Mr. A. B. McCOIG (West Kent):

As there is a very great shortage of potatoes at the present time in different parts of Ontario, both for food and seed purposes, 1 should be glad if one of the ministers, possibly the Minister of Agriculture, who stated some time ago that there was a large surplus of potatoes in different parts of Canada, would tell us where these surplus potatoes can be obtained.

Hon. MARTIN BURRELL (Minister of Agriculture):

The condition of the potato industry, very briefly, is this: When we heard of reported shortages and a scarcity in some parts of the country, I communi-oalted wlith every provincial Minister of Agriculture in Canada to ascertain as closely as he could the conditions in his own province; this was at the end of February. As nearly as we could ascertain, a conservative estimate put it at about one and a half million bushels surplus over and above the food and seed requirements of the whole country. The surpluses were chiefly in the provinces of Alberta, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. In some other provinces shortages were reported, and other provinces were not quite sure. We checked up the figures at the end of March by .following all the exports from the country, and again up to the 15th of April, and from the time we estimated the amount of potatoes in the country up to the 15th April about half a million bushels were exported, leaving-if our estimate was at all correct, and it was based on the information I have indicated-about one million bushels surplus still in this country. Of course that may be only approximate. I might also say to my hon. friend that a summary of all the replies I received was sent to each Minister of Agriculture in the different provinces, in order that he might know the exact condition throughout the country, together with ithe suggestion that it might be advisable for those ministers whose provinces were likely to be short, to watch the situation as closely as possible with the idea of doing what they could to supply the needs of their own province.

Mr. S. F. GLASS (East Middlesex):

At a meeting of the Ottawa Greater Production Committee yesterday, the following resolution was passed:

In view of the urgent and pressing need for the production of the largest possible quantity of foods, and hy reason of the uncertainty of weather conditions permitting work to be done on land when in a suitable condition for planting and sowing, this committee recommends to the Organization of Resources Committee for Ontario that it petition the Dominion Government to take action under the War Measures Act to suspend the Lord's Day Observance Act as it applies to farm labour for seeding and harvesting; work.

I should like to ask if the Government have received representations from any other source as to the desirability of suspending the Lord's- Day Act in accordance with this suggestion.

Sir THOMAS WHITE:

Not to my

knowledge. No similar representation has been made. I saw the report in question in this morning's paper, hut the matter has not been brought to our attention in any other way.

Mr. E. M. MACDONALD:

I desire to

call the attention of the leader of the House (Sir Thomas White) to a statement made by the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario, (Sir Sam Hughes). Speaking in Lindsay on Saturday he said:

More than one year ago an agitation was begun on the question of labour. We were recruiting too many regiments; we were 'taking too many men away from work'; 'munitions manufacturers and others would he at a standstill' ; 'farmers could not put in their crops'; and 'Canada has already done her full duty' were daily recited. They, unfortunately, had an . effect upon the Prime Minister. The result was that 1 was asked in March, 1916, not to press recruiting, and recruiting to-day is and has been dead in Canada for fighting purposes.

Will the hon. gentleman say whether that statement is correct or not?

Sir THOMAS WHITE:

I would suggest that my hen. friend address that question to the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden). So far as I know the statement referred to has no foundation.

By Order in Council, under authority of the War Measures Act, the Government, on 16th April, placed upon the free list three commodities, wheat, wheat flour and semolina, and by that action brought into operation the provision of the Underwood Tariff under which wheat and wheat products from the coun-' try taking such action become entitled to free entry to the markets of the United States. The matter was not referred to in the Budget but my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) has moved an amendment, and it is to that amendment and to the subject of free wheat that I purpose for a short time to give consideration. It seems to me that the position taken by hon. gentlemen opposite with reference to this action of the Government in placing wheat, wheat flour and semolina on the free list is a most extraordinary one. These hon. gentlemen have asserted for the last three years-the Underwood Tariff having come into effect in October, 1913-that they were in favour of free wheat. One would have thought that when the Government took the action which has been taken these hon. gentlemen would rejoice. One would have thought that the hon. member for Assiniboia, and the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) when speaking on the question, would at least have looked pleased. The impression goes out from the House that hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken on this question are glad that the Government has taken this action, but to us in the House they do not look glad, they appear to be sorry. I wonder if the real explanation is not that these hon. gentlemen prefer to have the cry rather than the wool, that they would rather have free wheat ,as a political issue rather than free wheat as an actuality. At all events, that seems like a reasonable explanation of their attitude on the action of the Government in placing these three commodities on the free list and calling into operation the provision in the Underwood Tariff that I have mentioned.

The criticism of the Opposition upon the action of the Government in this regard proceeds upon several grounds. First, they say it was a departure from the fiscal policy of the Government and of the Conservative

party. Second, they say: You have granted it now; why did you not grant it before the war? Third, they say: You grant it now during the war, why did you not grant it earlier in the war? Fourth, they say: The measure is temporary, and with the end of the war the duties are automatically restored. And fifth, they have the temerity to say that the Government was actuated by political consideration in view of an approaching election. I am sure my ears did not fail me and that I distinctly heard my hon. friend from Assiniboia make that last statement.

Mr. TURRIFF:

You are quite right.

