May 7, 1918


According to a statement prepared by the Minister of Customs, Hon. A. L. Sifton, agricultural implements entering Canada during the past fiscal year paid import duties aggregating $2,12 O', 000. This is divided among the following items: Separators, $353,000; parts of separators, $124,0'00; tractors, $896,000; binders, $89,000; ploughs, $373,000; other farm machinery and. parts, $230,000. "Produce! Produce! !" is the cry that comes from Great Britain to 'Canada. It is echoed and re-echoed from Ottawa, from all parts of Canada. Produce with what? Land must be broken to produce, and that means traction power, for horses are not available. Item: Tractors, customs duty, $896,000. It means .ploughs, for there are not sufficient .ploughs in the country to 101* produce more largely. Item: ploughs, customs duty, $373,000. It means binders, to reap the crop. Item: Binders, customs duty, $89,000. It means separators, to thrash the grain. Item: Separators, customs duty, $353,000 ; parts of separators, customs duty, $124,000. Certainly it is economic folly, but apparently our fiscal system must remain unchanged, though it put a handicap upon every laudable effort of the people of the country are making, and though it put a heavy handicap upon our greatest war contribution. The cry for greater production, from the lips of those who are taking no part in the endeavour to get these unnecessary and foolish restrictions upon greater production removed, would be laughable if it were not tragic. I waive the right, Sir, to comment on the force of this article. To my mind its logic is unanswerable. Be it sufficient for me to say that my conviction as to the necessity of food production in Canada grows deeper as I follow step by step the long trail of devastation and mourning which this war of nations still' stretches across so many lands. During the three better years of this deadly conflict, amidst vicissitudes of varied character, which have brought to us, with the regularity of a pendulum, news which caused us joy as well as that which caused us sorrow, we have never wavered in our belief that final victory would eventually crown our efforts. We saw the millions of Russia, barely on the threshold of their new-born liberty, forced to lay down their arms and sign a disastrous peace. The steam roller of former days had been cheated of its power by a dangerous and unscrupulous foe. But, Sir, before this downfall in the East, there arose in the West the millions of the American nation, taking up the sword to assure for the democracy of the world safety from the onslaughts of conquering empires. From these two outstanding events in the world's present tragedy can we not deduce, as certainly as is possible when unveiling the near future, these two propositions to guide us in our continued efforts to destroy the system which has been the curse of humanity; on the one hand, that the entrance of the United States into the struggle will mean the final overthrow of Prussian militarism, and on the other hand that the Russian collapse will tend to prolong the war beyond the limit of time which, previous to that event, we might reasonably have thought possible? These are, in. my opinion, the new conditions which Canada must face torday. The longer the struggle the more acute will become the food situation. We once thought that this war would be a battle of armies. We know to-day that it is a battle of

nations, in which, in addition to the fighting army, is wielded the new weapon of economic warfare, each side striving to starve the other. Sir, we cannot remain indifferent to this new fact. Our Allies are faced with a food menace. It is our duty to see to it that our farms are not depleted.


Fred Langdon Davis


Mr. F. L. DAVIS (Neepawa):

tions. We should restrict non-essential industries. I am told that a piano company in Ontario, which, before the war, was putting out six pianos per day, is, at the present time, producing and' selling fifteen pianos per day. That is an absolutely nonessential industry, and that is hut an instance. Pianolas, grafanolas and victrolas are being sold throughout the 11 p.m. country. Even automobiles are in the same class, and we must in some way reduce the Output of those nonessential industries if we are going to get the men to carry on our essential industries. The reason I have raised: this point is that I believe, by a proper system of taxation, we would be doing something to limit the production of non-essential goods. But now I see that we must attack the question in another way, and the only way I can see is by limiting the production or, in other words, bringing about by artificial means that condition which a depression of business will bring about. At a time of depression the factories close or they reduce their output, and men are thrown out of employment and are bound, under changed economic conditions, to seek new employment. We must create conditions. We have yet, it seems to me, in the consideration of the problems of thie Dominion, to look to. the future after the war is over, to the time of readjustment, to that period of dislocation which will follow when war ceases and all war industries are cut off. We have to look to the amount of money which we shall then have to raise tc pay interest and sinking fund upon those large debts which we .are now piling up. It seems to me that we can do much to prevent that dislocation creating a panicky condition, if we but recognize what are just and proper ways of raising the money the state requires. Finally,. lest I should he misunderstood, because I have spent most of my time in urging that our taxation should be greater, I know that must be made conditional, in some measure, upon similar operations of surrounding states, but I should like to see our Government setting a lead in the measures by which it levies this taxation.

Mr. J. F. FA.FART) (LTslat) (translation): Mr. Speaker, the discussion anent the budget statement presented by the Government for the fiscal year of 1918-19 has already brought forth-not 'always light- but often enough, suggestions of a judicious and practical character. On the whole the Government cannot help being grateful for the good advieq given, and taking advantage

of it. However, in order that the results should go hand in hand with the wisdom of certain observations, too much selfinterest, too much narrow-mindedness should not paralyze, on the part of my hon. colleagues on the other side of this Chamber, the execution of what has been suggested to the Government.

As the representative of a purely agricultural county I feel it my duty to express my, opinion in a special way on certain features of the present Budget. !So I shall leave to more experienced political minds the task off exploring the vast domains of political economy. Following my custom, as a surveyor, I shall go, in straight line, and with the shortest possible delay, to the goal I wish to reach. All of which means that I intend making a few brief remarks on the important question of agriculture. My last words will have to do with the loyal attitude of the province of Quebec-and that of the immense majority of its representatives-with regard to the help given to carry on this struggle for the cause of civilization and mankind.

