we get the 'money in any other way, and how much do we require ? In 1914 we imported from the United Kingdom nondurable goods to the value of $28,000,000, in round figures. As there are several commodities to which the increased rate does not apply, I put it down at $25,000,000, which, at 5 per cent, would yield us $1,250,000. In the same year we imported from the United Kingdom dutiable goods to the value of $100,000,000, in round figures, which, at 5 per cent, would yield us $5,000,000. So if my suggestion is of any value, we would require $6,250,000 to take the place of the revenue to be derived from the proposed increase in the British preference. I have on previous occasions pointed out to the House that pork, which is the chief food of the lumbermen and fishermen, is already over-burdened with taxes. It was my privilege and my duty to tell the Government led by my right hon. friend the present leader of the Opposition, that the duty on pork under the late Administration was burdensome. What is the result of increasing the duty upon pork by 74 per cent ? When hon. gentlemen do this, they add $1.50 to the price of each barrel of pork. In other words, the duty on a barrel of pork is now $5.50, and the fishermen pay three cents per pound into the treasury of the Dominion of Canada for every pound of pork they eat. Instead of doing that I would make the fishermen pay more on his tobacco. If he is
bound to use tobacco, let him use it and pay duty upon it, but make the taxes upon pork as reasonable as possible. I would suggest that the rate of duty on spirituous liquors be increased by 50 per cent and the duty on tobacco be increased by 25 per cent. The man who smokes a cigar is in a better position to pay an extra 25 per cent duty than the fisherman is to pay an excessive duty on pork. If this were done the money would be obtained without increasing the British preference. Money talks; it was Lloyd George who said that silver bullets count in this war; so do silver bullets count in connection with the tariff. I have had some financing to do myself; I have been mighty hard up some times, and I know what it is like. I know, too, what it is like to borrow, and I sympathize with the Minister of Finance in that respect. I put these proposals forth on my own responsibility; I have not suggested them to hon. gentlemen beside me, but I believe they are worthy of the serious consideration of the Minister of Finance.
I frankly affirm that I cannot agree with all my hon. friend's proposals. I do believe that he should not place upon the necessaries of life any additional taxation if it can possibly be avoided. No increase should be made in the taxation upon goods coming from the United Kingdom. It is my judgment that this is necessary not only in the interests of Canada and of the Empire, but in the interests of our standing in the Motherland as well. I concur, therefore, in all my hon. friend's proposals but one; this I do heartily, and with pleasure. I suppose that the suggestions I have made will not be accepted by hon. gentlemen opposite, but I submit them for their careful consideration. I realize that this is a solemn occasion; I realize that we have to do our duty by our homes and our firesides; by our country and by the Empire of which we are all so proud. I take second place to none so far as loyalty is concerned; I will hold the talismanic flag as high as any hon. gentleman in this House. I hope the Government will do their full duty under the conditions which now confront us. Circumstances may arise after the House is prorogued which may call for extreme exertion. And if they do call for extreme exertions, if the Government of the day use their best judgment and act wisely, they shall have my support and sympathy in everything that can be done to bring this war to a successful issue.
But let me utter one word of warning. While I say all this, the Government must
expect to be criticised for the management of this money. If they do not use this money economically and honestly, and see that it is administered honestly, they must expect to be called to account and to be criticised. That is our duty; we would fail to do our duty to the country at large and to our King if we did not hold them responsible for the proper discharge of their duties and a proper dispensing or paying out of this war fund. We undertake to return to the Imperial Government this money. We undertake to pay the interest in the meantime, and we are bound to see that those who have charge of the treasury benches so use their privilege that they can render an honest account, so that the people of Canada will be proud of the part which Canada has taken in the defence of the Empire on this momentous occasion.
Subtopic: THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic: PROPOSED WAR TAXATION.
Mr. Speaker, coming as I do from a county which is considered one of the leading agricultural counties of Ontario, I might say in the Dominion of Canada, I think it is my duty to say a few words with regard to the application of this Budget to the various industries in my county.
Before doing so I wish to tender my most hearty congratulations to the Minister of Finance for the very effici-cent manner in which he has conducted the finances of this country since taking office. His work during the past three years has shown the master hand, and his ability has never shone forth with greater brilliancy than in introducing this Budget. The minister was called upon to devise ways and means to meet extraordinary circumstances, which, have been brought about in this country by the war, resulting in a falling off of the trade of this country, with a consequent decrease in the amount of revenue collected and available to meet ordinary expenses. Then, too, several million dollars must be provided as a nucleus for a pension fund for our soldiers, and also a sum of $7,000,000 as interest upon the war loan, the $150,000,000 which has been raised for the purpose of mobilizing our soldiers and sending them to the front to fight in defence of the Empire. The minister had to devise ways and means to meet these expenditures, and in doing so he had a choice of three principles as the basis of the method of collecting taxation. Two of these principles have been tried in this country. We had the policy of revenue tariff which was tried some years ago, prior to 1878. It was then put in practice by a Liberal Government. That tariff was 15 per cent in the beginning, and was afterwards
increased to 17| per cent. It is unnecessary to tell the people of this country the position in which Canada stood at that time. It was anything but good; our manufacturing industries were closed, our labouring men thrown out of employment. As a result of that, the business men of this country sent a delegation to Ottawa to wait on Sir Richard Cartwright, then Minister of Finance, asking that he give a measure of protection to the interests of this country. However, he ignored their request, they had to go home unsatisfied. But it was not very long until a man rose to the occasion in the person of that great statesman, Sir John A. Macdonald. He espoused the policy of protection and made it a plank in his platform during the election of 1878, with the result that he carried this country with an overwhelming majority. He continued that policy of protection consistently for the 18 years that his Government was in office, subject of course to certain regulations which were necessary to comply with the needs of the country. During that time what were our Liberal friends in this country doing? They were still advocating a revenue tariff. In 1891 they advocated unrestricted reciprocity with the United States, and later on, prior to the election of 1896, they advocated free trade as they have it in Great Britain. During that time the people of Canada rejected these policies; they rejected the revenue tariff and also reciprocity with the United States; and prior to the election of 1896 Hon. Edward Blake, who was considered one of the leading statesmen among our honoured friends, challenged them before they talked of free trade as being practicable in Canada, to devise some possible plan whereby the revenue needs of this country could be met in any other way than by placing a duty on goods similar to those which were produced in this country. That was the challenge thrown out by the Hon. Edward Blake. The hon. gentleman opposite never devised any feasible plan nor have they done so up to the present time. What did they do? They were returned to power in 1896. They were not returned as a result of the policies which they had advocated, but they were returned on an issue that was foreign to the fiscal policy of this country. They had the opportunity of their lives when they came into office. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), a man of ability, I admit, had told the people of Canada that if he was placed in power he would give them free trade as they had it in Great Britain.
