1914-02-24

ASH WEDNESDAY ADJOURNMENT.

Mr. BORDEN moved:: That when the House adjourns this clay, it do stand adjourned until Thursday next, the 26th inst., at three o'clock p.rr.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: I wish to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that an answer to a question with regard to freight rates on the Prince Edward Island railway which appeared on the Order Paper yesterday was not printed in ' Hansard.' The only answer that appears in the official report is that the answer had been filed with the Clerk of the House. I should like to know why the invariable rule of the House has been departed from.


Robert Laird Borden: I know nothing of the
matter except that the Clerk of the House informs me that the answer consisted of a long series of statistics which it is not usual to print in ' Hansard,' and that the clerk will furnish copies of the answer as may be desired. My hon. friend will remember that there was some discussion about this matter on a previous occasion, and it was stated that the practice which was followed has been pursued for some time.


James Joseph Hughes: If the right hon. Prime Minister will pardon me, I do not think there was any previous discussion about this matter; probably it was about a return. It seems to me that the answer to this question should not occupy msre than



a page of ' Hansard.' The object of asking the question was to have the information published.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: The rule is
absolute; the answer ought to go on ' Hansard.'


Robert Laird Borden: I have not the rule
under my hand at the moment, and I do not know. I do remember that the subject was discussed on a previous occasion, and His Honour the Speaker made some observation with regard to the practice.


Wilfrid Laurier: Here is the
rule, No. 37:
If a member does not distinguish his question by an asterisk, the minister to whom the question is addressed hands the answer to the Clerk of the House who causes it to be printed in the official report of the Debates.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The practice seems to
me to be growing of late-and it should be more carefully avoided-of putting on the Order Paper questions which require answers containing long lists of figures, and which should more properly be made as a notice of motion. Owing to the desire, 1 suppose, to give the information, these questions are allowed to pass, and their being printed occasions a conflict with the rule which was established some years ago, that nothing should go on ' Hansard ' except what was read in the House-excepting, perhaps, figures given in the Budget Speech, by the Minister of Finance. That rule was laid down, and has been adhered to ever since. It was with reference to questions of this kind that the matter was discussed in the House some time ago, and it was decided then that in such cases, after an exhibit of what was proposed to go into ' Hansard ', the answer should be filed with the Clerk of the House. That was my understanding, and since then I have been endeavouring to follow that rule, although I have given no instructions with regard to questions and answers.


Wilfrid Laurier: A member has the privilege of putting a question. If the minister thinks that it should stand as an order for a return, he has only so to declare, but if he chooses to answer the question, then the rule provides that the question be handed to the clerk and that the clerk shall put it on ' Hansard.'


Robert Laird Borden: I have not the slightest objection to the answers being printed in full; I understand that the practice which has been observed in this regard was established some years ago. When the 
answer is very long, I agree with my right hon. friend that it would be better for the minister to ask that the question stand as a notice of motion for return.


Wilfrid Laurier: There seems to be a misapprehension here which should be corrected. The rule provides that answers can be given orally or in writing. Sometimes an answer which is given orally contains a long list of figures, and, the figures not having been read, they should not go into ' Hansard ', but if the member does not ask for an oral answer, and the answer is given in writing, the rule is that the answer shall be given to the clerk, who puts it upon the pages of ' Hansard.'


Robert Laird Borden: That does seem to be a plain statement of the rule. It is a matter in which I have not interfered in any way whatever, nor has my right hon. friend, as I know. In cases where the answers are long and cumbersome, it would be better in future, I think, for the ministers to let the questions stand as notices of motion. But in cases where that is not done you have the answer printed, as the rule seems to require.


James Joseph Hughes: But I suppose when the answer appears the question will also appear in the same 'Hansard' so that it may be intelligible?


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly.



SUBURBAN TRAIN SERVICES.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. White for Committee of Supply:
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: I wish to call to the attention of the Government and to discuss very briefly the matter of suburban train service in and out of Halifax. It is not, of course, a matter of national importance, but it is of very considerable local interest just at this moment. I have had the advantage of several interviews with the hon. the Minister of Railways on this matter, and I wish to acknowledge his courtesy in this respect; but I feel that the subject is now of such importance that I owe it to my constituents to discuss it here. Between Halifax and Bedford, a distance ol about ten miles, is a well settled suburban district traversed by the Intercolonial railway throughout its entire length. As the Prime Minister knows, this district is located upon Bedford basin, an extension of Halifax harbour, and is an exceedingly popular residential district in the summer season and, to a very large extent in the

