Mr. SUTHERLAND:

The Farmers'

Telegram and Family Magazine. The article is as follows: :

In the above year- j

That is 1917,

-the company made from overage, which was the rightful property of the farmer, much more than they paid the shareholders in dividends. From information received from one of the officers, the Grain Growers, Ltd., have from 30,000 to 40,000 stock subscribers, who are principally the farmers of the prairie provinces, and if properly operated on protected lines it could be of great benefit to the farmers of Canada. The average individual holding is about $50. The management and directors seem to use the 30,000 or 40,000 shareholders to sing their praises, for which they pay them a dividend of 10 per cent, or an average of about $5.00 per year each, and they actually took a greater amount from the farmers by way of excessive dockage on grain shipped through them, for which they give no value. This is certainly a cheap system of advertising their company, but expensive to the farmers.

The farmers of Canada cannot expect much assistance from the United Grain Growers, Limited, either by legislation or in any other way, while they take from them the grain overage, which is the property of the farmer, sell it and apply the proceeds to their own use. If the president of the United Grain Growers' Limited, who is a cabinet minister at Ottawa, advocated any change In the tariff on agricultural implements, would not the question be asked him: " How can you conscientiously ask for any further protection to the farmer when the company of which you are president accepts the grain overage that is the rightful property of the farmer, and applies it to the use of your company?" It would be like the freckled-faced man selling a concoction to remove freckles. The United Grain Growers, Limited, have repre-

been an enormous falling off in dairy produce for the last two years. Ending February this year there was a decrease of 45,000,000 pounds in cheese, an increase in butter and in condensed milk, but in the aggregate a falling off of 24,075,779 pounds. That is the situation that this country is up against and in the face of all this we had the regulations that were enacted by the Board of Commerce that was turned loose on this country at the last session of Parliament. The facts are already in evidence, and they demand immediate attention on the part of the Government. It is the duty of the Government to see that something is done because I will venture to predict that during the present year you will see, month by month, evidences that the policy that was inaugurated under the hon. member for Marquette when the Minister of Agriculture supplemented by the Board of Commerce is going to prove a very serious one indeed.

The hon. member in endeavouring to justify his withdrawal from the Government went on to deal, as he has dealt this afternoon, with the tariff. The tariff was responsible for all the ills that this country was suffering from and it was necessary for him to get out of the Government although the Government had conceded a . good deal to him along the line which he had been advocating. The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) whom I am glad to see in the House to-night, will have a fairly good knowledge of what took place in the Government in connection with that matter. The hon. member for Marquette availed himself of the opportunity of that time to refer to the province of Ontario to state how agriculture had become decadent and that it looked to him as though it might very soon be that agriculture would become a lost art in that province. He asserted that production was not as great as it was thirty years ago. That was a bold statement to make and a statement which can not be substantiated. It was a statement which was absolutely without any justification. He stated that:

The Prime Minister invited me to join this Government, in a sense representing that body of organized public opinion to which I have referred.

Organized public opinion? The United Grain Growers, Limited is the organized public opinion which the hon. gentleman represented when he went into the Government. His subsequent conduct would lead you to believe that he had proved

[Mr. Sutherland.!

faithful to the company with which he was and is connected. He says:

Furthermore-and the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) knows it-he can travel through Ontario as I have travelled through it, and he will find, not hundreds, but thousands, of abandoned farms in that province.

Poor old Ontario with her thousands of abandoned farms !

Within the last two years I saw myself in a twelve-mile drive in the county of Huron, one of the best counties of Ontario, six vacant farms, and I have no reason to doubt the statements I have made.

I will venture to state -that he cannot find an abandoned farm in the county of Huron. It is true many farms -are much larger than they were and it is also true that the 'agricultural population is not as great as it was a few years ago. There are reasons for that. Western Canada was opened up dur-that time, and the sons of the farmers of Ontario have gone west by tens of thousands, taken up homesteads and become citizens of the West. But there are opportunities in Ontario that there were not thirty years ago and I am proud of the fact that we have industrial concerns in Ontario where our young men can go and that there are opportunities for them to engage in business and the professions it they do not wish to carry on farming operations, whereas, before that, they had to go to the United States or some other country 'to do so. We have these opportunities in Canada to-day and that condition is much preferable than that our young men should have to go to tsome other country to find openings in commercial life. Agriculture has been dragging in Ontario for a number of years. Why? The young men on the farms in Ontario volunteered just as well a* those in other walks of life considering the conditions surrounding them. I have in mind three farmers, neighbours of mine, with only two sons each. All these boys volunteered and went overseas. How could you expect their fathers to carry on as well under these conditions? Yet we have a party in this province that are endeavouring to libel the farmers and to cast odium upon them by saying that they were favourable to being exempted from military service during the war. That is not the case because during the war they carried on as well as -they could although they were badly handicapped by reason of the fact that the men who had formerly sought employment on the farm had gone to the war. As a rule they were among the newcomers to this

country, they were British born, they were the first to answer the call and they rushed to the colours but they are again coming back, they are coming into Ontario in large numbers and we will soon overcome the conditions we have had to lace during the past few years.

It would be unfortunate at this time if it were instilled in the minds of the people that there is a possibility that we were going to upset the fiscal conditions of this country. That same old agitation was going on previous to 1896. There was a feeling of unrest and uncertainty previous to that time by reason of the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite but once they came into power the manufacturers, and those who had money to invest, realized they were going to adhere to the old, stable policy which had been in force in this country. The result was that capital obtained confidence, people put their money into industries and w'e had prosperity by reason of the fact that uncertainty had been removed from the minds of the people. It is up to the people of Canada to-day to put those w(ho are endeavouring to stir up trouble and discontent where they properly belong. It is a remarkable thing, it is very significant, that it was only a few days after the hon. member for Marquette severed his connection with the Government that there broke out in his native province what you might call an insurrection. You all know what happened in connection with the strike in the city of Winnipeg and it is not necessary to refer to it here. You know how the eyes of the people were turned in that direction and it was well known that there was a determined effort being made to bring about a condition in this country similar to that which they have in Russia. The 0. B. U. was in evidence at Winnipeg at that particular time. I do not refer to these things with any degree of pleasure but it is just as well to call a spade a spade and be done with it and get rid of some of this camouflage.