Now, a few words about agriculture. On the one hand, Mr. Speaker, the Government is preaching a policy of increased production. Every day, in all the newspapers of the country the Government is appealing to the population asking for an increase in our yield. We hear repeated every other moment that Canada's increased production will .save Europe from starvation, consequently that this increased production will save the Allies. " Produce more," cries the Government to the farmers, " Raise cattle; *concentrate on your dairy industry; preserve your perishable products by building cold storage chambers; hold big fairs to learn to perfect your methods of cultivation; see that your stock is always healthy; improve their strain finally, intensify production. Victory against Germany demands these things."

That, Mr. Speaker, is the tone of the Government talk, on the one hand. But, on the other, this same Government reduces, by $528,348.40, the appropriations that we were to vote for the furthering of agriculture and increased production. The farmers are told to produce more and then over half a million dollars of appropriations are taken away from them, in comparison with what they were allowed in the Budget of 1917-18. Out of the reductions of $2,015,378.28 that the Government announces in the administrative expenses of the different departments, the Department of Agriculture alone has suffered a decrease of $528,348.40. So that more than one-quarter of

these reductions were knocked off the appropriations meant to promote farming.

And when they have taken over half a million away from the farmers the Government, far from being abashed, have the nerve to ask the farmers to toil from sunup till sun-down to insure increased production. It is not necessary to be a great logician, nor to have spent twenty years in this House in order to realize how very illogical such a policy decidely is. " Raise cattle," says the Government, and in the estimates for 1918-19 the tidy sum of $100,000 is taken away from cattle-raisers. " Give more attention to your dairy produce," says the Government .and, in t.hie year's Budget, grants not one sou more than last year. " Build cold storage plants " says the Government again, and with one sweep they knock $25,000 off the amount voted for this purpose in 1917-18; while in tire cold storage establishments they let over 350,000 pounds of meat and flsh go to rot. " Hold fairs; they will be a great help to you," .says the Government to the farmers, and then, in the present (Budget, we notice a reduction, of $25,000 from the sum voted last year. "Take every means to keep your cattle in good health," still the Government exhorts the farmer; but to make the thing a certainty the Government .subtracts $102,000 this year ifrom the amount voted to help the farmers in the sanitary supervision of their stock.

If this be the way, by reducing the help given to the farmers, that the Government claims to promote .increased production, you must admit, Mr. Speaker, that it is rather a strange policy. I say strange so as not to use the term guilty. Indeed, I would understand the curtailing of expenses in certain departments wheTe the work could very well wait till later on, after the war. But it appears that the Government has turned things upside down from the point of view of enlightened wisdom and the most elementary knowledge of economic factors. The estimates for civil government have been increased $356,555.04; $6,812.50 more to the .Dominion Police; $18,000 more .for penitentiaries!; $148,900 more for railways and canAls; $52,'172.14t more for ocean and lake shipping; $160,664.73 more to the Post Office Department; -and similar increases in other Government departments.

But when it comes to Agriculture $600,000 are struck off the estimates at one sweep, and then the farmers are asked to increase production. It is useless, Mr. Speaker, to pile up lengthy arguments in order to persuade this House of the utter injustice of such treatment, being meted out to our

very large class of farmers in this country. In the face of the figures which I have just quoted and which I extracted from the estimates submitted .by the Government itself, I hope the gentlemen on the Treasury Benches will give justice to whom justice is due and show themselves less reluctant to loosen their puree-strings to assist the farmers.

Before leaving this, subject I wish to call the attention of the House to an item of $21,091.58 under the head of the experimental farm at Spirit Lake, in the province of Quebec. I have .always understood that the institution at Spirit Lake was used a.s a detention camp, and I am quite positive it was utilised for that purpose, since I visited the place myself some two years ago when I was roaming up that way. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that such an item should properly *come under the expense column of the Department of Militia and Defence. Why should the Department of Agriculture pay the expenses of the Department of Militia and Defence? Besides, isn't it a rather queer procedure to open up, at such a place, and at such a critical period as that we are living in to-day, what is an experimental farm in name only? 'The other day the Hon. Minister of Justice answered me ini this House that the Government had spent $32,500 for the military organization of this so-called experimental farm, or rather of this internment camp. So to-day when I find another item of $21,091.58 for agricultural purposes at this same place I ami forced to conclude that the Government has spent the pretty husky sum of $53,591.58 for the satisfaction of having an experimental (farm together with an internment camp; where, moreover, there .seems, to have been produced not one single bushel of wheat, nor one single bushel of oats, and where not a single head of cattle was sold. All that this hermaphrodite establishment seems to have produced is pulp-wood, to the value of $15,946. You will admit, Mr. Speaker, that the experimental farm which produces only pulp-wood is some experimental farm. There were barely fifty families and 400 Indians there when work was begum/ on this undertaking. Who will dare tell us that these few people were) in need of an experimental farm? Was it for the Indians? If such were the intention of the Government, they were mistaken, very much mistaken, on the score* of the results which would accrue. When I passed through there I thought I was doing a favour to an Indian by supplying him with seed potatoes in the expectation that he would get a good crop the following autumn. Some days later I

ideals and with our innate respect for the great principles of the freedom which is the right of each .and every one of us?

