1910-11-28

[Stage Direction]
Arthur Gilbert, Esq., member Tor the electoral district of Drumomnd-Arthabaska, introduced by Mr. Monk and Mr. Paquet.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved:: That a message he sent to the Senate to inform their Honours that this House has appointed Messieurs:	Aylesworth, Daniel,
Lewis, Beland, Doherty, Monk, Borden (Sir F.), Foster, Pardee, Borden (Halifax), Laurier (Sir W.), Pugsley, Bristol, Lemieux, Smith (Nanaimo), Brodeur and Wilcox.-17. A committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the Library of Parliament, so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a Joint Committee of both Houses on the library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Wilfrid Laurier: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House will unite with them in the formation of a Joint Committee of both Houses on the subject of the printing of parliament and that the members of the Select Standing Committee on Printing, viz.:	Allen, Maclean,
(York), Rhodes, Bickerdike, McColl, Taylor, (Leeds), Bristol, McIntyre, Taylor (New Westminster, Douglas, McLean (Huron), Fowke, Magrath, Verville, Gervais, Martin, White (Victoria), Henderson, Murphy, Wilson (Lennex & Addington), Hughes, Nantel, King, Pardee.-25. Will act as members on the part of this House, on the said Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BLACK moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 15) to amend the Canada Medical Act.
Wilfrid Laurier: Explain please.


Mr. BLACK.: This is an Act to amend the present Canada Medical Act, sometimes known as the Ruddick Act. The pro-visons of the Bill are not many, nor are they important, except one which is intended to provide that any medical practitioner entitled to practise medicine in any province in Canada may be entitled to practise medicine all over Canada. This is the main feature of the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: I would ask the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to have the Public Accounts Committee called for its first meeting at the earliest possible moment. I would suggest to-morrow morning. There will be a good deal of
work before that committee, and the sooner it begins that work the sooner the session will conclude. I believe that sometimes the organization of this committee has been delayed for a couple of weeks, or even three weeks, which has been found very inconvenient. It seems to me that not a minute should be lost, but that we should endeavour to get through the business of the House and committees as speedily as possible.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection to the suggestion although perhaps, to-morrow morning will be found too early a date. I will ask the Chief Whip of the government side to have the meeting called as early as possible-if not to-morrow, then the day after.


Robert Laird Borden: I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether or not the Auditor General's Report and the Public Accounts have been referred to the Committee on Public Accounts.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think that, as a rule, that is not done until the close of the debate on the address.


Robert Laird Borden: In this connection I would remind the Prime Minister of a suggestion made by my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) last session that not only the Auditor General's Report for the year just closed, but also that for the previous year should be referred to that committee. The Prime Minister, if I remember correctly, expressed himself as in favour of that last year when the subject was mooted. I merely mention it now that he may take it into consideration.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not sure that I expressed an opinion on that subject last session-probably I did. On these matters I am usually advised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) who, unfortunately, is not here at present. I will consider it, however.



TRANSPORTATION OF ANIMALS- ALLEGED DISREGARD OF RULES.

Mr. O. J. WILCOX (North Essex).: I desire to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) to a statement which has been made to me, that the regulations for the transportation of animals between Canada and the United States are being disregarded, especially on the Wabash railway. Rule 3 provides:
All empty cars, whether of Canadian origin or not, entering Canada from the United States must, if not already showing evidence of having been so treated, be thoroughly cleansed and disinfected to the satisfaction of the inspectors of this department, otherwise they will be returned to the United States.
And section 6 provides:

After May 31,	1905, all cars conveying
swine from the United States into Canada, whether intended for transit to some other part of the United States or to points in Canada, must be fitted with ten-inch foot boards in a manner satisfactory to inspectors of this department.
It is very important that these rules should be strictly lived up to. In the county of Essex, which is one of the chief hog-producing counties of Canada, hog cholera broke out recently along the line of one of these railways. This is a very serious matter to farmers of that county, and no doubt, the minister will give it his attention.


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: No complaint has reached me on this subject, nor has any reached the department so far as I know. But I will certainly draw the attention of the officers in charge to what has just been stated. I quite agree with the hon. member (Mr. Wilcox) that these rules should be strictly and efficiently enforced.



ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. McGiverin : for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General, in reply to his speech at the opening of the session ; the proposed amendment of Mr. Monk thereto, and Mr. Borden's proposed amendment to the amendment.
Mr. MARTIN BURRELL (Yale-Cariboo).: Mr. Speaker, in the remarks I made before the adjournment of this debate on Friday night, I referred to the speech of the mover of the address (Mr. McGiverin) and spoke of the character of the debate up to that time and endeavoured to draw a few lessons from the tour of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in the west. The mover of the address dwelt on the great events, advances in the trade and commerce of the country during the past year using these words:
Reports from every section of the country show that it is only the ordinary general growth of the nation's trade, commerce and industry which is responsible for this wonderful showing.
These are wise words; and I think that when we are not playing to the gallery, we can all readily acquiesce in the statement that the intelligence and energy of the Canadian people, and the wealth of Canada's natural resources are the real cause of the prosperity of the country, and we should be less hypocritical if we acknowledged this frankly instead of trying to strengthen the government of the day by ascribing to it prosperity with which governments often have little to do. That government, after all, is the best which places Mr. WILCOX.
the fewest restrictions possible on its people, and which gives assistance, generous assistance, when that assistance is clearly in the interest of the whole state, and where honesty, coupled with efficiency, is the keynote of its administration of public affairs, and whose appointments to public office are [DOT]based solely on the merits of the appointees and are not of the nature of rewards for party services. We on this side claim that it is the lamentable failure of this government to reach these ideals that makes the strongest count against the present ministry. And, strong as is the indictment against the government on account of its naval policy, not less strong is the case against the government for the mal-admin-istration of public affairs, and its long and persistent refusal to investigate the great departments of state, and its equally persistent refusal to consult the people on matters of great national import-for, after all, they are the servants and not the masters of the people. It is this last indictment which is the subject matter of the amendments which are now before the House, and I propose to deal with them both in a general way, and also in relation to the question of the navy which has formed the special feature of "this debate. Government speakers have put before the House, and have endeavoured to establish before the country a number of propositions. The first which I have noted-and I have followed the various speakers pretty carefully-is the statement that the Conservative party is in alliance with the Nationalists, and has instigated or connived at unpatriotic, unworthy methods in the recent by-election in the province of Quebec. Around this the battle in this debate has raged. The most desperate arguments have been used by hon. gentlemen opposite to explain the shattering of the prestige of my right hon. friend in the province of Quebec. Assertions have been made, and methods adopted' in this House, even by a minister .of the Crown, that were absolutely unworthy of parliament; and my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Mr. Perley), who has the unqualified respect of every member of this House, had to rise in his seat the other day and repel an insinuation made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) which should never have been made on the floor of this House. That insinuation was not the only thing which disfigured the speech of the hon. minister-in fact there were few redeeming traits in it. One of the pitiable features of the debate was the exhibition given by my hon. friend the member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) on Thursday night. My hon. friend was apparently put up to defend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and explain away the regrettable incident of the cartoon displayed by him.

But the more the hon. member from South Grey explained, the more apparent became the predicament into which the minister had fallen, and the worse his conduct appeared, so that he might well have exclaimed :	' Save me from my friends.'
I am sorry the hon. gentleman is not in his seat, but his explanation reminded me of a story about a man who shot his neighbour's dog, and I think it so applicable that I cannot refrain from giving it. A certain man shot his neighbour's dog by mistake and the neighbour, who was very furious, demanded an explanation. The offender attempted an apology and an explanation at very great length. In explaining the accident he got very excited, and in showing how, as he was shooting at a bird, the dog came between and got the charge, he pulled the trigger and shot his neighbour. In due course the coroner and his jury sat upon the corpse and called on the accused to explain his conduct. The accused, in the course of his explanation, again became very excited, and in showing how the accident occurred he again unconsciously drew the trigger and this time shot the coroner. Without any more ado, the jury hastily discharged him for fear he might attempt an explanation of the last casuality and kill some one else.
I do not think that the country has been edified by these laboured and clumsy attempts of the hon. gentleman opposite to explain away their defeat in Drummond-Arthabaska. The wound was so deep that government supporters have done little else *but talk about it since and make every effort to explain it away. But judging by what has transpired in the debate so far, what regrettable things may have been said by supporters of the Nationalist party in that election have been exceeded by prominent members of the party opposite, including cabinet ministers. For my part I can only say that, as regards any unpatriotic or unworthy statements made by speakers, whether on the side of the Nationalists or of the Liberal party, we entirely repudiate them and disassociate ourselves from any such expressions of opinion. But my right hon. friend the Prime Minister cannot complain of what has happened. He knows perfectly well that he and his own supporters sowed the seed of which these manifestations were the harvest. My right hon. friend is given to quote scripture occasionally. Let me recommend to him a text out of one of the minor prophets which says : 'They have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind '. We are told that the Nationalists, in that campaign, fought against the idea of a more intimate union with the empire and preached a policy which involved abstention by Canada from all imperial
affairs. If that be so, I can only say that I entirely dissent from that view and am entirely convinced that those who hold it very greatly misunderstand the spirit and trend of the times. When in my district this summer, at Vernon, my right hon. friend declared that the Conservatives in the province of Quebec did not want to fight for England. I think that such a statement was hardly worthy of the right hon. gentleman. I do not want to press the tu quoque argument but I cannot help pointing out to the right hon. gentleman that he himself and his friends were not in the past very sound on this question. True, during this debate we have had some expressions of a desire on their part to fight anywhere and at all times for the British Empire. And to the extent to which the expression of that sentiment is sincere, from whatever side it comes, we may say that we have gained something from this storm of controversy. But it looks to me as if the right hon. gentleman, realizing that his party has become shattered and destroyed in the province of Quebec, is now going around and trying to capture the other provinces by making a strong imperial appeal to their sympathies.
The right hon. gentleman did the Conservatives of the province of Quebec rather scant justice in this matter, for if I understood my hon. friend from LCslet (Mr. Paquet) rightly, he closed his speech with these words :
We are willing to shed our Mood that Canada may he preserved to England. I will go even further; we are prepared to give up our blood in the conflicts of the empire, if only a majority of the Canadian people be ready for such a sacrifice.
This is a very noble sentiment. It is that if the people of Canada declare that they want to assist the empire the province of Quebec will do its share even to the shedding of the blood of its citizens in defence of that empire. I do not see what more the Prime Minister can want.
Let me say that in so far as the election in Drummond-Arthabaska was fought on the ground that the naval policy of the government should have been submitted to the country, I say that to that degree the defeat of the government candidate was a vindication of the best British constitutional practice.
The second proposition put before, this House again and again and before the country by hon. gentlemen opposite is that the policy of the Conservative party is a policy of cash contribution to Great Britain. After the clean cut, masterly and inspiring speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden)-a speech which constitutes an epoch in the history of this mat, ter, an utterance characterized by a spirit

of the highest statesmanship and most lofty patriotism-after such a speech one would have thought that we would have had no more misrepresentation along this line. But I notice that the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Fowke) again asserts that this was our policy and the right hon; the Prime Minister himself made a similar assertion this summer in my riding. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) down in the province of Quebec also declared that our policy was a direct cash contribution.
The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) also dwelt on this matter and said that if we had given this contribution we would have placed ourselves in an unfortunate position. That gentleman said some pleasant things about the amendment proposed by the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) last year; I only regret he could not have seen his way to say them at that time. The hon. gentleman's speech was in some ways one of the best we on this side of the House have listened to from hon. gentlemen opposite. It is true that the words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but from some passages that occurred in the speech it was quite evident that there was war in his heart.
The arguments that have been advanced by hon. gentlemen opposite against a contribution have constituted an attempt to prove the non-existence of any critical condition of imperial affairs at the present time, and to show that a contribution in money would be absolutely destructive of our autonomy. The hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Fowke) spoke of this crisis being due to the yellow press of England, a remark which I think is hardly in order. Nor will the protests of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) along the same line carry a great deal of weight. I shall quote one or two higher authorities than these gentlemen. One of the foremost living authorities on European affairs, Lord Rosebery, spoke these memorable words some months after the passage of the resolution of March, 1909:-
I do not know that in some ways I have ever seen a condition of things in Europe so remarkable, so peaceful, and in some respects so ominous, as the condition which exists at this moment. There is a hush in Europe, a hush in which one might almost hear a leaf fall to the ground. There is an absolute absence of any questions which ordinarily lead to war. . . . All, then, for bodes peace, and yet, at the same time, combined with this total absence of all questions of friction, there never was, in the history of the world, so threatening and overpowering a preparation for war. That is the sign which I regard as most ominous.
It was not therefore a crisis of the moment but a critical condition of affairs Mr. BURRELL.
which might extend over a period of several years that we on our side of the House designed to meet, a period during which gigantic and ominous preparations were and are being made. Can any man in this House, can any man in his senses say that we of the great Dominion would not have been justified in rendering assistance to Great Britain that was real assistance? The moral effect of it would have been incalculable and the result of it would have been that Canada, the greatest Dominion of the empire, would have been represented by two fighting vessels of the first-class instead of by paper cruisers, cruisers for the construction of which tenders have not yet been called. Those who talk autonomy, those who labour this word, and the dangers of losing autonomy, have a strangely limited conception of what the empire is. Why ^ should such action as we proposed impair our autonomy? I pointed out last year that if we contributed two battleships to_ Great Britain, these battleshins would still be in a real sense our battleships.
Let me quote the words of another great English statesman on this particular idea. The Hon. Alfred Lyttelton, used these memorable words:-
I quite agree that money contribution is an admirable way, but in my opinion it is not the best way to assist, yet it is very often the only way in which assistance can be given. I do not think that it contains in itself the slightest reflection upon autonomy-not the slightest; it is often the expression of the best way that the Dominion has of giving the assistance ... A good way to resist such an attack is to make the contribution take not the form of an annual grant, but a grant of such a sum of money as will build a ship, which will make a nucleus for effort and aspirations in the future, for the officering and ultimately even for the commanding of the ship by the citizens who have found her. And if I may be allowed to say a few words more, may I observe that whatever great dominions offers the imperial government a ship, I believe it is the case that that ship cannot be built or equipped in the dominion from which it proceeds, that it cannot at present be manned or officered effectively in the dominion from which it proceeds. My suggestion, therefore, is that the ship take her position as an equal amongst all the ships of His Majesty's navy; that she should be named, say after the colony, or after the dominion, which has found her; that the aspirations should be that she should be manned and officered ultimately by the citizens of the dominion, and so that she should not be of merely great and important assistance, but that she should be an objective, an aspiration for the national and martial feelings of the dominion which has shown such generosity.
The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) last year laboured this question of autonomy and his supporters followed suit. One would have thought we were back in the reign of George the Third to hear these

