases when I am through.

Some months before the fall of the Liberal Administration, when the country was suffering from irregularities, misappropriation of public funds, had the hon. member the courage to denounce these abuses? Never. When the books were falsified, when documents were destroyed, the country's resources given away, had the hon. member theoourage to utter a cry of warning? Never.

The hon. member and his friends have only words of censure for those who wanted to learn the truth in the investigation of the most serious charges.

The hon. Minister of Inland Revenue, who wisely denounced such misdeeds, was held up to ridicule, and even threatened with the loss of his portfolio.

My hon. friend from Laprairie has even approved of the throwing-away of 40 millions in the construction of the Transcontinental.

The country, to its honour, realizes its duty to repair the losses caused by this wrongdoing.

Our opponents taunt us with appropriating excessive amounts for public works. A French economist says it is the duty of a government, during a crisis such as this, to disburse among the people, in useful enterprises, as much money as possible, thus enabling workingmen to support their families. The Government is doing its duty in appropriating money for necessary public works, and withal conducting the business of the country with as much caution and system as is shown by our business men in the management of their private affairs. We have no wish to make hard times worse and compel the workman to beg for his bread.

The Federal Government very properly asks the House to vote considerable amounts to assure to Quebec a future worthy of a national seaport.

The construction of a double track between Levis and Chaudiere, the building of the Quebec bridge; of the workshops of S'aint-Malo; of a dry-dock; of a grain elevator; and the works of the Harbour Commission, will be of immense benefit to the country at large.

I cannot thank the Government too much for its strenuous efforts to fully equip our seaports, and particularly the port of Quebec in order to control the western traffic.

The task of creating a New Quebec is accomplished, and the city of Champlain owes to the Conservative government the realization of its dreams and its definite launching on the highway of progress.

A transportation system is necessary for the development of agriculture, of commerce, and of industries. I therefore thank the Government for the opening to traffic of the Transcontinental from Lewis to Moncton. The people of the southeast part of the province of Quebec fully appreciate this important improvement.

According to some politicians, the Government is imposing unjust and misleading taxes, notwithstanding that Hon. Mr. Fielding, Minister of Finance under the Liberal Government, declares that the present Finance Minister seems to have found the best possible solution of a delicate problem.

In 1911, the Conservative party fell heir to most onerous obligations. The hon. Minister of Finance has shown that the Liberal Government would have ruined the country in the space of a generation had it remained in powder.

We have been forced to expend enormous amounts to continue the undertakings begun

under the Liberal regime. The Hon. Minister of Finance has inherited an estate of doubtful value, and is now forced to increase the duties in order to procure sufficient revenue to meet the requirements of the war. Notwithstanding their cleverness, our opponents will never succeed in making the people believe that the new imposts are not war taxes. This war tax is due to the decline in revenue, and this decline is due to the business stagnation caused by the war. The financial muddle created by the old regime was also a contributory factor making a war tax necessary.

The financial crisis of 1913-14, experienced in every civilized country; the burdensome obligations .bequeathed us by the Opposition, and the war-these have made necessary the new taxes. The Liberals declare their readiness to vote any money needed tc prosecute the war, while doing everything in their power to deprive the Government of the sole means at its disposition to procure the necessary funds. Our opponents are aware that the Congress of the United States, a neutral country, has voted 100 millions towards equalizing receipts and expenditure. All civilized countries have enacted special laws to meet the requirements of the situation.

Not only will the increase in the duties be productive of larger revenue, it will stimulate our industries, and ensure employment to our artisans. Thus shall we be in a better position to stamp out militarism.

The Liberals make the unfair statement that the war taxes will bear heavily on the poor, while affecting the rich but little. A close estimate shows that the Bank of Montreal will pay annually $150,000, the Bank of Commerce $135,000, the Imperial Bank $60,000. These figures prove that the greater portion of the new taxes will fall on the shoulders of those of our citizens who are best able to pay them. The Government finds it necessary to impose new taxes to finance our participation with the Allies in the war, a war brought on by the spirit of militarism as opposed to civilization.

Exemptions from tariff increase comprise wheat, flour, mowing machines, rakes, spades and reapers.

It is gratefully realized that our farmers are ready to make sacrifices for the sacred cause, in aid of our soldiers,' of the soldiers of the Empire, and of France and Belgium.

The Conservative Government, in view of the depopulation of the rural districts, the scarcity of labour .and the high cost of living, has devoted its best efforts to agri-

culture in order to bring that industry up to the high standard befitting it in our country. Some years ago the Government granted a bare million to agriculture. The present Administration, realizing the people's needs, expends $4,280,000 for the development of agriculture.

The party now in power has voted ten millions to encourage the teaching of agriculture in the Dominion. In view of the present crisis the Federal Government is concentrating its best efforts stimulating the productive capacity of the soil. Producing larger crops, our farmers will control the home market and be in a position to increase their imports, while aiding the cause of the Mother Country and her noble Allies.

I am inexpressibly grateful to the lion. Minister of Agriculture for appropriating ten millions for the promotion of agricultural education among our farmers, and thus stimulating production to the benefit of the whole Canadian people.

While our troops on the firing-line are winning honour for Canada, we should unite to develop our natural resources, increase our production, seek new markets for our products, and endeavour to capture those markets lost by the enemy, and thus ensure Canada's prosperity. I am proud to serve ray country under the enlightened and far-seeing leadership of the hon. Prime Minister.