Yes, the province of Ontario, as the hon. member says, suffered during the war by reason of the scarcity of farm labour. The farmers in that province have had a good deal to contend with, but they are not the only people that have had to encounter difficulties in that respect. This movement that is on foot is not confined to Canada or the United States, it has been general throughout the world-the movement from the country to the cities and towns has been a world-wide movement. Two weeks ago I noticed in the Detroit Free Press an

article referring to what was taking place in the state of Michigan, which is similar in many respects to the province of Ontario. This is what Mr. G. W. Dickinson, manager of the Michigan State Fair, had to say with reference to the Lansing official report which dealt with this matter:

" The public does not half realize the importance of that report," said Mr. Dickinson. " We have a tremendous housing shortage here in Detroit, but out in the state there are 30,300 vacant homes. In Detroit, they would take care of at least 150,000 people, and considering the ample size of most country homes and the congestion here, they probably would accommodate close to 250,000 persons.

" Information in this report is not altogether new to the Fair personnel. Our county agents have been sending in isolated reports showing the same tendency for several months.

It is not poor land that is idle. Great portions of it is right at our doors in Oakland county-which is not only the most fertile of soil, but is also practically a backyard garden for the great manufacturing cities of Detroit and Pontiac. Next winter we may have our pockets full of money, but without food and coal."

That is the condition of affairs in the state of Michigan. Mr. Harry R. O'Brien, writing in the Canadian Farm and quoting in an article from the Saturday Evening Post, states:

One of the questions discussed by this writer is the housing problem in cities. He cites case after case of empty houses in the country, while the people in neighbouring towns are forced to crowd together two, three, four and more families in a single dwelling. In a country town in Kentucky of 6,000 souls there are but two houses that are not homes of at least two families, and in some cases in this town as high as six families are living in one house. On five of the main roads leading out from that town, within a radius of less than ten miles, there are, at least, twenty-seven vacant farm houses-standing idle with no one living in them. This is only one of the particular instances cited. They could be multiplied many times over in every State. Cities and towns are overcrowded, while thousands of farm houses all over the country are vacant.

That is the condition of affairs in the United States. Why, then, does the hon. member single out the province of Ontario and try to make things much worse than they really are. We have this good excuse for being short of farm labour in that province that the farm labourers and the farmers' sons were at the Front doing their duty. I say it ill becomes any man who had the distinguished honour of being chosen a member of the Government to break faith with the people who sent him here, because it is nothing else than that. If those hon. gentlemen who have crossed from this side to the cross benches find

that it is necessary for them to vote against the Government on the tariff question which was not an issue at the last election there is only one consistent thing for them to do, and that is to go back to the electors who sent him here, and say, " I can no longer support the Government." Let them do that instead of endeavouring to form the nucleus of a party with the object of wrecking the Government. I am satisfied that I am right in my views as to what is contemplated because of the prediction made by Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier before the Union Government was formed, and which I have already given to the House. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are hoping to wreck the Government by bringing small detachments of members from this side over to their ranks-some of whom might be characterized as the hon. members on the cross benches have characterized the amendment of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding): If I

cannot support the Government on a measure such as we are considering to-day. especially when an amendment has been moved which means a vote of want of confidence in Sir Robert Borden and his colleagues, there is a certain consistent course for me to pursue, and that is to hand my resignation to the people who sent me here. That and no other course should be followed by those who have any regard for the confidence which was placed in them by the .people under the peculiar conditions which existed in the fall of 1917. I believe that breeding counts for something in the long run. We have on this side descendants of Blakes and Mowats, and I venture to say you will not find men with blood of that kind in their veins doing such a thing in the case of a Government elected as this Government was in 1917.

I have already spoken at greater length than I intended but there are a number of other matters to which I would like to refer. At this critical period, when public confidence is so necessary, no one should do anything to unduly agitate the public mind. Undoubtedly there is unrest in the country, and it is quite natural that there should be. Then, too, the cost of living is a very serious matter indeed. Hon. gentlemen opposite ask: Are these taxes that are levied going to benefit the consumer? Who are the consumers, let me ask? Is not every citizen of this country a consumer, and will he not find it necessary to deny himself of something in order to meet the demands that are being made upon him? The hon. member for Marquette complained that the income tax imposed in

Canada was not as high as that levied in Great Britain. In his speech the hon. member could not get away from Great Britain. That is his ideal in regard to the tariff, and fiscal matters of every kind; but it must be remembered that Great Britain is an old country, with long established industries. Why did not the hon. gentleman refer to the income taxes that are being levied in the United States? Had he done so he would have found that the income taxes collected in Canada compare very favourably with those levied in the country to the south. The opinion of the people of the United States with regard to Canada is evidently a good deal better than that entertained by the hon. member for Marquette. In this connection let me quote a few paragraphs which appeared in the New York Tribune of December 19, 1917:

Canada "Carries On".

Last April on the shell scarred slopes of Vimy Ridge Canada at the front gave proof of her courage, her devotion, her strength. The "maple leaf" planted on one of the great bulwarks of German tyranny in France was a final evidence of the attitude of one-half of North America to the Boche threat to civilization.

Before Vimy the Canadians had borne their part nobly. It was soldiers of the Dominion who broke the first weight of the German thrust after the gas attack in the Second Battle of Ypres. The British Empire will long remember gratefully the sacrifices of the "Little Black Devils" and the "Princess Pats" on that blood soaked ground about Ypres where the veteran army of Britain-the "old contemptibles"-[DOT] found their glory and their graves in October and November, 1914.

Of the Canadians at the front there was no question. They had seen the German thing as it was. Their comrades had been "gassed" and crucified. Their fellow Canadians had fought cleanly and bravely against a barbarism which expressed itself in methods and in tricks which were beneath the contempt of white men and below the level of savages. Canada at the front knew the Oerman-but what of Canada behind the front, three thousand miles away- would that line hold, too?

Well, the world has its answer now. The politicians doubted. The weak, the weary, the conquered and the disloyal spread their forecasts and proclaimed the outcome. They are answered ; so are doubting politicians and faint hearted patriots the world over. As the American democracy found itself by re-electing Lincoln in 1854, the Canadian democracy has justified democracy and itself in 1917 by re-enlisting for the war, by accepting the man and the methods which alone promise victory.