gentlemen, and that our self-government, our freedom, was being wrested from us by some violent attempts on the part of British statesmen. I do not think any gentlemen opposite will contradict the assertion that, there is not a responsible statesman on either side of politics in Great Britain to-day who does not rejoice in our freedom and in the full control that we have over our public affairs. They know that this freedom-and here I am quoting from Mr. Asquith, the leader of the present Liberal government,-that this freedom, allied to an ever-growing sense of unity, constitutes the secret and the safeguard of the empire itself.
It is to be hoped that there will be no more misrepresentation along this line, because there have been many misrepresentations up and down the country, largely I think the result of ignorance as to what Conservatives have said, as to what their position means. Only the other day the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) built up a superstructure of that kind, as was pointed out by the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). It is to be assumed that he did this out of ignorance as it would not be right to assume that he did it knowingly. Others who have misrepresented us have evidently done so through not being familiar with our programme.	.
Another fundamental difference between the government policy and our policy was forcibly pointed out by the leader of the opposition when he referred to the necessity of central control as making for the supremacy of the imperial government in time of war. One navy, said the leader of the opposition, with co-operating fleets which would co-operate, not fleets which might or might not co-operate according to the will of the government, because we have had the Prime Minister's own words that in such a war as the Crimean war he would not agree that the Canadian navy should take part and we have had remarks of that kind, and we have had strong efforts put forth in constituencies in Que-^ by supporters of the government, to show that the chances are that nothing would be able to force this Canadian navv into war for Great Britain.	'
[DOT] ,Mr.'McKenna, the First Lord of the British Admiralty urged the necessity of recog-nizmg_ the navy as imperial and not local. Me said:-
The navy problem of defence is one and the same the world over, and the maintenance of the supremacy at sea is the maintenance of supremacy in all the seas alike.
Sir, on June 7 of last year, Lord Rosebery in that speech to which I have already referred, a speech on imperial brotherhood, preceded by the playing by massed bands of The Maple Leaf, the Song of Australia,
and Rule Britannia, a speech which it is said could have been made by no other living man, described what the visitors' from the Dominions would see, and he closed with these words: ' And, last of all, surrounding all, and guarding it you will see a prodigious Armada, a prodigious, but always inadequate Armada. All of these are yours as much as ours. Your possessions, your pride !'
It is futile for the hon. gentleman opposite to say we had accepted the government position and had then gone back on it. It is idle for Nationalists to stamp the proposals as similar. Our complaint is that, having passed a resolution approving imperial defence in close co-operation with the imperial authorities, this government did not follow the admiralty suggestions and advice, advice resulting from long and ripe experience with large naval problems. My hon. friend the member for Red Deer supports the government policy because he finds it universally acclaimed in Great Britain. Expert opinion has by no means given -unqualified approval, but my hon. friend is not so foolish as not to know that his statement stands for nothing. Nobody knows better than he that any step we took however halting, would be welcomed and approved by public men in Great Britain. What has Mr. McKenna said?
If any dominions came to the admiralty at home, here and asked ns what our view was as to the best assistance for the purpose of a common defence which may be rendered, we should be ready with the answer, but we should not necessarily expect you to accept our answer. .	. . We will
assist in every way in our power, and whatever be the method by which we are asked to assist.
That is the case, the British Admiralty have assisted in the way they were asked to assist by this government. It is true that we may learn much from our own mistakes, but some mistakes are too costly and it is because we believe the government policy to be a mistake that we condemn it, and we take the solid ground that on so complicated a matter as a permanent policy the nation has a right to be heard and the refusal to grant this right is the rock on which the government will split. The British navy is our pride. More than ours, and I call the attention of the House to that fine tribute paid by the distinguished American who addressed the Canadian Club in this city on Saturday. ' Every man, woman and child should know it in his heart that the most important institution in the world to-day for human peace and justice, and maintaining of the great highways of trade is the British navy.'
' Your navy,' says Lord Rosebery. 'Your possession your pride,' and the answer of

the Prime Minister goes back, ' I am not an imperialist, I am not an anti-imperialist, I am for Canada first, last and all the time, and we are starting a navy of our own.'
'This British navy is your navy,' says Britain.'
' Certainly,' says the Prime Minister, ' What is yours is ours, and what is ours is our own.'
Mr. Speaker, permit me to point out the absolute failure of the government to follow out the best traditions of constitutional practice in this matter. In modern parliamentary government, 1784 marks the first time in which it was clearly recognized that the people were to be the great factor in public affairs. Mr. Pitt, who had remained in power in spite of hostile majorities in the House, advised dissolution, was granted it, and was sustained by the country. In regard to this Lord John Russell in his ' Memorials of Fox,' says:
The precedent of 1781, therefore, established this rule of conduct, that if the ministers chosen by the Crown do not possess the confidence of the House of Commons they may advise an appeal to the people, with whom rests the ultimate decision.
Later parliamentary practice in Great Britain, and elsewhere in the empire, has always, as we know, followed this precedent, and it stamps our form of government as being more strictly representative than that of one, like the United States foi instance, which has a fixed term.
But, Sir, there is much more than this. It may happen that although an administration is not defeated in the House its strength may have waned; popular opinion may have so changed, especially as some question or other of grave national importance has arisen, as to render it advisable to ascertain the true feeling of the country and enable the people to express it by a renewal, or a refusal of their confidence in the government. It is this phase of our constitutional practice which does in very truth make it essentially a government by the people, and it is the ignoring of this which stamps a government as autocratic and not democratic. My hon. friend the member for Red Deer, who is well versed in the political history of Great Britain may wish me to cite cases, and 1 will do so, and I trust that he, who so loudly and so constantly shouts for freedom with a big F, and for the right of the people to govern themselves, will re-examine himself, and see if his attitude of last year, and again this year, is not at strange variance with his political theories and convictions.
But, Mr. Speaker, we have a new Daniel come to judgment, a new interpreter of constitutional practice, a new exponent of parliamentary methods-the Minister of Marine and Fisheries-and I propose for a Mr. BURRELL.
moment or two to examine the extraordinary doctrines laid down for the House's edification in the minister's speech of last Wednesday.
It is a little difficult to summarize the minister's arguments very clearly because he has confused the whole matter by assuming that it was a plebiscite, and not a general appeal to the country, which was under discussion. It seems to me the minister must have done this purposely-I am of course open to correction-but, if not, purposely, then with so great ignorance of the facts as to make his position equally inexcusable. The member for Jacques Cartier clearly speaks of a general appeal, and not a plebiscite, in his amendment, and in any case the minister must have known perfectly well that it was an appeal to the people by a general election that the leader of the opposition emphatically urged last year. I agree with the minister that some questions are so complex that it would be difficult in adopting the plebiscite to so frame the question that a plain yes or no would answer it. Honourable gentlemen who think they can, would do well to recall that story of the celebrated Bi-adlaugh who refused to answer a question in public debate on the ground that he could not say yes or no. He was taunted by his opponent who said: * Why, certainly, you can answer any question you like by plain yes or no.' Mr. Bradlaugh asked him then if he had given up beating his wife? Honourable gentlemen will see the predicament he would he in if he had said either yes or no. There are some cases in which a plebiscite might be efficacious but certainly not such a one as the House is now discussing. Now, Sir, what does the minister say in Hansard, at page 168? These are the remarks of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries:
But, Sir, the fact is that the referendum or plebiscite is not in harmony with British constitutional practice. We have responsible government, we have a government of the people by the people, and if the government fails in its duty it may be overthrown to-morrow and a new government put in its place.
I take it that the reference is to the House of Commons.
In the United States the constitutional practice is different, because there the president and the congress is elected for a determined and a fixed period and it is their policy in some instances to submit important questions to the vote of the people. But, under the British system of parliamentary government the plebiscite is not in accordance with the constitutional practice and consequently it is not appealed to. And in addition to that, in my opinion it is very much better that the judgment of the people should be taken on such questions when the elections come on and then we will know exactly where we stand.

It will be observed how limited is the minister's conception of true, popular representative government. The people may express their will, he says, either when the ministry is defeated in the House of Commons-an unlikely thing in this country, where we are prone to stick hard and fast to party, or ' when elections come on '- ' come on ' certainly meaning at the expiration of the parliament's term. This is had enough, but later on the minister puts himself in a much worse position, and I could wish that my hon. friend from Red Deer {Mr. Clark), who has been promoted to the fifth bench on that side of the House, could have moved down to the third, behind the minister, and could have advised him on these high matters before the minister so hopelessly committed himself to unfortunate positions and pronouncements.
Let me refer now for a moment to British examples-I must heartily apologize to the House for taking so much time, and I too may he accused of threshing out old straw, but my conviction that the people's right of consultation has been flagrantly disregarded in this whole matter is so strong that I hope I shall have the pardon of the House in an endeavour to make our position perfectly clear.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister may remember that on Pitt's death Lord Grenville, in January, 1806, formed a coalition government, known as ' The Ministry of all the Talents.' Fox, who had come round to the opinion that it was necessary to prosecute the war with France with increased vigour, was a prominent member of the cabinet. Nine months after the ministry had taken office, Grenville resolved to appeal to the country. There had been no defeat of the government in the House, which my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries seems to think even yet is the only justification for an appeal to the people. Fox had died recently; some doubts were felt by the government as to whether the people endorsed their attitude in regard to foreign affairs, and the Prime Minister determined to submit a question which profoundly affected the nation to that supreme arbiter-the popular will. There were many who thought no sufficient reason existed for dissolution, there were those who preached the doctrine advanced by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, viz., that these things should wait, as he put it the other day,
' until elections come on.'
In advising dissolution, Lord Grenville used these words:-
Fyr myself, sacred as I hold every prerogative of the Crown, I feel that His Majesty's servants are answerable for the advice which they give His Majesty for the exercise, or for abstaining from the exercise, of every one of them.
He defended his action by saying-and I 11
[DOT]*
am giving a brief digest of his argument as reported in the Parliamentary Debates-that if at any moment of history the exercise of the prerogative was wise and proper it was upon this occasion. He urged that the empire had gained immeasurably by the unanimity expressed by the people in regard to the vigorous prosecution of the war, and by their approbation of the steps taken by His Majesty's ministers.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, as in 1784, the doctrine had been clearly laid down that a government must appeal to the people when defeated in the Commons, so, in 1806, the further practice was established that on matters of grave national import a government was justified in appealing to the country, though no defeat of their policy had been sustained in the House. I particularly commend this to the consideration of the right hon. gentleman who leads this House, for he prides himself on his love of democracy and in his careful following of the practices of the mother of parliaments.
But, Sir, I might cite an equally strong case, and one which is being conducted at the present time before the eyes of all men. A Liberal government in Great Britain after a tenure of office similar in point of time to that of Lord Grenville's, has decided to make its appeal to the country. Lord Grewe states emphatically that dissolution is not the result of a breakdown of the conference, ' but-' and I use his own words.
But of the fundamental disagreement which is known, not merely to the eight men, but to all persons in a prominent position in either party.
We all know that the veto power of the Lords was freely discussed at the last general election though the budget may have been the main issue, but Lord Crewe added:
I doubt if there is any guarantee that the Lords will pay any attention to government views if they discuss either the power, or the reform of the House of Lords in this parliament. The circumstances justify us in appealing to the verdict of the country- and by the verdict of the country given at a general election, we are content to abide.
Well, Sir, as in 1806, so in 1910, there are those who think dissolution an abuse of the prerogative of the Crown by the ministers. My right hon. friend's former supporter, and latterly his bitter critic, Mr. Joseph Martin, denounces dissolution as absolutely unjustified. Lord Lansdowne points out that the government has received no parliamentary check, and that such a course was ousting parliament from a proper opportunity of discussing a question which the government had promised full discussion of when the Bill to which the veto-resolutions were only a preliminary, was introduced. I am not going into the question of whether that dissolution was or was not justified,



and I am not foolish enough to think this House would care a rap as to my particular views, but I desire to emphasize the point that here is a Liberal government in Great Britain going to the country after less than a year's tenure of office, having received no defeats in the House. Why? Confessedly to obtain the verdict of the country on a great question which, though partially discussed, was still a question on which they had received no clear mandate from the people.
Mr. Speaker, I have endeavoured to give a fair presentation of the facts connected with constitutional practice, and I now ask the Prime Minister in the light of these facts where he and his government stand at the present time in the eyes of the people? He will not deny that so tremendous a step as the creation of a costly navy in this country is not a fit matter for the people to give their mandate on.
He will not deny,-he dare not deny-that so short a time ago as in 1907 he flatly refused to support a general scheme of imperial defence. He will not dare to urge that in the general elections of 1908 the question was made in any degree or measure whatsoever a question for popular discussion, for approval or disapproval by the people. But in spite of that failure to seek or obtain a mandate he does what no responsible minister in the mother of parliaments has ever done, or would ever do. He admits in his letter to ' La Presse ' on November 17, that there is a misunderstanding in the country as to the naval policy-but he persists in declining to hear the verdict of the people-I leave Jt to the judgment of this House whether I am not right in insisting that this government is autocratic and not democratic in its character and practice?
What does the Prime Minister say in that letter to ' La Presse ' to which I have referred?
I know that in the country districts a false idea has been spread of the navy which, in concert with my colleagues of the cabinet, and the majority of the Houses, I have undertaken to create.
' I '-not the people-I, with the assistance of my majorities in the Houses-supporters too many of whom wear that collar to which the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) referred. ' I ' have created. This is the colossal egotism-this is the ar-rogation of supreme authority which invariably precedes the debacle ! Canadians, who years and years ago entered into their inheritance of freedom and self-government, are startled by hearing a new doctrine announced by the Prime Minister-the doctrine of ' government of the people and for the people '! That last vital portion of the older democratic faith * by the people,' is eliminated in the new creed. Blind to a Mr. BL RRELL.
true vision of the present time, obstinate in the face of repeated warnings, my right hon. friend will realize these things only when the hour is too late to Vepair his irrevocable mistake.
Sir, before taking my seat, there is one matter in connection with the amendment and with this debate which it is necessary to touch very briefly. The hon. member for Red Deer finds a valid and sufficient reason for opposing the amendment in the confusion which would result in the country if the amendment carried. Ho says (' Hansard,' p. 311):-
The only outcome of the carrying of the resolution would he the precipation of a general election, and X want to ask my hon. friend who occupies the responsible position of leader of the opposition if he thinks it would tend to build up the empire or the Canadian nation that a general election should be precipitated on this delicate question of the foreign policy of the empire, and the imperial connection?
In answering that I must again direct my hon. friend to that modern constitutional authority-that modern substitute for Todd and May-the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. On page 168 of ' Hansard ' he says
But we are not afraid of the judgment of the people; on the contrary, we are in favour of consulting the people. There will be that consultation when the elections come on, and at that time the people will know exactly where they are. They will know, as they know to-day, the policy established by the government. They will know the policy of the Conservative party, generally speaking, because that party is in favour of a contribution.
Strange to say, a little later on the minister swallows his words, and in arguing against a plebiscite on the naval policy, says:-
That being the case, would it be advisable, on a question on which the issues are not well determined, a question on which the policy of either party is not fully understood, to take a vote of the people?
And finally he says:-
If, on appeal to the people, it be found that our policy does not accord with public opinion, the people will have the right to reverse that policy.
Sir, the grievous wrong which this government has inflicted on the people is that on this, as on that other question of the Grand Trunk Pacific, they have committed the country, tied the people hand and foot without their consent, and then, while unctuously stating that the people have a right to reverse that policy, have dared them to do so by shouting the ugly words ' repudiation,' ' breach of national faith,' or by lamenting, as my hon. friend from Red Deer does, the confusion which would ensue

if the government were defeated. By such an argument my hon. friend stultifies and condemns himself, for his failure to support an appeal last year before the country was committed, and offers the flimsiest of defences for the over-riding of popular rights. Sir, if the people condemned this government, which I believe they would do if appealed to, they could then, and would, safely entrust the solution of this great problem to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, resting assured that the national honour would be upheld, and national aspirations be realized.
Here, in my closing word, is the Conservative position, clearly defined and nobly expressed bv it3 leader:-
1.	Effective and immediate aid to the empire at any moment that the integrity- the safety-if that empire may be endangered or threatened.
2.	A policy of one central control in time of war as an essential factor in maintaining supremacy at sea.
3.	A firm belief that these two aims can be achieved, and are absolutely consistent with the fullest development of our liberties as a self-governing people.
4.	And lastly, that in the formulation of a great permanent naval policy, which so vitally affects the nation, the people have an absolute and indisputable right to be consulted.
This, Mr. Speaker, is our position, this our confession of faith, and this it is which gives me at once justification and pleasure in voting for the amendment of the leader of the opposition.


Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt).: I do not propose to follow the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Burrell) to any extent. I think hon. members will agree with me that the hon. gentleman's speech has the face of a familiar friend, and is of a familiar flavour. I give the hon. member (Mr. Burrell) the credit for having in perhaps some parts of it committed it to memory a little better than he did last year, but so far as I have been able to follow his arguments they appear to me to be a sort of resume of those which he put forth last year in favour of the peculiar position of the opposition on the question of the establishment of a Canadian navy. Now, Sir, it is not my intention to discuss at any great length the amendments which have been placed before the House by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and by the hon. the leader of the opposition, because it seems to me that so far as discussion on the floor of the House goes, enough time has already been taken up this session and last in placing before the people of Canada the various views held by different members of this House on the question of Canada's policy in the matter of national defence, lit
We on the government side do not need to reiterate or explain our position, for our position has been consistent from the introduction of this question of national defence in this parliament until now. By common consent in this House a resolution was adopted in March, 1909, which appears to place this important subject outside the realm of partisan discussion. On the motion of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), and subsequent amendment of that motion, it was unanimously declared by this House that there devolved upon this parliament of Canada the duty of providing for our own national defence upon the sea. That question seemed to have been satisfactorily settled on that occasion. But, when the leader of the government introduced his Naval Bill, which was so fully discussed last year, the members on the government side of the House found to their very great surprise, that the leader of the opposition and his followers had taken another view of the situation-or, as an hon. friend near me suggests, other views. They no longer felt in duty bound to support the declarations to which they had given their unanimous consent less than twelve months before. My hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) may argue this question till he is black in the face, and so .may hon. members on that side, but they will not be able to convince the great mass of the people that the Conservative party has not broken their faith and gone back on the pledge which they gave to the people in their support of the resolution of March, 1909. As the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo devoted so much time to quotations from constitutional authorities on these important matters, I would have liked him to cite a case in the history of any civilized nation in which the question of national defence was put before the people in the form of a plebiscite.


Martin Burrell: Do I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Neely) to ask me the question?


David Bradley Neely: Yes.


Martin Burrell: My answer is that I told the House that I was not in favour of a plebiscite, and that I was not arguing in support of a plebiscite.


David Bradley Neely: It would appear to be an absolute impossibility for any member on the government side to follow the wanderings and meanderings of hon. members opposite, my hon. friend (Mr. Burrell) included, on this whole question of what the Conservative policy is on the subject of naval defence. Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the policy of the Conservative party last year was not in favour of a plebiscite?


Martin Burrell: Certainly.


Mr. LENNOX.: Anybody would know that.


David Bradley Neely: I must say that so far as I am concerned, and I think I can say so far as many members of this House, and the people of the country generally are concerned, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Burrell) will have to give some other explanation.


Martin Burrell: May I be permitted to say?- I voted against a plebiscite last year; I have never been in favour of it.


David Bradley Neely: Yet the hon. gentleman is supporting now the amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), and I would like to know if the elements of a plebiscite are not in that amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes, they are.


David Bradley Neely: I say again that these hon. gentlemen cannot get away from the point that last year they were in favour of referring the government's naval policy to the people of the country-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. NEELY-in a referendum,


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read it again.


David Bradley Neely: I am not a lawyer and am not accustomed to splitting hairs ; I look at this question and the attitude of hon. members opposite toward it as the people of this country generally regard it and as they will regard it when they decide by their vote as between the parties on this question. I contend that this question of national defence is outside the realm of plebiscite or referendum, from the very fact that it is a duty devolving upon the government of any self-governing colony and any civilized country. There is, to my mind, no reason whatever why this question should be referred to the people, either by plebiscite or any other means, except, of course, in the usual way. The people of this country will have an opportunity, at the next general election, to say whether or not they are content with the naval policy of the government, and I venture to say that that will be quite soon enough for hon. gentlemen opposite. I simply wish to point out to the House again, and to emphasize, the equivocal position of the opposition in this House on this great question. They tell us that they have never receded from their position in 1909. Why, Sir, that is a preposterous notion, when we have before us the resolution of 1909, and the speeches of the leader of the opposition in the summer of that year explicitly declaring in favour of a Canadian navy. It is quite beyond my comprehension how hon. gentlemen Mr. NEELY.
opposite can expect the people of this country to believe that they have taken a consistent course on this naval question since it came before this House.
Now, as I said when I arose, it is not my intention to discuss at any length the various views taken by hon. gentlemen on the other side on this question ; nor is it my intention to discuss the amendments before the House, because there are other matters in connection with the speech from the Throne, to which, I think, as a western man, it is my duty to give some small attention.
In his address in reply to the mover of the address, the leader of the opposition saw fit to make reference to a number of questions of moment, questions that are pressing upon the minds of a great majority of the people of the west. And he turned to his followers from the western provinces as if to throw them some little sop of comfort as to his attitude towards the people of the west and the questions that are at present agitating the minds _ of those people. One of the questions which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) discussed was the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. We all know that the construction of the railway is of vital moment to the people of western Canada. We are also convinced in the west that it is of great importance to eastern Canada. I cannot conceive that such a great undertaking, which is bound to benefit so directly and largely the people of western Canada, can in any way work detrimentally to the interest of the east. Still it was with considerable satisfaction that I heard the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) state explicitly that the two great parties were agreed on this point, that the construction of the Hudson Bay railway was an imperative necessity. That statement is a matter of some satisfaction to the people of the west. We all know that it is the fondest ambition of the leader of the opposition to occupy some day the seat now filled by the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and I am glad indeed to know in advance that if the hon. gentleman should ever attain the position-and I trust that the day when he will do so is still far distant-I am glad to know that he will then be in a frame of mind which will enable him to realize the great needs arising out of the growing prosperity and the growing population of our great prairie provinces. There is only one thing I am afraid of in connection with the statement of' my hon. friend the leader of the opposition on this question, and that is that when the Hudson Bay railway scheme is submitted, the hon. gentleman will find himself in the same position as he did when we came to discuss the Navy Bill.

The policy of constructing the Hudson Bay railway will be all right, but the government proposal will be so absolutely wrong that no railway at all will be better than one built as the government propose to build it. That no doubt will be the conclusion arrived at by the hon. gentleman. But whether or not the hon. gentleman be to-day in favour of the Hudson Bay railway scheme, I want to assure him that wdrenever that railway is actually completed and in operation-as it will be very soon-none of the credit will belong in any sense to the leader of the opposition. Let me remind the House that the construction of this road was a part of the Liberal platform at the last general election, and the time, the place and the circumstances in which the leader of the government made the announcement of his policy to build that road are evidence of his sincerity of purpose. I had many times looked over the various planks in the platform upon which the Conservative party appealed to the people at the last general election, and I have failed to find out one reference to this great undertaking.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), for some reason or another, has but recently become alive to that fact that there is a territory in the Dominion, west of Lake Superior. No doubt some of his friends from the west have been giving him a little education on this subject. This past summer we had the honour in western Canada of a visit from the right hon. the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the hon. the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham). 1 have noticed a disposition on the part oi certain western Conservative members to rush into print with statements to the effect that, in so far as the political value of that western tour was concerned, it all redounded to the benefit of the opposition.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


David Bradley Neely: My hon. friend says hear, hear. If that be the conclusion of these hon. gentlemen, why should they have deemed it necessary to rush into print in order to make public what to them appeared so self-evident. We out west were glad to have that visit from the first citizen of Canada. We were glad if only for the reason that no matter what party may be in power, that party must recognize the fact that the west is developing very rapidly and that our rulers must visit that country frequently in order to keep in touch with its marvellous progress. I am rather inclined to think that these references to western questions made by the hon. the leader of the opposition were due to the visit of the right hon. gentleman and his Minister of Railways to our prairie provinces this year, and I am very glad indeed that we have this tardy recognition on the part of the leader of the opposition. It is not my intention to discuss any particular plan or scheme which the government may adopt regarding this Hudson Bay railway, because that would be speaking in advance of a measure not yet submitted to us, but let me say this that the opposition to that railway, shown in certain quarters in some of the eastern provinces, is absolutely unfounded. We in the west believe in the necessity for this railway, first of all as a colonization road. In that part of the country to be opened by it we believe there are unlimited resources of various kinds as yet practically untouched by the hand of man. I have been looking through the reports of the engineers who have been surveying the route, and I find that some of them speak in very glowing terms indeed of the territory through which this road will pass. In fisheries, minerals, agricultural lands and particularly in timber, the district will be found an exceedingly profitable one to develop, and exceedingly profitable for the operation of a railway. So that, if only as a colonization road, it is the duty of this government to carry out this project at the earliest possible date. Certain engineers have this summer been looking up the water-powers, and one of them, Mr. Ogilvie, in a recent interview, made the statement that nowhere in Canada could more valuable water-powers be developed at less cost than at the Nelson River rapids. I think he said for instance that the chief rapids of the Nelson river would furnish in the neighbourhood of
1,000,000 horse-power at very small cost, so that at least a portion of the railway could be operated from these immense water-powers if it should be found too expensive to operate them by steam. The Hudson Bay railway would be a disappointment to the people of the west if it were not more than a successful colonization railway, because the thought of the western people is centred in the idea that that road will form a new transportation route to the markets of the world which will have a very marked effect in lessening the cost of marketing their products. 1 know there is a variety of opinions as to whether the route is practicable for transportation purposes. I have looked up a number of authorities and find that they differ on this point very widely. There are those who state that the straits entering into Hudson Bay are navigable all the year round, and there are others who confine the navigability of the straits to the months of July, August, September and part of October, but in any case I am convinced that this route will prove at least a safety valve in the transportation problem of the west, it will alleviate those congested conditions which have occurred

a32
in the past few years and that are very likely, notwithstanding the extensive railroad development that is taking place in the west to recur in the near future; it will be an alternative route if nothing else. I do not mean to say that the Hudson Bay route will divert all western trade to the markets of the world to itself, but I contend it will have an enormous effect in regulating the freight rates on other roads, on both our imports and our exports.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has again introduced to this House and to the people, the old question, threshed out so industriously and so thoroughly some four years ago, when the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were given their autonomy, as to whether or not the prairie provinces should have the control of their lands. There is some measure of consistency in his position on this question, because in the platform on which he appealed to the people of this country at the last election he made some reference to this question, one of his planks being:-
That the public lands be restored to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan upon fair terms.
I need not discuss that question at length because the people of those two provinces have already pronounced twice as to whether or not they are satisfied with the financial terms of the Autonomy Bills and their verdict in both cases has been in the affirmative. But perhaps my hon. friend is not as kind to the western provinces as his words would imply. It is merely a matter of opinion -whether the western provinces should have the control of the public lands in these provinces, or whether they should, as at present, obtain subsidies in lieu of those lands. One thing is clear to my mind, that the policy already adopted by this government of retaining those lands for settlement purposes, for distribution as free homesteads to the people who go there from other provinces in Canada or from other countries, is undoubtedly the policy best adapted to the growth and development of western Canada.
I would like to know exactly what the leader of the opposition means by this proposition to give the western provinces their lands. The statement in his platform that these lands should be restored to the provinces, has a tale attached in the words ' upon fair terms.' That plank is something like the hon. gentleman's position on the tariff. He tells us he is in favour of adequate protection and the great trouble is to ascertain what adequate protection means.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


David Bradley Neely: 


David Bradley Neely: And the people in the west, when they came in 1908 to consider this plank in his platform, were at a loss to understand what he meant by the expression ' restore the public lands on fair terms,' ' What are these fair terms? Are they terms that would bind the western provinces to a colonization policy, or a homestead policy like the policy of the present administration of the Interior Department? If that were the case where would those provinces find a revenue? Where would they derive -a revenue if they had no subsidies in lieu of those lands? The subsidy which they now receive is being utilized to improve the roads and bridges throughout the provinces. If the subsidy were taken away and the lands were given to the provinces, it follows, as night' follows the day, that these provinces would be comjrelled to use these lands not for purposes of distribution as free homesteads, but to sell them to the highest bidder in order to get a revenue to carry on the affairs of the provinces. So, when the leader, of the opposition touches this subject again, I would be very very glad indeed to know just what he means by this particular part of his programme.
The hon. gentleman says also that there is an urgent demand in the west for a lower tariff on agricultural implements. As reported in ' Hansard,' he said:-[DOT]
But the farmers of the west say something more. They say there ought to be lower duties on agricultural implements, that they are paying higher prices for implements than are paid in the United States and higher prices for Canadian implements than these implements are sold for abroad. I say the government is derelict in its duty in not having brought down to parliament direct and positive information on this subject, and I say that if the claims that are made are true there ought to be a remedy. And I want to know from the government whether they believe them to be true or not. If they say that they do not know, I ask why they have not taken means to know; if they say that these claims are not true, I ask upon what evidence they base that assertion and what they propose to do in the premises.
If you can get anything more beautifully indefinite than that statement on this question as an announcement of policy as or committing the leader of the opposition to any definite policy on this subject, I would like to know w'here it is to be found in the history of the English language. The hon. gentleman wants to know what the government think about the tariff and lowering the duties on agricultural implements. But I want to know what about that hon. gentleman himself who has a responsibility to the people of this country as well as the members of this government. Some three years ago this matter was discussed fully in