He told the farmers in this country that the manufacturers were nothing but a lot of robbers and that if he was placed in power he would abolish every vestige of protection. I say to the right hon. gentleman, and I am sorry he is not in his seat, that then was the opportunity, if he was -sincere in what he told the farmers of this country, to give free trade as they had it in Great Britain. But, Sir, what did he do? It has been said, and it has not been denied, that he gave an assurance in secret to the manufacturers of this country that, if returned to power, he would see that their interests were conserved and their protection retained. Let that be as"it may. We are satisfied that after Sir Wilfrid Laurier was elected in 1896 he took to his bosom the manufacturers of this country who, he claimed, were robbing' the farmers of Canada. During the election, I think in
Centre Toronto, Mr. Bertram, the Liberal candidate, was authorized to give the assurance to the manufacturers of Centre Toronto that their protection would not be abolished; and on the strength of that Mr. Bertram was returned as a supporter of the hon. leader of the Opposition. I will go further, and say that during the fifteen years the right hon. gentleman was in power he consistently carried on the policy of protection. What did he do when he went out of office in 1911, after he had entered into that reciprocity agreement with the United States, and was asking for the people's mandate upon it? He said to the manufacturers of this country: I have always befriended you, and I am going to befriend you still; I am going to see that your protection still remains; and he had nothing to say regarding the best interests of the farmers of Canada.
In this connection let me read what the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) -and I am sorry he is not in his seat-said in the reciprocity campaign. He spoke at a meeting in the city of Woodstock, and is reported by the Toronto Globe as follows:
He could not see that the manufacturers would be touched very much, as few articles manufactured in Canada were affected. He was sure the Bain and Woodstock wagon companies would compete in the world's markets, even with 2J per cent reduction in the tariff. He thought the manufacturers opposed reciprocity because of what might follow, the " thin edge of the wedge," but he had been assured by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding that nothing of the sort would follow. They had gone as far in the farmers' interest as they would.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier was asked whether he had given Mr. Nesbitt authority to give that assurance, and this is what he said:
The statement made by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) was quite consistent with our policy; it was nothing new, and he had perfect authority, not only he but every rn mber on the Liberal side, to make that statement.
The present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) asked Sir Wilfrid Laurier this question at that time:
Did the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance authorize the member in question to make that statement? v
And Sir Wilfrid Laurier replied:
I have answered that already. It is perfectly true. The hon. member for North Oxford and every Liberal member had such authority; he was not kept in ignorance of our policy in this matter and knew it well. He only stated what is our general policy.
I think that this is conclusive evidence that the Liberal party when in power were protectionists. The manufacturers were their friends to the very last. In 1911, the year the Liberal party went out of power- and it was the farmers of this country who put them out-the Liberal party said to the farmers: We ask you to sell your products in a free market, and to buy in a protected market.
What is the history of the fiscal policy of this country? From 1878 to 1911, when hon. gentlemen opposite went out of power, the policy of protection was consistently carried out. May I give some further precedents to show that the policy of protection is the only policy upon which to build up Canada as a great nation. Every country in the world, with the exception of Great Britain, is to-day fostering its industries under that very policy. We have Germany, a great country, a country which has developed her manufacturing industries and her agricultural industries until to-day she is able with a smaller area than the province of Ontario to support a population of nearly seventy million people. We have the United States, a great nation, which has developed wonderfully in the past under that policy. She has grown up under it, and to-day has a market of which hon. gentlemen opposite are jealous; they envy it, and that market was built up under the policy of protection. And that is what we in Canada intend to do. But I think I can hear the voice of my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) pointing, as always, to Great Britain as an example; but what are the facts in connection with Great Britain? Great Britain has free trade at the present time; but what were the circumstances in 1847, when she discarded the
protective tariff? She was supreme so far as the development of her manufacturing industries was concerned; she had cheap labour; she had great natural resources; her commerce reached out to every country in the world; and therefore Great Britain thought it was an opportune time to set an example to the other nations of the world. But that example was not followed by the other nations. To-day we see other nations forging ahead, and actually depriving Great Britain in her own market of the sale of many of her products for which she should have a ready sale at least in her own market. In view of all
this, I think the judgment of our Finance Minister is such as to be worthy of commendation by the people of this country. He has maintained the policy which has proved successful, not under the Conservative party alone, but under our Liberal friends opposite.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask, where stand our friends on the Opposition benches to-day? They have gone back to the old position that they held prior to 1896; they are back now to decrying the manufacturers of this country, calling them robbers, the oppressors of the farmers of this country, and every imaginable name that they can possibly get their tongues around. The farmers of this country to-day, of whom I am one, are intelligent people. They are not going to be misled by any political-I was going to say clap-trap, but I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you would rule that out of order-so I will say the farmers are not going to be misled by any political deception. The Liberals are telling the farmers to-day that the manufacturers have set out to rob them. It is very strange that, as soon as they get out of power, they should tell the farmers that the manufacturers are trying to rob them. That is very difficult to understand. Speaking as a farmer, speaking in my own interest as a farmer, and I have every respect for the agricultural class in this country and wish to see it succeed, I think it is the greatest mistake to try and create a cleavage between the manufacturing, agricultural and labouring interests in this country. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) last night said that protection is not a builder of industries. I disagree with the hon. gentleman in that regard. What do we find is the fact? Take the census of 1910. We find that there are no less than 19,000 manufacturing establishments in this Dominion and that these manufacturing establishments represent an
investment of $1,240,000,000, all of which is adding to the tax-paying power of the country. They have 500,000 employees in their employment paying to these men, as the reward of the labour which they give, the very large sum of $230,000,000 per year. This money which is being paid out in wages is distributed through the length and breadth of Canada and around these industries have grown up large urban centres. I might mention the city of Montreal with its half million population, the city of Toronto with its 400,000, London, Hamilton, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and many other places of equal note. What is the result? Where does the farmer realize the benefit from protection? These great cities that have grown up around manufacturing industries are affording farmers a great home market. That home market is consuming a very large percentage of our farm products. Notwithstanding that I think I can hear the echo of the voice of my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) when he puts up a very strong plea, a wail of pity, for the farmers of this country. He says that the poor farmer has to pay 7) per cent additional taxation on the fence wire and fertilizers which he uses. He says that this is a very heavy tax on the farmer; but why did not my hon. friend point out to the members of this House the increased market that this policy has built up for the farmer?