The uprightness of the premier, his unquestioned good qualities of heart and mind, his wide knowledge, his respect for our religion, his fair treatment of our race and of our language have deeply impressed the country. Men of my own race, pent up in the narrow prison of political passion, have slandered this friend of French Canadians with a view to lessen his prestige in the interest of the Liberal cause. I have studied the career of this distinguished man, in whose person we may hail the defender of equal rights, the friend of religious toleration and the enemy of exploiters of our race and our religion. I rely on the sense of justice actuating the Bt. Hon. the Prime Minister of Canada. To-day English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians join forces in order to ensure victory to our Mother Country as well as to our ancient motherland. The premier, employing every means at his disposal, will, I am satisfied, succeed in uniting 'all Canadians and removing any friction that may exist regarding languages worthy of being spoken and

taught throughout the length and breadth of Canada.

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton) :

While I was listening to the very eloquent address of the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) thoughts were running through my mind of the different nationalities within the bounds of this magnificent Empire to which we belong. My hon. friend, in addressing the House, used the flowing sentences of his native tongue as a descendant of those whose home was -on the beautiful plains and sunny hillsides of France. I who follow him am a descendant of those whose homes were in the rocky hills and glens of Scotland. I find that my hon. friend as a descendant of those who dwell in a foreign country is free to arise in this great court of the people representing a part of our splendid Empire and to address us in the tongue of his own people. It would appear to be a hardship that I, whose ancestors of a thousand years lived upon the Island of Great Britain itself am to speak to you in what was to my forefathers, and is to me, a foreign tongue. My native language is that of Wallace and of Bruce; I am a Gaelic-speaking man. However, I do not make any complaint, but I speak of this matter only as one characteristic of the magnificent Empire in which we live and a proof of the liberties we enjoy. With such use as I am able to make of this foreign language in which I am obliged to speak here, I shall endeavour to make a few observations on the subject before the Chair.

I was not able to follow the hon. member for L'Islet very closely, as I did not understand his arguments so clearly as he does himself, and therefore I cannot deal with his arguments in detail. I fully agree with him in what he says with respect to the policy of the Canadian people in the present war. I fully agree with him also in his denunciation of the German atrocities. I am not so sure that I agree with him in his praises of the financial policy of this Government, nor in his argument that the Royal commissions issued by this Government were fully justified and the money they cost well spent. That is what he said if I followed his argument correctly. Let me remind the hon. member-and I am sure he understands my words very well -that when he is dealing with

these charges about Royal Commissions he knows, perhaps, but little about the extravagances attendant upon

them. This afternoon I pointed out some extravagances in connection with one commission. I showed that it cost about $128 to pay for one afternoon's service of one gentleman when at most the charge should have been $21 or $22. I was told by no loss an authority than the Minister of Customs that I should not make any such charge, because this gentleman was also engaged in serving subpoenas. Serving subpoenas, forsooth! What is the duty of serving subpoenas, and what is usually paid to those who serve them? In the part of the country from which I come, and where these subpoenas were served, there are constables whose duty it is to serve them. These constables receive the enormous sum of five cents a mile as mileage and 20 cents for each subpoena they serve. In this case, iri which the minister tells us with a flourish of trumpets that subpoenas were served by this commissioner who received about $20 a day, three witnesses were served. Had these subpoenas been served by the constable, he would have received sixty cents for serving the three with a mile for each, say three miles, so that the serving of the three subpoenas would have cost seventy-five cents. And we have a minister of the Crown standing up in this House, and with feigned indignation, striking his desk and saying that I should not find fault with an expenditure of about $108 more than there ought to be because, forsooth, the commissioner must serve subpoenas. And the hon. member for L'lslet is defending conduct of that kind. He says that this is all right; that under this Government we must abandon the machinery for serving papers that exists in the municipalities and must pay a man $15 a day and also pay him for six dinners, six horse-hires, six times whatever his itemized bill may be.

Mr. PAQUET:

I did not say that.

Mr. McKENZIE:

I assure my hon. friend that that is what I understood him to say. However, he understands his words better than I do, and I will not cross swords with him on that subject. I will turn aside from his speech, simply congratulate him on the excellent manner in which he presented his views, and go on to say what I had laid out for myself.

Mr. Speaker, let me first direct your attention and that of the House to the attitude we on this side take towards the question that is uppermost in The mind of every man in this country at the present hour. I myself am getting to that stage

976 '

where I am no longer a young man; most of us in the House are moving up to the meridian of life. We never before had the experience of having our country at war. This is the first time during my life-time when we have had serious difficulties of this kind. And, approaching the question as at present in this House, I think that before I say anything else, it is only fair that I should express my own opinion and the opinions of those of the people I have the honour to represent here, that there is nothing too dear, nothing too big, nothing too difficult for us as a Canadian people to do in support of ourselves and the Empire to which we belong. I wish to put our position as a Canadian people before this House and before the country by quoting a few of the early steps taken by Canada and the British Government at the time the war broke out. These stages are well known to hon. members of the House and to people who are in touch with the literature that comes to us from the Government day by day. But the ordinary man in the country, possibly, has not a clear conception of what was done at that time. I would just like to read a few of these cablegrams to show that the Governor General and tne King were perfectly justified in the opinion they had of the Canadian people; and I believe that our conduct throughout will corroborate the view held, and that they have made no mistake in their conception of the temper of the Canadian people in this war. The first is a cablegram from His Excellency the Governor General to the Secretary of State for the Colonies:

In view of the impending danger of war involving the Empire my advisers are anxiously considering the most effective means of rendering every possible aid and they will welcome any suggestions and advice which imperial, naval and military authorities may deem it expedient to offer. They are confident that a considerable force would he available for service abroad. A question has been mooted respecting the status of any Canadian force serving abroad, as under section sixty-nine of Canadian Militia Act the active militia can only be placed on service beyond Canada for the defence thereof. It has been suggested that regiments might enlist as imperial troops for stated period, Canadian Government undertaking to make all necessary financial provision for their equipment, pay and maintenance. This proposal has not yet been maturely considered here and my advisers would be glad to have views of Imperial Government thereon.