winter season as well. It has a permanent population I would say of about one thousand. and in the summer season this is very materially increased, hut to what extent I can hardly estimate-probably by fifty per cent. The residents of this district are people who are largely engaged in business or employed in one manner or another in the city , of Halifax. These people established their residences there upon the assumption that it was the policy of the Intercolonial railway to encourage the growth and development of this suburban district and that it would be continuously provided with suitable train accommodation. Homes have been built there, mercantile businesses have been established, and schools organized upon the assumption that such railway accommodation would obtain. The stability of suburban residences and of mercantile business which are now in existence there, and the prosperity of the district generally is dependent entirely upon the permanence and suitability of the railway service afforded, those who there reside. This is evident, I imagine, to every person who has had any experience in or knowledge of suburban districts. I know that in this particular district at least one industry has been established which employs a considerable amount of labour and I think that its establishment is attributable solely to the fact that it was possible for the labour employed to have ready access to the city of Halifax at hours which were convenient to them. If suitable railway accommodation is not available in suburban districts to the nearest city it is almost impracticable to obtain labour for any industries which might desire to locate there. In connection with suburban districts I think it is generally conceded, and I may predicate it as a fact, that a late night train service is an absolute necessity to its very life and continuance. Suburban dwellers always hope to avail themselves of the amusements and social advantages of city life, and this is only possible with the establishment and maintenance of a late suburban train service. This may sound to some as an extravagant demand on the part of suburban dwellers, but nevertheless it is one of the necessities and advantages demanded, and is one of the inevitable incidents to suburban life.
The district of Bedford has had the advantage of a late night suburban train service to and from Halifax for a long number of years, I believe twenty years; and recently, some two or three weeks ago, this service was summarily discontinued.
The ground alleged for the discontinuance of this railway service, I believe, is that the cost of the service was very much in excess of the revenue derived from it, and consequently the cancellation of this train service is defended upon the ground of economy. I have not had the advantage of seeing any financial statement showing the cost of this service together with its earnings, although the Minister of Railways has promised to furnish me with the same. I wish to submit to the Government that, in my judgment, to determine whether this late train service shall or shall not continue as formerly, upon the net financial result of the operation of this one train is altogether too narrow a view, and the policy should be settled upon broader lines. There are many other things to be considered in determining whether or not this particular train service is financially justifiable. In the first place, it must be very difficult to actually determine whether this service is profitable or not. A great many other trains serve this district incidentally, and many of its residents, and travellers going there, take advantage of these trains; and to this extent returns properly attributable in origin to this suburban district generally can hardly be ascertained with accuracy, and consequently it does not, I fear, receive credit for the same in the calculations of the Railway Department. Again, it is of course obvious that the many residents of this district have many friends, who are obliged to visit there very frequently, and who perhaps do not always avail themselves of what is strictly a suburban railway service, but use other trains, and,	again, any	income derivedfrom	such	travel	can hardly be
accounted for with any precision. The district is further served by another railway, namely, the Dominion Atlantic railway, which uses the Intercolonial rails from Bedford to Halifax. I have no doubt that this railway receives considerable revenue from what is strictly suburban traffic, and that road must account to the Intercolonial for a proportion of the same. It would be very difficult for me to estimate what particular amount is received by the Intercolonial from this same source. Its origin, however, is due to the existence of the suburban district, which was made possible by proper passenger railway accommodation. There is also the question of freight. In this suburban district a freight traffic has grown up. Mercantile establishments have been established to meet the require-