the House, and the House was fully seized of this demand of the western farmers follower duties on agricultural implements. If I read his statement correctly, the leader of the opposition on that occasion voted against that resolution; not only did he vote against it, but he made a speech in which he practically acknowledged himself unconvinced of the necessity of making that reduction. Now he appeals to the government to know what they are going to do. I think that is a little bit of heroics on the part of the leader of the opposition that will not deceive any member of this House, or anybody in this country. The hon. gentleman also asked certain questions as to what the government proposes to do to remedy the conditions of the grain trade in western Canada. We have in the speech from the Throne a reference to certain proposed legislation dealing with terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur, and the leader of the opposition makes some reference to that important question. He said:
The west asks also the redress of grievances in the operation of terminal elevators. They declare that the farmers of the west are shamelessly robbed through these elevators, that ten per cent of No. 1 wheat goes in and thirty per cent goes out, and so on all along the line. They declare that this condition of affairs has existed to the knowledge of the government for many years and without redress.
Now if the hon. gentleman were in his seat 1 would like to ask him a question. Does he consider that this administration has done nothing in the interest of the farmers of the west in improving the conditions of the grain trade? Why, Sir, to-day any man from the west knows that the conditions of the grain trade are one hundred per cent better than they were, even ten or twelve years ago. A great many reforms have been worked out by this government that were never thought of by the previous administration. When this government came into power the grain trade of the west was in a very unsatisfactory position, the people were in the grasp of monopolists, and practically the farmers had to ship every bushel of wheat through the initial elevator owned by private concerns, and to accept whatever price they chose to give. The introduction of loading platforms at every way station and every flag station on our western railroads has broken up that monopoly. The Manitoba. Grain Act and the Sale and Inspection Act have brought about great advantages in the grain trade. I want to say that the only serious complaint the farmers have to-day is in reference to the manipulation of grades at the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur. I am free to say, however, speaking tor myself, for my constituents, and I believe for the people of the west generally, so far as I know their opinions, that some remedy is necessary for this condition of affairs, and I would say to the members of the government who may have this matter in charge that in any measure which they may bring before the House they should be satisfied beyond question, before introducing the measure, that it will be effective in stopping these abuses that have existed for so long at the terminal elevators.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it might appear to some persons that my remarks, dealing so largely with western questions, are somewhat of a sectional nature. I do not wish them to be interpreted in that way. I consider that the prosperity of the east and the prosperity of the west are bound together so closely that what adds to the prosperity of western Canada must necessarily add to the industrial prosperity of eastern Canada. For that reason I am making this appeal to the people of the east to give sympathetic consideration to these questions I have just discussed, because, while it may be true that some of these measures affect the people of the west more particularly^ the government which carries out these projects of reform will confer an inestimable benefit upon all the people of Canada.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: In continuing this debate I do not propose to take up much time of the House. First, of all, I wish to congratulate the hon. gentleman (Mr. McGiverin) who fnoved the address in reply to the speech from the Throne, upon the admirable way in which he performed his task. It was certainly creditable to him, and I am sure was pleasing to the House. As to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lapointe) who seconded the address, I am in the position of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in that I have not yet been able to read that hon. gentleman's speech, and therefore cannot appreciate it as I probably otherwise would.
The debate that has occurred on the Address has been largely confined to two questions, the navy and a reciprocity treaty with the United States. The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Neely) seemed very anxious to know what attitude the Conservative party were going to take with reference to those two questions. He started out by arguing that the Conservative party were in favour of a plebiscite. Now the hon. gentleman must have been in this House last session, and he must be aware of the fact that the Conservative party voted almost unanimously against the proposal for a plebiscite on this question; therefore it was a waste of time for him to argue that the Conservative party were wrong in supporting a plebiscite, because in fact they were opposed to it. Next, he wanted to know the reason why this ques-

tion should be submitted to the people either by a plebiscite or otherwise. He was quite satisfied with that at least. There was no reason why it should be submitted to the people until the general election comes on. That is just exactly the position taken by the right hon. the leader of the government. We claim that that conduct is arbitrary, autocratic, tyrannical and out of harmony with the principles of constitutional government as carried out both in the imperial parliament and in the colonial dependencies of the British Empire. There is no better understood principle in legislation and in party government in the British Empire than that any great and important question, before the country is committed to it, should be submitted to the people for their approval or for their voice. But what have we to-day? Is it government by the people and for the people? Is it government by the people if those who are charged with the responsibility of the administration of the people's affairs first do the act and then consult the people after the act. is done, never giving them an opportunity to express their voice upon it before they are committed to the act and must bear the consequences of it whether they are good or bad? That is not government by the people. It may be, in the estimation of some, government for the people, but it is not government by the people, nor is it domocratic government notwithstanding the fact that the right hon. gentleman has always claimed that he is the representative of the democratic principle. Yet, the hon. member for Humboldt says there is no reason in the world why it should be submitted to the people. His leader said the same. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries-I was going to say marine and navy-says exactly the same. Well, I say that is autocratic, I say that is over-bearing, I say that is ignoring the people's common and well-understood right-the right of saying whether or not they approve of this being done before they are committed to it and before the country has carried it out for a number of years.
The hon. member for Humboldt goe?s on to speak of the construction of the Hudson Bay railway and says that it is very much needed. What is the policy of the leader of the opposition on this question? Well, the leader of the opposition is not charged with the responsibility of building it. He could not build it if he desired; he could not spend a dollar on such an undertaking. Ought the hon. member not rather to be very much more concerned as to what is the policy of the leader of the government on that question and try to get him pinned down to some policy in the interest of the great western country which he seems to be so anxious to represent in this House today? It seems to me, in all fairness, that Mr. SPROULE.
he should feel very much greater concern about the men who have the power to build or refrain from building this' road than he does about the leader of the opposition and his supporters who could not commence that undertaking nor spend a dollar on it no matter how worthy it was.
Now, I would like to direct attention to one other thing as well. It is so very much needed, the hon. member says, and it is patent to every person, not only people living in that country, but people who are at all acquainted with the growth and histor.y of that country. It must be patent to them. They must appreciate the importance of building that road. I assume that the right hon. the leader of the government must have known that fourteen years ago and known it all the time from that up to the present. Surely his friends think that they have had the power to do the work necessary to help the people there; yet, what have they done in all these lourteen years? How much of that road have they built? What have they done with regard to it? Knowing, as they must have known, howf desirable it was in the interest of the development of the country that it should be built? Why, for the first time, they are commencing to build a bridge that may or may not be in the future a portion of the road. That is all they have done, all they have committed themselves to-the building of a bridge at the Pas Mission. They are going to build a bridge across the river there. They are commencing it. If it takes them as long to build that bridge, and if they are as successful in the construction of it as they have been with regard to the Quebec bridge then I can only say that all my sympathy is for the western people, because it will be a long time before they can utilize it in running cars for the Hudson Bav railway.
The hon. member for Humboldt said something about the people of the prairie provinces. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition said that if he were entrusted with the administration of the government of this country the people of the prairie provinces would get their land back on fair terms. The hon. member for Humboldt objects to that. He wants to know what that means. Does not the merest tyro in this House know what fair terms means? Can he not, as a western man, compare the difference between what would be fair and unfair? Does he not know what will be fair terms? I should think so, and I should think that not only he, but his western friends as well ought to be amply satisfied with any government or party when they propose to give them back these lands and to give them back to them on fair terms. He says that he is not going to discuss the tariff on agricultural implements, but he wants to know what the leader of the oppo-

sition is going to do. Well, now, need I tell him that the leader of the opposition has no power to do anything?. Ought he not to be very much more interested in knowing what his friends are going to do, and very much more desirous of ascertaining what the leader of the government, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs are going to do, because they are the only ones who can change the tariff in any particular in regard to agricultural implements or any other article that the western people are so much interested in? He seems to have no faith in them. Evidently he has not.
I said that I did not intend to discuss this question at any very great length. But the debate has been confined largely, or principally, to two items in the speech from the Throne. The first of these has reference to the naval question. The second deals with the proposal of reciprocity with the United States. The motion now before the House deals with the naval question, and invites our attention more particularly to that subject. I wish to give a very few reasons why I intend to vote, as I propose to do, on this subject. There are two or three motions before the House, two by way of amendment to the speech from the Throne, the last, an amendment to the amendment, and I desire to give to the House some reasons for my voting as I propose to do on this question. It is because the principle involved is one of the basic principles of constitutional government, whether in Great Britain, in the Dominion of Canada, or under any other colonial government. The British parliament and the parliament of the colonial dependencies as well have a sacred Tegard for it has been one of the basic principles of constitutional government until they become autocratic, tyrannical, and neglect it, or refrain from standing by it, _ What is that principle? That principle involves consulting the people and allowing them to express their will on the subject before committing the country to the undertaking. We claim to be democratic in our instincts, our aims and purposes.
Under democratic government the people rule, and one of its basic principles is that they should be consulted before the die is cast in any important national undertaking. When Canada embarks on a naval policy which means a complete change in her policy in that respect, surely the people should have an opportunity to say whether they approve or disapprove. Such a policy means heavy expense in its initiation, constantly increasing expense in its maintenance, and the people have a right to say, whether they will undertake the burden to be cast upon them. Notwithstanding that this policy changes our relations with the mother country and the other dependencies of the
empire 'the Prime Minister of Canada is quite ready in his own autocratic fashion to plunge the country into the scheme to such an extent that it may not be possible to reverse the action which he has thus unconstitutionally taken. He tells us that he will be quite prepared to take the verdict of the people when the general elections come, but remember, that verdict will not be given until three years after the promulgation of the government's policy. I do not think the people of the Dominion will regard that as government by the people, for the people; I think they will regard it as the government by an autocrat and for an autocrat; I think they wrill regard it as the government of a tyrant. Under the British system as exemplified in Britain itself the people are consulted on any great policy. Gladstone was in favour of Home Rule for Ireland but he propounded his policy and submitted it to the people and the people pronounced against it. The present government of Great Britain on the question of the Lords veto are to-day taking the verdict of the people. The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, the leader of the Conservative party has laid down the principle that this important question which the people of England are now facing should be submitted to a referendum, and he adds that he will be governed by the voice of the people thus as expressed. But, in Canada since this present government came into power they have dealt with important questions in the most autocratic fashion, and have belied their declarations that they were democrats to the hilt. They undertook the construction of the Yukon railway, which based on the value at which the mining land was then being sold by the government in that locality would cost $150,000,000 for an inferior railway 150 miles long; the cabinet if you please, undertook the building of that railway without ever letting the people know what they were about. I declared then that such conduct on the part of the government was high handed and autocratic and 1 declare so to-day. But, with regard to that project the government were rightly defeated in their object by the wisdom of the Senate of that day. Then, in regard to the Transcontinental railway, they declared that the project would revolutionize the transportation system of the Dominion and they lightly undertook it without consulting the people. They told the people that the surplus of one year, about $15,000,000, would do the whole trick, but now we know it will cost the people of Canada between $200,000,000 and $300,000,000. That fact must have been as well known to intelligent men then as it is now, but notwithstanding, the government, in a light hearted fashion committed the country to that huge expenditure without consulting the

people who have to provide the money. The whole history of the present Liberal government shows that they throw to the winds the principle of government by the people for the people. And, now in regard to the establishment of the Canadian navy which must inevitably change our relations to the mother country, there has been no effort to obtain the wishes of the people, and in all human probability the scheme proposed by the government would not be approved by the majority of the people of Canada if submitted to them in the form which the government has decided upon, and yet, these gentlemen on the treasury _ benches call their government a constitutional and a democratic government when in truth it is an autocratic government, a tyranical government, a government by the executive and not by the people.
I think it was the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) who challenged us to give a single instance of the Conservative party consulting the people. I will give him one. Did not the Conservative party lay down their policy before the election of 1878? Did not they lay down the National Policy and appeal to the people upon it? Was not that policy clearly declared, and did not the people express clear approval of it? They did. That was democratic government, government of the people by and for the people. And did not the Conservative party carry out that policy when entrusted with power? No one will deny that they did. I listened with great interest to the statement of the Prime Minister on reciprocity. He said that the National Policy was as dead as an Egyptian mummy- those, I believe, were his very words. The present government have no policy for the management of the nation about which they boast so much. Instead of the National Policy they have a haphazard, unbusinesslike policy intended to suit only, the exigencies of the party, or the whims of the individual, for the time being controlling the situation. I should think that for their own credit, they would be ashamed to make such an admission. If they regarded this as a country worth governing, much more if they regarded it as the noble nation the Prime Minister declares it to be, they would have some kind of policy suited for a nation. But the Prime Minister tells us that the National Policy is as dead as any Egyptian mummy. How did they kill it? Was it by amendment of the tariff, by repealing duties which are the essence of that policy? No; they did not change these in any particular. Let me ask them one question: Would they daTe to go to the manufacturers, the farmers. the industrial workers of this country, and declare to them that the Notional Policy was entirely repealed or that they were ready to repeal every part of it now in existence? No, they dare not do that. They Mr. SPROULE.
know that the farmers and all others in industrial life would turn that against them as one man. When the time comes for the First Minister to appeal to the people, let him dare say to the electors of Canada that he will repeal the National Policy, and I am inclined to think that they will give him an answer that will startle him out of his dream.
On the subject of the Canadian Pacific railway,, the Conservative party had regard to this question of constitutional democratic government by consulting the people on the question of how the road should be constructed. Their opponents said that the system should be part by rail and part by waterway. But the Conservative party declared for an all-rail route as their policy and submitted the question to the people; and their policy was endorsed.
I come now to the proposal for reciprocity with the United States. The Prime Minister twitted the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) because an appeal was made to the people on the question of reciprocity in 1891. That appeal was made, and what happened? The Conservatives were returned to power. Representatives were sent by that government to Washington, but they came back declaring their mission a failure. That was no discredit to them; they could not get the reciprocity they wanted, they would not accept what was offered, and they came back with no arrangement completed. But the point I wish to make is that their action in this matter also was in harmony with the principle of constitu-' tional government. Is the Prime Minister following this course in regard to reciprocity to-day? Not at all. He dare not submit that question to the people. If he did, I am inclined to think that a large majority of the people would tell him that they are not in favour of any kind of reciprocity that he is likely to get at this time. While saying this, I am not arguing either against reciprocity or for it; I am arguing in favour of the principle invariably followed by the Conservatives, and as invariably ignored or defied by their opponents, of appealing to the people on important questions of government. The Conservatives, to their credit be it said, have been willing to appeal to the people and to accept the people's verdict.
When asked to cite an instance of the party now in power appealing to the people on any great question of government, one hon. member on that side asked, did not they appeal to the people on the plebiscite on the liquor question? Yes, they did. And it was the only time when they appealed to the country people on any question asking the people's verdict. And what happened after the plebiscite was taken? Why, they did the same in that case as on the naval question-they ignored the will of the people. In that plebiscite a majority de-