Arthur.

This is signed by His Royal Highness the Governor General of Canada. On August 1, 1914, the Governor General cabled to the

Secretary of State for the Colonies, as follows :

My advisors, whi^e expressing their most earnest hope that a peaceful solution of existing international difficulties may be achieved and their strong desire to co-operate in every possible way for that purpose, wish me to convey to His Majesty's Government the firm assurance that if unhappily, war should ensue, the Canadian people will be united in a common resolve to put forth every effort and to make every sacrifice necessary to ensure the integrity and to maintain the honour of the Empire.

On August 2, 1914, the Secretary of State for the Colonies cabled to the Governor General of Canada ag follows:

With reference to your telegram of the 1st August, His Majesty's Government gratefully welcome the assurance of your government that in the present crisis they may rely on the wholehearted co-operation of the people of Canada.

On August 4, 1914, His Majesty the King, through the Secretary of State for the Colonies, cabled as follows to the Governor General of Canada:

Please communicate to your ministers the following message and publish: I desire to

express to my people of the overseas dominions with what appreciation and pride I have received the messages from their respective governments during the last few days. These spontaneous assurances of their fullest support recall to me the generous self-sacrificing help given by them in the past to the Mother Country. I shall be strengthened in the discharge of the great responsibilities which rest upon me by the confident belief that in this time of trial my empire will stand united, calm, resolute, trusting in God.

This is signed by His Majesty the King. On August 4, 1914, His Royal Highness the Governor General of Canada cabled to the Secretary of State as follows:

In the name of the Dominion of Canada I humbly thank Your Majesty for your gracious message of approval. Canada stands united from the Pacific to the Atlantic in her determination to uphold the honour and traditions of the Empire.

Thus it is shown clearly and conclusively that His Majesty the King, His Royal Highness the Governor General of Canada were not mistaken in their conception of the attitude of the Canadian people.

I wish to avoid making reference to the taunts of disloyalty that have been thrown across the floor of this House They are unworthy of this Parliament; they are unworthy of the Canadian people. If hon. gentlemen opposite are as strong as they profess to be, and have that confidence in their record which they profess to have, surely, in looking for an excuse to appeal to the people, they can adopt a method more manly and more likely to appeal to the higher motives of the people than that of

carrying chips on their shoulders and raising a hue-and-cry about something which is not really in issue. I submit that when we have furnished all the money and all the men necessary to do our part in securing the triumph of British arms, we shall have done all that can be expected of us. Perhaps I should not say " expected of us," as that would imply that we are a sort of side-issue and that our responsibilities in this matter are merely secondary. We are an important part of one great Empire. As such, we are expected to do our duty by our own country as well as by the great Empire of which we form a* part; therefore, there lays upon us in greater measure the responsibility of carrying out all the purposes which we had in view when we took steps to do our part in bringing this conflict to a successful issue.

We shall come out of this war with a more united Empire 'than we

10 p.m. ever had before; with the different dominions and nations of which it is composed more consolidated and more in sympathy each with the other than ever they were before; with the bonds uniting Canada with the Mother Country stronger and firmer than ever they were before. If any evidence is required to prove that Canada is faithful to her trust in this regard, it may be given in the words of Marshall Ney, who, when he was blamed by Napoleon for unfaithfulness in some of his later battles, said: "We have been faithful; the bones of Frenchmen, scattered from the sands of Egypt to the snows of Russia, prove our fidelity." So we say: We are faithful to t)he Crown; the bones of Canadians scattered from South Africa to the snows of Russia prove the fidelity of our people.

It was pointed out by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) the other evening that there is a clear distinction between the policy of the Government and the manner in which it is proposed to be carried out. We are a.t one with the Government as to the policy of giving every possible support to the Mother Country, but we reserve the right to criticise the manner in which that policy is proposed to be carried out. For precedents in parliamentary matters I presume we are safe in looking to the Mother Country. There is no question as to the desire of both parties in the Imperial House of Commons to do all that can be done to bring the war to a successful conclusion. The following extract from a Canadian 62

newspaper deals with the attitude of the Opposition in the British House of Commons so far as their reception of the Government's policy is concerned:

There seems to be a disposition on the part of the Government at Ottawa, and more particularly its newspaper supporters, to resent any criticism of the policy or administration of the Government, and to regard it as a violation of the truce. This is an unreasonable attitude to assume.

In England although there has been the heartiest and closest co-operation between the parties, the Government does not regard its acts as sacrosanct. In his speech at the opening of Parliament, Mr. Bonar Law, leader of the Opposition, asserted his right to criticise the acts and policy of the Government, and Mr. Asquith promptly acknowledged the right of the Opposition to do so. He said, that " faced as we have been, and faced as we are, with all the responsibilities and cares which are almost unexampled in their complexity, and in their magnitude, we welcome the fullest criticism and we know that we shall receive the cooperation of the House of Commons." That is the only true attitude to take.