nients of the district, and that necessarily involves considerable freight traffic which inures very much to the benefit of the Intercolonial railway. The value and permanence of this freight traffic is dependent entirely upon the prosperity and growth of this suburban section. If its population decreases the freight traffic will also diminish. Consequently the Intercolonial railway is necessarily interested in the freight traffic, and this must be taken -into consideration in determining the character of the passenger service which Bedford and the intervening district is entitled to.
I have no doubt the Minister of Railways urges in defence of the cancellation of this train service the fact that the rates are too low, and that its re-establishment is only possible by an increase in passenger rates. I submit to the Government that it is the policy of all important railways to encourage suburban settlement. This is sound policy for a great many obvious reasons; and I think it is also the policy of railways, to afford a suburban passenger service at comparatively low commutation. If they are thus successful in developing a prosperous and populous suburban district, there will eventually come a time when the railway traffic of all kinds, originating there, becomes profitable. Therefore, I think I may fairly submit to the Government that that is the policy which should be pursued in this instance by the Intercolonial railway.
As the Prime Minister is no doubt aware, a new passenger arrangement was established and put into operation on Saturday night last, for the convenience of persons resident in the district of Bedford whereby they could leave the city of Halifax at 11.15 p.m. on a passenger car attached to a fast freight train. The result was not very satisfactory and apparently meets with unqualified opposition from those compelled to use it. It took this train one hour and a quarter to travel to Bedford, a distance of 10 miles, and two hours to Windsor Junction, a distance of eighteen or twenty miles. I also understand that the passengers on this train on Saturday last also suffered much discomfort. I do not question the wisdom of the policy which the Minister of Railways in this instance seeks to invoke, namely, to retrench in expenditures on the Intercolonial. That is good business and sound policy, and generally speaking should meet with the commendation of every hon. gentleman in this House. I have pointed out, however, some reasons why the continuance of this suburban night service should not be 
dependent on the contingency of a parity between the cost of the service and its revenue. Other matters, some of which I have mentioned must be taken into consideration. When one looks into the various items of expenditure on the Intercolonial I think it is quite obvious that retrenchment might be made in many other directions. Were it necessary I might suggest many ways to effect proper retrenchments. But in this particular instance I submit it is not necessary to make a retrenchment. Furthermore, the cancellation of this night service at this particular season of the year, and without ample notice to the public, has worked very considerable hardship, as well as great inconvenience and possibly loss. I submit that if such a train service had to be discontinued it should only be upon sufficient notice. The continued cancellation of this train means that a great many people who have established homes in this suburban district will be compelled to give them up. Their residence there is only possible upon the condition that a suitable late night train service is available to them. I know, of my personal knowledge, a number of persons who have settled in that district who," if the present conditions continue, will be obliged to dispose of their property and move into the city of Halifax.
There are many other -reasons which I - might urge for a generous service on the part of the Intercolonial for the residents of this particular district. The scarcity of available homes in the city of Halifax ard the recent enhancement of rents is compelling many people to seriously consider the question of removing their residences to suburban districts. Such are the facts concerning this matter. I have given to the Government my own views upon this matter, and I desire to impress upon them the desirability and necessity of the restoration of the former late night train service from Halifax to Bedford. The present conditions are extremely inconvenient to son e at least, almost intolerable. I believe the district deserves the continuance of the former service, and I do trust that the Minister of Railways or the acting Minister of Railway will see fit to restore this service immediately and without conditions. The reasons assigned for the cancellation are not sound or convincing, and should never have been made, 1 trust that the people interested in the train service may look for an immediate announcement of the resumption of .the abandoned night service. It is quite apparent that the combined passenger and freight service instituted for

the first time on Saturday, will prove ineffective and will hardly provide the remedy. Therefore I trust that the Government will give due and proper consideration to this matter and that we shortly shall have an announcement that a restoration of the service has been authorized.


Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: I received a number of
telegrams this morning from constituents of my own in the city and county of St. -John, and from a number of residents in the adjoining county of Kings, making complaints somewhat similar to those that have been received by my hon. friend (Mr. A. K. Maclean) from his constituents in Halifax. It is represented to me in these telegrams that the suburban train service, which arrived in St. John at a quarter to eight every morning and left at 6.15 in the evening, was taken off and that it was causing very great inconvenience to a large number of suburban residents who lived along the line of the Intercolonial railway, between St. John and Rothesay and farther east than Rothesay. I fancy that the conditions surrounding the suburban residents near the Kennebecasis river are very similar to those described by my hon. friend outside of Halifax and in the neighbourhood of Bedford Basin. Many people have erected permanent homes for themselves along the line of railway relying upon the regular running of these suburban trains and if these people cannot get to their business at a quarter to eight, or at eight o'clock in the morning, they are put to very great inconvenience and the money that they have invested along the line of railway in permanent homes has to a very considerable extent been spent in vain as they will have to move into the city. The same condition exists at St. John as at Halifax; that is the difficulty of getting residences within the city in which there has been a very considerable growth within the last few years. The railway authorities, I should judge from the telegrams I have received, in place of the suburban train which, for a long time has been arriving in the city at a quarter to eight, have substituted a freight train to which passenger ears are attached. Yesterday morning that train was an hour late and the consequence was that people who live along the line of railway did not get to their places of business at the right time. Some of these were school teachers, others were employed in connection with the telephone exchange and others were merchants, and it is of the utmost importance to them
that they should arrive in the city at a certain time. What they allege is that the train of yesterday morning, the first morning after this change took place, was one hour late, and being a freight train there is grave danger of it being late on many future occasions. A number of concrete instances of inconvenience were brought to my attention. For instance, I am informed that one gentleman who is the principal of a school in St. John had to walk -six miles into the city in consequence of this delay, and that other gentlemen engaged in the telephone and other businesses were placed in a similar unfortunate position. On receipt of this information I immediately communicated with the railway authorities and with the hon. gentleman who is acting as Minister of Railways and brought the facts that had been called to my attention before him, and I received his assurance that the matter will receive immediate attention with the view of remedying any grievance that may exist or any inconvenience to which the people along the line of railway may be put if the facts show that this inconvenience is the result or the change in the suburban service. I feel quite sure that the Railway Department will, without unnecessary delay, take the matter up with the view of finding a remedy for any injustice that may possibly have been done if such a condition should be disclosed upon looking into the facts.