Sir THOMAS WHITE:

My hon. friend

admits it. Now let me say-because I desire to discuss this matter seriously and earnestly-that we on this side, ever since the Underwood Tariff came into effect in 1913, have viewed this matter of free wheat upon what we regarded as its merits; we have never declined to grant free wheat on the ground that it involved a departure from the traditional fiscal policy of the Conservative party. I proceed now to prove that what I state is correct. In the Budget speech of 1914, which was the first occasion upon which I discussed the Underwood Tariff in the House of Commons, I set forth the arguments pro and con on the subject of free wheat; I set them out fully, I set them out, I submit, judicially; I did not take the ground that the Government would have nothing to do with this because it was a violation of the fiscal policy of the Conservative party. I examined the whole question from a business, economic, and public standpoint. I said:

So much for these opposing arguments and contentions. Speaking generally, it is not advisable that a nation's tariff should be so arranged as to fit into the particular features of that of another nation. This, however, would not be a conclusive reason for not making a change clearly in the national interest.

At that time we came to the conclusion, having regard to the fluctuations of price between Winnipeg, Minneapolis and Chicago, that there was not the advantage to the farmer that was claimed in this matter of free wheat* and, having regard to other considerations-industries in Canada of an important character and the condition of our railways-we thought it was not advisable at that time to grant free wheat. But we did not argue it upon the ground that it would be a departure from the fiscal policy of the Conservative party. On tlie contrary, we said by implication that if it

were in the national interest we were prepared to consider it. I desire to make that perfectly clear. Let us see what I said when this matter was before the House in February, 1916. I spoke on a resolution moved by the hon. member (Mr. Turriff), who now brings forward this amendment. 1 had been giving the matter my most painstaking attention during the whole of the year. If the Government held the view at that time that it was a departure from the fiscal policy to consider this question, what would be the reason for my giving consideration to the matter in my office continuously as I did? This is what I said, as reported in Hansard on page 861, February 16, 1916:-

I have caused a record to he kept of prices of grain both in Canada and in the United States, with a view to thoroughly familiarizing myself with the merits of the question in order to reach a sound and just conclusion in the national interest. When I say in the national interest, I need not say how important a factor in the national interest I consider the interest and material well-being of the three great grain-growing provinces of the West. It is in that spirit that I have approached, from time to time, the consideration of this question.

And I expressed the opinion on that occasion, in February, 1916. that it was unwise in the national interest that free wheat should be granted. It was not clear to me that the advantages that would be gained would outweigh the disadvantages, but I repeat, and the point I am making is that we always considered the question upon its merits and had regard, in dealing with it, only to what we regarded as the national interest. The position of the Government, in its view upon the question of free wheat in 1914, in 1916, and in April of this year, when we took action, has been absolutely sound and consistent throughout. I make that statement without the slightest hesitation ; I say our action has been sound and consistent throughout. How can it be urged that it was a violation of Conservative fiscal policy? Sir John A. Macdonald was a fairly good Conservative; so I have heard. Sir Leonard Tilley was the finance minister of Sir John A. Macdonald. Sir Leonard Tilley introduced the National Policy budget about 1879. The National Policy budget of 1879 has 'been the charter of the fiscal policy of the Conservative party from that day to this. Let us see what Sir Leonard Tilley said in regard to reciprocal provisions in the tariff. Sir Leonard Tilley, in 1879, in introducing the National Policy budget, said:-

The Government, requiring more revenue, have determined to ask this House to impose

[Sir Thomas White.!

upon the products of the United States that have been free, such a duty as may seem consistent with our position. But the Government couple with the proposal, in order to show that we approach this question with no unfriendly spirit, a resolution that will be laid on the table containing a proposition to this effect: That, as to articles named, which are the natural products of the country, including lumber, if the United States take off the duties in part or in whole, we are prepared to meet them with equal concessions. The Government believe in a reciprocity tariff, yet may discuss Free Trade or Protection, but the question of to-day is-Shall we have a reciprocity tariff, or a one-sided tariff? [DOT]

That was the National Policy budget of Sir Leonard Tilley in 1879. Is it contrary to the fiscal policy of the Conservative party either to have a reciprocity provision in the tariff which remains under you control absolutely or to take advantage of a reciprocal provision in the tariff of another country? I submit that the action of Sir Leonard Tilley in 1879 is absolutely conclusive evidence that the attitude we have taken is in no way inconsistent with the fiscal policy of the Conservative party.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

No; it was the election that you were thinking of.

Sir THOMAS WHITE:

I have a great

personal regard for my right hon. friend. He weathered the storm for many years and he was always on firm ground when he followed the policy of Sir Leonard Tilley. My right hon. friend notwithstanding his free trade professions in 1893, when he got into office followed in the footsteps of Sir John Macdonald and Sir Leonard Tilley and while he continued in that path he got on well in regard to his fiscal policy. But, my right hon. friend instead of continuing to follow the true lights was allured by a will-of-the-wisp and that brings me to the reciprocity agreement of 1911. My right hon. friend I think, would admit, if he would tell us his opinion candidly, that he then made a political mistake of the first magnitude

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

He did nothing of the kind. The policy of Sir Leonard Tilley in 1879 was that reciprocity of tariff would conduce to reciprocity of trade.