That, as I understand it, is the position we are taking in this House. The position of the Opposition here is the same as the position of the Opposition in the Mother Country, and I am sure that the hon. Premier and every other member of the Government and all of their supporters must, if they want to be fair to us on this side of the House, understand our criticism in that way.

Having cleared the ground so far as the position of those I represent and my own position is concerned, I leave myself absolutely free to consider the methods by which the present Minister of Finance expects to gather in the money that is necessary for carrying on the operations of this country in connection with the war. I think the hon. minister has contended that this financial burden is not to be very onerous, that it is not to be felt very much by the people of the country. I wish to quote to him the opinions of some financial papers in England, which he ' will recognize as authorities:

British financial papers are quoted in recent cables as expressing approval of the stamp tax feature of the new Canadian Budget. That is quite natural, for the stamp taxes are a permanent revenue-getting feature in the Old Country. The financial critics, however, are not so complimentary with reference to the increase in the tariff. For instance, the London Economist, which Sir Robert Borden once certified was " the greatest financial journal in the world," says:

"We are strongly of the opinion that this addition to the cost of living in a new country where prices are already very high will cause much hardship and discontent. Many of these taxes are protective, so that the revenue

secured will be much less than the burden imposed upon consumers. But in Canada manufacturing interests are powerful enough to extract advantage even from the embarrassments and difficulties of the nation."

Along the same line the "Investors" Review says: "We think it a pity the people of Canada should be further handicapped by indirect taxation, which is more profitable probably to the trader and manufacturer within the Dominion than to the treasury. Discontent with the tariff is deep enough in the West already. A better way of raising revenue might surely have been found by men of courage."

I take it that these two financial papers are at-least as strong as any other financial authorities of this character in the old land; and most of them have expressed themselves as being against the method taken by the Minister of Finance for raising the necessary money. I have been to-day reading the first speech delivered by the Minister of Finance in this House as a minister. In that speech he said that the credit of the country should be maintained at the highest possible mark, so that if the day ever came when we wanted money or when the revenue fell below what would be expected, we should be in a position to borrow the money and not have to impose heavier taxes on the people. That is the way I understand the speech made by the hon. gentleman on that occasion; but I regret to find that he has departed very strikingly from that position. Referring to the speech that he delivered the other day, I must say for the minister that in its construction, in its language and style, it is a fine piece of machinery, so to speak. The language is excellent; it is concise and well constructed. I must further give credit to the minister for breaking the news of the disastrous condition of the country as well as any man could possibly do it. There is a. story of breaking the news. When Mr. O'Flaherty was sent to break the news to Mrs. Murphy that her husband had been killed, he was to do it in the gentlest way possible, so he went up to the door and said: Is the widow Murphy here? She said: What are you talking about? The widow Murphy is not here, but Mrs. Murphy is here. You're a liar; your husband was killed a moment ago ! That was the gentle way-in which Mr. O'Flaherty broke the news. I must say to my hon. friend that he broke the news very much better, although the situation was not much of an improvement on that of Mrs. Murphy.

I wish to point out some features of the situation that the minister had to present to us. He 'had to inform us that the revenue

\

had fallen off very badly indeed and that the expenditure had gone up by leaps and bounds. But a little later on, on another day, he got very warm, or at least feigned to be very wrathy because he had been told that a beautiful heritage had been handed over to him when he took charge of the affairs of this country. I wish to reassert, notwithstanding any demur on the part of my hon. friend, that we did hand over to him a magnificent legacy, and a ship of state in a first-rate condition, fully equipped and ready for sea; and if any trouble did occur it was on account of the captain and crew that were put aboard when we vacated the ship on the 6th of October, 1911. It may be difficult to understand, but there must be some way of making hon. gentleman understand it, that in l&d6 and for many years before that, when the previous Conservative Government had charge of the affairs of this country, things were exactly as they are to-day. Finances were down at the lowest ebb; unemployment, poverty and a.scontent were rampant throughout the length and breadth of this country.

That was the condition of affairs when our friends took charge in 1896. It is quite unnecessary for me to relate what happened during the sixteen years of the Administration of my right hon. leader. I could not, if I tried, put the position in nearly as good shape as it was put by the present Minister of Finance, upon making his first speech in this House on the 13th March, 1912, when he was fresh from the country, new to his position, Without any prejudices one way or the other, and when he was only presenting to the House a fair statement of the standing of the country, financially and otherwise, as he found it at that time. The duty of an hon. gentleman taking charge of the business of the country, or the duty of a man taking charge of any business, is to take stock of the situation of the business, strike a balance, and see how the matter stands. Between the 6th October and the 13th March the hon. gentleman had plenty of time to look into the financial condition of the country. I have no doubt he looked into it, and, therefore, when he came down to this House on the 13th March, 1912, he was in a fair position to tell us how matters stood.