dared for the abolition of the liquor traffic. But the government did not move hand or foot to implement that decision by any parliamentary enactment. They ignored the declaration of the people entirely. The Prime Minister said there was an understanding among their friends that, unless there was an overwhelming verdict in favour of prohibition they would not implement it by legislation. It must have been a secret understanding, and yet this was given as the reason why they refused to respect the people's will.
The question was asked in the course of the debate: Why were not the people consulted on the proposal of confederation? I think it was the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur). How could they consult the people, with no federal parliament in existence? They were trying then to bring about confederation. What would have been the result if appeals had been made by each province separately? The result would have been no confederation. Had there been a federal parliament to consult the people as a whole, no doubt .they would have been consulted and their verdict would have been respected. But some friends of the leader of the present government did consult the people on this question of confederation. The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), when at the head of a provincial government, appealed to the people on the question of secession. And with what result? Why, he acted in a manner perfectly consistent with that of his friends. He was in favour of secession and appealed to the people on that question. The people declared in his favour, but, although he was at the head of a government, he ignored the verdict of the people, evidently being afraid to carry it out. The record of the party now in power shows that they have always ignored the people's will in carrying out their policies. I have given you several examples that should prove the correctness of what I say.
But now we are dealing with the question of the construction of a navy. That is a question which formed the chief subject of controversy in the Drummond-Arthabas-ka election, and the result of that election has been the chief staple of debate on the opposite side. Well, the government did try to consult the people in a miniature of controversy in the Drummond-Arthabaska.	They selected their own battle ground, they carefully chose a constituency where it seemed utterly impossible that a verdict could be not against them, they went over the ground in advance, and the constituency was one which for thirty-five years had elected a supporter of the right hon. gentleman and his friends. What was the result? The people gave a verdict against the government and its policy, and now these hon. gentlemen are very much exercised and annoyed and are at their wits end
to show some reason for their defeat. I have listened to the whole of the debate, I have read the newspapers, I have looked over the whole situation, and to my mind the outcome is simply due to this fact. Ever since 1896 the government have appealed over and over again to the electors on lines of race and creed, but in the Drum-mond-Arthabaska election, they were met by adversaries who beat them at their own game and now they can do nothing but squeal. They are poor sportsmen who cannot take a licking like men but must go around whimpering over it. Now they say that the election was not fair, that it was won by the other party in the way in which the government themselves had gained many a victory in that province and in that constituency, for we must all admit that never in this House or out of it has there been a public man more successful in appealing to the people of Quebec along the lines of race and religion than the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur). In that respect the hon. gentleman is the greatest sinner in the Dominion to-day. The other day he taunted me with riding the Protestant horse. But I should like to know what horse he has been riding in Quebec over and over again? Has it not been the Roman Catholic horse and the French horse? Has he ever trusted to anything else in his appeals to the people. The hon. gentleman cannot point to any instance in which I ever mentioned the Protestant horse except when drawn out by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) or some of his friends. There is no one in this country who is more adept than the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brodeur) in bringing up these race and religious questions when he thinks he can get any political profit out of them. The verdict given at Drummond-Arthabas-ka, he says, was unfavourably obtained, the people were misled and deluded, and the verdict itself was a national calamity. Well, if my judgment be worth anything, it is a national calamity which could be repeated in seven out of every ten rural constituencies in Ontario to-day if an appeal were made to the people. If the electors of Drummond-Arthabaska are such great sinners because they gave the verdict they did, all I can say is that, should an appeal be made to the electors, it will be found that these sinners have a great many followers in many parts of the country. But we are told that these people were misled. How often have we not been told by the right hon. gentleman and his friends that on their side is found the cream of the representative intelligence of the various provinces in this Dominion. From the province of Quebec they have 54 out of 65 members, and they boast that these 65 comprise the best educated men from that province-men who know the people's

wants and are capable of educating the people. Yet the supporters of the right hon. gentleman went down to the county of Drummond-Arthabaska and put the policy of the government before the people and explained that policy to the people as best they could, and now they come back and tell us that the people were misled. What were the government and their friends' doing? They had plenty of money, and any number of missionaries, and yet they failed in their attempt to educate these people. Can it be that these people are so illiterate that they cannot be taught? That is practically in effect what the right hon. gentleman and his friends are now arguing when they say that the electors in Drummond-Arthabaska were deluded and misled into giving a verdict which they never would have given had they understood what they were doing. But what a slur is that on the followers of the right hon. gentleman who went down to that county and worked assiduously to convince the electors? There must be something radically wrong. We are told that there was any amount of whisky and everything else that could be desired to win the election, yet notwithstanding all that the verdict of the people went against the government. To my mind that verdict is rather complimentary to their intelligence. It shows that th'ey understood what influences were brought to bear on them and they deserve great credit for having resisted all these demoralizing influences and given such a plain and straight verdict on this most important question. The race cry, we are told, was raised down there against the government. Well, if that be the case, hon. gentlemen opposite were only beaten at their own game. I remember going to a show when I was a boy and seeing the three card monte men gathering in the money of the unsophiscated who tried their hand at the game. All the boys gathered around these men and started to play and of course lost their money. Then the three card montes became unpopular, and the sharpers started games at cards, and the boys again lost their money. Finally, there came along an old stager, who took a hand in the game and cleaned out the whole bunch. Then the sharpers who were cleaned out sent for the police to have the old man arrested. That exactly illustrates the tactics of the party opposite. They come back and squeal because they were beaten at their own game.
Why are the people of Canada to-day afraid of this question? If that same question was submitted to the rural constituencies in Ontario, I believe that seven-tenths of them would give practically the same verdict against it. Why? Because they have never been consulted and because they know it is the commencement of an expenditure which will be very oner-Mr. SPROTJLE
ous, they do not know where the policy will lead and it is being imposed on them without their being consulted. They know what we are spending for defence to-day. On militia and defence we spent in 1896 $1,136,000. What was it last year? $4,679,000, nearly $5,000,000. The capital expendi-diture for this purpose in 1896 was $1,000,000 and in 1910 $1,299,000. In other words the expenditure on militia and defence has grown from $2,000,000 in 1896 to nearly $6,000,000 in 1910, not counting the expenditure that must take place during the current year for this beautiful navy. The First Minister has told us that the navy will cost this year between $3,000,000 and $4,000,000, and this expenditure will rise to nearly $10,000,000 next year. Then it must inevitably and rapidly rise. Is it any wonder that the people of Canada are reluctant to be committed to such an undertaking without knowing what kind of a navy they will get or whether it will be useful? It is because of that and of the growing spirit of militiarism so apparent in Canada of late years, that the people are becoming alarmed and are distrustful of the government who are introducing this policy. Our naval expenditure next year may be $10,000,000. A few years hence it will be $20,000,000 then $25,000,000 and then $30,000,000, going up all the time, but yet the government supporters say the people are satisfied. The people have never been allowed to say whether they are satisfied or not. The present government dare not trust and consult the people because if they did they would get a verdict that would tell them to discontinue their present policy.
The Minister of Marine and the Navy said that there are three reasons why the government are compelled to carry out this policy, first to guard our coasts, second to guard our commerce against pirates and third to maintain the supremacy of the British Empire. Let any one examine this beautiful navy as proposed to the people of Canada and ask himself how7 far it will fulfil these purposes. We have a coast to protect ten times as long as the coast of the British Isles. How far would this navy be able to protect that coast if there was any danger of any marauders coming into our country to interfere -with our rights. One vessel at Esquimalt, another at Halifax that could not catch the greatest lubber of a pirate ship that ever travelled on the high seas! Yet it is to protect our coasts. In my judgment beyond these two points it is absolutely useless to protect our coasts and I think the Canadian people have long since reached the same conclusion. Could it guard our commerce? No, because it could not leave our ports, it w7as not intended to leave our ports. The Minister of Marine read us

blood-curdling stories about some piratical excursions that were carried on away down in Mexico, and near Shanghai and indicated that we wanted a navy to protect our commerce and catch these pirates. He spoke too of the ' Princess May ' which was taken away by one of these pirates and brought back by Chinese war vessels. We wanted this navy to go after them. What an exhibition it would be, the greatest laughing stock Canada ever saw or heard of. They say it is to protect our commerce on the high seas, but we were told the navy was not to leave our ports unless in company with the British navy, which would come and escort it out of our ports so that it might fight with them. It dare not go out alone because the vessels might be run down and taken for they could do nothing without an order in council authorizing them to shoot. The minister tells us that is why we must build a navy. I think the intelligent people will laugh at it, and at its ability to protect our coasts, owing to their length, nature and difficulty, it will be absolutely useless for that purpose. It will be of no use to protect our commerce on the high seas, it can never go out on the high seas. The minister recalled what we have done to protect the fisheries and to enforce the law and look after illegal fishermen. But it is not to go on the high seas.
Then we are told as the greatest and most important reason that it is to help to maintain the supremacy of the British Empire. If that was the reason why did the government not follow the suggestion of the British people, and build the ships as they ought to be built if they are to be used for that purpose. They refused to do it, and therefore I am inclined to be somewhat skeptical as to whether that was in the hon. gentleman's mind when he proposed it-I do not think it was. If it was for that purpose why do they not let it cooperate with the British navy in maintaining the supremacy of the British Empire? Why is it they will not allow it to go out until there is an order in council or parliament has given authority ? It does not look as if that was the intention, and then they go to the province of Quebec and assure the people that this navy is to protect our shores, it was never intended to go on the high seas. We are told it is to maintain the supremacy of the British Empire. That is a very praiseworthy aim, but the conduct of the minister, and of the First Minister, and the policy that they have evolved for that purpose give the lie to the whole thing because the navy could not possibly be useful for that purpose as it is organized to-day. For these reasons as well as for others, I shall support the amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. the
leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) primarily because it aims at doing what the Conservative party have always been willing and desirous to do, appeal to the people for their verdict, before we commit ourselves and the country to such a great and important undertaking.


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) will pardon me if I do not pay him the respeet of attempting t.o answer the statements he has made. I shall confine myself to the amendment which has been offered to the House, it seems to cover all the objections that hon. gentlemen have to what is contained in His Excellency's speech. I might say, however, that I have seen the hon. member for East Grey occupying a rather better position in the House on previous occasions than he has taken to-day. He belittled and scorned the idea that Canada, a nation of eight million people


Mr. HUGHES.: A colony, not a nation.


William Paterson: -a nation of eight million people should do anything in the way of defending her interests. Such a statement is something that I had hardly expected to hear from the hon. member for East Grey.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not take that position at all, I want to tell the minister.


William Paterson: Oh, yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not at all.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman took that position. I do not intend to discuss what was said in the late election; the only question in my mind is whether there was anything more belittling to Canada, or to Great Britain, in the utterances of any of the speakers on the Nationalist side there, than we have heard to-day from the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). He tells m


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I stand by it.


William Paterson: Of course, we all have to stand by what we say. I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, the attitude the opposition takes on this question and the attitude that is taken by the government. It is not very long ago, I do not need to go back and read what was said by the Prime Minister 16 years ago. This subject of the desirability of establishing a Canadian navy was first brought to the attention of this House by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), in what was considered to be a very admirable speech, and he closed it by moving this motion:-
That in the opinion of this House, in view of her great and varied resources, of her geographical position and national environ-

ments, and of that spirit of self-help and selfrespect which alone befits a strong and growing people, Canada should no longer delay in assuming her proper share of the responsibility and financial burden incident to the suitable protection of her exposed coast line and great sea ports.
I say that the speech with which he preceded that resolution was an able and argumentative one, but in it the hon. member failed to make it clear as to whether he himself was in favour of a direct contribution to the British Empire, or whether we should have a navy of our own, hut I think I may say he strongly leaned to the side that, as it was proposed in his resolution, our self-respect should lead us to establish a navy of our own. Of course, it was well known that the views of the Liberal party were not fully expressed in that resolution, and the Prime Minister moved an amendment thereto in the following words:-
This House fully recognizes the duty of the people of Canada as they increase in numbers and wealth, to assume in larger measure the responsibilities of national defence.
The House reaffirms the opinion, repeatedly expressed by representatives of Canada, that under the present constitutional relations between the mother country and the selfgoverning dominions, the payment of any stated contribution to the imperial treasury for naval and military purposes would not, so far as Canada is concerned, he a satisfactory solution of the question of defence.
The House has observed with muck satisfaction the relief afforded in recent years of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom through the assumption by the Canadian people of considerable military expenditure formerly charged upon the imperial treasury.
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy, along the lines suggested by the Admiralty at the last imperial conference, and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Great Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of the world.
The House expresses its firm conviction that whenever the need arises the Canadian people will he found ready and willing to make any sacrifice that is required to give to the imperial authorities the most loyal and hearty co-operation in every movement for the maintenance of the integrity and the honour of the empire.
When he resumed his seat the leader of the opposition, commenting upon the resolution, expressed himself as favourable to it. He suggested some amendment, he suggested dropping one of the paragraphs, which was, I think, paragraph 3, which alluded to what we had done in the way of assuming the duty of looking after the defences of Esquimalt and Halifax; he thought it would be better if we omitted that. I Mr. PATERSON.
think my hon. friend stated that he wished nothing to stand in the way of an unanimous resolution being adopted by this House, which was earnestly desired by himself, by the hon. member for North Toronto, and he trusted by every member in the House. Then he suggested another amendment, and that was the insertion of only one word in what was then section 4 of the Prime Minister's resolution. These two suggestions of -the leader of the opposition were assented to by the right hon. the leader of the government. So we amended his resolution in that direction, and as thus amended the resolution carried.


Robert Laird Borden: There was another amendment in clause 2, the most important one of all.


William Paterson: At any rate, I have the amendment in the ' Hansard ' as it was passed.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read it.


Mr. FOSTER.: Explain that clause 2.