It is a stirring thing, this victory of democracy in Canada over all the forces which make for surrender and for worse than surrender. The voice of the first Allied electorate to be heard in many, many months is a sign for all Allied statesmen to observe and heed. Canada has sent 400,000 men to Europe; Canada has borne more than 125,000 casualties; but to the call of duty Canada's response is immediate and unmistakable. It is a response which will be heard the

W

world over. It is a response which will be noted in Berlin as well as in London. Is it too much to suspect it may even be heard in Rome?

The United States will congratulate and pay just tribute to its neighbouring democracy tor its decision. In a time of momentary pessimism Canada has cheered all of us. In an hour of depression and weakness Canada has shown the road of courage and victory illuminated by the spirit of self-sacrifice and devotion. She has been faithful to her dead; to those of her sons murdered as well as those slain in fair fight.

That was the opinion of the better element of the people of the United States with regard to our attitude during the war.

Canada will continue to carry on, and she is not going to be divided into classes. Any one who endeavours to set class against class in this country is doomed to failure, for our people have too much good 3ense to be led away by any such false cry, the folly of which is apparent to every right-thinking person. As the inheritors of a great country we have a duty that we must perform, and the eyes of the world are centred on us to-day largely by reason of the sacrifices and record made by our gallant soldiers at the front. The need of the hour is great, but if we do our duty by ourselves and by our country, if we remain true to ourselves, during the next few years we shall see an unparalleled and undreamt of development of our resources. United States capitalists are anxious to invest money and to establish new industries here in order to develop our resources; in our great western country, where as yet we have merely scratched a little of the surface, we have unlimited resources which, when developed, will be a reproach to those who now would advocate a departure at this critical stage of our history from the old established policy upon which has been laid the foundations of our national prosperity. Are we going to take chances again, as we did years ago when we were young and weak on a change of fiscal policy after having laid down a truly Canadian policy, in order that somebody, somewhere, may make a try out with some fantastic theory? And, Mr. Speaker, I may say that if no stronger arguments are advanced in support of that theory than we have heard this afternoon from the leader of the Agrarian party, I am inclined to think that that party has reached its meridian and is already on its decline.

In conclusion I want to again emphasize the fact, that over 80 per cent of our agricultural produce is now consumed at home, and I would again draw attention to the importance of the home market, which is the

most valuable that our farmers can have, and I would warn them that if tne policy now being advocated by the Agrarian group ever goes into effect agriculture will be the first to suffer, for it is not only our industrial interests that need a protective policy let us get full credit for the quality and standard of our products.

The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) says that protection is the greatest fallacy that was ever dreamt of. I can remember when the leader of the Government some years ago was endeavouring to put a vote through this House in order to strengthen and render more efficient the British Navy, my hon. friend from Red Deer contended that even although it would cost more money to build ships in Canada, the policy for us to adopt was to have the wheels of industry turning here, to have our workmen employed, and that better wages for Canadian workmen meant better living conditions for their families. So my hon. friend has not always been a consistent advocate of free trade. On that occasion, notwithstanding his great admiration for the Mother Land-which we all feel just as strongly as he doe3-he advocated Canadian ships built by Canadian workmen.

Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker, we have a country which nature has endowed with everything that a man can desire, and which holds the promise of a mighty future. And, if we cannot make a country with such material it will be because we are not true to ourselves and if we are not true to ourselves be sure our sin will find us out.

Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vereheres):

Mr. Speaker, I hold no

brief for the United Farmers' party, and I will not assume to-night the responsibility of answering the violent attacks made by my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) on the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Halbert). Several hon. members of the United Farmers' party have yet to speak, and I am sure that when the opportunity is given to them they will fully answer the hon. member who has just taken his seat.

Before discussing the Budget, however, I think it is my duty to answer a statement made by the hon. member for South Oxford to the effect that when a delegation of the farmers of the various provinces came to Ottawa to try to force the Government to keep its promises to exempt their sons from military service, that movement originated with the Minister of Agriculture of

There are no British or foreign credits there. Let us see further. In the Auditor General's Report of 1919, part ZZ, at page 228, I find the following:

Expenditure by the Chief Paymaster on account of pay and other expenses of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, vouchers for which have

not been received $129,308,233 14

Less refunds deposited to the credit of the Receiver General by the Chief Paymaster 7,668,216 52

I do not find any British or foreign credits there either. Is my hon. friend still satisfied that these are British or foreign credits? Let us look further into the matter. On Friday, the 18th of May, 1917, the late Auditor General, Mr, Fraser, appeared before the Special Committee on Returned Soldiers and gave evidence regarding some accounts of the Militia Department. His evidence, which will be found on page 1116 to 1124 of that report, contains a few lines which will show you how the people's money is being taken care of by this Government. On page 1119 of the report I read the following:

By Mr. Bennett:

Q. That is pretty well looked after now.

He was speaking of these amounts. The Auditor General, Mr. Fraser, at that time, replied:

I will tell you what was done. When I was over there, and discussing these things, I said: "You ought to have some system of checking with Ottawa periodically." The result of that suggestion was that cards were taken from all the ledgers, giving the man's name, identity, and so forth, with the state of his account on the 30th November, and they have sent a staff out here who are engaged in checking oft the accounts with the Militia Department books.

Q. And the statement has been made that the result has been very satisfactory?-A. I do not know whether it will be satisfactory to the Committee to hear that they have found there were hundreds of thousands of dollars gone, and only a comparatively small portion of it recovered.

Further on at page 1122 the Auditor Genera] was questioned as follows:

By Hon. Mr. Murphy:

Q. In connection with the overpayments of which yoii spoke, I suppose that efforts are constantly being made to recover these amounts? -A. Tes, there is a staff, I do not know how many, engaged on that work.

Q. How do these efforts result, are the moneys returned, or refunded by the people who received cheques they should not have received? -A. Those would be sums paid at Ottawa here?

Q. Tes.-A. I* do not know exactly what your committee here is appointed to inquire into.

Q. Everything in connection with this subject ; is there anything in that connection upon which this committee might obtain further information?-A. I certainly think there should be some inquiry into this question ; I understand there have been very serious leakages in connection with these refunds.

Q How do you mean?-A. In conection with refunds that have been made and not accounted for.