Let me digress for a moment to say that hon. gentlemen who are now supporting the Government, and who were then members of the Opposition, had been telling us from time to time that we had no surplus, that our finances were not in a healthy condition, and that when they came into power

they would show that we were only throwing dust in the eyes of the people by saying that we had a surplus when such was not really the case, and that proper bookkeeping would show where the country stood. After five months of investigation and preparation by so capable a financier as the Minister of Finance, he came down to this House and presented his Budget. Let me call his attention, and the attention of the country, to the testimony which he gave us in respect to the legacy which had been handed over to him. Coming from him, or coming from any hon. gentleman on that side of the House, I am sure it cannot but have weight with the people. I was sorry to hear him the other day denouncing this legacy and saying that there was nothing in it, that it was a burden to him, and that even upon his gigantic shoulders he could not bear it. Even he, who seems to care nothing for any assistance from anybody else, who cares for nobody on that side of the House but himself, comes now to the conclusion that this heritage was not at all so brilliant, so glowing and so attractive as it at first appeared to him. That is what happens to every man to whom a fortune is given by his parents or some other benefactor; it is not nearly so attractive after it is spent, after it is all gone. Let me give the House the judgment which my hon. friend passed upon the condition of the country the first time he had the opportunity of addressing the House. It will be found in the conclusion of the Budget speech delivered by him to this House on March 13, 1912. He said:

It will, as I have said before, be gratifying to all that the material prosperity with which we have been so highly favoured still continues to be our portion. Despite the serious vicissitudes through which the western wheat crop has passed and the unusual heat experienced in the province of Ontario during the past summer, the field crops of Canada show a bountiful yield and with the high prices prevailing for practically all its products the great basic industry of agriculture continues in a flourishing condition. Almost every department of trade and commerce shows expansion. Our mines are wonderfully productive. Our coast fisheries, notably the

Atlantic, have enjoyed a good catch and high prices. Our manufacturers are thriving and new industries are springing up throughout the whole Dominion. Railway construction, especially in the West, proceeds apace, preparing a way for settlements in districts not yet opened up and for trade with other markets than we now enjoy. Our increased bank deposits, clearings and circulation, the amount of public and private building evidenced in municipal and business structures, extensions to manufacturing plants and residences m almost every part of the country, all attest 62*

that the general prosperity of Canada at the present time is very great.

Our Dominion continues to be the land of hope and promise to the home seeker. During the last year, as before shown, our immigration from Europe and the United States reached an average of nearly a thousand a day, bringing their capital, their intelligence and their energy to assist in the great task of developing the resources of Canada and building up her nationality. Much has been said in the past with which I am in aocord as to the selection of immigration as far as possible with an eye to the quality and character of our future citizenship. Notwithstanding the large stream of immigration, labour conditions are good and extreme poverty, from any reason other than incapacity or direct misfortune, is hardly known.

Under the favourable conditions which I have described, and with every prospect for their continuance, the future of Canada looks bright indeed. In the enjoyment of peace, plenty and prosperity her energetic, loyal and patriotic people look forward with hope and expectation to an ever great and greater future.

That, Sir, is a description, a beautiful and most glowing description, and certainly a true description, of the conditions in which our friends on the other side found this country on the 6th day of October, 1911. It is sad to relate that it did not take long to produce a condition that makes a very different picture. We have often seen in the yellow-covered almanac a picture illustrating the effect of Kendall's Spavin Cure, showing a horse before using and after using. The dilapidated condition of the horse in the picture before using never was half so bad as the picture of Canada after using the Tory Government for a short time. It has already been observed. that we are plunging headlong into expenditures when we have no money to meet them. But, before going into that, there is something else which I learn from the speech of the Minister of Finance, and I am sure we have all to learn from him in matters of finance. Speaking in all sincerity for myself, I am sure that I can put him up as my Gamaliel for many years to come. .

He told us when replying to the leader of the Opposition that our railway policy was of the most foolish and abominable kind, and that no people other than fools-he did not use that language-could propose such a policy, because it was ruinous to this country. When the Minister of Finance took charge of the affairs of this country and struck his balance sheet, and investigated the conditions to see how matters stood, it was then, if he had any criticism to make on the great question of railway

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

Now I come to another matter in which I bespeak the attention of the House as it deals with the Transcontinental railway, or at least the eastern division of that line, and I have thought it well when dealing with the liabilities of the Dominion and our future maturities, to advert briefly to this portion of the Transcontinental which is our chief national undertaking at the present time. The heavy cost of the eastern section of that railway, so greatly in excess of the estimate of the late Government might prove, and X know it has proved

to a certain extent, somewhat disturbing to the House and to the public. Up to the 31st March, 1911, there had been expended in cash upon this undertaking the sum of $95,422,533.44. For the current year it is estimated that the outlay will amount to about $22,500,000, so that at the end of the present fiscal year the Dominion will have expended nearly $118,000,000. Now, in view of this large outlay, and i think probably that at least $100,000,000 additional will be expended before completion, I have thought it advisable in the financial interest of the Dominion to present a statement of capital and special expenditures from 1904 onward, that being the first year of the expenditure on Transcontinental railway account, dividing them into outlays on the railway on the one hand and on the other the capital and special outlays for other purposes. Against these I have set the increase and decrease ot debt for the respective years, and from the statment it will be found that from the year 1904 to the 31st March, 1911, Canada expended $95,422,533.44 on National Transcontinental railway account.

I desire to say, both to those of our own Dominion, and to those in Great Britain, if there be any, who have felt misgivings as to the very large amount of estimated expenditure upon the eastern section of the National Transcontinental and the burden entailed upon the country In consequence that I think it will be reassuring, completely reassuring, to know that, great as the cost has been, and will be, a large proportion of that cost for the past, has been and for the future, (if conditions continue as I believe may very well be expected), will be liquidated from the surpluses of consolidated revenue account and will not become a charge upon the future. I think we are all glad that we are able to make that statement.