William Paterson: I will read clause 2 as finally passed. I read to the House the resolution as it was proposed, and I have stated the emendations that were offered by the leader of the opposition, and what he suggested was agreed to by the Prime Minister, the resolution was amended in the direction that he asked for by the insertion of a- word in paragraph 4. This was done by the Prime Minister at the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, and unanimously accepted by the House. I have alluded to what was dropped, I have said he wanted an addition of one word in paragraph 4. I will read paragraph 4:-
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy, along the lines suggested by the Admiralty at the last imperial conference, and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Great Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of the world.
Well, Sir, what was that word that the leader of the opposition wanted to have added to that section, that section which expressed the approval of this House in the creation of a naval service? What was that word? Well, it was this-if he likes, I will read it from the ' Hansard ' as it is found on page 3521:-
Just one word as to a further amendment which I would like to suggest to my right hon. friend. In paragraph 4, he proceeds:
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy, along the lines suggested

by the Admiralty at the last imperial conference, and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Great Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of the world.
I would be glad if my right lion, friend could accept the suggestion of inserting in that paragraph some word which would indicate an intention to act promptly. If my right hon. friend would insert before the word ' organization ' some such word as ' immediate ' or even ' early,' I think it would greatly improve the paragraph, it wrould meet with my approval, and I do not think it would be disapproved of by any hon. member of this House.
The Prime Minister accepted it and he put in the word ' speedy.' While there was the declaration on the part of the Prime Minister in his resolution that wg should do this, it was not enough for the leader of the opposition. He said, I want this thing to be done at once. 1 want the word ' immediate ' in; and now the whole cry of the opposition who voted for it is: Do not go into this until you ask the people.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Paterson: Mr. Speaker; when the House rose at six o'clock I had pointed out from the records what had occurred in the session of 1909 with reference to the Canadian navy. I showed from the records of parliament that this House had then unanimously agreed upon the construction of a Canadian navy. I pointed out that the Prime Minister in his resolution which was accepted unanimously by the House, had not fixed a definite time for the commencement of that work, and that point being noted by the leader of the opposition the suggestion was adopted that the House should declare for the early construction of a Canadian navy, and, on the suggestion of the leader of the opposition the Prime Minister, consented that the word ' speedy ' should be added. The unanimous resolution of the House was that the government should not take any more time than was absolutely necessary to consider this question, and that they should proceed with the navy immediately. What hon. gentlemen opposite, and what this House unanimously voted for was the speedy construction of a Canadian navy. Well, the government of the day, and the Minister of Marine, in accordance with the expressed desire of the House (hon. gentlemen opposite included) desired that there should be speed in reference to this matter, and after consultation with the naval authorities in Britain, within less than a year they brought down a measure to this House,
and so met the view of the 'speedy ' party as I may call the gentlemen opposite. Unfortunately for me when the Bill of the Minister of Marine was laid before the House empowering him to go on with the work that a year before was considered so urgent, I was in a distant part of the empire, where telegraphic rates are heavy and where but very condensed items of Canadian news appeared in the newspapers. But, one fine morning I learned that the second reading of the Navy Bill had been opposed by the leader of the opposition and this item in the West Indian papers purported to set forth that the leader of the opposition had suggested that the Bill should be hung up until there had been an expression of the will of the people on it and their approval obtained. But, meanwhile without consulting the people himself, the leader of the opposition proposed that we were to take $25,000,000 of the money of the people of Canada and hand it over to the British authorities to be spent where and how they might choose. I thought there must be surely something wrong in that because a short year before the leader of the opposition and his followers were anxious for the speedy construction of this navy, and I did not see how in the year 1910 they desired to consult the people before any speed was exhibited. I could not believe my eyes when I saw it stated that the leader of the opposition wanted to consult the people with reference to the construction of a Canadian navy of which the House, mark you, had approved the previous session, when, at that same session he was ready to hand over $25,000,000 at once without the consent of the people. We are told by gentlemen opposite that they did not vote for a plebiscite last session, and in fact that they were opposed to it ; but I quote this paragraph from their amendment :
That no permanent policy should be entered upon involving large future expenditures of this character until it has been submitted to the people and has received their approval.
For my part I do not know how it otherwise could receive or not receive the approval of the people, and at that stage, except by way of plebiscite. Talk about devious ways and diverse views, but I do not think you will find in the history of any legislative assembly a political party occupying such a peculiar position on any public question as gentlemen opposite occupy to-day on this naval question. There is a change in the amendment offered this year when compared with their amendment of last year. They then made the excuse that the terms of the Bill did not just suit them, and if that be so they should have moved amendments to

those sections of the Bill of which they did not approve.


Mr.   TAYL@: tR (Leeds). So they did.


William Paterson: They did. Yes; but that does not affect the question of consulting the people. The people were to be consulted on the principle of whether we were to have a Canadian navy, and not on the details of the Bill.
I come now to consider another change on the part of hon. members" opposite. The amendments proposed to this address are as follows: The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) moves in amendment:
That the said motion he amended by adding to the proposed Address to His Excellency the Governor General the following paragraph at the end thereof:-
The House regrets that the speech from the Throne gives no indication whatever of the intention of the government to consult the people on its naval policy and the general question of the contribution of Canada to imperial armaments.
And the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is not quite satisfied with the verbiage of that amendment, and moves the following:
That all the words after the word ' thereof ' in the proposed motion in amendment be omitted and the following substituted therefor:-
We beg to assure Your Excellency of the unalterable attachment and devotion of the people of Canada to the British Crown and of their desire and intention to fulfil all just responsibilities devolving upon this country as one of the nations of the empire. We desire, however, to express our regret that Your Excellency's gracious speech gives no indication whatever of any intention on the part of Your Excellency's advisers to consult the people on the naval policy of Canada,
The House will observe that the proposal to kill off the project of building a Canadian navy is embraced in this as well as in the amendment of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. It seems to me that hon. members opposite are not in as good a position as they were in last year. Why? Because, if no preparation for defence is to be made until a general election, two years hence, what position do they occupy? Last year, recognizing that something ought to be done and done promptly, these hon. gentlemen suggested the alternative of giving $25,000,000 to the British government as a contribution towards imperial defence. This, they said, would provide for two Dreadnoughts, and these could be earmarked, so that, in case of danger arising for Canada, we could ask that they be sent to defend our coasts. But there is nothing in this amendment to suggest that we are to do anything in the matter of Canadian self-defence until the people have Mr. PATERSON.
been consulted. We are to stop building our own navy until after another general election, and meanwhile we are to do nothing. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) sits there and smiles. He may well smile. Why does not the leader of the opposition propose this year, as he proposed last year, that, stopping the construction of a Canadian navy, we ought to give a grant to the British Empire? Is it because the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, whom they tried to read out of their party, not only remains in their party, but has assumed the leadership of it?


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: You are not serious, surely?


William Paterson: I am serious. Might it be-of course we are merely looking around, making suppositions and trying to understand this matter-might it be that the whip of the party, feeling nervous because of a telegram that he had sent that would identify his party, or, at least identify himself with the Nationalist party, thought : Well, now, I am not going to be singled out in this matter; I am going to see to it that the leader of the opposition shall take the same position that I have taken; he has got to move a resolution that will suit the hon. member for Jacques Cartier; he has got to do the very thing that will convince the people of Canada that there is an understanding between the Nationalist and Conservative parties? Can it be that the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. George Taylor) and the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) are nervous over this matter and sought to get the leader of their party thus committed because he was smiling to find that, while he was denounced personally by the Nationalists, and tried to keep clear of the strife being out of the country during part of the time this strife was on-as I believe was the case-these hon. gentlemen had bound and committed themselves by what they had said and written in regard to the Nationalist party? Did these hon. gentlemen cause their leader to virtually accept the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and, in order to please him, tie their party up with the Nationalists by proposing to this House to stop all arrangements for building a Canadian navy for two years, and prevent any single step in the direction of naval defence, either by building a navy or by contribution to the navy of Great Britain? What position are these hon. members in who themselves had suggested speedy action in this matter on the part of the government? The government's course was clear and unmistakable. They had received the mandate of the House, and that mandate was not coupled with any suggestion, even the remotest, that the matter should be referred to the people.

The resolution of the House called for speedy action, and the Minister of Marine acted speedily. When hon. members opposite moved last year that the building of a Canadian navy should not proceed, at least they had the patriotism and decency to propose to do something. If they were to stop the building of a navy under the minister, at least they proposed a contribution to the British government which might be used in such a way as to secure the defence of our own coasts. But there is no such provision or suggestion now. This resolution baldly says: Stop all work on the Canadian navy until you have the approval of the Canadian people. And at the same time, they tell us they do not believe in a plebiscite. That means to wait for a general election, and, meanwhile, do nothing. Ah, what will their imperialist friends in the old country think of this? What will their imperialist friends in this country think of this?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Paterson: Yes, I wonder what they will think of it when they realize that this patriotic opposition are neither for building a Canadian navy nor for a contribution to the British government to grant us aid in protecting our coasts. I can understand my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor), a man after my own heart-ready to fight; when he makes a speech is willing to stay in the House and listen to the reply; I admire him for that. Therefore, as he is leading the opposition to-night-I beg my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule's) pardon; he is in his place. He is a fighter and I admire him for that. I suppose my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), when he meets with some of his Conservative friends and they ask him this question:	'You voted less than two
years ago for a speedy construction of a navy, but this session you voted to stop that, how do you account for the change?- I suppose my hon. friend will try and fasten the blame on the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur). When his supporters say to him: A year ago you voted to give $25,000,000 to Great Britain to build some war ships-that was something doing -but this year you have dropped that, have you been swung round by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier?-When this question is put to him by loyal patriotic members of the Conservative party, I suppose he will say to them-My dear friends it is true-we did not mention in our resolution of this year anything about sending $25,000,000 to build Dreadnoughts, but you must remember this. You must remember that we did beg to assure His Excellency Lord Grey of the unalterable attachment and devotion of the people of Canada to the empire. But it seems to me that the hon. gentleman would 12
be very apt to meet this reply from his patriotic friends-You have issued so much of that paper currency out of the bank of Tory loyalty and that the people have begun to find out that there is no gold basis of action behind it, and that currency has become so utterly depreciated that no responsible ship-builder would take a carload of it for a fishing smack. What else could they say:	Oh,
but my hon. friend would reply, we not only professed unalterable attachment to the British Crown, but also our desire and intention to fulfil all just responsibility devolving upon this country as one of the dominions of the empire. Well, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), who seems to think that Canada has already fully discharged all her duties and responsibilities to the British Crown, could vote for that expression of sentiment. I have never heard him say that he was not prepared to do what he considered the just responsibilities devolving upon him. It is for every man's conscience to determine for himself what he ought to do. What may be considered the just by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, the just responsibilities that devolve upon us, I cannot say because I cannot read his mind. Rather less than a year ago he said we should hand over $25,000,000 to Great Britain, but he has now dropped that policy and taken up the same line as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, who thinks that we are doing quite well enough in building railways and looking after our fortifications.
But what are we to do? Are we to leave the country wholly without defence? Is no step to be taken by us to defend ourselves or give aid to Great Britain? That is the stand taken by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. He would put a stop to the efforts of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, although less than two years ago he voted for the speedy construction of a navy. My hon. friend certainly would make a remarkable success as a lightning change artist.
An hon. gentleman opposite has made the suggestion that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, feeling that he was losing the province of Quebec, was trying to appeal to the imperialistic sympathies of the other provinces.


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman says hear, hear. Will he point out to me where there was an appeal made by the Prime Minister which was not made to the loyal and patriotic men of all the provinces? But I can well understand that many men in the Conservative party, utterly disgusted with the procedure of the opposition in attempting to obstruct the building of a Canadian navy and yet not sending a dollar to Britain, will throw off their party allegiance



and refuse longer to support men who are standing on the very ground the Nationalists stand upon. No Canadian built navy, no aid to Great Britain, no defence of this country-such a policy, it would be natural to suppose, would alienate those men who had hitherto supported the leader of the opposition. They would say to themselves: While we may not have seen eye to eye with the Prime Minister on many an occasion, we do see that in obedience to the command of the House of Commons-for it was a command-to go on and take steps for the defence of this empire, he is carrying out that command, even though it may lose him for the time being support in the province of Quebec, and that is one reason why all men who believe in what is just, right, patriotic and straightforward should stand behind him. My right hon. friend makes no appeal to any particular section, but to honest men of every province. What the result may be, I do not know, I make no prophecy at all. I only_suggest what seems to me would be very reasonable conduct on the part of men who believe that a government should be straightforward and consistent and that they should support a party who feel bound by the responsibilities of office to take some step in order that protection may be afforded this country, now consisting of eight millions of people, in order that our own coast be protected, and that we may come to the relief of the mother country, when that relief is needed, and' not leave on her the whole burden.
If you were ready a year ago to vote your $25,000,000 because there was danger and our navy could not be ready in time to render effective aid, if there was danger of a war then, why is the danger not greater this year, when you are dropping your $25,000,000? Every year that passes brings that war nearer and nearer, if it is to come. Then, why drop your $25,000,000? Why refuse to give it on the ground that Canada must consult the people before entering on a naval scheme? Why not add to your resolution what you did last year, that meanwhile the safety of the empire and the honour of Canada demand that we should place two Dreadnoughts or their price in the hands of the British admiralty? Why not? Is it in deference to the tender feelings of the now-shall I say?-almost apparent to many people, leader of the combined Tory and Nationalist party?


Mr. RICHARD BLAIN (Peel).: I acquiesce at once in the references that have been made by hon. gentlemen to the large and increasing trade of Canada and the universal prosperity of the Canadian people. In looking over the address of His Excellency I notice one very serious omission which I would call to the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). Reference is made to the death of our late Mr. PATERSON.
King, Edward VII., but no mention whatever is made of the accession to the Throne of King George the Fifth. Surely the right hon. gentleman has overlooked this event, so important to the British Empire and to the people of Canada.
The people of Ontario, the people of Canada will be very much disappointed when they read the speech of the hon. the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson). If ever there was an important question in which the people of Canada are interested, it is this naval policy of the government. When other important public questions have been dealt with in this parliament they have been communicated through the press to the people of Canada, but until within a very short time the people of Canada were altogether out of touch on the naval proposition and do not understand this great and important question. The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) tried to make some small political capital, as he generally does in the House, from that important word inserted in the resolution of tyro years ago by the leader of the opposition ' speedy.' I think he said he would style the Liberal-Conservative party the speedy party of Canada. I do not think the people of Canada would so style the present administration. The right hon. gentleman and the Minister of Customs, when in opposition, made some very important promises to the people of Canada, but they have not been very speedy in fulfilling those promises. I remember the Minister of Customs making promises to the people of Ontario. One of his promises was that when their party came into power they would abolish protection. There has been no speedy fulfilment of that promise. He also said they would abolish the Senate. There has been no speedy fulfilment of that promise either. I could enumerate many other promises by that hon. gentleman, .and therefore I say there is no danger of this government being styled speedy from their manner of fulfilling the promises which they gave to the people.
The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) was very anxious to know what the Liberal-Conservative party would do in respect to the lands in the west of Canada. One of the planks laid down by the hon. the leader of the opposition in the well known Halifax platform of August 20, 1907, reads:-
The restoration of the public lands to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan upon fair terms.
Surely the hon. gentleman was not serious when hie asked what the leader of the Conservative party and the leader of the opposition meant by that; it is a plain statement of fact. Behind that there is a history [DOT] of the two parties in respect of the lands of the west. When the question of the auto-