It has been claimed by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House-it was contended by the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean)-that this extra tariff of 7.) per cent would not be one that would bring very much revenue to the treasury. What does that mean? If it does not bring in revenue to the treasury it means this: We are now importing millions of dollars worth of manufactured articles. These goods, if they are right-and I am taking it for granted that they will be right -will all be manufactured in Canada thus bringing millions of additional capital into this country to build up additional factories, employing additional labour, paying out additional wages and, as a consequence, increasing the great home market for the faimers of Canada.
I was surprised the other evening to hear my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) put up a pitiful wail for the farmer of Canada. He said the farmer had to pay this additional tax upon the fertilizer which he uses, but in the next breath the hon. member said that he would like to have free food. He would like to se'e these things placed on the free
list. The hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell), I think in the session of 1912-13, was asked by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) if, should he get into power, he would abolish the duties on eggs, butter, and so on. The hon. member for Carleton said that he would, that that was his position. Then we have the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) yesterday getting up and declaring himself in favour of free food. What does that mean to tne farmers? I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite toappeal to this country on the freefood question. They are trying to draw a red herring across the trail, and they are trying to deceive the labouring classes in the cities in order to gain some political advantage. The good10 p.m. citizens of Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto or any other of the
cities, are too wily to be trapped by any such appeal as that. They know that protection means the building up of industries, that it gives them employment, and that they would not get that employment if these industries did not exist. They know that protection to industries cannot exist if you do not give protection to the farmers. The working man therefore says: If this policy gives me employment at a good wage I am in a position to pay to the farmer a fair price for the products that I use. If you will allow me to apply a phrase which the late Goldwin Smith used at one time with reference to commercial union between Canada and the United States, I would say that this great policy of protection couples together the interests of the manufacturer, the farmer and the artisan, that it puts them all together as one economic whole, and that if you destroy the interests of one you destroy the interests of all. The 'attempt has been made at various times in this House to show that the United States is a great market for Canadian farm produce. It was also declared here to-night that the farmer has nd protection upon anything which he has to sell. I want to read to the House the list of a few articles under the heading of provisions which come into Canada in competition with the farm products of this country. During the fiscal year 1914 we imported 8,000,000 lbs. of butter. We are not producing sufficient in this country to meet the demand. I contend that the additional 7) per cent that is levied by this Budget will be a great advantage to the farmers of Canada in conserving that market for them. I am going to give you
a list of articles that we import from the United States. During the year 1914 we imported from the United States 10,000,000 dozens of eggs. We are not producing enough eggs to supply our market, and therefore the additional tariff of 7J per cent is quite an advantage in our own- markets. We also imported 5,758,000 pounds of lard, lard compound, 9.34,000 pounds; bacon and ham, 7,150,000 pounds; beef, fresh chilled or frozen, 235,000 pounds; beef, salted, 1,496,000 pounds; dried or smoked beef, 1,204,000 pounds; mutton and lamb; 3,825,000 pounds; pork barrelled in brine, 11,950,000 pounds; or we took from the United States in the fiscal year 1914 no less than $7,615,000 worth of provisions. With the additional duty of 7J per cent, which is applied under this Budget, we give the farmers a very great advantage.
We have come to a period in this country where the cry is: "Back to the farm." It would not have been necessary for us to have that slogan sounded throughout the country, had the late Government given attention to the agricultural industry. In the county from which I come, and which is one of the best agricultural counties in this Dominion, under the Liberal Administration, in the ten years from 1901 to 1910, we lost nearly 8,000 of our rural population by migration from the farms to the cities. That looks very bad for the agricultural industry in my part of the country. Was anything done by the Liberal Government to remedy that condition of affairs? They had every opportunity; and if they had taken such a deep'interest in the farming industry, they would have in time applied a remedy. Nothing, however, was done, and to-day we are forced to use our utmost endeavours to get the people back to the land.
I must give this Government, under the leadership of the right hon. the Premier, credit for what it has done for the agricultural classes.
At the very first session of this Parliament there was a grant brought down by the Minister of Agriculture to assist the various provinces along the lines of aid to agriculture. At the succeeding session an additional grant of $10,000,000 was brought down by the Minister of Agriculture, that grant to be divided over a period of ten years, which would mean $1,000,000 a year to be given to the provinces for the purpose of assisting that great industry. That is having its effect at present, and the farmers have never been in a better position than they are in to-day.
Rural mail was introduced by my hon. friends opposite, but it is no credit to them, and if I were in their place, I simply would conceal that bit of information. They instituted the .rural mail delivery in some ridings where it was of some political advantage, and so it was used as a political expedient. Do you think the farmers in my riding could get rural mail under the late Government? No, but the farmers in North York and South Oxford and Wentworth and other Liberal ridings could. The present Government are now giving rural mail, irrespective of political considerations, to the farmers of this country wherever the population warrants it, and that is of great advantage to the agricultural industry, because of its convenience and the addition it makes to the comforts of farm life.
Parcel post is being initiated by this Government, and no doubt in time it will be very largely developed. I am sorry that the Postmaster General is not in his seat, because I wish to throw out a suggestion to him. The zone system was inaugurated in connection with parcel post for the protection of towns and villages throughout the Dominion from any encroachments or inroads which might be made upon them by the large wholesale businesses such as Simpson's or Eaton's, of Toronto. While it is perfectly right and proper to have that zone system to protect the small towns and villages, it is very unfair to the farmers living at a certain distance from Toronto and other large centres. People speak about the high cost of living. If we want to reduce the high cost of living, let us abolish that zone system on farmers' products coming from Western Ontario to the city of Toronto. It would be the means of giving to the people of Toronto cheaper ' farm products, and would be a convenience to farmers living more than twenty miles from Toronto. It is unfair to place an extra tax upon farmers living beyond the zone limit. A farmer living close to a city has a greater advantage because he has that home market at his door all the time. Therefore, I would suggest to the Postmaster General that he should take this matter into consideration and try to have the zone system not apply to farm products coming to the various cities in this Dominion.