Robert Laird Borden: I appreciate the considerations which have been put forward by my colleague from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) and also the very considerate and moderate way in which he has presented the matter to the attention of the Government. Like himself, I have received representations from people living in Halifax and on Bedford Basin, setting forth the inconvenience which has been occasioned by the change made in the railway arrangements. As has already been pointed out by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), the change was not made in Halifax alone but at various other points, and undoubtedly was made with a view to retrenchment and economical administration. It is quite reasonable that the subject should be considered from the standpoints which, have been put forward by my hon. friend from Halifax. I have learned, as lie has, that the arrangement which commenced on Saturday last has not proved very efficient on the first day of its operation. The subject is under the consideration of the Department of Railways and

Canals. In the pressure of many matters incident to his approaching departure, my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) has not within the last day or two been able to give that consideration to the subject which undoubtedly it deserves, but my colleague who will undertake the administration of the department during his absence will give to the subject the very best consideration that may be possible, and I understand that the general manager of the Intercolonial railway is to be here within a day or two, when the subject can be taken up. I am informed that Mr. Gutelius visited Halifax and St. John for the purpose of bringing about some arrangement which would prove reasonably satisfactory to the persons interested. Apparently the arrangement which was made has not proved so reasonably satisfactory as was anticipated by the railway authorities. The observations of my hon. friend from Halifax, and the considerations which he has placed before the Government, will receive very early attention.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (S. York):: We' have the same grievance in the city of Toronto, only on a much larger scale. We have there now half a million of people. We have suburban towns all around Toronto, scores of them, and for years we have been trying to get, as a matter of fact, a suburban service with a commutation ticket. The great city of Montreal, which has now probably 600,000 people, for years has had an excellent suburban service and commutation ticket. Do our best we cannot get that in Toronto, and, as far as I can gather, the railway companies have pleaded that it was an act of grace. I have tried to argue in this House that the railway should give it as a matter of law and equity, and I hope that in the revision of the Railway Act it will be clearly set out that a city which establishes a right to a suburban service and to a commutation ticket will be entitled to them. No one can quite understand how serious this condition is in Toronto. We have a congestion in street car traffic every night and every morning that is almost unbearable. People cannot get out to the suburbs. It often takes a man an hour to get to his suburban home. The population of any constituency of South York, which was less than 25,000 at the last redistribution, is now over
100,000,	and nearly all these people can get to their homes over a. suburban railway

connected with the steam railways. The railway companies have deliberately adopted the policy that it is not their business to supply this service, but that this duty lies with the radial and the street railway companies. That may be true, but inasmuch as those railways are for the general convenience of the public and the public have contributed largely to their support, where a suburban service is called for, it ought to be given. The experiment certainly ought to be tried, and if it is found that it is not of a selfsustaining character it can be cancelled. But the right to try the experiment ought to be secured to the public in the general Railway Act. That is one of the questions that I propose to bring up in connection with the revision of that Act. Certainly the city of Toronto is to-day very much in need of such a service. Montreal has it and it has been proved to be profitable there. I think it would be profitable in Toronto, and in that way the people would be very well served by the steam railway where this condition of affairs exists. I quite admit that a railway company is not bound to give a suburban service where it may be unprofitable. If it were given in one city, the right to have it might be claimed in a great many cities. In large centres of population, however, the steam roads ought to be compelled, when the necessity arises, to serve the people, especially when the traffic can be shown to be profitable. That certainly is the case in Toronto and it may be the case in Halifax and St. John. If it is, the cities on the Intercolonial railway ought to have some kind of suburban service. As far as the other roads are concerned, in the large cities we ought to have the right to demand a suburban service with a commutation rate.



THE WIDOW OF NAPOLEON JALLET.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. White for Committee of Supply:
Hon. OHAS. MARCEL: I want to draw attention to what I consider is an oversight on the part of the members of the Commission on Internal Economy. I refer to the case of the late Napoleon Jallet, permanent sessional messenger of this House, who died on the opening day of last session. His widow called on me yesterday to remind me that nothing had been done in her behalf. Her husband was from Montreal, and I had known him for fourteen or fifteen years. He had the distinc-

tion of being in the service of the House for forty-seven years without interruption, having been appointed in 1866. During that time he gave faithful service. For fifteen years he was special messenger to the Deputy Speakers of this House. By some oversight nothing has been done for the widow. I think I spoke to your honour, Mr. Speaker, about this matter last year.
I hope the mention of it now will be sufficient to ensure that something will be done for her.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I remember the hon.
member speaking about this matter. I made a memorandum of it at the time and looked into it, and I believe that a resolution was passed by the Commission on Internal Economy, but that it was accidentally overlooked. I shall be glad to look into the matter.