Q. Refunds made to Ottawa?-A. Tes. I am only giving hearsay now, but I would not say it unless I thought it were true. This is so vast a subject, that I cannot audit it in the way I audit other accounts, unless I create a staff such as they have or duplicate the work and keep the accounts.

Q. How does this leakage occur to which you refer?-A. Sometimes cases where the person has had a separation allowance continued after the man was discharged and when it is found out after a while, the department asks the parties to make a refund. The refund comes back in cash, possibly, or money orders, or cheques, and I understand there is a lot of that money that has never gone to the credit of the Receiver Genera],

Q. Have there been any reports made to you on that subject?-A, No.

Q. Would there be any reports made to you in the ordinary course of events?

A. No, they do not usually tell me those things. It is just like the paymasters, there are defalcations of paymasters, quite a lot of them, some of them from overseas. I will give you one instance of a man who was, I think it was $3,500 behind. He was overseas, he was dealt with over there and sent back to Canada. He was discharged and sent back to Canada to be dealt with here. He was dealt with here, by putting him in command of a new regiment as colonel. He is now over in France, and he has never paid up this amount. I asked them to commence deducting this amount from his pay and they said : "Oh, we can't do that, the pay is to Colonel So and So; that was Paymaster So and .So, we have no authority to deduct it from Colonel So and So's pay."

Q. Was it known at headquarters that he was a defaulter?-A. Tes, certainly, it is shown on the books there.

iSir, there can be no doubt in the minds of the representatives of the people as to the ultimate destination of this $121,000,000.

But the Minister of the Interior says something else in his reply:

But the hon. member for Guysborough or the hon. member for Red Deer, knows that if there is anything he does not understand in the Report of the Auditor General, there is a standing committee of this House for the purpose of investigating every item questioned, and although we have been in session three months, that committee has never been called. If there be any reason for calling it, hon. members have it in their power to have it called, and if there be anything dark it will be revealed.

First of all let me say, Sir, that this answer does not stand on its legs. It is true we have been here three months, but although we have repeatedly asked for the fourth volume of the Auditor General's Report it was only forthcoming about a week ago. But the minister's answer means something more. It has a much more important significance. He says that if the Opposition members believe that there is something wrong they have the power to call the Public Accounts Committee and if there is anything dark it will be revealed. But suppose we do not call that committee, what then? The position assumed by the Government is this: "Let the people be

robbed if the Opposition is not clever enough to see it. It is not our business; what do we care?" Well, Sir, I submit that, whether sitting on your right or on your left, every member is in duty bound to look after the accounts and to see that the people's money is not improperly expended.

Now I come to the omissions of the Budget. First of all, I wish to call attention to a matter which I have brought up every time the income tax has been discussed in this House. I refer to the exemption of $200 for every child under seventeen years of age. I believe, Sir, that the amount is far too small and that it should be increased to $500. To any one who has been blessed with children it is only too well known that $200, nay, $500, is hardly sufficient for the expenses in connection with one child. I would even go further in my request of the Minister of Finance, who I am very sorry is not in his place. I would ask him to grant total exemption from income taxation to the father of ten children, and I trust he will take up my suggestion in committee. After all, it is the Canadian-born person who makes the best Canadian citizen, and if my hon. friend refuses to accede to my request I shall perforce come to the conclusion that, instead of following the precept of the Bible, "Crescite et multiph camini," he has the same idea as is enter-

tained by a well known mayor in the province of Ontario, Mayor Booker, who is reported by the Ottawa Journal as follows:

Hamilton, March 29: Mayor Booker announced himself an, advocate of birth control and thinks the time will come when Canada will adopt the Holland system. "Some families are altogether too large," he said. "One or two children are enough for most homes."

I am sure, Sir, that this mayor of a large Ontario city must be a dog fancier, and I hope the Minister of Finance does not approve of the theories of this premier advocate of race suicide.

Regarding the income tax, I have another suggestion to make. In England they differentiate between incomes earned and incomes unearned. For instanc}, i' a man has an income of, say, $6,000 which is derived from investments in stock, real estate, deposits in banks, he

pays a larger tax than the man

who derives his income from hie daily labour. And that is only fair. If the man who has an income of $6,000 derives it from investments in stocks or deposits in banks or investments in real estate, when he dies or becomes an invalid his family is left with a capital of at least $100,000 and has practically the same income as when he was alive On the other hand, when a man who derives his income from his work dies or becomes an invalid his family is left penniless. I therefore submit that it is only just that such a man should be taxed to a less extent than the other, in order that he might be able either to take out insurance on his life or to put by a little money to provide for old age and the sustenance of hi6 family when he is incapacitated.

But, Sir, the most glaring omission of the Budget Speech-evidently it is not an omission in the opinion of the minister, although it is, in mine and, I have no doubt, in that of the people of 'Canada-is the fact that he does not say a word about reducing the high cost of living. Nay, his proposals are rather apt to increase that cost. I should like to call your attention, Sir, to the fact that up to now not one member supporting the Government has said a word about the high cost of living; not one word has been said about the sufferings of the middle and poorer classes; not one plea has been made nor one suggestion offered to alleviate the burden which threatens to crush the taxpayer of modest means. Every member who has spoken supporting the Government has made an eloquent plea for protection, ha6 brought forward figure after figure to prove that

protection is necessary for manufacturing industries, and has stated this to be an indispensable fiscal policy. Those hon. members who spoke in this strain spoke strictly from the point of view of the privileged class, without making a single utterance regarding the consumer, ignoring him entirely in the problems we have to solve. Yet the middle and poorer classes form the great majority of the people. They are the ones who most feel the burdens of taxation and of the high cost of living. But it is characteristic of this Government that in framing their policies they take care of their wealthy friends and entirely ignore the needs of the common people. I am not surprised. I have been in this House for over two years and I have yet to see a measure brought down by the Government which carries with it an honest purpose to relieve the consumer. Am I exaggerating? Shall I be charged with making an assertion for a political purpose? Then I reply: Can any hon. member on the other side stand up and say that what I am saying is not correct? I repeat, Mr. Speaker, and I emphasize, that not only has no such measure been ever introduced, but the Government has encouraged profiteering with a fraternal care and allowed it to thrive and fatten. We had an inquiry into the high cost of living and startling facts were disclosed. The Government instituted the Board of Commerce which cost so much money to the people of the country, and which went around the country inquiring into the cost of ham sandwiches and false teeth. With what result? The chairman has resigned because he was tied down in his decisions. The Board has been in existence for over a year and though many instances of rank profiteering were brought before it, yet not one arrest was made.