That is a statement, Mr. Speaker, which to the ordinary man would appear to show that the Minister of Finance was perfectly satisfied with the financial condition in which he found the country when he took office, and perfectly satisfied with the undertaking of the late Government to build this road. Were the hon. gentleman then of the same frame of mind as now, I would suppose he would have expressed himself to that effect. I submit that the evidence which he gave in his speech at that time is a better class of evidence and more conclusive as to the real conditions of the country at that time, than the evidence he gives now when he finds that things have gone bad, by reason of his mismanagement, and when he is trying to escape from the position in which he finds himself, by saying that the policy of the former Administration was wild and foolish in respect to railways. That sort of statement must receive very little attention when we measure it with the position which the hon. gentleman took when he first became Minister of f inance, and when the condition of the road and the condition of our finances were fully before him.

As to the financial condition of the country, I would say to the Minister of Finance

that in the condition in which he finds the country to-day he ought to touch the poor people as lightly as possible with taxation.

I speak on behalf of the honest yeomanry of that part of the country from which I come-sturdy, firm, hard-working people who are willing to work if there is work for them; coal-miners and steel-makers, fishermen and lumbermen, all ready and willing to work and scorning to look to any one for assistance if the opportunity is given to them to earn an honest living. I am not going to say where the difficulty comes from; all I can say is that, when our Tory friends were in power before, those conditions were abroad in the land. When they were not in charge of the affairs of this country, we had peace and plenty and abundance of every kind. When they came back to power, this locust came back with them. Whether they are to blame for it or not, I do not know; but, as the blind man of old said: " One thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see." All we can say is, that, whereas we had good times without them, with them we have the locust and the pest and the bad times. I would suppose that the hon. gentlemen who have wrought with those difficulties and troubles have made conditions for the poor workingman such that he cannot feed his children, and that he has to cut down his expenditure on their food and clothing and shoes. Hon. gentlemen opposite should try to steer clear of making any further exactions on the people by way of taxation. If there were any way by which this could be done, I would expect that the humane and sometimes good-natured hon. gentleman who is Minister of Finance and who is absolutely responsible for this condition would take that course. Some of us, when we get into difficulties, would be glad to share the responsibility with and to blame other people. It is very natural to put the blame on some one else. If we go back to the first man we believe there was, when he was questioned about his shortcomings, he said: "This woman whom thou gavest me ''-she is the cause of all the trouble. From that day down, it has been natural for human beings to blame some one else. I am glad to find that we have in the Minister of Finance a man who would not only not blame his wife, but would not blame any one else in the world for any pitfalls into which he might stumble. He scduted the idea of consulting the Prime Minister or any other member of the Cabinet. He said: It was I myself, first, last and all the time; and ii there are any mistakes, they are mine,

and if there is any glory, it is mine. That is the position of the minister, and I wish to bring home to his doorstep the fact that he should not place upon the shoulders of the workingman, who in my county gets two or at the most three days' work a week, a tax when he goes to the store on Saturday night with his little earnings to get food and supplies for himself and his family; that he should not stand at the door of that store with his ultimatum: Before you go in, you must give me something ranging from thirty-five to forty per cent of the little money in your pocket, and with the rest you can buy what you like. That is a rather hard and somewhat humiliating position for the good physician, as he calls himself, of this country to be in, under the conditions that prevail at present. If that course could be avoided, it should have been done by the hon. minister.

The Finance Minister says that he will require $100,000,000 to carry on this war. We shall be glad to assist him in getting $100,000,000, or double that amount, if lie so desires. There will be no obstruction or objection on this side of the House. Ii the hon. minister had stopped there and borrowed that money, and was taxing the people only for the interest on it, he would not be obliged, as I said a moment ago, to stand at the shop-door watching those people and taking the money out of their pockets as they enter. All he would have to do would be to impose this stamp tax, this direct taxation, from which he would get more than sufficient to pay the interest on the borrowed money, and to form the nucleus of a pension fund which could be speedily increased when occasion arose. That is all that would be expected of him, and that amount the people would certainly pay. He goes on, however, to gather more money and to levy heavier taxes. The hon. minister tells us this is a war tax. It is more than a war tax; it is a matter of policy, as can be seen from his own speech. This raising of the tax is put forward by him and his Government as a thing that should be done, for the purpose of popularizing themselves in the country. In his speech which he delivered the other day, he said:

We believe the tariff increases which we propose not only will be effectual in producing greater revenue, but will be strongly effectual in stimulating Canadian industries and agriculture and relieving unemployment.

There is the question of policy. When this jaded horse, as I may call the people

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

Mr. H. BOULAY (Rimouski) (Translation) :

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to discuss any of the statements just made by the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) or of his other charges which have been contradicted again and again by previous speakers on this side of the House. In beginning I must say I do not share the views expressed by the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (M. Lanctot) in his speech of Tuesday last, as regards our cash contribution for carrying on the present war. However, I am proud to see that the French

Canadians are flocking in by thousands at the call to the colours, and flying to tne aid or not only Belgium, France and England, but of the civilization of the entire world, menaced by that horde of modern barbarians calling themselves Germans, worthy descendants of the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths and even of the Huns, who were in the Middle Ages the scourge of that portion of Europe. But as to our cash contribution, I am dubious whether we are not really doing more than our share, whether we have the means of furnishing so much money, and if the advantages we would gain thereby could recompense us for the enormous sacrifices we are now making, a pecuniary sacrifice which I consider out of all proportion to the resources of our country. We need not only courage and the ambition to serve; we need, at the same time, to be sure we possess the means requisite to that end. It appears to me that the upkeep of our soldiers once they have landed in Europe, should be altogether chargeable to the country we are assisting. , The contribution of blood is more burdensome than that of money, but we are inclined to contribute the former all the more willingly that our sons are willing and proud to sacrifice their lives to defend that civilization so fearfully menaced. However, I am not prepared to say that I will oppose the proposed vote of 100 millions, for the greater the cost the greater the sacrifice appears, and we hope that our ancient motherland of France, as well as our new mother country, England, will be so much the more grateful the more painful the sacrifice will be for us.