nomy of the two western provinces wras under discussion the important question to which I have referred was discussed in the House. The Liberal-Conservative party, by its leader and other prominent men on this side of the House, stated clearly and distinctly to the people of Canada their policy in respect to the lands and minerals of those two provinces. I would, however, refer my hon. friend and the members from the west to the resolution to be found in the ' Votes and Proceedings ' of 1905, at page 823. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) moved a resolution that all lands, minerals and mines within the limits of the provinces shall belong to the provinces. At the very first opportunity, when the Liberal-Conservative party had to put themselves on record, when these provinces were being formed, when the Bills were before the House for discussion, before the final act had taken place in this parliament, the Liberal-Conservative party put themselves on record and said that in their opinion the lands and the minerals of these two western provinces should belong to the people and be vested in the local legislatures.
For that resolution the Liberal Conservative party in this House voted, but it was voted down by this_ government, and if there is any complaint from the west, as we know there is, because the lands and minerals are not vested in the legislatures of those provinces, the fault does not lie on this side of the House, but it lies with the right hon. gentleman and the Minister of Customs, and the friends of my hon. friend who is making a complaint in the House to-night. I have in my hand a despatch sent to the Toronto 1 News * two or three days ago, where a Liberal member of the Alberta legislature moved a resolution asking the legislature to declare that the lands, minerals and mines should be vested in the legislature of that province. That was not a. complaint from a Liberal-Conservative, that was a resolution moved by a prominent Liberal within the last ten days, directing the attention of the people of Canada to the gross negligence of this government in refusing to entrust the people of that province, as the people of the province of Ontario are entrusted, with the management of their lands and minerals in the interest of the people.
Is it of any advantage, Mr. Speaker, for the provincial government to own those lands and minerals? I think it is. In the province of Ontario, you understand, these lands, minerals and mines are vested in the local government. I have here a statement of the revenue derived by the treasury of the province from those resources; the statement covers ten months ending the 31st of October, 1909. I give the figures for ten months, because the fiscal year of 12$
that government was changed, like the fiscal year of this government, so that I take the latest figures available. For the ten months ending 31st October, 1909, the lands, forests and mines of that province yielded a revenue of $2,028,224.48. During those ten months the province of Ontario expended for agricultural purposes-and I would direct the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture to this fact; he will not be surprised, I am sure, because he has heard it before, but it will be a surprise to the people of Canada to know that the provin?e of Ontario expends more eveiy year on agriculture in that province than the Dominion of Canada does in the management of our agricultural resources by the Minister of Agriculture. The Ontario government expended on agriculture in those ten months, $493,410.19; and on education, $1,452,162.11, or a total on agriculture and education of $1,945,572.30. The province received during those ten months from their minerals, mines and forests, $82,652.18 more than was expended on both agriculture and education. Therefore it is of some importance to the people of western Canada that they should own their mines, their minerals and their timber wealth; it would be a great advantage to them. When I hear hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House talking about the centralization of power, I am reminded that the Liberal party and the Liberal government refused by voice, by speech and by vote to give to the people of western Canada their rights when they -were passing the Autonomy Bills in 1905.
The hon. the Minister of Customs was very anxious to get a statement of the policy of the Liberal-Conservative party on the naval question. He was more anxious to obtain a statement of our policy than he was to point the people of Canada to the policy of his own government. If you noticed it, he said very little about the policy of his own party and his own government; but he seemed to be-should I say that he did not understand our policy? I must not say that, because he is an experienced politician and a member of this government. The hon. gentleman, of course, did not expect that we on this side of the House would take him seriously. We have heard the hon. gentleman talking partisanship before in this House, and we understand it very well. It was not so bad coming from a gentleman occupying, as he did, for so long, a humble seat on the opposition side of the House, when he was going up and down this country telling the people what they ought to have. The people of this country were not so much interested then as they are now in the remarks of the hon. gentleman. But while he occupies an important position in the government, he does not seem to have lost
351)

that habit of making stump speeches, and he will persist in inflicting them on the House, whether he is in the government or out of it. Whether the hon. gentleman does or does not understand the policy of the Liberal-Conservative party on the naval question, is not very important just now; the people of Canada seem to understand the government policy and the people of Drummond-Arthabaska seem to have a little knowledge of it as well. Whatever was said in that election campaign, either on one side or the other, is not a question for ine to discuss here; that is a matter I presume which will be dealt with by the electors of that county. I do not know what was said. But whatever may be said of the speeches that were made in Drummond-Arthabaska, there is one thing clear, and that is that the electors of that county, a county that had formerly elected Liberal members for many years, have declared at the polls that they are opposed to the policy_ of this government on the naval question, and they 'have consequently sent a gentleman to this House in opposition to the government on that question, though he calls himself a Liberal on other questions. That is the latest voice from the Canadian people, and it seems to have had some effect upon this government, it has worried them a lot. They were suggesting that they might open some other seats; I do not think there is much likelihood of the Senate being reformed by this government opening any other Quebec seats for the next three or four months.
During the recess I discussed this naval proposition before the electors of the county which I have the honour to represent. I put the matter fairly before them, not in a partisan way, but from a higher standpoint, because I knew that the electors of the county of Peel were anxious ro understand the respective attitudes of the two parties upon this great question. I stated clearly and distinctly that because we believed that an emergency existea in the old country, the Liberal-Conservative party put forward a resolution in view of that emergency, and we stated that if such emergency existed the Liberal-Conservative party were willing to vote a sum of money to be sent to Great Britain to help her in her hour of need. There is no misunderstanding about our policy in that regard. The Liberal-Conservative party in this House spoke in favour of it, voted in favour of it, and the Liberal-Conservative party throughout Canada understand it quite well. Why then, should the Minister of Customs struggle with that question in the House for fifteen minutes? True, he makes the statement that he was absent from the country. Well, he left some person behind but when I was listening to him discuss this matter I thought he had been absen' Mr. BLAIN.
from the House. Surely, if the hon. gentleman had been in his place and heard the discussion he would never have ventured to struggle with the resolutions moved by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. Surely he would have understood them well. The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) understood the policies of the three parties. My . hon. friend nods his assent to that. Therefore, he differs from the Minister of Customs in the government of which he was a supporter. The hon. member for Beauce pointed out the difference between the policies in the three parties, if you may call them three parties.


Mr. BELAND.: Two of them have been united.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend seems to know more about it on that side of the House than we do. The two parties that he refers to, I suppose, although I do not say that, must be his own party and the Nationalists.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, no.


Richard Blain: politics. Let me ask the Minister of Customs, whether in the passage of that resolution of 1909 the Liberal-Conservative party did pot show its willingness to take the question out of partisan discussion? Did we not join hands with the government and say: We are prepared to assist you if you will carry out the suggestions coming from the old land, from the people who understand the naval defence of the empire better than the Prime Minister of Canada or the Minister of Customs; if you will carry out the policy suggested by the British Admiralty and the British government so that when our navy is constructed it shall be one with the British navy, then the Liberal-Conservative party of Canada will be one with the Liberal government if the electors in a general election express in favour of such a policy. But, having departed altogether from the proposition of the British Admiralty on this question it ill-becomes them to charge the Liberal-Conservative party with bad faith. I hurl the insinuation back at the Minister of Customs and I tell him that in respect to the noncarrying out of that resolution the sinners are on his side of the House and not on this side. The Liberal-Conservative party have always been willing to consult and trust the people of Canada as is clearly demonstrated by the history of our party. The project of building the Canadian Pacific railway was of great interest to the people of this country; that railway was to carry the surplus population from the east to the west and to bring the products of the great west to the east and thence to the old land; it involved the expenditure of millions of dollars and millions of acres of land owned by the people of Canada, and Sir John Macdonald, leader of the Conservative party then in power did not venture to tie up the people of this country with that project without consulting them and obtaining their mandate. In 1878 when the industries of Canada languished; when the Liberal party which now boasts of its loyalty to Canada and Great Britain was in power and when their Finance Minister told the people that the government were but as flies upon the wheel to help them, the right hon. Sir John Macdonald, then in opposition, said to the people of Canada we are prepared to take this issue before you and on it we will stand or fall; we are willing to trust the people. And the Liberal-Conservative party of that day did trust the people, and no man knows better than the Minister of Customs, who took part in that election, what the result was. I know this is ancient history but it is important to point it out in view of the present situation. We, the Liberal-Conservative party in this parliament to-day are not suggesting any policy which is not consistent with the traditions of our party. We are carrying out the principles laid down by the Liberal-Conservative Mr. BLAIN.
leaders in days gone by; we are willing to trust the people on these important questions. We, therefore, say that before the government of Canada enters into this enormous expenditure of millions of the people's money (for which the government have no mandate because it was not an issue in the last election), the people of the country should be trusted to give their opinion. For myself, as an humble supporter of the Liberal-Conservative party and of our honoured leader, I am prepared when the time comes to submit my vote and my word to the people of my county and I have no fear of the result. We have had charges made from the government side in respect to loyalty. Who is responsible for stirring up strife betwen people in this country? Here are the words of the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) as reported in ' Hansard ' at page 250 of this session:
Now, they speak of two wings of the opposition ; one of them is called the real loyal wing, and there are really loyal men upon the other side of the House, men who are as loyal .as the men upon this side of the House. But, then there are with them men of different ilk; there are the loyal men and there are the Monks, and the Blondins.
I would like to ask my hon. friend from South Grey whether he adheres to that statement?


Mr. MILLER.: I think I gave two other names, and I am willing to add these and still adhere to the statement.


Richard Blain: Who are the two others?


Henry Horton Miller: If you will judge people by their actions, I named the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), thinking they were not loyal when they sent the telegrams that they did send.


Richard Blain: Is that a proper statement to make in this House, charging that hon. members of this House are not loyal? I would like the ruling of the Chair on that question.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think it rather late in the day to raise that point. .


Richard Blain: I do not ask your ruling upon the statement in the hon. member's speech of a few day's ago. But he has just risen in his place in this House and declared that the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) is not loyal.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Was not loyal. I understood the hon. member (Mr. Miller) to say that the hon. member for Leeds was not loyal when he sent that telegram.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend (Mr. Beland) understands the naval policy a good deal better than he does this proposition. I would ask the ruling of the Chair

on the question whether the hon. member for South Grey is in order in making a charge of disloyalty against an hon. member of this House.


Henry Horton Miller: Perhaps I may be allowed a moment, Mr. Speaker. I said exactly what I am reported to have said. And I say now, as I said a moment ago, that judging these gentlemen by their actions, I would not deem them to be loyal men for the actions of which I have spoken were not, in my opinion, the actions of loyal men. If the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) wants your ruling on that, I am quite willing to abide by that ruling.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think the hon. member (Mr. Miller) has a right to estimate the action of other hon. members. I do not see that there is any direct charge of disloyalty.


Richard Blain: I accept the decision of the Chair. But if statements are made in this House likely to stir up strife between the parties in the country they do not come from this side.


Samuel Hughes: You might give your opinion of the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Miller's) loyalty.


Richard Blain: It is hardly worth while to deal further with the hon. member (Mr. Miller) for I am sure he was not serious in the speech he made. But I would point out that the leader of the opposition and the Liberal-Conservative party are loyal both in speech and action. If you wish to draw a distinction between the actions of hon. members on this side and those of hon. member^ on the other side, including the hon. member for South Grey, then I would remind the House that when the question of support for the British navy was discussed and voted upon, we showed our loyalty by our votes in this House, and these hon. gentlemen showed their position on that question by their votes also.
I wish to say a word or two on the question of reciprocity before sitting down. Rumour has it that the question of the duties on agricultural implements will be solved outside of this House altogether. My hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Sehaffner), a year or two ago, moved a resolution giving the government and hon. members opposite from the west, who are frequently discussing the question of agricultural implements an opportunity to fulfil the pledges they gave to the people. That resolution was in favour of a reduction of the duties on agricultural implements. And hon. members on the other side voted it down.


Henry Horton Miller: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain), allow me a question? Does he remember how his own leader (Mr. R. L.
Borden), voted on that occasion? Does he remember how the hon. member from North Toronto, (Mr. Foster), voted, and how the hon. member himself (Mr. Blain), voted? My recollection is that they voted against the resolution.


Richard Blain: I am not discussing how this man or that man voted. I am pointing out-and what my hon. friend (Mr. Miller), has said will make it necessary for me to speak a little longer than I intended-that the Prime Minister and his supporters gave pledges to the people of western Canada that when their party came into power they would give free agricultural implements. The honest farmers of the west voted, many of them, against their old party allegiance, and in favour of the party of promises, and hon. gentlemen opposite were given power, how did they carry out their promise? They were ready to talk about reducing the duty on agricultural implements, but when the time came, they voted down the proposition. And now it is currently rumoured that the agricultural implement question is to be solved by a merger of the manufacturers of these implements in Canada and in the United States, When these people have their merger completed, the duties will be taken off agricultural implements, and this government will be able to gc to the country and tell the people that they have carried out the promise made in 1896. That. I say, is the rumour, and it is of sufficient importance to be heeded by the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), now occupying the positon of Minister of Finance in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), because of illness which is greatly deplored by us all. The Minister of Customs, we are told, is to give us ihc Budget speech in a few days


William Paterson: No, no.


Richard Blain: He is on the commission to solve the tariff problem between the United States and Canada. I would direct his attention to this matter, and also that of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. King), who introduced a Bill to stamp out mergers which oppress the people-which, of course, is only on paper and no one suggests that my hon. friend (Mr. King), will put it into operation. For my part, I believe in a government that will enforce its own legislation and not ask five or six men to make the first move in that direction. I direct the hon. gentleman's (Mr. King's), attention to the report, and I can tell him that if that is the way the government intend to solve this difficulty, the people will be very much disappointed. I should expect the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Customs to see to it that we do not come under a huge merger tak-

ing in the United States and Canada as '*veil.
Now, the Minister of Customs, I remember, was very verbose in his remarks against the Liberal-Conservative party in respect of purity of administration 'and honesty in public office. I am going to point out one or two things to the hon. gentleman, lest he should forget. A short time ago, in the Public Accounts Committee, we discovered that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) had given a gentleman in the city of Montreal by the name of B. J. Coghlin an order to purchase some goods in the old country. Mr. Coghlin went to the old country and purchased the goods and sent them to the government, and put in his bill for $3,000, which was initialled and paid by this government. After the bill was paid, Mr. Coghlin became alarmed because of the investigations from this side of the House, and he said to himself : I have overcharged this innocent government and must put this thing right. And he sent a letter, a copy of which will be found at 5828 of the 'Hansard' of 1908, inclosing his cheque for $166.32 overcharged, and a few days later sent another cheque for $1,171.97, making a total refund of $1,338.29 on a bill of $3,000. I would like the Minister of Customs to explain why he supported that transaction. Why did my hon. friend support that government which allowed this bill to go through and be paid, and about which never a word would have been heard but for the investigation on this side. I would like the Minister of Customs to answer that question.


George Taylor: It is a naughty question; he will not answer.


William Paterson: I am not interrupting the hon. gentleman.


Richard Blain: But I want the minister to interrupt me by answering that question. If he.. cannot answer it, or will not when the opportunity is given, let him not go up to Ontario and tell the people that in Ottawa they have an honest administration. My hon. friend is always pleading for fair play. What better fair play does he want? Let me put him another question or two. A gentleman by the name of Matthew Lodge, as well known as is the Minister of Customs himself, procured four properties down in Moncton, N.B.,the Jones, Gibson, Jones and Milner properties, for which he paid $5,075. He had to pay some little expenses and taxes amounting to $300, making a total of $5,375. Then he sold these properties to this government for $13,880 and put $8,505 into his pocket.


An hon. MEMBER.: He is a good Tory.


Richard Blain: No, no Tory would ever do a thing like that, and this man never did


Richard Blain: it until he became converted to the ways of this government. But I want to ask the Minister of Customs why he supports the government which is dealing with the people s money in that way. Why did not my hon. friend, with his boasted honesty, see to it that if the government required these lands, they did not allow all this profit to go to a middleman but made the purchase direct themselves. And when a resolution was moved in this House condemning this government for having allowed middle-men^ to pocket these enormous profits, the Minister of Customs stood up and, by his vote, said to the people of Canada that that kind of thing was all right in politics. If my hon. friend did not deliver lectures to this side of the House, I would not have rn9.de this statement-


William Paterson: I have no objection.