Before starting the Board had enough evidence to jail some of the profiteers. The manager of the Paton Manufacturing Company of Sherbrooke stated before the High Cost of Living Committee that his company was making 72 per cent, or 176 per cent on the invested capital. He stated furthermore that his company was not made for the glory of God nor for the glory of the people, but that it was carried on for the benefit of the shareholders. He should have been arrested as they arrest that kind of people in the United States. It was also proved at the same inquiry that the Dominion Textile Company had made 31 per cent, but 310 per cent on the invested capital, as was stated by the hon. member for Marquette this afternoon. The amount put into the company originally is different from the

amount which is represented to be the capital stock now because there was $5,000,000 of common stock issued which was all water.

Has the Government taken proceedings against this company. No, Sir. Instead of taking proceedings they have done better than that. I hold in my hand a return to an order of the House of Commons dated April 19, 1920, and it is a return asked for by myself. It is sessional paper No. 147. I find that the companies controlled by Sir Charles Gordon or the subsidiaries of the Dominion Textile Company, received from the Government of Canada $958,566.77 in the last six months. Let me explain. This report discloses the following facte. My first question was:

Amounts loaned or credits given by the Government of Canada:-

fa) To Greece;

(b) To Roumania.

The answer was this;

Amounts loaned) or credits given by the Government of Canada:

To Greece, $25,000,000.

To Roumania, $25,000,000.

My second question was as follows:

2. The date these loans were granted or credits given.

The answer is:

(a) To Greece, April 15, 1919.

0b) To Roumania, April 2, 1919.

These loans were granted by Orders in Council.

3. The nature of merchandise purchased by the Government of Canada and the charges in each case.

We will see later on what kind of merchandise was purchased. Now comes question No. 4, a most important question:

4. The' names of commercial firms or persons from whom such goods were so purchased, specifying (a) the nature of goods in each case; (b) the amounts paid by the Government to these firms or persons in each ease and also the date of these 'payments.

As I said before, I have taken the amounts given to the Dominion Textile Company and the subsidiary companies. The subsidiary companies are the Montreal Cotton Company and Penman's , Limited. If you add the amount paid to Canadian Converters, in which I am informed the president of the Dominion Textile Company has a large interest, $111,751.20, you will find that Sir Charles Gordon, whose company was shown before the High Cost of Living Committee to have made profiteering profits, not only was not prosecuted, not only was not molested, but was given by the Government orders to the amount of $1,069,317.97 during the past six months and paid for by the money of the Canadian people.

But this document is very interesting. We have it that the Government has paid these firms with good Canadian money and charged the total amount to Roumania and Greece. Will we ever get this money back? I have very grave doubts. Roumania is bankrupt, Greece is on the verge of bankruptcy, and I am informed-and I wish some of the ministers would answer my question-that two interest instalments on the bonds that we hold from Roumania have not been met lately.

Let us glance rapidly over the return. I notice that the Department of Militia have sold the following goods in the last six months:

Woollens $435,449 66Boots

170,600 00Blankets

276,750 00Sweaters

22,500 00Total $90*5,299 66

Or nearly $1,000,000 of goods sold in six months by the Government. I submit that is a very bad piece of business. These blankets, these woollen goods, these boots, these sweaters, for which the Government will probably never be paid, should first have been offered at auction to the Canadian people.

Mr. COPP:

Were they military supplies?

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

These are probably military supplies because they are sold by the Militia Department. In the United States very successful sales of army supplies were made by the Government to the people, and they helped to lower the cost of living. But as we go along this document becomes more and more interesting. I find on page 3 the following item:

Welland Vale Manufacturing .

Company, St. Catharines, June

19, 1920 $135,214 78

In looking at a very useful little book, the Parliamentary Guide, which was copiously used last year in respect to the figures of military enlistments in the different constituencies, I find that the president of the Welland Vale Manufacturing Company is a gentleman who was heard in this House for the first time this year, a gentleman who has never spoken here before, or very seldom that I can recall. The hon. gentleman in question made a very strong speech for protection last week, and an equally strong speech in favour of the Government. Who was that gentleman? No less a person than the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin).

On page 4 of the return, I find another item which is also very interesting:

Brantford Roofing Company, Brantford, $36,200.

Upon referring to the same little book I find that one of the directors of that company is that great apostle of protection, the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt).

But let me continue. Under the title of "Nails" I find:

The Maritime Nail Co., St. John. N.B.

Am I mistaken, Mr. Speaker, in stating that a few days ago we heard a speech from an hon. gentleman who confessed he had always been a free trader but that conditions had changed, and that he was now a protectionist and a supporter of the Government? Referring again to this book I "nailed" a director of the Maritime Nail Company-to be absolutely correct the president and managing director,-in the hon. member for St. John, N.B. (Mr. Elkin).

How much did he

get?

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

He got $69,168.73.

Mr. DUFF:

Very expensive nails.

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

The hon. member is quite correct, they were very expensive nails.

Mr. COPP:

Expensive protection, I should say.

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

But let me go further. On page 5 I find another item:

The Monarch Knitting Company, Dunnville.

This company got a very small amount indeed-it only received the sum of $271,844.48. Sir, I could not find the name of the president of this company in the Parliamentary Guide. The hon. gentleman was probably wiser and more experienced, than some other hon. members. But I have here a very recent edition of the Annual Financial Review, bearing date of June 19, 1919, and I find at page 285 of that publication that the president of the Monarch Knitting Company is the hon. member from Haldi-mand (Mr. Lalor). I have still another item:

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Do not believe in protection.

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

The fifth item reads:

The Sherwin-Williams Paint Company, $31,490.

I also find this item:

Canada Paint Company, $11,332.

Mr. DEVLIN:

To whom does that apply?

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

At pages 345 and 346 of the same Annual Financial Review I find that the Canada Paint Company is a subsidiary company of the Sherwin-Williams Paint Company. I also find that it has been absorbed and is controlled by that company, and that the vice-president -who is also a director-of that company is no less a luminary than the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne).