We have done much to help the farmers of the West. In the first place I just wish to remind my hon. friends opposite who come from the West and who have been speaking about free wheat and the American markets, that if the people of the West want any aid, let them come to the province of Ontario, or to Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, and
we will willingly hold out to them a helping hand. We have helped them hy building up transportation facilities for them, and in many other ways. Therefore, I say to the western members: Be careful never to introduce a policy that will sever the connection existing between the East and the West. We have assisted the farmers of the West by building interior and terminal elevators. This Government has gone ahead with the building of the Hudson Bay railway, the contract for which was entered into and signed by the late Government. I was disappointed to hear the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) say that if he had his way he would tear up the rails on that road. Was the hon. member in the House when this road was initiated by his Government? The hon. gentleman does not answer my question. If he sat quiet in his seat and allowed a proposition like that to go through Parliament' without protesting, he did a thing that was very wrong in view of the opinion he holds. And had I done so, I certainly would not come to this House to condemn that road and say I was in favour of having it torn up. I have better hope for that road and I hope that it will prove a benefit to the people of the West.
This Government has removed the duty on ditching machines. Under the late Government they were dutiable, but as so.on as this Government came into power they placed these machines on the free list, a decided benefit to the farmer.
Another very important matter is the reduction in duties on agricultural implements. This Government has reduced these duties from 174 to 124 per cent, giving to the people of the West a greater advantage than the late Government was giving under the Reciprocity Treaty of 1911. When cement became scarce in this country and the price was extortionate, this Government cut the duty in two in order to secure this article to the people at a reasonable price. This is an illustration of the vigilance exercised by this Government in maintaining the interests of our agriculturists.
The hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) asked what advantage it would be to the people of Canada to have a tax on wool. If these gentlemen were looking to the interests of the farmers, they would see what advantage it would be. The sheepraising industry of this country has been ruined; our farmers had to go out of the business, for they had to compete with the world, and prices .were low.
Subtopic: THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic: PROPOSED WAR TAXATION.
Probably the hon. gentleman has no faith in protection. In speaking to his friends on the quiet, I think he will admit next year that bis profits have been greater than this year. It is strange that the hon. member for North Oxford should say that the extra duty on fertilizers and fencing wire will be a burden on the farmer because they will cause him to pay much more for the goods, and yet that it is no protection to the farmer to have a duty of 74 per cent placed on the wool he sells. If the hon. gentleman thinks that is a logical way of treating this argument 1 am satisfied.
While this Government has done much for this country, there is something else that can be done. If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) were in his -place I would throw out this suggestion: We have millions of acres of waste land in this country. We are talking about greater production, we are talking of back to the land. There is nothing that would give a greater incentive to greater production than giving the farmers cheap money to drain waste lands. We have millions of acres of these lands; and is it unreasonable for me to say that money should be given to the farmers at 34 or 4 per cent to carry on the work of drainage? In the province of Ontario we have a fund to assist tile drainage. But if a farmer wishes to take advantage of the system he cannot get the money, because the fund is so limited. This Government is giving assistance to agriculture. Why cannot they give assistance to the province to provide a fund that shall afford farmers money to drain their farms at a reasonable rate? Under the Drainage Act, for instance, the security is good and there is no obstacle in the way-our municipalities are the security under this Act. In one township municipality of my riding the amount ex-
pended in drainage is a quarter of a million dollars. Repeat that all over Canada and it means a very large amount. The farmers cannot afford to pay 5| or 6 per cent for money to be invested in the drainage of these waste lands. While I admit that the condition of agriculture is improving, I say that it can be still more improved. No people in this country are more deserving than the agricultural class. Theirs is the basic industry of this country, and they are certainly deserving of the attention of any Government.
In my opinion, the time for free trade or a revenue tariff policy in this country has gone by. There was a time when it would 'have been possible to treat on free trade lines with the United States. I refer to the time of the termination of the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, and that termination, I believe, was brought about in 1866. The people of Canada, both Conservatives and Liberals, asked for a renewal of that treaty. It was of advantage to Canada at that time -we had no other markets. But we were turned down by the United States. As a result the fathers of Confederation met and in 1867 they laid the foundations upon which to build a great nation here in Canada. In accordance with the principles adopted at that Confederation we have built our transportation lines east and west and are developing trade along those lines. Are you going to enter upon a policy that would ruin the transportation lines of this country, disorganize trade and make us again subservient to the United States, the very party that turned us down when we wanted a favour? I say no. I say the people of Canada will never submit to such a policy; and any party that goes to the people making any such demand of them will be rejected at the very first opportunity.
In conclusion, it is to me a pleasure indeed to have the opportunity of serving under the leadership of Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Laird Borden. He is a man of whom this country feels proud; he is a broad-minded man, and a worthy successor of that great chieftain, Sir John A. Macdonald, who so loved this country that he said: "A British -subject I was born and a British subject I will die."
Mr. ARTHUR B. COPP (Westmorland, N.B.): In the few observations that I purpose making to the House this evening on the -subject matter of this debate, it is not my intention to follow the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mi. Bowman),
in his attempt to defend the Government for the condition of affairs which is set out in the Budget laid before the House by the Finance Minister. I may -say, however, that I was extremely pleased after listening for a short time to that part of my hon. friend's speech which had reference to protection, to hear him at last admit that the policy laid down and followed by the Liberal party during the fifteen years they were in office, was the very policy that he himself advocated. He said he was delighted to be able to say that credit was due the present Government for reducing the duty on agricultural implements coming into Canada from the United States. If it is a good thing to reduce the taxation on agricultural implements coming from the United States into this country for the use of our agricultural classes, would it not be equally beneficial, I ask my hon. friend, to reduce the taxation which is now imposed on other articles and commodities which the farmer needs ?
I was somewhat afraid when my hon. friend offered his congratulations to the right hon. Prime Minister that he might place the right -hon. gentleman on a plane equally as high -as that which the hon. Finance Minister himself, according to his own statement yesterday, has attained. If the hon. Finance Minister had been here, I suppose the hon. gentleman would hardly have had the temerity to -say what he did in reference to the right hon. Prime Minister this evening.