Richard Blain: But my hon. friend will go into the province of Ontario shortly and tell the people there that he is a member of an honest government. Well, if he will only lay before the people these two simple statements I have made, the people will deal with him and his party in the right way. Then we were told that this government would keep the lands and the minerals of our Northwest for the settlers. Have they done that? I am going to ask another question or two. When the Liberal-Conservatives left office in 1896, there were 1,860 square miles of timber limits under lease in western Canada. A year or two ago, when the hon. member for St. Antoine division of Montreal (Mr. Ames) went into this matter very closely, a return was submitted showing that 6,400 square miles of timber limits had been disposed of ^y this government chiefly to supporters of their own, some of them with seats in this House. Land for the settlers-that was a great shibboleth with my hon. friends in the west, particularly in Ontario. They were always talking about lands for the settlers. The coal lands of the west have been disposed of by this government into the hands of monopolists. There are only 40,000 acres of coal lands in western Canada now in the hands of companies that operate coal lands, and only 10,000 acres of coal lands in the west that are being operated. Practically the balance of the coal lands in western Canada are in the hands of speculators, and I would ask the Minister of Customs how it comes that he said to the people of the province of Ontario that he would see to it, if his party came into power, that these lands would be held for the settlers and the speculators would have no place. Why did my hon. friend support that?


William Paterson: What particular portion of the address is my hon. friend speaking to now?


Richard Blain: It took me such a short time to deal with the part of the address discussed by my hon. friend that I thought I had time to deal with these other important questions. I admit at once that these are possibly not proper questions to discuss on the address.


William Paterson: I want you to finish with me and then I want to leave the Chamber.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend made such a stump speech that I wanted to give him an opportunity to answer some of these questions. He thinks it is all right for his party and this government to allow the public domain to go into the hands of speculators and then that they should say when these matters are to be discussed, an honest government is now in power at Ottawa.


William Paterson: I shall leave the Minister of the Interior to answer that.


Richard Blain: I am within my rights when I say to the Minister of Customs who is now leaving the Chamber, that he should take an opportunity when it is afforded him to answer these questions, or to hold his peace before the electors in the province of Ontario. I believe that when the people of this country have an opportunity they will vote this government out of power on these and other important questions. I can see no reason why the government should not be willing to consult the people on their naval policy, unless it is that they think more of office than they do of the protection of Canada and of the British Empire.


Mr. G. W. ICYTE (Richmond, Nova Scotia).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer one or two observations affecting certain aspects of this debate. I was impressed by the attitude and the spirit of jubilation shown by gentlemen on the opposition side of the House when they met here to discharge their duties as representatives of this country. The hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) made the statement that in his opinion the government were in mortal dread of a general election, that the First Minister had lost his prestige in the province of Quebec, that his prestige and his influence had been shattered. I naturally made some inquiry to see what had happened during the year to arouse the hitherto drooping spirits of the opposition and to make them feel that, after having wandered so many years in the wilderness of opposition, they saw in the future, somewhat distant still, a time when they would be recalled to discharge the duties of government.
In looking over the files of the Ottawa
' Citizen ' I observe an item in that paper bearing date November 13, 1909 :
For two hours yesterday Conservative senators and members took counsel in caucus upon matters affecting the party's political welfare. At some length the question was discussed of the time and place for holding the great Conservative convention of 1910. The leader's proposal met with enthusiastic support, but arrangement of details was deferred for the time being.
In the Ottawa ' Citizen ' of November 27, I find :
A sub-committee of the Conservative caucus has been appointed to consider the time and place of the general convention of the party next year. It will be held some time during the summer, and the idea of holding it during the session does not meet with much favour. Ottawa, Toronto and Winnipeg each has it advocates.
So that at that date they were 'still considering the advisability of having a party convention. Under date of December 1, I find this item :
While a sub-committee of the Conservative caucus which is considering the time And place of holding the general party convention has not yet reported and no decision has been reached, the impression seems to be growing that Ottawa will be selected. A number of western men who first favoured Winnipeg now think that from a strategical viewpoint it will be better to have the gathering at the capital, which being nearer the centre of the country, would ensure a representative attendance.
Under date December 8, I find :
Recommendations of sub-committee :-
(1)	That a committee of fifty, of whom not more than twenty should be M.Ps., to be known as a committee on preliminary arrangement for the Dominion Convention of the Liberal-Conservative party, be appointed by Mr. R. L. Borden.
(2)	That said committee be called together at Ottawa for their first meeting on some day in January, 1910.
(3)	That in the opinion of the sub-committee the Dominion convention should be held in the city of Winnipeg during the exhibition in September.
Subsequently there was a meeting of the committee on preliminary arrangements for the convention in Ottawa on January 24. The Ottaw.a ' Citizen ' of January 25, contained this statement:
The big convention of the Conservative party will be held in Ottawa, commencing on June 15 and 16 next. This was decided at the meeting of the general committee on arrangements representing all parts of the Dominion.
From this I learned that it was the intention of the Conservative party to call a convention of their supporters from all parts of the Dominion for the purpose of

formulating a common policy upon which all should stand and fight the battle in the coming election. It was stated that the great convention held by the Liberal party in 1893 at which they formulated a policy upon which they stood and appealed to the people, had been a great factor in winning the battle for the Liberal party and it was felt that it would not be bad policy to follow that successful example. But the convention was not held and I wondered if it was that fact that accounted for the spirit of jubilation to be observed in the speech of the member for Yale-Cariboo. Perhaps he felt that the holding of a convention would be rather a serious matter for the great Conservative party. He may have felt that under the circumstances it might be difficult to get the different wings of the Conservative party to stand on a common platform. The crisis was passed by the very simple alternative of having no convention at all and the hon. gentlemen may have felt that the Conservative party had something to be thankful for, even if they did not win an election during 1910. The jubilation of the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo and other hon. gentlemen on his side of the House may be partly accounted for by what occurred at a meeting held in the town of Trenton, Ontario, in June, 1910. At that meeting there were present the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), and Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell, who was at one time leader of the Conservative party. Sir Mackenzie Bowell there delivered a speech irom which I shall read a quotation :
He congratulated Mr. Borden on the selection of ex-Judge Doherty as his lieutenant. He is m every sense worthy of the position. He is an honest man, whose public and private actions are prompted by the highest ideals. He is one of the same class of men as Sir John Thompson. He will be loyal to his leader, and loyal to his principles. He abhors trickery and duplicity. The Conservative party gains by his association with Mr. Borden, a leader of whom it is proud/
At the same meeting there was a speech delivered by Mr. J. W. Johnson, member of the Ontario Legislature for the county of West Hastings. Mr. Johnson made the following statement:-
When Mr. Borden is called upon to form a cabinet we shall require from him that it shall contain no man whose record is tainted, no matter how eminent his services to the party may have been in the past. The Conservative party cannot afford to carry any man who has used time or money to his own advantage that he owed to the business in which he was employed, or from the management of a company to promote his own interests. The Conservative party has carried that burden too long.


George William Kyte: Mr. Speaker, if the Conservative party have got rid of that burden, I presume it did have some effect in rousing the spirits and enthusiasm of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. The reorganization which was announced some months ago took place to the extent intimated by Mr. Johnson in his speech at Trenton. They felt that after having suffered from the handicap I have mentioned for so many years when they were now relieved they would be in a better position to win the electorate of this Dominion on the great question of public policy. I am not going to make any observations as to the advantages that are likely to accrue to the Conservative party by reason of this reorganization and by reason of their having got rid of the burden which they carried so long. But I venture to say that if the reorganization is carried to the extent this gentleman refers to, then the criticisms directed by hon. gentlemen on the opposition side as respects the policy of the government will be very much less interesting and entertaining if that hon. gentleman is not in his place as he has been heretofore.
The hon. member also referred to a tour which was made by the First Minister throughout the west during last summer. I think it will be conceded that from every point of view that tour was a great success. I think it will be conceded by hon. gentlemen who sit on the opposition side that the people of the west were glad to avail themselves of the opportunity of coming forward to hear what the first man in Canada had to say on great public questions, and what were the plans and what were the policies he had in view for the future. But there were other political tours in Canada, to one of which I will refer, that took place in the province of Nova Scotia. The hon. the leader of the opposition, in the month of August, decided to address some public meetings in the province of Nova Scotia. The Halifax ' Herald ' of August 11, referring to the first meeting of the tour, which took place at Truro, has this to say:-
The fact that so large a crewd gathered to hear Mr. Borden is noteworthy in view of the fact that Howe's circus billed for a week before was showing in the town at the same hour.
Now, there is no intimation in that despatch of any enormous crowd of people coming forward to hear what the leader of the opposition had to say on the naval question, for instance, or on any other great question of policy. The fact is all the more striking when we remember that he had as his assistant on that occasion the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers), whose well known forensic and histrionic talents did not even avail to draw the crowd away from the attractions that were offered by the lady contortionist and by the pink

lemonade man. From Truro the leader of the -opposition went into the county of Guys-borough, and addressed a meeting there. The Halifax ' Herald ' of August 16, referring to the Guysborough meeting, says this:-
There was a packed meeting in the court house this afternoon, in spite of a typical hay day to hear Mr. R. L. Borden.
The leader of the opposition did not seem to have the same idea as regards the success of that meeting that the correspondent of the Halifax ' Herald ' did, because, in his interview which he gave in the city of Ottawa upon his return, he stated that his meetings were very successful with the exception of one in the town of Guys-borough, where the crowd was not large because it was a typical hay day, and the people attended to their work. The same is true with the other meetings that were held throughout the province of Nova Scotia ; one reason or another was alleged to account for the small attendance that went out to hear the leader of the opposition.	I am not
satisfied myself as to the value of these explanations, because a gentleman occupying the high position of leader of a great political party ought to be able to bring out the people in large numbers when he undertakes to instruct them upon any public question. I well remember another occasion when a leader of an opposition visited the province of Nova Scotia, and came to the town in which I live. On that occasion the circumstances were similar, it was in the hay making season, the weather was ideal for farm work, but nevertheless the people came out not only in hundreds but in thousands to hear what this gentleman had to say upon the questions in which they were interested. The tour on that occasion was made by the hon. gentleman who leads the government, but who at that time was leader of the opposition in this House. The people came forth in large numbers for the purpose of hearing him, although he did not have the prestige that he afterwards acquired from being the leader of a government. There was another tour projected by the leader of the opposition during the past summer, but which did not take place. A press despatch dated September 7 contained the following announcement:-


Mr.  R. L.@: Borden is leaving for Toronto to confer with the various Conservative interests regarding his September tour in Ontario. There is every probability of the few present dates being cancelled, owing to the fact that the dates of the fall fairs are likely to he a serious hindrance to the success of any meetings.
At all events, we have no evidence at any of the receptions that were given to the
right hon. the first Minister on his tour in the west, of any enormous anxiety on the part of the people of Canada to put a sudden termination to his services as Prime Minister; there is no evidence available in any elections that were held during the last year to satisfy any inquiring mind that the government was losing the support, the sympathy or the confidence of the people which it has enjoyed to such a remarkable degree for so many years.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier, (Mr. Monk), in the speech which he delivered in this debate, made reference to- the fact that during the present year a constituency was lost to the government in the province of Quebec. That by-election has been so fully discussed and so thoroughly threshed out that I am not going to say anything about it, except to remark on the way the result of that election has roused the hopes and spirits of the opposition, although leading gentlemen belonging to the opposition have absolutely repudiated any part or interest in or connection with that election. Therefore, we cannot find in respect of that by-election the source of jubilation which has been indulged in by hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the other side of the House.
I would like, however, to make one or two observations by way of reply to the criticisms made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in respect of that by-election. He referred to the fact that previous to 1896 there was a by-election held in the province of Quebec, and that although the Conservative party, then in power, had been able to hold its sway pretty thoroughly throughout that great province, on this particular occasion the government lost the by-election and the loss of that election sounded the death knell of the Conservative party as the governing body of this country. By-elections may be significant, or they may not be significant according to the circumstances and conditions under which they are run. If, in Drummond and Arthabaska, there was a vacancy sought to be filled by the candidates respectively of the two great parties of this Dominion-a Liberal candidate and a Conservative candidate-if the complete policy and record of the government had been placed before the people in that constituency, if they had been adjudged in the light of the manner in which these policies had been received and the Conservative party had won that election, I am quite willing to concede that the loss of a seat under these circumstances might have some significance as indicating that the government were losing some of the support that they had heretofore enjoyed. But, with respect to the by-election held in 1895, which was lost to the Conservative government, I very respectfully submit to the hon. mem-

ber for Jacques Cartier, and to other hon. gentlemen who are within sound of my voice, that other things happened between the losing of the by-election in the province of Quebec and the defeat of the Conservative government on the 23rd June, 1896.
It is not my desire to refer to matters that are unpleasant and disagreeable, but under all the circumstances I shall take the privilege of reminding you that between the time that the Conservative government lost that by-election in 1895 in the province of Quebec and the general election of 1896, there was an incident that took place in the history of the Conservative party that no hon. gentleman on this side desires wantonly to recall. There was an incident at which the whole people of the country stood aghast when one morning it was announced by the press of the country that six members of the government had proven false to their leader, had gone out of the cabinet and had taken a position which justified their leader in referring to them for all time afterwards as a nest of traitors. While the Liberal party will continue to perform their duties with proper regard to the interests of the country and the needs of the times, I think that the' right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) need not feel alarmed, or need not feel any chagrin over any by-election that will be lost to him under circumstances such as those which caused the loss of the seat in Drummond and Arthabaska.
This government has been performing a great work in the interests of this country, and it still has a very great work to perform. When we consider the enormous advances that have been made under the regime of this government with respect to the trade of the country, with respect to the facilities that have been given to the people in the way of railway and water transportation and other species of public advancement, and of public works, when we consider the record of the government as regards the revenues that have been brought in and the expenditures that have been made, when we consider what the government has done in increasing the trade and prosperity of the country, I think that the right hon. the leader of the government and the members who surround him in his cabinet need not be very much alarmed if once in a while an election is lost to them under the circumstances under which they lost the last one. While there is no advantage accruing to the Conservative party in respect of contests before the electorate, while the opposition to this government are making no further headway than they have made in the last twelve months with the people of Canada, I think we may rest assured that the government are still enjoying the confidence of the electorate quite as much as they have in the past.	*


George William Kyte: On the question of reciprocity I desire to make one or two observations, although I realize that the hour is late and much has already been said on this question. I feel very strongly upon this question and I 4 do not agree with hon. gentlemen opposite, and the newspaper press supporting their party, in the assertion that the name of reciprocity should not be mentioned, but that it should be anathematized before the people of this country. I well remember during the session of parliament before the last, when prominent members of the opposition taunted and twitted members of the government because they had not kept their pledges to the people, and one of the pledges they alleged they had not kept was the pledge given in 1893 to bring about a reciprocity treaty with the United States. I do not know whether the circumstances and necessities are such as existed at that time, but I would myself hail with every satisfaction any measure of tariff reform or tariff reduction by this government that would further reduce the burdens of the people and solve, in so far as they are able to solve, the great question of the cost of living, which has aroused the people of the United States to an enormous degree within recent times.
There is much to be done by the government of this country with respect to all public matters, and I feel confident and assured that hon. gentlemen opposite will have small consolation coming to them with respect to the action of the electorate in the support which they will give to the government in the future.
Mr. LENNOX moved the adjournment of the debate..


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Fisher, House adjourned at 10.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 29, 1910.