Mr. BALLANTYNE:

If my hon. friend will make further search he will find that I am also a vice-president and director of a great many more companies than 'the one he has named.

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

I have no doubt that my hon. friend is interested in many large companies. Now, Sir, I have only rapidly glanced through this return, and there are many other items which it might be of interest to place on Hansard. There is one for instance with respect to Mr. Lloyd Harris, or rather the Canada Steel Company in which that gentleman is interested. Mr. Harris is a gentleman as to whom we are well informed. He was Canadian Trade Commissioner in London, and did not forget himself in obtaining these orders. I have no comment to make regarding the profits realized in these transactions-I do not know what they are. There is no doubt all these hon. gentlemen I have mentioned are within the law-that is, they are within the letter of the law. But are they within the spirit of the law? Let me read to the House Section 15 of the Senate and House of Commons Act, Revised Statutes, 1906:

If any member of the House of Commons accepts any office or commission, or is concerned or interested in any contract, agreement, service or work which, hy this Act, renders a person incapable of being elected to, or of sitting or voting in the House of Commons, or knowingly sells any goods, wares or merchandise to, or performs any service for the Government of Canada, or for any of the officers of the Government of Canada, for which any public money of Canada is paid or to be

Paid the seat of such member shall

thereby be vacated, and his election shall thenceforth be null and void.

Section 19 provides as follows:

This Act shall not extend to disqualify any person as a member of the House of Commons 'by reason of his being-(a) a shareholder in any incorporated company having a contract with the Government of Canada.

Well, "shareholder" does not necessarily mean "director," and the prohibition against a member of the House of Commons selling any goods to the Government

does not apply to .such a one. That is true and those concerned "will answer that the Government has transacted .business with a company in which they were interested. That is also true. It is likewise true that they have transacted business not for the Government, not for the people of Canada, but 'for other countries. If this loophole satisfies their conscience, well and good. I do not wish to be understood as casting the least reflection on the honesty of the deals, but, Mr. Speaker, the fact remains, first, that the Government will probably never be reimbursed the moneys paid; second, that the Government bought goods from companies in which some members of Parliament are personally interested; third, that transactions of this nature unavoidably cast a shadow on parliamentary independence, and that in making such purchases the Government has done a great deal to keep "the boys" in line and to get them to put "a little pep and ginger" in their speeches.

But let us come now to the proposals of the Minister of Finance, especially to what he terms his excise luxury tax. I read in an Ottawa paper a few days ago that a large and wealthy manufacturer on reading the Budget Speech said: " Never touched me." Sir, that is the gist of the proposals. The manufacturer will consider it his right to make the consumer pay the additional charges; and Mr. Breadner, the Commissioner of Taxation, admitted that fact at a meeting in this city. There can be no doubt about the truth of that manufacturer's boast, " Never touched me." In other words, the tax will be paid by the consumer. Moreover, if the manufacturer or the merchant has to pay for the services of an extra accountant to keep track of these taxes, that cost will be charged to iverhead expenses, and the consumer will have the burden passed on to him.

I will not take up the time of the House in pointing out that a $45 suit is not a luxury, nor is a $9 pair of boots-unless made out of paper like the ones that this Government bought for the army at the beginning of the war. Similarly, all kinds of electroliers, gasoliers, patent medicines -the poor families' doctor-biscuits, preserves, jam, beer, ham, breakfast foods such as corn flakes and shredded wheat, coke- the fuel of the poor,-pickles, cheap curtains, are not luxuries but necessaries of life to our working people, and that the resolution strikes, not the wealthy, but the middle and the poorer classes.

And, Sir, may I remind you how uncouth and unfair are these proposals? If my hon. friend the Minister of Finance buys a $1,000 living-room suite, or a $1,000 mantel-piece; or if my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization buys a $32 mahogany waste-paper basket, neither of them will pay any luxury tax. But if a workingman buys a $5 gas fixture or gaso-lier he will pay a dollar tax. If I buy an electric fan, which is a luxury, I pay no luxury tax; but if I buy an electric iron, which is a necessity in every household, I have to pay the tax. If I buy an umbrella at $4, which, as every one will admit, is very useful when it rains, I will have to pay a 10 per cent tax; but if I buy a $10 walking stick it is so useful in bad weather that I am not required to pay any luxury tax. A wealthy man can 'buy wallpaper at $5 a yard free of luxury tax, the most expensive china for pink teas without being mulcted for any luxury tax; but inexpensive cut glass is taxed. If I go to the Chateau Laurier I shall be getting away cheaply if I pay $5 for my meal, but I do not pay any luxury tax on that indulgence; but if I buy a box of shredded wheat or a box of corn-flakes at 10 or 15 cents I have to pay a luxury tax.

There is no doubt that the minister had to find some means of providing money to meet the financial needs of the country, every one admits that,-although the Government is solely responsible for the present state of affairs. But the Government should have derived this revenue from other sources, for instance, from the wealthy classes. Instead of that the Government reduces the excess profits tax, although in England the Government have increased it from 40 to 60 per cent. Then, too, the Government should have enacted legislation to get at the war wealth. I wish it to be well understood, however, that I do not blame the people who made money during the war helping the cause by supplying materials. But I venture to say that our soldiers having fought in the trenches at $1.10 a day, the burden of taxation should not be put on their shoulders on their return from the front, but rather that the men who made lots of money during the war should now be asked to contribute to the country's needs in a much greater degree. Why, the evidence of wealth in this country is amazing; never has there been so much money for investment; new mergers are being formed every day;-a merger was effected four or five weeks ago, and we hear to-day that another is being consummated-every one

knows that our industries are flourishing, and that profits are climbing to a scale that was previously undreamt of in this country.

In England a committee of the House of Commons was appointed to consider the practicability of taxing war wealth whereby $2,750,000,000 could be collected from

75,000 war profiteers, and that committee has reported in favour of such a tax being imposed. It is true that that report has not been acted upon yet, but it is only a few weeks old, and besides, I have the proof here that it will be acted upon. Mr. Austen Chamberlain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making his Budget Speech previous to the report of the committee, is reported by the Montreal Gazette of April 21, to have stated:

The Government apparently intends to levy a tax on war profits, to divert to the Treasury a part of the gains the war gave to many people. What form this taxation may take, and to what extent it will reach, is yet to be determined, the report of a committee now investigating the matter being awaited;

In France the. Government is adopting the same policy, and the New York Herald of April 17 contains the following despatch from its Paris correspondent: .