We are about to debate a question of great importance to our country from the financial standpoint. During the month of August of last year fifty millions were voted. The public treasury, or Canada as a whole, was drained of millions for the defence of the Empire and of Canada. This sum, enorniT ous in proportion to the financial resources of our country, is in great part already spent, and to-day we are asked to vote double that amount-one hundred millions. We are asked to make another enormous pecuniary sacrifice. We are again ready to do so. We are asked, besides, to make the greatest sacrifice that could be asked of a man-the sacrifice of his blood, of his life, the sacrifice of our brothers and sons for the defence of the Empire and of Canada - We are prepared to make it. By thousands, from one end of Canada to the other, our youth have ralllied to the flag.

Yet while we are asked to make the most

terrible sacrifice, the sacrifice of our life, it is well that we French Canadians should do a little thinking; firstly, as to our reasons for participating in this war of extermination, and secondly, the state of affairs in this country for some years past.

With heroic Belgium sacrificing her national wealth, her children and her monuments, to defend a principle, with France, no less proud and brave, the cradle of our ancestors, with these countries repelling the most uncalled for invasion, with England as nobly and courageously flying to the succor of these two peoples so brutally attacked by the most brutal of nations, we had not a moment to hesitate.

Our duty was clear. We realized this and set to work at once. The sons of Quebec stand shoulder to shoulder on the battle fields of Belgium, on Salisbury Plain and in our Canadian camps, with the soldiers of English nationality. I even venture to say that in the first contingent sent abroad, there are more French Canadians, in proportion to our total population, than there are English Canadians born in Canada.

We are proud and happy to do our duty, but we do it with a certain bitterness of soul, even regretfully and with foreboding. Why? The reason is very plain. It is because in the Canadian confederation we are not treated with the consideration due to us. Our rightful privileges are denied us. In a word, though dwelling beneath the shelter of the British flag, we are certainly not given British fair play. I am here alluding to government employment. Not that I wish my compatriots to seek easy jobs. I would rather see them possess themselves of the soil and remain agriculturists, than to flock into our cities and towns. Nevertheless we must face the situation as it really is, and the complaints reaching me are justified, for our compatriots have not always in the past, and do not to-day receive the fair play to which they are entitled in this regard. British fair play exists, however, but it is one-sided. We are treated with every consideration so long as we permit our rights to be taken away, so long as we are pliant, so long as we are content to take second place, just so long as we are content with the humblest positions. Let the French Canadians stand back. We should be snow-shovellers, mechanics, day-labourers, elevator-men, bowed down by hard work at a small salary-that is what we are fit for. But the most lucrative offices and the greater number of positions are reserved for our English-speaking citizens.

If perchance any may doubt the accuracy of my statements on this subject, let them examine with me the report I am about to quote. This report was prepared under the preceding Administration, an Administration under which our compatriots had a right to expect full and entire justice. But then, just as now, we waited patiently, vainly, hoping from day to day for better things.

Mr. PROULX (Translation):

The hon.

member should consult this year's report, it is the latest one.

Mr. BOULAY (Translation):

I would ask the hon. member to get this report ready and I shall read it with pleasure. In the meantime I will consult the report prepared in 1907. I will not refer to every department, but quote a few only so as to bring the most salient facts before the House.

Taking the office of the High Commissioner in London, it employs five clerks, not one of whom is a French Canadian.

The Department of Justice employs four French Canadians and thirty-eight English.

The Interior Department, twenty-six French Canadians and 217 English.

The Auditor General's Office, one French Canadian and forty-six English.

The Finance Department, one French Canadian and seventy-five English.

The Department of Trade and Commerce, four French Canadians and 41 English.

Customs Department, 147 French Canadians and 1,175 English.

Department of Agriculture, 27 French Canadians and 125 English.

Department of Railways and Canals, 8 French Canadians and 87 English.

Department of Indian Affairs, 16 French Canadians and 161 English Canadians.

The proportion of employees according to nationality is as follows: French Canadians 17.80 per cent; English 82.20 per cent.

According to the latest census up to that time, the census of 1901, the proportion of French Canadians relative to the total population of the country had risen to 30-71 per 100, exclusive of Swiss and Belgians who should have been classed as French, which would have still further increased the above ratio.

The total number of civil servants permanently employed amounting to 5,634, there should be 1,792 French employees instead of the 1,039, which would give the 30 -71 per 100. The number of French Canadian civil servants should therefore be increased by 753. The number of other employees should be reduced to 4,042, which would give

the last year of the Liberal regime, we find that judges1 allowances totaled $151,428, an increase of nearly a hundred thousand dollars in fifteen years. '

I think, then, instead of crying scandal as regards Judge Doherty's allowance, the member for Laprairie while his friends were in power, should have devoted himself to the reduction or even the total abolition of these allowances. But I will not hesitate to say what I think: If we are granting any one useless appropriation, that appropriation is these judges' retiring allowances. In my opinion, a man earning a salary ranging from five to eight thousand a year, for many years, should not find it necessary to end his days as a state pensioner.