My hon. friend argued this matter from many different standpoints. I should not have -asked the indulgence of the House to-night were it not for' communications which I have received from my constituents in the county of Westmorland and from persons in other constituencies thoughout. the province of New Brunswick in regard to matters affecting the agricultural welfare of this country.
I listened attentively to the hon. Finance Minister when he presented his statement to the House the other day, and I want to do him the honour of saying that I rather admired the ability and ingenuity with which he carried out the task of presenting to the House in a most optimistic manner the most pessimistic Budget or financial statement ever offered to any Parliament by any minister of finance since Confederation.
When the hon. junior member for Halifax, who, 1 believe, is called the financial critic of the Opposition, replied to the lion. Minister of Finance, I think I may be pardoned
for saying that he performed the task assigned to him with a very great deal of ability. In a calm, deliberate, dispassionate, but none the less emphatic and convincing manner, he laid before this House his ideas and his arguments with regard to the finances of Canada. He showed by facts and figures-and this has been admitted by all lion, gentlemen opposite who have spoken in this debate-that a serious condition of affairs prevails in Canada at the present time. It is not my intention to go through the Budget from beginning to end, with the intention of quoting figures or making computations or comparisons; that has already been done by my hon. friend the financial critic of the Opposition. I have listened day after day to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, with the hope of hearing some answer to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Halifax. .
The first hon. gentleman to volunteer his services in the defence of the Government was my hon. friend the member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell), who is not now in his seat. After some general arguments as to the public expenditure of this country, and an elaborate exposition of the made-in-Canada propaganda, he finally disposed of the argumnts of the hon. member for Halifax in the following crushing and trenchant manner:
I desire to say a word or two about, the Budget. I believe that this Budget has been received with more satisfaction than any Budget ever produced in the history of this country. There has been little criticism of the Budget so far as I am aware; we know that party criticism creeps to the surface at the slightest opportunity.
After a few sentences in regard to the wonderful Budget brought down by the hon. Finance Minister, he concluded by saying:
What does my hon. friend suggest in substi-. tion of the Budget that has been brought down?
Subsequently the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) disposed of the arguments of the hon. junior member for Halifax in the following words:
It would be far better for him (Mr. Oliver), and better also for the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) to have taken the Minister of Finance and the rest of the Government party into their confidence, and told them how to construct this Budget, and wherein they are in error.
These hon. gentlemen, if we take them seriously, think that it is the duty of the Opposition to instruct hon. gentlemen opposite how to construct their Budget and arrange their tariffs to suit the conditions as they exist.
The right hon. leader of the Opposition yesterday informed the House that he had not been consulted in regard to the framing of the proposed tariff schedules in any manner, shape or form. I do not claim that the right hon. leader of the Opposition had the right to be consulted on that occasion, but if he was not consulted, why do hon. gentlemen opposite ask hon. gentlemen on this side of the House to instruct them as to how to arrange their tariff legislation?
I would say further that if these gentlemen are sincere there is one way, the constitutional way, to get information from this side of the. House. In the first place, if they found themselves absolutely incompetent or unable to grapple with a question as they apparently have admitted they are, it is their duty to go to His Royal Highness the Governor General and hand him their resignations in a proper and constitutional manner. If that were done and my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) were recalled to office he would do as he did in 1896, when on assuming office he found a condition of affairs similar to what we find to-day, and he at once, by his ability, in a systematic and businesslike way, restored calm and confidence out of confusion and chaos. He did this in 1896 and he would do it to-day and do it without imposing additional taxation upon the poor people of this country. That is my argument in answer to hon. gentlemen opposite when they ask us on this side of the House to come over and tell them what we would do under the circumstances. It reminds me very much of a young physician who, shortly after commencing practice, being unable to properly diagnose a case, saw his patient becoming gradually weaker, until when the patient was in the last throes he called in a more experienced practitioner. The doctor thus called in said it was too late, that the patient was beyond recovery. The young physician then said: " What
would you have done under the circumstances?" Our friends on the other side see ruin and bankruptcy in Canada, as they say in effect, and find that they have to impose a direct tax on the people to carry on the ordinary affairs of the country; and then they say to us: What would you do
under the circumstances? I think that is not a fair proposition. While during the last year I was not a member of the House and do not know just what attitude members on this side adopted towards the appropriations of last year, I do not think that we should be held responsible for last year's
expenditures. That money was voted and that money and more has been expended. But when lion, gentlemen ask suggestions from this side of the House in regard to the ensuing year, our friends on this side have said again and again that they believe the proper thing for the Government to do is when they find themselves face to face with this unparalleled condition of affairs in Canada, to call a halt and consider where they are drifting and what they are doing. Every hon. member should be honest and fair with regard to this matter.
The hon. members for St. John and Halifax made the suggestion to my hon. friends that we believe the proper thing to do was to curtail the expenditure. The line of demarkation between the hon. gentlemen opposite and hon. gentlemen on this side of the House seems to be something like this: Our friends opposite say that it is the duty of the Government to spend money freely and lavishly, to go on with all public works to as great or *a greater extent than in the past for the purpose of keeping our men employed and at work throughout the country. To a certain extent that is a fair argument. We on this side of the House have suggested that instead of placing increased taxation on the people of this country for the purpose of keeping men employed by extensive public works in Canada the Government should curtail, not stop absolutely, the public works.
Hon. gentlemen oppfjsite have spoken as if we proposed to stop all public works. We would not stop all works but, instead of increasing the expenditure and taxation, we would curtail expenditure and keep taxation at the present level or possibly a lower level. That is the line of cleavage between the two parties in this House. The proper course for the Government would be to retrench and curtail rather than continue the lavish expenditures of the past two or three years, an expenditure which has rendered it necessary for them to levy direct taxation. I believe that in approving of such a policy as this I am voicing the sentiments of my constituents.