In my calling, Mr. Speaker, which I am alone in representing here, it has often happened me to lose myself in the vast expanses of territory which I was traversing with my companions. And when I established' the direction of a meridian line, by the light of the polar star-whether I were in Alberta, in Saskatchewan or in the province of Quebec-I was always working towards the same goal. Mr. S'peaker, the polar star which guides us French Canadian members is patriotism- well-understood, patriotism without narrowness and without rancour, the patriotism of the noblest pages of our national history. And it is also on this good star of patriotism that is fixed the gaze of all those who lay claim to the great principles of Liberalism.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I fear that those who -sit opposite us have taken the wrong road; that they are guided by a magnetic needle which has been unsettled by the constant attraction of power. However, let us hope that before long they will become better 'Magi, and' will find once more the star of patriotism-leaving behind forever the dark clouds of fanaticism and prejudice.

In this way we shall have a united couni try, and' we shall all contribute with onr utmost energy, to the great cause which is ours in common, and to the immortal achievement of victory.

Mr. WILLIAM A. CLARKE (North Wellington): Mr. Speaker, I feel I should be remiss in my duty to the constituents I have the honour to represent if I did not make a few remarks in this very important debate. I do not rise to criticise any of the taxation proposals of the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean) but rather to congratulate him and the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) on having carried this Dominion so successfully through the most trying period we have ever experienced in our history. I am placed in a somewhat peculiar position. Of course, as a representative of the people in this House, I am no more responsible for the actions of the Union Government than they are responsible for my actions. Ever since I entered the House of 'Commons I have been a humble follower of the present Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) both in this and the last Parliament. I consider him the greatest statesman in the Dominion, and I have been proud to vote

for every measure he has introduced. We had a most trying time last session and many troublesome questions arose; in fact, I think it was the most strenuous session vse have had since 'Confederation, and I think the Prime (Minister is to be congratulated on the 'splendid way in which he carried us through. On many occasions he met with severe criticism, which I think was carried to greater lengths than one might have expected under the present war conditions.

We have heard a great many splendid speeches from both sides of the House in this debate, but with many of the speeches from the Opposition side of the House I do not agree. I feel it my duty to make a few suggestions', rather than criticisms, in connection with the views of my constituents at the present time. When I go home after supporting every measure that the Prime (Minister has ever presented to Parliament-and it is my intention to support every measure he brings down in future, unless I change my mind or he acts in a very different way from what he has done in the past-I am confronted with the question, what is the Government doing to enforce the Military Service Act? Our county is practically denuded of all the young men who can go to the front.

I have supported every measure for keeping up our reinforcements, and I have done it gladly, 'but yet when I go homo my constituents want to know why the province of Quebec is not made to contribute men for the army in greater numbers. Every one who reads the newspapers1 knows that Quebec has not done her share. A few months ago it was1 stated that only seven thousand had been got from that province altogether. I d,o not (know whether that statement is. true or not, but it has been made on many occasions, and has never been contradicted, so I am inclined to believe it is true. When my constituents ask me why Quebec is not made to do its duty I have to give them some kind of an answer. I have to tell them that we have passed the Military Service Act. Then they want to know why it has not been put in operation, and that is the question I wish to put to hon. gentlemen sitting in the front benches of the Union Government tonight. The only suggestion I have heard is that the weak cog in the wheel in the operation of the Military Service Act is in the Department of Justice. Whether that be true or not I do not know, but I am not in a position to contradict it. If it be true I would suggest to the Prime Minister and

the other members of the Cabinet that some rearrangement be made. I have every respect for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), but if he is the barrier in putting the Military Service Act into operation some rearrangement certainly should be made. We all knoiw he was tired after the recent campaign. He is getting to be an old gentleman, and he had to take a couple of months' rest to recuperate. I am glad he came back looking so well. But when he came back after a couple of months' rest, if the work was too much for him, or if he [DOT]was incompetent to transact it in the way the people of this country wanted it to be transacted, he should have been given assistance. But instead of that being done, I understand he has had the additional burden placed on his shoulders of administering the Post Office Department. The people of this country are wondering why the Government do not take action in connection with the Military Service Act. It would be an easy matter to rearrange the Cabinet. There are lots of good men supporting the Government, all good, loyal and true citizens, who would make good heads of any department, and I think it is high time something was done to fill the offices with the best men available on this side of the House. I would not go to the other side of the House, because we cannot expect anything from those who have always been in opposition to the Military Service Act and to Canada's taking her proper share in this war. I am not alone in this experience I have with my constituents; I have spoken to other hon. members and the same question is asked in practically every constituency from Prince Edward Island clean through to British Columbia. The people want to know why there is such laxity in enforcing the Act in the province of Quebec. It is all right for hon. members to stand up in the House and say they are doing this and are going to do that, but it is no use training a horse for a race after the race has been run, and possibly lost. Our boys overseas are calling out for reinforcements. In almost every letter from the front we hear that cry for reinforcements, and reinforcements at once, and the people of the rest of this Dominion want the major part of those reinforcements to come from the province of Quebec, and I say they are justified in asking that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh.


William Aurelius Clarke



My hon. friends

may laugh, but this fs too serious

a matter to laugh at. We do not blame you very much. You do not get any too much support from your leaders; you do not get any too much support from the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Le-mieux), who, this afternoon, took occasion to lecture the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hodken). You do not get any too much support from the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). His loyalty is somewhat questionable at times in the opinion of a great many people in Canada, although not 'by many in Quebec, because fye always stands by them, and I give him credit for it. I must give him credit for an expression which he used in this House not long ago on the occasion of the visit of Mr. Balfour. He stated, and I was glad to hear him, that he was much more loyal to the British Empire now than he had been three years ago. We all heard him state that and I must congratulate him upon having made that statement. The question that this Government is confronted with was dealt with by the hon. member for Maisonneuve this afternoon. That hon. gentleman said that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) should go back and consult the farmers, and that the Prime Minister should do the same, and find out what their opinion is with regard to war service. I wish to express the hope, and I do it in the kindest possible way, honestly and conscientiously, that this Government will see fit to man every department with the strongest and best men they can glean from the ranks on this side of the (House, because in this crisis in the war we feel that we cannot have too strong a Government. I am surprised that the Prime Minister is able to bear the burden that falls upon him and I realize that he will need all the assistance that this Dominion can provide for him.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain

Mr. P. F. CASGRATN (Charlevoix-Montmoreney):

Mr. iSpeaker, in rising to

speak on the Budget to-night, it is not my intention to join issue with certain hon. members on the opposite side of the House on the very burning question that occupied the attention of the country during the last election and which continues to occupy it at the present time. But, I cannot let the references of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Clarke) pass without making a protest against the words that he has just uttered with regard to the part that the province of Quebec has taken during the war. The hon. gentleman is mistaken when he says that the


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain



The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) is a director of the City and District Savings Bank, in which he takes a great deal of interest. I know that he is a great philanthropist. Perhaps he could tell me why, with all his philanthropy and good intentions, that bank has not seen fit up to the present to raise the rate of interest on deposits. I am sure that his answer will be the argument which I have just advanced, that the bank is prohibited from doing so by the Canadian Bankers Association. All the money deposited in such institutions as the City and District Savings Bank comes from the poor, the working woman as well as the working man, and it is not the small trader or the small manufacturer who benefits thereby, but the financiers, directors and managers, who are in the ring of big banks and corporations.

Now, about investments. I believe it is a fact that in England and France it has been forbidden to invest in outside securities, while here in Canada there are many [DOT]people deriving hundreds of thousands of dollars as interest on stocks and bonds from corporations in the United States. If we refer to the lists of shareholders of different companies in the United States, we find that a large number of Canadians, probably patriotic Canadians, have invested huge amounts of money in that country. We know also that the large Canadian insurance companies own a great deal of securities, in some cases seventy-five or eighty per cent of the stock of certain railways in the United States. I am not far from the truth in asserting that at present nearly $250,000,000 is invested by individual Canadians, companies and trusts in United States securities. Would it not be better if a law were passed, or, as it is so easy under this Government, an Order in Council, prohibiting investments in any other but Canadian securities?

Another source from which the Government could obtain a large amount of revenue would be by taxing the foreign insurance companies, life, fire and accident, who are draining this country yearly of millions of dollars in premiums, which money is taken to the United States and invested in their own undertakings and for their own benefit. There is no reason why a tax should not be imposed on such premiums.

So far as.the exchange rate on the Canadian dollar is concerned, it is not by getting a credit of about $40,000,000 in the United States, as our ministers obtained recently, which will make our credit better. That amount will be only a drop in

the bucket after all, and our trade balance surely cannot be re-established with that small amount of money. It may improve the situation for a short period, for the spring or the summer, but if no further arrangements are made I predict, Mr. Speaker, that our dollar will be nearer the 90-cemt mark than the dollar mark. We must not close our eyes also to the fact that the financiers in the United States are very well aware of our situation, and as some members in this House said recently, they know that we are only banking on paper, as the gold and the silver which we have to meet the Canadian notes which are being printed by the Dominion Government represent only 45 cents on the dollar, and if this policy keeps up a year longer our currency will be worth 75 cents on the dollar at the most. We are told by the Acting Minister of Finance that we should not worry, that business is splendid, that we are doing business with the Mother Country, and that we are even lending her money. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is that not misleading the public, as, after all, these loans are being repaid by contra account for the upkeep of our army overseas? I would ask the minister to tell us if it is not true that these loans made to England since the wai began have been repaid by contra account? Probably there is not more than $25,000,000 to $40,000,000 outstanding at present, but when the war ends we will be in debt to England instead of England owing us; we will still have a huge bill to pay her.

The Acting Minister of Finance has told us that he needs at present about $280,000,000 for the purpose of carrying on the war. Why not, as has been done in England and other European countries, requisition or commandeer all foreign securities? There are millions of dollars' worth of these held by different people and institutions in this country. We know that holders of capital and the big trust companies and banks have' a great number of these securities on hand invested in railway stocks and bonds in the United States. Why not, as a war measure, requisition the stocks of the Canadian Pacific railway, as was done in England at the beginning of the war? And why not ask all the insurance companies who are bound according to law to deposit with the Treasury a certain amount of securities to guarantee their policies, to substitute for their securities Canadian war bonds?

Another point I desire to touch is that, some fifteen years ago or thereabouts, the

Government granted to the steel industry, then being started, .bounties to run for ten years, and which were afterwards renewed for a .further period of five years. This action was taken to' help to build up these industries. To-day the situation has changed. These industries are most prosperous; their directors are rich; they are paying large dividends to their shareholders and are even in a position to lend money. They are boasting that they have paid all their floating liabilities, and have vast sums to the good. It is differentiating between industries started with the help of the Government and others which got no bounties not to tax the former more than they are taxed at present.

Then why not get back from these companies these bounties in the shape of taxes special taxes, or super taxes, or other means which I have no doubt the Minister Finance can find out, because after all, as I said before, this money was well invested as it started all these industries, but did all the other industries of this country get such bounties and yet they are being taxed to the same extent. You have taxed the C.P.iR., why not tax these- companies and you would get back probably 50 million dollars?