The Opposition instead of being scandalized to-day, should have repealed that law *while they had the power, but they have done the very opposite, since they have increased these allowances by one hundred thousand dollars per annum. There is something much more of a real scandal than Judge Doherty's allowance, namely, the case of Judge Clement of British Columbia, which occurred during the Liberal Administration. This gentleman was a Liberal, not a Conservative. He cheated the public treasury out of $4,000, but I have heard no protest from the member for Laprairie.

As to Judge Doherty, if the country considers it has need of his services, I fail to see what scandal there can be in acting as a minister of the Crown while drawing a retiring allow'ance. If he were not a cabinet minister, some one else would be minister in his stead, and would receive a salary, while Judge Doherty would still draw his allowance. The treasury would not save a cent by this, while it loses nothing by having Mr. Doherty in the Cabinet. Were we to recall all the doings of our adversaries while in power, we should reveal many scandals. Something would be said of the famous Arctic expedition, ' of the Transcontinental scandal where sand excavations were charged as loose rock, and paid for at the price of the latter, this being followed by an entire series of transactions so scandalous that the chief engineers on two different occasions had to send in their resignations, finding it impossible to condone such scandals in the construction of this railway. Again, if we wished to bring up the unfortunate incidents at Quebec, which led to the resignation of a certain member of Parliament, it would be edifying indeed.

Such things happen in both parties, and we must not rub it in too hard. Those who

live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Let us now glance at the condition of the Dominion revenue at different periods.

In 1897 the expenditure per head was $7.46 and the revenue $7.36. In 1911, when the Liberals went out of office, the revenue per head was $16.20 and the expenditure $12.18. The Opposition accused us of mismanagement during the last three years. If we follow up the comparison, we see that in 1913 the revenue was $21.74 per head, and the expenses $14.44, or an excess of revenue over expenditure of $7.30, while in 1911 under the Liberal regime the difference was only $4.02.

As it is getting late I shall condense the remarks I have yet to make. On the 16th of February last the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin), made a speech in this House in which he asked for seed grain for the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. I find in the supplementary budget, soon to be voted the sum of $10,401,958.25.

We are told as a reason why we should come to the aid of the West that the land belongs to the Federal Government. Even if this is the case, it seems to me we would have everything to gain in giving up these lands rather than spend millions every year to aid Alberta and Saskatchewan. After all, the West has been built up by the old provinces. We have constructed their railways and canals, we have brought them immigrants by hundreds of thousands, and every year they keep on coming to ask of us millions for public works, for general development, and we vote them millions under the pretext that the Federal Government owns the lands. Besides the same need of aid exists elsewhere than in the western provinces. In my own constituency, I last year forwarded petitions from nearly all the parishes of Rimouski to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, requesting him to come to the aid of the farmers by supplying them with seed wheat, or at the very least, to have the transport charges paid by the Federal Government. This was refused because, it was stated, it was contrary to law.

If there is a county anywhere in the Dominion requiring Government assistance, that county is surely Rimouski, for this reason: It is the northernmost county of the whole province of Quebec. Our farmers have seven months of winter and five of summer. They must battle against a rigorous climate and against a dearth of seed grain. Despite this, they display great courage and firmness. Notwithstanding the unfavourable climate and seasons, prosperous cheese and

butter factories are found in every parish. When I asked that these brave, plucky farmers be given well merited assistance, I was told this would be against the law. It appears to me it would be easy to enact a law, in a few lines, empowering the Government to come to the aid of these courageous people. We give a great deal of assistance to the western farmers, why not aid those of the East who have as much right to assistance?

I beg the Government to consider the situation. If it be necessary to enact a law, this can be done easily. Rimouski is the most northerly of the counties of Quebec province, and is the most disadvantageously situated. I know there are many members of Parliament who have never seen this portion of the province of Quebec in winter, and it must be visited in winter to realize the truth of what I say. Our spring season is two months later, and we have earlier frosts in autumn than in any other part of our country. I give these explanations, because I do not wish any one to think I am asking for something that is not really needed, or that I desire to annoy the Government by my importunity. If Rimouski had a climate like that of the Eastern Townships or of the district of Montreal, I would never make such a request. We would be only too happy to enjoy such a climate. But it is just the opposite.

I wish to be heard in order that the. situation may be thoroughly understood, and I ask my friends to help me. I do not want to bring in a Bill entailing the expenditure of money; this would fail as it is within the competence of the Government alone. But I ask the Government to leave nothing undone to aid the Rimouski agriculturists, who occupy such an inhospitable soil.

Mr. W. F. CARROLL (Cape Breton South):

The hon. member is usually very independent in his statements in this House. On this occasion in his speech, as far as I was able, or rather as I was helped to understand him, he has taken a somewhat peculiar position. He has criticised the Government for doing certain things and for purposing to do other things; but he still says he is obliged, under the circumstances, to support the Government. He takes the stand that the Dominion of Canada or this Parliament should not assist England to any further extent than would come within her means. I take it from that that his idea and contention is that this country and this Parliament should not assist England beyond the revenue or the

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

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

On motion of Mr. Carroll the debate was adjourned.

On motion of the Hon. W. T. White, the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.

Monday, March 15, 1915.