My hon. friends3 hearts apparently bleed for the workingman. I do not want to suggest the least trace of insincerity on the part of the hon. gentlemen; but I do say that the man who makes the most money out of public expenditure is not the man who uses the shovel or the pick or the man who goes down and does manual labour; it the contractor wrho holds the big contracts who makes the big money out of public expenditures in
Canada. Therefore I say that the ordinary individual as a rule would be better off if the expenditures were curtailed to some extent, and thus save the workingmen the increased burden of taxation. I spoke of the workingmen not getting proper treatment at the hands of the contractors. I would remind the House, and the Minister of Railways particularly, that after the war had been declared in August last, when the manufacturing concerns in our town were closed and the workingmen were walking the streets without money to pay their rent or to buy succour and clothing for their families, the Government purchased or agreed to purchase a certain line of railway running from the town of Sackville on the Intercolonial to Cape Tormentine; a distance of 40 miles. I am not criticising that action, because I am in favour of the taking over of branch lines, and this was a branch line that it was proper to take over. But the road was in such condition that the Government had to start at once to make repairs on the same. And I want to tell the Minister of Railways, whether he knew it or not-I do not suppose he did-that while our local labouring men were walking the streets of Sackville, this Government brought in foreigners, a large proportion of them Austrians and Germans I am informed, to do that work. I think that was an unreasonable and unfair thing to do. Our local men were entitled to the work on that road, but instead of that they were put aside and foreigners brought in.
My hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) in addressing this House the other night made what struck me as rather a peculiar criticism of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. First of all he talked about a party truce; and I am not here to say anything for or against the truce except this. It has been said that a party truce had been arranged. Personally I know nothing about whether such a truce was entered into or not. I do know that before war was declared the leader of the Opposition had arranged to hold some meetings in large constituencies in the West in the interests of the Liberal party, and, incidentally, if they were in the interests of the Liberal party they would be in the interests of Canada; but immediately on the declaration of war the right hon. gentleman cancelled all these engagements. The war session of this House was called, and so far as I have been able to hear from hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House there was absolute unanimity in regard to the war measures brought down in that session.
Suggestions have been thrown out from both sides of the House that even during that period there was not strictly a truce, as literature was being sent out from the printing bureaus because it could be franked and go free. I do not know anything about that. Before the present session was called,
I presume that some truce was arranged in regard to filling the vacant constituencies, and as a result of that I had an easy way of entering this House, and I appreciate the honour of representing my constituency. But if I felt that in coming to this House in that way I was sanctioning any party truce, that my tongue was bridled, that I could not offer criticism in regard to the matters that I believe to be deserving of criticism, much as I appreciate the honour of representing my constituency, my conscience would not have allowed me to accept the nomination and a seat in this House. That is my feeling with regard to the party truce. Following the party truce still further, the question of an election arises. But I am not here to discuss the question of an election. I think I know enough about politics to know that the Government of a country are not influenced very much by what an Opposition may say as to the right time to hold an election. I do not expect this Government to take us into their confidence, or to be influenced by anything we might say in regard to an election. But I think I am voicing the sentiments of every hon. member in this House when I say that no one who has been through many campaigns is anxious to start on another one. We all fight rather shy of elections, the Government as well as the Opposition. Let me say further that I should not consider myself worthy of the honour of representing my constituency if I allowed myself to be influenced in what I believe to be proper criticism by the fear that my sayings might bring on or put off an election, or that the question whether there would be an election or not should influence me in refraining from offering what I believe to be just criticisms on the actions of the Government. Following the remarks of my hon. friend from East Lamb-ton, he said that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House were embarrassing the Government. Well, that is-an admission to begin with that the criticisms being offered are somewhat embarrassing. He went farther and said that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House were rising in their places and trying to embarrass the Government with their criticisms, at a
time when it was confronted with one of the greatest crises in the history of this country. I grant that. But I want to say that the Government are not the only ones concerned in that question; the people of Canada are confronted with the same question. I believe I am voicing the sentiments of every man, woman and child who knows what war is, when I say that every one in this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific has just as much at stake in this war as any member of the Government and fully realize that responsibility.
Subtopic: THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic: PROPOSED WAR TAXATION.
Even including the Finance Minister. My hon. friend from East Lamb-ton painted a beautiful picture of our gallant soldiers marching to the front and going into thie trenches, while hon. gentlemen on this side of the House were embarrassing the Government by their criticism. If the hon. member had gone a little further he could have painted a better picture. He might have made it more explicit, more emphatic to the people of Canada. When he pictured our gallant soldiers going into the trenches., he might have said that they were clad in khaki uniforms bought from political friends at a very large profit, their feet encased in shoes made of split cowhide with shanks of wood and paper manufactured by unscrupulous dealers without proper inspection and making a handsome rake-off on the transaction. But my hon. friend did not go quite that far. He shed copious tears over the fact that we were embarrassing the Government. He might have shed a tear for our gallant soldiers who for months or weeks, whichever it may have been, were exposed in this class of boots to the wet and slush of the training grounds of Yalcartier and of Salisbury Plain.
The Montreal Daily Star, discussing the boots worn by our gallant soldier boys, says that it-is more than a scandal-it is a crime. That is the evidence and information we have in regard to this boot question. If everything in connection with the equipment, supplies, and munitions of war had been carried on in an honest and fair manner, then I say that the criticism we have to offer to this Budget should not embarrass the Government; it should be a distinct advantage to them, for it gives them an opportunity of explaining away all the suspicions which my hon. friends opposite say they have not heard of.
Let me tell my hon. friends, if they have never heard it, that this country is seething with suspicion in regard to public contracts for materials for war purposes. We are not breaking any party truce, we are not doing any more than our bounden duty in pointing out to the people what has been done and what we believe has been done. We have voted $50,000,000, which has been expended during the past six months, and $100,000,000 more is to be voted by this House. I have not heard a single suggestion which would indicate that any hon. member of this House was not perfectly willing to vote $100,000,000 and, yea, more if necessary. My hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) hit the nail on the head the other night when he said that we are prepared to give millions for defence but not one dollar for graft. Yet we are told we are disloyal because we offer these criticisms and because we call upon the Government to show that there has been no graft in connection with these contracts.
So much in a general way. I said at the outset that I wanted to speak particularly for one or two classes of people. I am .sorry that I have not had the experience of the hon. gentleman who told us this evening that he was a farmer. He said that he believed that the Government had done more for the farmers of Canada than any Government has done for many years. I am not in a position to say whether they have or have not. I do not want to offer any undue criticism of the Government in regard to any matter in which they believe they are doing the right thing. I do not know anything about the farming industry in the province of Ontario, but I know something of the agricultural interests in the province of New Brunswick. I speak more particularly of this matter because I have been asked in numerous letters and telegrams that I have received from my own constituents to bring up the question of fertilizers and agricultural implements on which the duty will be increased by the tariff arrangements that have been brought down by the Minister of Finance. Many of the letters and telegrams I have received are not from political friends of mine, but are from very strong supporters of the Government, who,
I suppose, will continue their support.