I shall not say very much with regard to the matter of war expenditure. We all deplore the fact that at the beginning of the war certain mistakes were made, especially at Valcartier camp. Ice was brought from Ontario and transported to Valcartier; goods that could have 'been obtained in Quebec were purchased in various parts of the country at high prices and shipped to Valcartier, enormous freight and express charges being thereby incurred in order to help and promote the interests of that good friend of the Government, the Canadian Northern railway. The Government has paid huge amounts of money for motor cars and motor vehicles which have been placed at the disposal of the military authorities-so much so that in the big cities the ordinary pedestrian is in danger of being run over by these cars, because the majors, captains and lieutenant-colonels are in such a hurry to go about their supposed business that they do not care for the public. In England some* abuses have arisen . in that respect. Many colonels and generals have stayed there longer than they should and have drawn their salaries for doing nothing and not going to the front. It is true that many expenditures have to be made in time of war, and that they are very small when compared to the end that is had in view by the people who wish

to see the Allies triumph. But I impress on the Government the necessity of greater economy in the administration of military affairs and of the avoiding of such waste as has taken place on certain occasions.

The member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Gauthier) made reference recently to the use of public moneys by the Department of Justice in submitting bail for a man who was employed by the Government to detect supposed criminals but who has been organizing riots and sedition in the province of Quebec. I refer to the case of the man Desjardins. In answer to a question which I put to him, the Minister of Justice said that Desjardins had been in the employ of his department. We heard during the recent troubles in Quebec that a hidden -hand might be visited upon certain people who had provoked or started these troubles, and that the Government might be at the back of it. We have proof of the astounding fact that in Montreal last year, when the Conscription Bill was ini course of preparation, persons paid by the Government were trying to organize in Montreal a clique, a certain gang, a certain number of men, a certain club or association, for the direct purpose of trying to violate the law, of trying to stand against the Government to defeat the law. A number of men were arrested in this connection, among them Wisintainer, Goyer, Cyr, Bolduc, Chagnon and Paquette. The judge of the preliminary enquete found that there was enough evidence to commit these men to trial. In the case of Lalumibre, who was the chief of the -gang, Judge St. Cyr, who presided at the trial, went so far as to say not only that Lalumiere and the others should be committed for trial, but that Desjardins, the chief witness of the Crown, should himself be arrested. The judge was surprised that this man had not already bpen taken into custody. An answer was given to a question put in the Senate some time ago which may be taken as indicative of the policy of the Government in this respect, that Desjardins was arrested " upon the instance of the other criminals who were connected with him in this plot, who, when they came to be indicted for their offences, accused Desjardins as a fellow-conspirator and he was indicted accordingly." I want to make a correction here. It is not true that these people had Desjardins arrested in order that they might try to save their own skins; on the contrary, they did not want him to be brought into the case at all, because they

thought they might be adversely affected. The person who swore the warrant against Desjardins was present when Lalumifere was committed for trial; he is a gentleman who sat as representative of the constituency of Nieolet, if I am not mistaken, in the last Parliament. He writes to me saying that after reading the evidence he was absolutely convinced that Desjardins was just as guilty as the others, if not more so, because he had urged them to commit criminal acts which should not be tolerated by any Government, and for which he should be punished. He violated articles 523, 510, 847, 457 and 69 of the Criminal Code. What took place after that? Desjardins was indicted and was let out on bail for a time, by an official of the Government, Mr. Giroux, who supplied bail for him. Afterwards, when the trial started in November last, all the accused were to be tried together, but the trial could not be concluded because One of the jurors took sick and subsequently died. All the accused, with the exception of Desjardins, were let free on personal bail or certain securities being deposited on their behalf according to the judgment of Mr. Justice Pelletier, who said that they could go free. But Desjardins was kept in jail, Mr. Justice Pelletier did not want to allow any bail for him, because he considered his case worse than any of the other cases. I may say that Mr. Desjardins had many lawyers, Mr. Peers Davidson, Mr. Pelissier, Mr. St. Pierre Pruneau, Mr. Normandeau and other criminal lawyers in Montreal; because after a lawyer had defended him for a couple of days, he found the suit was too hot and he could not, as a gentleman of the Bar, defend .Desjardins any longer. Finally, after certain investigations and pourparlers between the attorneys of the Government and the judge, bail was fixed at a certain amount, I think, about thirty thousand dollars, twenty thousand dollars being secured upon real estate and the balance in cash. As Desjardins could not obtain bail, the party who put up the bail, as we were told the other day, was the Department of Justice, the cheque being signed by Mr. Newcombe and countersigned by Mr. Narraway, accountant of the department. What happened then? The trial started some time ago in Montreal. If was presided over by the same- judge, Mr. Justice Pelletier. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Justice Pelletier is a former friend, and, I think, he is still a friend of. this Government. He was appointed by the Government to his present position. Not I Mr. Casarain.j

long ago he held a seat on the Treasury benches along with my bon. friends opposite. In this second trial, strange to say, the attorneys of the Government were new attorneys. They were Mr. Dagenais and Mr. Maurice Alexander. As I said before, Mr. Desjardins could not keep his attorneys very well. He had to change them every month, or every week, or sometimes oftener. After the evidence was all in, the judge reviewed the facts, and we find certain comments which are very important. The judge for instance says, in a certain part of his charge, speaking about Desjardins:

In other words, a spotter or a spy. He tells us, in answer to one of ray questions, that he induced those boys into error, and that was his object. He told them he was one of them against conscription. It was a lie, according to what he says now, it was a lie. He deceived them, and led1 them into a trap.

Further on the judge says:

If a man acts in that way and is a spotter or an informer, or a spy, he has the right to do all that, and to go and inform the people who have hired Mm about all that took place, and that is the law too, (but a man like that has no right in law, and the law is based on common sense here, he has no right to induce these people to do something wrong. Not even a policeman has the right to advise any one to do a thing which is forbidden, because he is the very man who ought to prevent it, and who ought to advise that it should not he done. Now if a man, clothed with the authority of thie law, assumes the right to advise people to do things which are wrong, that man becomes guilty from the moment he has adopted that course, and, I give you that under >my responsibility as good law, whatever may be thought of it in any quarter.