France Plans to Share in Big War Fortunes. New Tax is to Force Profiteers to Disgorge Large Part of Their Wealth.

Paris, April 17.-War profiteers and others who have amassed millions of francs will have to disgorge a large part of their wealth, and wild orgies of spending, which have characterized French life since the armistice, will have to cease if the radical taxation now being considered by the Government goes into effect.

Despite the high prices, which cause constant grumbling in all classes, it seems that the great spending epidemic which the people here developed in the last year remains and is as strong as ever. Now, however, the Government has decided to get some of this money before it is too late.

Tentative proposals by the Finance Commission of the Government for a revision of the nation's financial policy, it was learned, will include extraordinary provisions with regard to revenue and increases in fortunes due to war profits, in some cases these increases in wealth amounting to as much as 60 per cent since January, 1914.

If the same policy was adopted in thi6 country, Sir, It would not be necessary for the Government to enact such a measure of taxation as is now proposed, reaching the least capable to pay and increasing the cost of living.

I said before that the Government were doing nothing regarding the reduction of the high cost of living. I pointed out last year what huge profits were being made by some of the milling and textile companies.

M6|

I could show you that the same profiteering, and even worse, is going on to-day; yet the Government is still practising the same criminal indolence and with the aid of the banks is permitting the most criminal gambling in the necessaries of life. Why, Sir, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. 'Rowell) will not tolerate crap shooting, race track bookmaking, or poker gambling, and will even blush at a picture of the Queen of Hearts; yet gambling in the most vital and essential articles and necessaries of life is permitted. John M. Baer, member of Cbngress for North Dakota, introduced a Bill to prevent gambling in the necessaries of life in the United States. His remarks in introducing the Bill may be summarized as follows:

The food gambler deals with what yon have to eat and wear, on margin, he does not sell what he has, but is one of the causes of the price-raising, by apparently passing the food from hand to hand until it reaches you. We have laws against crime of every sort and against criminals of every character save the criminal who gambles in the necessaries of life. There is not a bank in the country that will loan money with which to bet on a horse race, millions upon millions of dollars, however, are borrowed from banks and wagered on the market in an effort to hold up the price of commodities. Look at the recent market quotations; you will observe that the brokers are now selling meat, lard, butter, wheat, cotton and corn for October, November and December delivery. No one knows what the wheat crop, the cotton yield or the meat production of this country will be for this year and none of the commodities dealt with are as yet in existence. Let us prohibit these transactions by gamblers who do not have any interest in them except that of speculation.

These are the gist of the remarks of Mr. Baer, member for North Dakota, and tlhe Bill introduced provides that no person shall buy or sell any necessary of life unless it is tlhe intention to effect actual delivery of such necessary together with transfer of legal title, and the term "necessary" is held to include all products or by-products which are or may be manufactured into food for human beings, domestic animals or poultry, and includes also fuel, wearing apparel, or other commodity necessary to life. Is it not worth while considering this kind of legislation? Does the Government not believe that such legislation would decrease the high cost of living? I

do not say, Sir, that such a measure should be adopted, but I say very emphatically that legislation of this kind is worth studying and I hope that the Government will look into it.

This brings me to the subjeot of credits by the banks for speculation purposes and the extraordinary effect upon prices brought about by the concerted action of the banks in the United States in the curtailment of credit. It is not necessary for me to read an extract from the Montreal Gazette on this subject; all hon. members who read the papers observed the tremendous break in prices that has taken place in the United States and which began the moment the Federal Reserve Board concluded an arrangement with the banks under which credits should be curtailed to the manufacturers. This curtailing of. credit was brought about by the American Government; I see no reason why the Government of Canada could not do the same and thus afford some relief to the consumers of our own country.

Now, just one word about the tariff. I was greatly amused the other day to hear 'the Finance Minister state that a tariff commission would commence an investigation after prorogation. Sir, since this Government has been in power-or, rather, since a Tory Government has been in power -we have had promises of commissions to investigate the tariff, but they have not been forthcoming. In order to show the House how long ago a Tory Government promised a tariff commission, I will read a few lines from Hansard of 1911. You are aware that the Tory Government came into power in September, 1911. Well, in Hansard of the 29th of November of the same year, page 530, I find the following question put by Mr. Neely:

1. Will the Government appoint a permanent Tariff Commission?

2. If so, will the labour and the farming interests be allowed to nominate a majority of the representatives on such a commission?

Herb is the answer-and I am sorry that all the ministers are absent from their seats.

There is one.

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolimie) is here; I beg his pardon,-but he is the only one left. I read the answer to this question, as given by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden):

Authority from Parliament will be necessary and a measure will be introduced accordingly.

That, Sir, was in November, 1911, and every year since the Government have

promised commission after commission regarding the tariff, and they are making the same promise this year. Well, I can tell my hon. friends the members of the Farmers' party that if they depend upon the appointment of such a commission they will wait a long time. I can tell my hon. friends on the other side who are voting with the Government because they believe that such a commission will be appointed, that they will also have to wait a long time. As to my hon. friends on the right hand side of the House who do not desire the appointment of any such commission, they may sleep quietly; they will not be troubled with the nightmare of concurrent deflation of duties and depreciation of their bank accounts.

The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) spoke of the St. James by-election and asserted that the result of that election was a victory for protection. Sir, I took part in that election, and I am proud of it. I am proud of having contributed in bring to the House so talented a member as my hon. friend from St. James. There were two candidates in that election. The Government was not represented. Both candidates criticised the Government, and both promised that if elected they would work and vote against the Government. We talked about the tariff. I spoke on the tariff. I am not a free trader in practice; I am not a high protectionist either, but J am not in favour of the present tariff. I hate to see, for instance, the farmer paying the amount of duty he has to pay now on his agricultural implements. I hate to see the workingman and the men of the middle classes paying enormous duties on furniture and everything that is necessary for their households. That is my opinion of the tariff. I do not believe that we should take down all tariffs. Nobody who is aware of the conditions believes that, but I do say that the present tariff is too high. I stand by the platform of the Liberal party that was passed in August of last year in Ottawa.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

So say we all.