PROVINCIAL CONTROL OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. White for Committee of Supply:
Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat):: I would like to deal with a matter of considerable importance to the western provinces. This House is familiar with the fact that the policy of the present Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition in 1905, was favourable to the transfer to the western provinces of their natural resources. That policy was adhered to during the campaign of 1911, and I desire to ascertain from, the Prime Minister to-day whether it is the intention of the Government to transfer to the western provinces their natural resources, as promised by himself in many public declarations throughout western Canada, as promised on the Halifax platform and as prominently mentioned in the Conservatives' handbook which was freely distributed throughout the country during the 1911 campaign.
It has been said that, on account of the fact that certain of the provinces of western Canada have returned Liberal governments to administer their affairs, this policy of the Prime Minister has not been acceptable to the people of the West. I do not think that argument holds water, for this reason, that ever since the first elections in 1905 and the elections of 1909 in the provinces of the West the Prime Minister 4 p.m. has adhered to that part of his platform in regard to the return to the western provinces of their natural resources. In the 1911 campaign this was
one of the arguments used to offset the strong sentiment in favour of reciprocity in the prairie provinces. I had very much pleasure in listening to the Prime Minister during his visit to Lethbridge in 1911.	He referred to the matter of natural resources, and I was led to believe that if the then leader of the Opposition was returned to power, within a very few months these natural resources would be handed over to the province of Alberta and also to the province of Saskatchewan. There was no statement that these natural resources would not be handed over until there was a Conservative Government in the province of Alberta and a Conservative Government in the province of Saskatchewan. The statement was boldly made that the Conservative party in this country were in favour of the natural resources being placed in the possession of the provinces, and that if that party were returned to power, at the first opportunity that part of their platform would be carried out. It is in regard to the failure of the Government to carry out that policy that I desire to draw the attention of the House to-day.
I would like to refer to some of the statements made by the Prime Minister at the time when he was leader of the Opposition and during his visit to western Canada in 1911. At Brandon, in 1911, at the commencement of his tour through western Canada, the then leader of the Opposition said:	.
In 1902, in 1905, in 1907, ana again in 1910, we have stood for the right of the western provinces to own and control their public domain. It is the right of the people in those provinces to have their public lands and natural resources administered by their own governments under the control of their own legislatures. They say that they are free men and being free men in a free country have as good a right to control through their own local legislatures, and by their own provincial executives, the administration of their public lands and natural resources as have the people of any of the eastern provinces who enjoy and have enjoyed that right. The Liberal-Conservative party supports that claim and will enforce it at the first opportunity.
The ' first opportunity ' came at the end of 1911. That opportunity has existed during the years 1912 and 1913, and exists at the present time. The-people of the West, believing that the Prime Minister was in earnest in the promise which he made to them naturally expect him to carry out his policy, even though the West is not returning to his support a majority of its members, or even though some of the western provinces are not supporting a