Further on he says:

Let us consider the stajnd1 that Desjardins is the only one of them ail who tells the truth- even saying that Banger, this young, honest boy, has taken a false oath-that all the others have taken a false oath. Desjardins tells us here of seven different heinous crimes which have been organized and premeditated at the meeting of the 27th of July. Killing public men; killing the Prime Minister of this country; killing General Wilson. He tells us there was a question of setting fire to a city and robbing and blowing up the bank. Be tells us there was a secret committee of fifteen to he formed

and mind you, .gentlemen of the jury, that all that is taken from his evidence as extended by the stenographer-and' which I have taken great care to read as it is-the idea or suggestion of blowing up the properties where newspapers were published, or blowing up the owners of newspapers ; the kidnapping of one of

the ministers, the Hon. Mr. Sevigny

Desjardins also states that there were revolvers there. There were black-jacks there. There were instruments of torture, and assassination. Now, he comes and reports, and I am giving him all the credit to which he Is entitled in saying that toe reports one part of what has taken place, but he leaves out things in his * reports-leaves out some very important information about things which he himself says

took place there. That is a fact which cannot be denied, and which no impassioned speech will brush to one side. He gives us the reason for leaving that out by saying that he made a verbal report to Colonel Sherwood. After, or, may be, even before the Cartierville outrages, these people did not trust Desjardins any more, and it would also be to his credit if these people did not trust him. They continued their organization and their bad actions without him. There is an outstanding salient fact to which I now want to call your attention, which may be an act of virtue, but which I consider a very disgraceful thing. On the 27th of July, in the year of our Lord, 1917, all these bad things, theft, murder, destruction of property- are prepared and talked about and are, to a certain extent, organized. On the 28th of July, the following day-twenty-four hours afterwards-Charles Desjardins, who knows all that, goes to this crowd and gives them the sum of twenty-five dollars. How it has been said or it has been insinuated here that the Government of Canada approves of that.

And /this, I may say, was referred to as being approved by the Government, by the attorney who defended Desjardins, and who said at the trial that he was defending Desjardins at the request of the Government of Canada. Judge Pelletier goes on to say:

I do not believe it. It would be shameful all the same, if a hundred Governments had approved it. It is so shameful that I do not believe any Government, Liberal or Conservative, would approve of it. This was so disgraceful that Inspector Giroux himself has felt it his duty to enter into this box and tell you what he thought of that. I shall not repeat his words, you still have them ringing in your ears. Now, Desjardins did that. Was that putting money into the hands of these people whom he knew, and he must have known, were not rich men', but where young men just beginning life. They have received this contribution of twenty-five dollars, and they had plotted all these things. Would you have done that? There is the true test. Would you have gone to those people knowing they were going to do these dastardly things, and opened your purses to them? I have too much faith in your honesty and your common sense to think that you would even have thought of doing this. He said he did this "in order to be friendly with them, in order to have their confidence/'

This is what this creature of the Government says. Judge Pelletier continues:

Did you ever hear of anyone gaining the confidence of a gang of blackguards and criminals by opening your purse to them? You would perhaps have to give it up if he were holding a revolver to your head and saying: "Your purse or your life," you might have had to give it up, but you men do not volunteer your money to him. I do not think so.

Further on, at page 40, the same judge in the same charge, says:

There again I find fault, and serious fault, against Desjardins, 'because this is the third time he has given money for unlawful purposes .... I want to make a distinction here which is perhaps necessary for the interests of the impartial administration of justice. I want

to tell you that it is not wrong in law to pay to become a member of a society, bad though it may be, in order to know what is going on there. It is not wrong in law, but it is wrong in law to give money to dangerous people when you have not to give it, when you are not obliged to give it, and when you know that that money helps or will likely help for the commission of a crime-of a crime which you know is going to he committed.

Further on he says:

I shall not discuss that at length, because Desjardins admits that they were not complete. They were far from being complete. For instance the blowing-up or intended blowing-up of the Gazette, the Star, La Patrie and La Presse is mot mentioned in the report. This is a most serious thing. If Desjardins heard of these things, and he admits that he did, and did not report it, he was not only wrong in that, but he was absolutely derelict in his duty. He understands that, because he takes great care to tell us that "What I did not put in my report I told verbally to Sir Percy Sherwood." If he did not do that, it was a very serious matter for him, because when you know of anything of that kind and hide it knowingly, you become an accomplice."

The same judge, in the same trial, says, page 43:

Why was not Sir Percy Sherwood .brought down here? We have the unsupported1 evidence of this boy that he told Sir Percy 'Sherwood, and he is trying to-day (and he is supported by a lawyer who claims he represents the Government) to blacken Sir Percy Sherwood's fair name. That is one of the things 'which I do not understand in this case. It is either one of two things; either Desjardins told Sir Percy Sherwood about this Three Rivers outrage, and then Sir Percy Sherwood should not have waited until the fourth of August, but would on the twenty-eighth of July, the same evening, have informed Chief of Police Berthiaume or Sir Percy Sherwood1 dosed1 his eyes and allowed *this gang to go to Three Rivers if they wished. Now, I am not here to defend Sir Percy 'Sherwood, hut I am here to tell you that in order to save this fellow Desjardins, Mr. Alexander has no right to put Sir Percy Sherwood in the awful position in which he (has tried to put him in this case.