I am not here talking politics. I want to draw to the attention of the Government as seriously as I can the condition of the farmers in my own province, especially in the county which I have the honour to
represent, and to point out how they are affected by this proposed duty on fertilizers. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance says they must have a certain amount of revenue, that they need money, that money is the backbone of the war and- of the country and that they must have it. I have no quarrel with my hon. friend in regard to that. I may have a tender feeling for the farmer, but I do feel that this proposed tariff arrangement places entirely too heavy a burden upon the agricultural industry of this country.
My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) the other night referred to the question of fertilizer. I want also to refer to this article which is so important to the farmer. I understood the hon. gentleman who preceded me to say that they did not use a great deal of fertilizer in Ontario, and that it was not in as general use there as it was in the maritime pro-inces. I am sure that they use very little of this fertilizer in the western provinces, because the peculiar soil which they have there does not require the use of large quantities of fertilizer for the production of crops. Those who are attempting to make a living on the farms, of the maritime provinces have to depend almost entirely upon fertilizers for plant food. The farmer in the maritime provinces has not the large acreage that the farmer in the west has. The farmer in New Brunswick with a farm of 50 or 75 acres is considered to have a large farm. The farmer who undertakes to make his living off 50 or 75 acres, or even less than that, must have a very large yield per acre; therefore he must use a great deal of fertilizer to secure that large production per acre.
An hon. gentleman who addressed this House a few days ago only told
11 p.m. half the story when he said that there had been only $45,000 paid in duty on fertilizers imported into this country during the fiscal year ended March, 1914. He referred only to the manufactured article used by the farmer. He left out the ingredients that go to make up this compound, and most of which ingredients have hitherto come into Canada free. The increased duty on compounded and manufactured fertilizer upon the basis of our importation during the fiscal year 1914 will be $46,438.55. Then, we must take into consideration the ingredients that go to make up the manufactured fertilizer that is imported and manufactured or mixed at home. The increase on acid phosphate alone will be $7,356.07. In
addition, there were free imports of blast furnace slag, phosphate rock, fish offal and refuse, crude bones, bone dust, and charred bone, guano and other manures, nitrate of ammonia, kainit and potash, chlorate of potash, potash muriate, and nitrate of potash, amounting to $1,008,539 on which the duty will be, under the 7J per cent increase, $75,640,.42. The whole increase to the
farmers on fertilizer imported into this country will therefore be not $45,000, but $75,640.42. The whole increase to the
is a mere bagatelle. In view of the fact that the largest quantity of this fertilizer is used in the maritime provinces it means quite a large bagatelle to the farmers in that part of the country.
That is not all the burden that has been placed upon the farmers and agricultural people of our country by the proposed increase in duties brought down by the Minister of Finance. Take the very question that my hon. friend spoke about with regard to the agricultural implements that are being imported into Canada. Take the customs returns for the year ended March 31, 1914, and take the different machinery, such as cream separators, ploughs, mowers, fencing, barbed wire, spring wire, threshing machinery, cultivators, seeders, manure-spreaders and other items, and you will find that the increased duty that will be imposed on the farmers of this country will amount to $701,727.37. It is really a direct tax on the farmers, although imposed on the articles indirectly. Seeds, which were formerly on the free list, are now subject to a duty of 7i per cent, and on seeds alone
the duty amounts to $15,705.71.
Let me recapitulate as follows:
Increased duty on fertilizer .. $130,435.04 Increased duty on farm machinery, wire fencing, etc 701,727,37
Increased duty on seeds .. .. 15,705.71
The farmers of this country will have to pay that amount in excess of what they paid under the late Government for the things they must have for their farm work. It is more than a mere bagatelle to the farmer. That amount, however, is not the worst feature of the tax on the farmers. While the farmers are paying that amount to the Dominion Treasury, they are paying to my good friends the manufacturers of this country the sum of $2,543,604.36. I estimate that on the basis that, for every dollar's worth of goods that we import from foreign countries, we use three dollars' worth of goods manufactured in our own country. I believe the proportion is even greater than three to one. I have no
quarrel with the manufacturers. While I am referring particularly to the case of the farmers and agriculturists, I have never had occasion during my short political career, when referring to matters such a? this, to offer sympathy to the farmers. Sympathy is not what they want. They are not beggars. They do not want sympathy, they want fair treatment. You are treating the farmer fairly when you are giving him-as the old Government did- fertilizers practically free. Until 1913 he had his fertilizers absolutely free because the basic slag was brought in free. If I remember aright, during the session of 1913 the Government, or the Board of Customs, arbitrarily placed basic slag among the manufactured or mixed fertilizers with a tariff rate of 10 per cent. That was done upon the request of one individual who manufactured basic slag in Cape Breton, in the province of Nova Scotia, in order to assist this firm in maintaining high prices and thus sacrificing the interests of every farmer in Canada to that extent.
My hon. friends have spoken considerably and we have seen a great deal of advertising in the press supporting the Government in regard to the patriotism-and-production campaign. That is the splendid phrase and I think there is nothing that would so please the people of this country as to realize that this Government is giving them something in the way of patriotism and production. I find that my hon. friends from New Brunswick have beeh holding a number of meetings under that heading. Those meetings are held, as I understand, under the patronage of tne Minister of Agriculture of this Government, in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture of the Provincial Government. In the county of Westmorland they have been telling the farmers how they can increase their production. I was somewhat sorry to find that the gentlemen who were going through the county of Westmorland telling the farmers how they could get a bigger production on the farms were a dental surgeon, Dr. Price, from the city of Moncton, and a merchant, Mr. F. B. Black, from the town of Sackville. I want to be absolutely fair. They had with them a gentleman by the name of Mr. Blair. I do not know what position he holds, but I suppose he is an agriculturist. I do not want to say anything that would be offensive, but it seems to me that the meetings held throughout the province of New Brunswick, under the patronage of the Minister of Agriculture, who has not been able to be in the House
for some time, and of the hon. Minister of Agriculture for the province of New Brunswick, instead of having as their object patriotism for Canada and greater production on the farm, they have as their object patriotism to the Conservative party and the greater proportion of Conservative votes in the province of New Brunswick. That seems to be more in keeping with the attitude of my hon. friends in the province of New Brunswick. The Government should consider well what it means to a -very great portion of the population of this country to increase the duties on the raw materials of the farmers who use them to turn out their finished product and give it to the people of this country.