Conservative Government, because there was no stipulation that these resources would be handed over only when the Conservative party was in power in the western provinces.
Further, in regard to the platform pledges of the leader of the Conservative party in the 1911 campaign, I would like to quote what he stated at Battleford in order to show his insincerity. This is what he said:
If it should be the w.ll of the people of Canada to impose upon me the great responsibility of being called upon to form a government in Canada and after that government has been formed, the policy I have outlined will be carried out by the government as I have stated, or one man of the government will go out of public life.
These were very striking and very important statements. I always had a very high conception of the then leader of the Opposition. I believed that he was sincere in his attitude on public questions. I was not so narrow a partisan as to believe that if the then leader of the Opposition was returned to lead a government in this country, he would fail to carry out his promises. I was of the opinion that he would carry out his promises as promptly as he could. Instead of that, the Prime Minister of this country is departing from the policy which he had in 1905 and in 1911. because we find that when the boundaries of Manitoba were extended the idea of giving the provinces their natural resources was to a greater or less extent abandoned. But early in the session of 1911, the Prime Minister was queried by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin) in regard to this matter, and it appeared to me then that he was still of the opinion that the provinces should have control of their natural resources. The following are the questions put by the hon. member for Regina, with the answers given by the Prime Minister:
Mr. Martin (Regina) :
1.	Is the Government aware that the present Prime Minister during the last election promised to favour a policy of handing over to the western provinces their natural resources?
2.	If so, what steps does the Government intend to take toward implementing such promise?
Mr. Borden:
1.	Yes.
2.	The steps will be announced in Parliament in due course.
This Parliament is running very rapidly to its expiration, and it is about time the Prime Minister declared whether he is going to carry out the policy which he announced in 1911, a policy which he stood 
for then in the western provinces and which he said unequivocally he would carry out at the first opportunity. I would like to point out to the Prime Minister this fact -though, of course, I do not say that he is back of the actions of his followers in western Canada-that in the two provincial general elections held in the West since this Government was returned to power, one in Saskatchewan and one in Alberta, the argument was used by leaders of the Conservative party, and also in the press of the party, that these provinces could not expect to be given control of their natural resources until the Conservative party was returned to power in those provinces. I do not remember that the Prime Minister made such a stipulation, but that was the argument that was used on the occasions to which I have referred. And it was used as a bribe to the electors of these provinces in direct violation of that part of the Halifax platform opposed to electoral corruption. The argument was used with the same intention as if the man who used it had gone out and offered money to bribe the electors. They told the people that they could not have their natural resources, though that had been promised them, unless they returned Conservative governments to power in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The Prime Minister, holding the high ideals on public questions to which he has given expression, should note these facts. I draw to his attention these arguments which are used by his followers in western Canada.
Now, I have become an admirer of the independence of my fellow representative from the province of Alberta, the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett). He is a representative of a certain type of western sentiment, which is independent enough to speak out plainly. I remember reading, and being very much impressed by, the remarks made by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) on the occasion of the annual meeting of his electors which it is his custom to hold. And it is a very good idea: The member gathers the electors together, and they fill the largest hall in Calgary, and he makes a statement covering the work of the session and the record of the Government. Of course, as this matter of natural resources is vital to the people of the West on account of the promise made in regard to it, I would like to quote from a paper friendly to the hon. member for Calgary, in fact his warm admirer, the Calgary News-Telegram, a report of the hon. gentleman's statement on that point:

He declared that Mr. Borden would keep his promise to restore these resources to the people and the province, and that it the Conservative Premier failed to keep his pledge he would no longer feel bound to give his support to the present Government.
That, I believe, a great many people in the West thought a bold declaration. I bring this remark to the attention of the Prime Minister. It represents a sentiment that, I believe, is widely entertained by independent-minded Conservatives of the province of Alberta. It may not exist among the machine men of the party, who are trying to use the natural resources as a bribe at every election, but it does exist amongst independent-minded Conservatives who wish to see the Prime Minister carry out his promise in this regard. Now, the statement is made that the Prime Minister will convey these resources to the people of the provinces, and the hon. member for Calgary says that if that is not done he will withdraw his support from the Conservative party. But I assume that he is hopeful that the natural resources will be returned to the people of Alberta. I would like some enlightenment on this matter. I should be very glad to welcome the hon. member for Calgary to this side of the House because he had lost faith in the other side, but at the same time, I want a declaration from the Prime Minister in regard to this matter. I think I can say this for the people of the West-that they are sincere, and they expect public men and governments to be sincere. Therefore they look to the Prime Minister to carry out the promises he made in 1911 and prior to that time. This demand for the provincial control of natural resources was recently made by the Premiers of the three western provinces-not only the Premiers of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, in which there are Liberal governments, but also by the Premier of Manitoba, Sir Rodmond Roblin. In a letter to the Prime Minister of the Dominion, these Premiers say:
December 22, 1913. The Rt. Hon. R. L. Borden,
Prime Minister,
. Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-After having an interview with you in regard to the questions in respect of which the prairie provinces received different treatment from the other provinces of Canada, and, at your suggestion, a meeting of the Premiers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta was held, and it has been agreed between us to make to you on behalf of said provinces the proposal that the financial terms already arranged between the provinces and the Dominion as compensation for lands should stand as compensation for lands already alienated for the general benefit of Canada, and, that all the lands remaining within the boundaries of the respective provinces with all natural resources included, be transferred to the said provinces, the provinces accepting responsibility of administering the same.
Yours very truly,
R. P. Rohlin,
Walter Scott.
Arthur B. Sifton. . The Rt. Hon. R. L. Borden,
Prime Minister, Ottawa.
I have placed this matter as briefly as I-could before the House, and I ask a statement from the Prime Minister, in order that the people of the West may be informed as to this very important plank of the platform of 1911. In passing, I may say that, as the Dominion Government controls the natural resources of the western provinces, during this session I had occasion to ask a question regarding the exportation of natural gas from the province of Alberta. People in my constituency are very anxious that none of the gas should be exported from Medicine Hat and Bow Island gas fields, as they wish to conserve that very great and very valuable asset. I asked the question whether this Government had the power to prevent the export of this gas from Alberta into Saskatchewan.
I was told that there were no regulations which the Government could utilize to prevent the exportation of gas from Alberta to Saskatchewan. If the Prime Minister had carried out his promise to transfer the natural resources to the province of Alberta, there would have been no question about the exportation of natural gas. The power would be in the hands of the provincial Government, and they would see that the gas was not allowed to leave the province, thus protecting the interests of those communities which are so anxious, for their welfare as industrial centres, that the supply of gas shall not be used outside the province, or, to any great extent, outside the district of production.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is
quite within his rights in asking for a statement from the Government respecting this matter, and I have no exception to take to the way in which he has presented it, excepting some suggestions he made as to insincerity, with regard to which it might be well for him to take a look at himself and his friends in the West. If I am not mistaken, my hon. friend was one of those who strongly advocated the retention of these lands by Canada at the time