Further on he says:

AV'hat do we see next? It is on the twenty-eighth of July that he goes to Ottawa. He has sent in his report on the twenty-seventh: he writes on the twenty-seventh another letter which must have ben received on the twenty-eighth, and who does he write to? Does he write to Sir Percy Sherwood? He knows that Giroux is not in Ottawa. No; toe writes to a man whom he knows is not there, about a crime which is going to he committed1.

On the twenty-ninth of July, another letter in which pretty serious matters are mentioned is written-to Giroux again.

The judge says further on, at page 46:

Desjardins has told us that he gave a revolver to this man Paquin, a worthless thing, not much more perhaps than junk; an old thing; valueless. The revolver is found', and it works. A very bad position-a very bad

While we should strive to do our utmost to win the war, we should not lose sight of the conditions which will need to be dealt with when the war is over. The Government should be prepared to avail themselves of any advantages that will then present themselves for the development of commercial intercourse with other countries, as well as in our internal trade, and now is the time to prepare ourselves with that object in view. We were given to understand1 that many public works had been stopped, the reason assigned being that we were not able to obtain the necessary money to carry them' on and that the works in question, were not urgent. For- example, work on the St. Charles River improvements was brought to a standstill. But, Mr. Speaker, if that work was deemed necessary a few years ago for the improvement of existing conditions' (in that part of the country the necessity surely is. as great to-day. The few million dollars of outlay involved will not render our financial condition very much worse, and if the undertaking was ia necessary one before the war broke out, it is just as necessary to-day and should not be discontinued.

There has also been a stoppage of work in the harbours of Montreal .and Quebec. .Although it is necessary for us to practice -economy, we must also be keenly alert so that we may take advantage of the opportunities which will present themselves when tthe war is over. lit is very necessary to provide proper harbour facilities for our overseas trade and to maintain adequate transportation facilities, between the different parts of Canada. With the completion of the improvements contemplated at these harbours we should be in a far better position to handle a greatly enhanced volume of trade, at those places.

Some years ago, the project for the construction of the Georgian Bay canal was inaugurated and was strongly supported by several members of Parliament. At that time the Government deeming the enterprise too big, did not feel themselves aible to recommend the appropriations necessary to bring it to a successful completion. Had the Georgian Bay canal been commenced at that time it would by now have been well under way, and although perhaps not completed it might be available later for trade purposes. That canal would have af-fordedvery important transportation facilities for our trade and commerce, and would have been regarded for all time as a great achievement for Canada. We have been

told that public works have been stopped because the cost of material and labour is growing dearer all the time. In answer to that I would say that the Government has been able to find the material, the money and the men necessary to reconstruct the Parliament buildings. I do not criticise their action in that regard, but I would ask if these works' were absolutely necessary in connection with the carrying on of the industries of this country. The Government has emphasized the necessity of making sacrifices now that we are at war. Would it not have been better to have made the sacrifice of remaining in the present building until after the conclusion of the war, and have devoted the money which is now being expended on the Parliament buildings to other public undertakings, which would be of greater assistance in developing our commercial position when the present great world conflict is at an end?

My reason for bringing forward these suggestions now is that the Government and Parliament might take up and deal with the situation before it is too late and provide for the conditions which will arise when the war comes to an end. The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) stated to-day that there exists in Canada a certain association whose object is to promote the reconstruction of this country after the war. That organization is called the Canadian, Industrial Reconstruction Association, and the hon. gentleman gave the names of certain prominent members of the provisional executive committee. These gentlemen, who are Tories, or Unionists, and are friendly to the Government, and cannot be taxed with being opposed to the war, and at their meeting in Toronto, as well as at their meeting in Montreal recently, they advocated the present as being a most opportune time to provide measures for the improvement of trade and commerce, and to meet industrial conditions of Canada after the war is over, and they suggested that we should get into touch with the people of other countries in order to take snch steps as may be necessary to that end. It is held that the war will certainly bring new forms of taxation, although the customs duties will continue to

be the chief source of revenue. Butifc is doubtful if all the forms oftaxation that can be devised will

meet the interest upon the war debt, to say nothing of providing for the pensions and other war obligations that will have been incurred during the present war. In under-

taking their reorganization programme, the members of this association have not been accused of being unpatriotic and not being good supporters of the cause of the Allies, so the accusation cannot in justice be levelled against them with others who came forward with similar suggestions.

Then, a few months ago, the Imperial Government appointed an Empire Resources Committee to consider a resolution adopted by the Imperial War Conference of 1917, which declared that the time had arrived when all possible encouragement should be given to the development of Imperial resources, and especially to making the Empire independent Of other countries in respect of food supplies, raw materials and essential industries. It is important, they say, to any such inquiry that the interest of the Dominion should not be prejudiced by neglect or want of knowledge. There -is no necessary conflict between Canadian and Imperial interests if the situation is clearly understood. Each portion of the Empire must maintain the industrial policy which its conditions demand, and the more clearly that is recognized, the stronger will be the bonds of sympathy which hold the parts together. Beyond legitimate protection of local interests there may he Imperial preferences in control over raw materials, in direction of immigration, and in charge of transportation, which will tend greatly to unify the Empire, enhance its strength and security and increase the general average of prosperity alike in the Mother Country and the Dominions.

This Government has announced its purpose in aiding in bringing the war to a successful issue and looking after the interest of our soldiers who are returning-which two objects we on this side of the House would like to see carried out. But as I have already said, the Government should do its utmost so that the resources and the trade and commerce of Canada may be developed -to the fullest extent when the war is over.

To these, Mr. Speaker, to other'immediate problems, and to new problems that will arise during the war and the period of reconstruction, the Government should give its immediate attention with the single desire to assist in their wise solution, to assure equitable dealing with all classes and interests, and particularly to develop the natural resources of Canada for the national advantage, and maintain in strength and efficiency the industries of the country upon which labour and agriculture, town and township, so greatly depend.