Now, I wish to follow that line of argument for a moment, and I promise you, Mr. Speaker, that I will not draw it out too long. For every dollar of extra cost you make the farmer pay in carrying on his work of production, with a view to building up these great cities which, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bowman) says, are built up by the protective tariff, you make the consumer pay on the goods that he and his family consume. There are to-day in this country many men who are not able to earn even the necessaries of life; and as soon as the duties are increased and it costs the farmer more to produce his bushel of wheat or oats, his ton of hay or his pound of beef, that extra expense goes to the consumer of that article. And the consumer for whom I speak especially, and speak with all sincerity, is the workingman of our country. When the Government levy taxation upon a class of people who are not able to pay it, they are doing injustice to the country, and I believe that they will regret in a short time that these taxes are imposed upon the people.
I have numerous letters and telegrams dealing with these matters. It seems very strange to me that hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the other side have declared that the farmers are absolutely satisfied, that they have not had a single comment to show that there is any opposition to these measures. I would not like to insinuate that these hon. gentlemen have had suggestions from the farmers, but I should like to know what the Acting Minister of Agriculture must have thought as his supporters one after another have arisen and declared that they have had no word from their constituencies with regard to this matter. Do the Government say they have had no protest from New Brunswick with regard to increasing the duty on fertilizers?' We have the
evidence of the Minister of Agriculture of the province of New Brunswick himself, who speaks officially for every farmer in that province, that he had sent in protest after protest to this Government in regard to fertilizers. Yet hon. gentlemen say that everybody is satisfied and everybody loyally willing to pay these taxes. No doubt they are loyal, and those of them who are able to pay are quite willing to do so. But you cannot get blood out of a post, and there are hundreds, and thousands, and tens of thousands of men in this country to whom the imposition of this unjust and iniquitous tax will prove a heavy burden and one, that 1 believe, they will not be able to bear. If hon. gentlemen opposite have heard nothing against this measure, I should like them to read the Farmers' Advocate, a farming journal published in the province of New Brunswick. Here is a long article-I do not propose to read it-giving a most logical and cogent argument against this increase in the duties.
Subtopic: THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic: PROPOSED WAR TAXATION.
of carelessness or laxity in respect of the Intercolonial railway. I do not believe that the hon. Minister fully realizes what this railway means to the people of the maritime provinces. Hon. gentlemen have heard this question discussed year after year in an abler manner than I can ever hope to discuss it, even if I had time. The Intercolonial railway was built by the Dominion of Canada as a bond of confederation between the maritime provinces and the great provinces to the West. Many things, perhaps, were done in the early days of our history that would not be done under the present conditions; many things are done to-day which would not have been carried out then, but if it were not specifically set out clause by clause it certainly must at least have been implied that the Intercolonial railway should be built and operated to give the people of the maritime provinces an efficient and up-to-date service. To-day the Intercolonial railway is not being operated in the interests of people who live along the line. The hon. member who represents the county of Colchester (Mr. Stanfield) as well as other hon. gentlemen who represent constituencies served by the Intercolonial railway, will agree with me in this assertion. The taking off of the Ocean Limited, the best train that ever ran from Halifax to Montreal, makes the Intercolonial railway subservient to the Canadian Pacific railway. It takes away the traffic, and the man going from Halifax to Montreal who in nine cases out of ten would take the Ocean Limited, to-day takes the Canadian Pacific railway because it saves time and is a better service. My hon. friend says that the Ocean Limited will be restored as soon as trade brightens up; but by that time travellers will have become accustomed to using the Canadian Pacific railway, and it will be difficult to induce them to change back. The people in northern New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia I believe are greatly dissatisfied with the present condition. The Minister of Railways and Canals has increased the freight rates on the Intercolonial railway and makes the excuse that he does this because he wants to make the Intercolonial railway, as far as possible, a paying institution. I would advise my hon. friend, instead of increasing the freight rates on the people who use that road, to cut down the salary of the manager of the Intercolonial railway from $20,000 to $10,000 and save money there, instead of increasing the salaries of the higher officials. The gentleman who to-day is living in Ottawa on a superannuation retiring allowance looked
after and ran the Intercolonial railway as well as it is run to-day, and I think the largest salary he ever received was some $6,000 a year. For the same work to-day, if you figyre out the number who are employed as assistant superintendents and this, that and the other, you will find that where it formerly cost the Dominion of Canada fr im $6,000 to $10,000 it is costing now from $60,000 to $70,000 for the same service. While we pay the extra wages, we are not getting as good service as under the old arrangement from our old friend who for so many years so ably presided over the destinies of that railroad.
Many things have been said during the debate contrasting the administration of the present Government and the late Government. Taking the pledges and platforms of the two parties and reading them as they have been read during this debate, we find a wonderful conglomeration of platforms and promises, fulfilled and unfulfilled. But that is neither here nor there; the people of Canada hold the present Government responsible for the present situation of affairs in this country. They are the gentlemen who are responsible. My hon. friend may talk about the Liberals and we may talk about the Conservatives; these are the fashionable names for the parties. But we can go a little further, we can refer to the Liberal party as the revenue tariff party, believing in as much interchange of commodities with foreign countries as possible, at as low a tariff rate as possible and with as many items on the free list as possible while the other party believes in high protection. Go a step further down and it is nearer the truth to say that the Liberal party is the party whose main object is the interest of the masses of this country, white the Conservative party is the party who has the interest of the classes at heart. It is for the people of this country, comparing the record of the Liberal party for the fifteen years of their administration and the Conservative party for the three years they have been in power, to make their choice; sooner or later the record of these parties and the present condition of the country must be left to the jury of our country, and whatever their verdict may be the members on this side of the House will be satisfied to abide by it.
On motion of Mr. Ball, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
Subtopic: THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic: PROPOSED WAR TAXATION.