the new provinces were constituted. More than that, my hon. friend was one of those who argued, and stoutly argued, that the financial terms made with these provinces in consideration of the retention of those lands by Canada were far more in the interests of those provinces than would have been the transfer of those natural resources at that time. Therefore, before my hon. friend begins to throw taunts of that kind across the floor of this House, it would be well for him to explain how it is that, entertaining, and I presume, sincerely entertaining the views which he expressed at that time, he has now come to so marvellous a change of heart, and is impressed with the idea that the proposals for which I fought when he opposed them in 1905 are so much in the interest of the people of the western provinces. It was myself and my friends here in the House of Commons in 1905 who urged that the natural resources of the western provinces should fee handed over at that time, and if the course which we then advocated had been carried out by the Government of the day, which the hon. gentleman then supported in that respect as well as in other respects, the difficulties which now have to be surmounted before those natural resources can be transferred to the western provinces would not present themselves to Parliament and to the Government to-day.
Since my hon. friend is desirous of considering the question of sincerity, perhaps it is well that we should take a little review of this matter. Let us look for a moment to the attitude which the Government of the day and my hon. friend who . has just addressed the House adopted in 1905. The then Prime Minister said this:
It was represented that as a matter of law and equity the public lands in these two provinces should belong to their governments. This plea was no doubt suggested by the fact that, at the time of confederation, all parties to the original contract, that is to say, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, each retained her own lands, and when at a later day the province of British Columbia was admitted to the Dominion, she also retained her lands.. But, Sir, the cases are not at ail parallel. When the provinces which I have named came into confederation they were already sovereignties.
Further on, he said this:
Those lands were bought by the Dominion Government and they have remained ever since the property of the Dominion Government and have been administered by the Dominion Government. Therefore, I say the two cases are not in any way parallel; they are indeed absolutely different. When the provinces which I have name came into consideration they retained the ownership of their lands; but when the two new provinces came into the Do-[Mr. Borden. 1
minion, it cannot be said that they can retain the ownership of their lands, as they never had the ownership.
Then, speaking of what was done on a previous occasion by the Liberal-Conservative Government, the then Prime Minister said that the reasons which bad in fluenced the course of the Government at that time were stronger in 1905 than they were in 1884. He admitted that the provinces, being deprived of public lands, were deprived of a valuable source of income, and he said that it was therefore the duty of Parliament to make ample and generous provision in the way of compensation. My hon. friend the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) took the same if not a stronger attitude with regard to the matter in 1903, when he used this language:
It is of no advantage to the people of the territories that they should be permitted to sell the lands of the territories. If they sell the lands, settlement is thereby deterred; if they do not sell them, they derive no revenue from them, and in so far as that is concerned they might as well be administered by the Dominion Government as by themselves.
The Minister of the Interior of that day laid down the policy of his party, and I understand that my hon. friend the member for Medicine Hat strongly supported this view at that time. He has given us no explanation whatever of the change of heart which he has since experienced. The Minister of Interior of that day used this language:
If you hand over the lands to three provincial governments-because you would have to treat Manitoba in the same way that you are treating the territories-if you hand over the lands to three separate provincial governments, each with its own ideas of policy, each with its own minister of Crown lands, and if the federal Government has to deal with three provincial governments, every man who knows anything about doing business between governments must know that it would he absolutely impossible that satisfactory results could be achieved.
Further on, in the course of the same speech, he used this language:
It might he, Mr. Speaker, and probably would be, that instead of administering these lands for the purpose of . settlement they would administer them for the purpose of revenue, and I do not know that we could blame them very much if they did so. But if they did that, the result would be that the settlement policy of the country would stop.
In conclusion, he added these words:
I would say that nothing could be done which would more certainly imperil the successful settlement policy upon which the greatness and increase in the financial strength and
ressources of Canada depend, than under any