Mr. DESI,AURIERS (St. Mary's, Montreal) (translation): Mr. Speaker, seeing

the hour is so late and that we must sit again to-morrow, I have the honour to move the adjournment of the debate.


Robert Laird Borden (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs)



I think the hon. gentlemen had better go on for a while.


Hermas Deslauriers

Laurier Liberal


ada, while if they send but one million, Canada's showing will have heen six times as great.

Estimated in dollars and cents the disparity is still greater. The United States pay $1.00 per day to each 'soldier; Canada pays $1.10. Basing our assumption on Canada's figure of 420,000 soldiers and a possible .army of 2,000,000 men in the United-States-an average generally accepted' -every Canadian ratepayer, every man, woman and child, pays $24 a year for our army, while the American pays only $7. Should the - war keep on into 1919, the Canadians will be spending $120 and the Americans, $14. These figures have merely to do with the soldiers' pay. If we take into account officers' salaries, indemnities, pensions, transportation and equipment, the difference is much greater. So we must conclude that we are contributing ten times more than they in every respect and their newspapers are decidedly out of place when they heap insult upon us as they frequently do.

Now, have we the necessary means of transportation to carry on a policy like this? In a magazine published in the United States. The New (Republic, I read a short time ago, that 'millions of tons of foodstuffs and munitions-which are absolutely necessary to carry on the war, especially to-day-are piled up on the wharves along the Atlantic seaboard, with no immediate hope of being able to transport them, and that, in any case they will be transported under hazard of the hardest -kinds of difficulties, such as submarines and floating mines,-because there is a shortage of bottoms. On the 18th of last October the Tribune of New York stated that what tortured it most was the thought-that the Allies might be struck down dead before the United States had been able to send them help, because there were not enough ships. And M. Tardieu, High Commissioner for France, sent on a mission to America, stated in the American papers *that his greatest fear was that the United States did not have the ships necessary to forward; at the proper time, the food1 and munitions bought there, the need for which was becoming more urgent as the days went by.

To me it is permissible to think that since the Canadian government have an official ^representative of (the cabinet in Washington, they should be well aware of this shortage of ships and that, in -consequence, -they should energetically pro-


mote shipbuilding in this country so as to help the Allies and allow them to strike with their full strength. We all acknowledge that it is useless to transport splendid soldiers to France if we -have not also the wherewithal to feed them and to fulfil their requirements in tile matter of munitions, since we are suffering from a scarcity of the means of transportation. Besides, when we have before out very eyes the statements of eminent men, like Lord Reading Mr. Asquith, Mr. Lloyd George, Lord Rhondda, Mr. Hoover, Lord Northcliffe and Mr. Kemp himself, urging upon us the imperative necessity of shipping them food, while it is common knowledge throughout the world that France is put on rations and -that the bakers of England and Italy have not sufficient flour for baking bread; when, finally, we read the reports of eminent men like Dr. Robertson, Hon. Mr. Fisher, the Hon. Mr. Caron-, of Quebec, and the leaders of all our agricultural societies, demonstrating, figures in hand, that the present Administration is rapidly heading the -country towards famine; when we know that Canada, to-day is face to face with a shortage of 60,000 hands for getting -in the next crop; when /we know that, thanks to our excessive contributions of men, hundreds of acres suitable for cultivation and ready to be planted, will fail to be, on account of the scarcity of farm labour; is it practical, is it reason aide for the hon. Minister of the Interior to bring down legislation concerning our Indian reserves which have never been cultivated, while we have so much more land already for seeding? Is it really opportune, from a national standpoint, to amend the Military Service Act so as to recruit from our farmers and bur farm workers?

It is not with theories of that -sort that a country is governed wisely.

For my part I find irrefutable evidence that our friends on the Government benches entertain an entirely false conception of their duty to the State; they cannot expect to convince this House that we must ruin Canada, bring starvation upon our European allies and thus win final victory!

In the name of liberty, honour and patriotism, interpreted according to- their own light, they seem free to do anything at all, except what is right. In certain provinces they have succeeded in deceiving the people, but to-day the peop'e have grasped just what this patriotism of the hon. gentlemen amounts to, and to-morrow the people will brand upon the foreheads of

these hon. gentlemen a stigma which through all eternity will torture their souls.

We of the Opposition are in thie war to the very end, taking heed of our strength and our resources. No one detests Prus-sianism more than do we who have met with a few transitory samples of it in this country. Our ranks hold none of those emholdened talkers who on every occasion mouth the august name of liberty and then erase it wherever they find it emblazoned on the walls of our country. We have known what true freedom is and we would like to see the people of Canada continue to enjoy this true freedom.

A few words of recapitulation, _ Mr. Speaker, and I will have done. I maintain that the 'Government should, first of all, build ships so as not to be a burden to any one else; next, develop agriculture ini eveTy possible way so as to sustain, the vital forces of Europe and of Canada. Finally I say that, so far, Canada has done herself proud, in men, in money and in * food; and that Germany has never designed an attack upon Canada.

Mr. A. B. HUNT (Compton) moved tne adjournment of the debate. ,


Robert Laird Borden (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs)



Mr. Speaker. I had intended to take steps under the rules of the House to ensure that the debate would be ended to-morrow, as it has lasted a very long time, but I have an arrangement with the chief whip on the other side which will obviate that necessity, and therefore I shall consent to the adjournment if the debate.


Motion agreed to. On the motion of Sir Robert Bojden the House adjourned at 1.25 a.m., Wednesday. Wednesday, May 8, 1918.

May 7, 1918