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

That is what 1 stated in the St. James election, and that is what my hon. friend the member for St. James stated, and he was elected by a tremendous majority.

Now I wish to refer briefly to a question that has been brought to my attention regarding the pay of the soldier. Some time ago I put a question on the Order Paper,

and the question and the answer will be found on page 2075 of Hansard:

1. Have the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force who received their pay in England or in France been paid the difference in exchange?

2. If not, who received said benefit?

Sir Henry Drayton:

1. All payments in sterling to personnel of the Overseas Military Forces of Canada during the years 1914-15-16-17 and '18 were converted to Canadian currency at the par rate of exchange, $4.8 63 to the pound and debited to their pay accounts at that rate. Payments in continental currencies were converted from such currency to sterling at a flat monthly rate of exchange established by the War Office, based on commercial rates, which in the case of French currency varied from five francs equals four shillings in 1915, to three and five pence in 1919.

2. All payments to members of the C.E.F. Overseas were made out of moneys at the credit of the Dominion Government in the Bank of Montreal, London, which moneys were received from the Imperial Government' by way of advances for war purposes, at par, so that no benefit accrued to the Dominion Government by reason of exchange.

To form an idea of the tremendous amount of money involved in this question, let us examine some very conservative figures, much below the actual facts. Suppose we take the average pay of all the men, including the high pay of the officers and the small pay of the soldiers, as $48.60 a month. According to the answer to my question a man would have received for his $48.60 ten pounds sterling. Now let us take also a most conservative figure for the average value of the pound sterling during the war. Let us take it at $4.76. It went below that, but let us take that figure. On a pay of $48.60, when the man received ten pounds he only received $47.60. If he took that ten pounds, put it in an envelope and sent it to Canada to his mother or his wife, and they went to the bank to get it exchanged they would receive only $47.60 instead of $48.60, if the rate of exchange at that time was $4.76. Therefore the soldier or his dependent was out $1 a month. Let us now take also a very conservative figure as to the number of men. Let us cut the number in less than half and say 200,000 men. This would mean that the men have been done out of at least $200,000 a month. Now what does this sum total over a period of four years, or forty-eight months? It amounts to $2,400,000 a year, or a total of $9,600 000 for the four years. These figures you will admit, Mr. Speaker, are very conservative. I should not be surprised if the amount was much in excess of the figures I have given.

The answer of the Minister of Finance is very evasive. If the Dominion Government did not make a profit-and I wish to state that I did not make any accusation-did the British Government make a profit on the exchange, or did the Bank of Montreal make it? If so what steps have this Government taken to recover the profit? What steps are the Government going to take to recover that profit and re-imburse the men of the Overseas

Forces? This Government made a bona fide contract with the men to pay them $1.10 per day in Canadian currency, which amount the men did not receive. The Government acted as trustee for the men of the Overseas Military Forces of Canada, and [DOT]they have betrayed that trust.

I said the answer of the Minister of Finance was evasive. It is true it is evasive in regard to the parties who benefited by the exchange, but it is not evasive or uncertain or doubtful as to one thing, that is, that the men through the carelessness or negligence or wilfulness of the Government have been done out of millions of dollars they were entitled to.

I must be thankful for the patience ol the House but I have just one more question to deal with, before I resume my seat. It is the constitutional question of the right of the representatives of the people in Parliament to get information from the Government regarding public affairs. This right is unquestionable. Nevertheless, Sir, it .has been denied by the Government to the members of the Opposition at this session. on several occasions. Let me refer to just a few instances which have come to my attention. My hon. friend the member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy) on the 21st of March asked for the correspondence between the Government and Judge Robson regarding the resignation of the latter as chairman of the Board of Commerce. It seems to me the country is entitled to know whether or not Judge Robson resigned because the Government interfered in favour of its friends, in the administration of the board. Yet no return has been made, although on the 3rd of May the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that he would bring some of the documents down, but not all. None have been brought down yet. Another instance of the denial of our rights was exemplified when the Minister of Finance refused point blank to some hon. members on this side to answer something like seventy-four questions regarding the administration of railways. Sir, the people of Canada are en-

titled to know whether huge deficits, such as the deficit of $47,000,000 this year, are due to bad administration of the railways. Yet the Government refuses all information. Concerning the same question, I might add that non-compliance by the Government with an order of the House passed at my request last session in regard to the production of a list of shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company strengthens the belief of the people of Canada that we would find in this list proof of the speculative aspect of the deed. At the beginning of October I moved for the production of that list, and I insisted again on the last day of the session, that it should be brought down; and when the present .session opened I renewed my request, and it was promised me by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I believe. The first time the answer was promised me, the Minister of the Interior stood up and said that he would cable immediately and get the list. The Minister of the Interior is not a debutant in cablegrams, and I fail to see why this list is not forthcoming. The reason which the Government gives is that it would take too much time to prepare it. I asked for the list of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Company on the 10th of October, and its preparation would not be the work of an expert. A typist could copy the list inside of five hours, but it has not been produced yet and I do not believe it will be produced this session. I think, Mr. Speaker, that I was right last session when I said, in connection with this matter, that there was a nigger in the woodpile. The Government, in this same spirit, without consulting Parliament decided to appoint an ambassador at Washington, a novel departure for Canada; and although we were promised last year by the President of the Privy Council (Hon. Mr. Rowell) in answer to a question by myself, that legislation would be brought down before anything was decided, and that the Prime Minister would lay the whole matter before the House on his return, we are confronted this year by an announcement that the matter has been decided by Order in Council; and apart from being told that the ambassador will be named, we are refused information in regard to the duties which he will discharge.

Sir, this is the way in which this autocratic Administration who have been sticking like leeches to the treasury benches have been conducting the affairs of the country. Not content with having been

elected under false pretences and through racial prejudice; not content with having burdened the taxpayers of this country with a debt that is appalling; not content with having placed that burden on the shoulders of the common people, the middle and poorer classes; not content with having done all these things; they are refusing now to the representatives of the people in this House the unquestionable right of inquiring into the affairs of the Administration, the right which was won after a bitter fight by Baldwin and Lafontaine, the men who won responsible government. I therefore can conceive no better phrase, no fitter word, no more apt sentence to apply to the conduct of the Government than the old Latin proverb: " Quos vult perdere Jupiter prius dememtat."