circumstances to allow the public lands of the prairie provinces to pass from the control of the Dominion Government.
I have placed these extracts before the House in order to make it plain to my hon. friend the member for Medicine Hat that a certain policy which he then supported was put forward very strongly in this House by the gentlemen who then held the reins of government. It is perfectly true, as the hon. member for Medicine Hat has said, that we stood at that time for the opposite policy, and declared in Parliament, both by speech and by resolution, that it would be a desirable thing to hand over the natural resources of the western provinces to the control and administration of the people and governments of those provinces when they were established.
After the provinces were constituted and established, an election was held, and the terms of the constitutional Act which forms the charters of those provinces were placed before the people; and at that election and at several subsequent elections it Ans claimed by the Governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta that the people had ratified, over and over again, the terms in respect of their natural resources which were contained in the Alberta Act and in the Saskatchewan Act. It might not be without interest that I should state very briefly the attitude which has been assumed from time to time by the leaders of the Liberal party in the western provinces on this question. I observe that in 1908 the present Prime Minister of the province of Saskatchewan said this:
In addition to the Parliament of Canada having settled the question, the province has settled it in the campaign of 1005. It was plainly put and fully discussed. He was satisfied that the cash grant which the provinces obtained in lieu of their public domain was more advantageous to them than the lands would he.
Speaking at Regina, on August 15, 1908, Hon. Mr. Scott said:
We have heard a great deal about the land issue. As I pointed out in this hall on Wednesday evening, in regard to the verdict the people gave three years ago on the land as well as other autonomy questions, what was there' for the Government to do hut what we have done. The people did not want the land arrangement disturbed. They said the same yesterday. How long is it going to take the people of Saskatchewan to convince Mr. Haultain that they are satisfied with the terms granted them by the Autonomy Act?
And so on through a great number of quotations which I could place before the House if it were desirable to do so. Finally in 1910, on the 6th of October, the Prime Minister of Saskatchewan used this language:
Am I going too far when I suggest a doubt as to the sanity of any Saskatchewan man who complains against our land terms?
It could hardly be put much more strongly than that.
Now, let us see what the subsequent attitude has been. There was a resolution of the Saskatchewan Legislature when first the leaders of the Liberal party in the West began	to withdraw a little from the position which they at first had assumed in this respect. A resolution was adopted by the Legislature of Saskatchewan which is set forth in the question put by the hon. member for Regina to which the hon. member for Medicine Hat has alluded. The operative part of the resolution is this:
Whereas the said northern part of the province of Saskatchewan is not required by the Government of Canada for the purposes of carrying out its colonization and immigration policy.
And whereas, in addition to the agricultural lands there are certain natural resources within Saskatchewan which are purely of local concern and which are not required by the federal authorities for the carrying out of its colonization policy.	.
Therefore it is resolved that, in the opinion of this House, the Government of Saskatchewan should proceed with negotiations with the federal authorities for the purpose of having transferred to the province all that part of the hinterland of Saskatchewan, together with all natural resources of purely local concern contained within the province, not required for colonization and immigration purposes.
That was passed by the Legislature of Saskatchewan on the 16th day of March, 1911, and that is as far, according to my information on the subject, as the Legislature of either Saskatchewan or Alberta had advanced up to the time that the present federal Government assumed the reins of office.
Now, after we had come into office this question was at once pressed upon us, and the advance of Liberal sentiment in the west of Canada has been very marked on this subject. In the first place western Liberals declared over and over again that the terms contained in the Alberta Act and in the Saskatchewan Act were much more advantageous to those provinces than the transfer of the natural resources. In the next place, they declared that the question had been settled over and over again by the people of those provinces; and, further than that, they declared that any man might justly be regarded as

insane who would seek to disturb that arrangement. Then, advancing from that, they came to the conclusion that in each province there might be a portion but not the whole of the natural resources of the province transferred to the ownership and control of the province. Finally, after we had attained office, a very rapid advance was made, and they asked that all the natural resources of the prov, inee should be transferred to them; and during the last year or eighteen months they have made a still further rapid advance and have asked not only that all the natural resources of the province should be transferred to them but that they should retain the grant made out of the federal treasury of Canada, as compensation for the natural resources. When my hon. friend suggests that there has been any change of attitude on the part of the present Administration, might I respectfully ask that he would turn his introspection upon the consideration of these kaleidoscopic changes and inform us what is the reason which has impelled this very rapid development and advance of policy in the Liberal leaders of the West?
I said to the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin), when he asked me a question in this House either last session or the session before, that we were standing upon this question exactly where we stood in 1905. The very declaration to which attention was then called, a declaration made in the Halifax platform of 1907, was this:
The restoration of the public lands to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan upon fair terms.
And it was my hope and desire that when there was a conference between the Premiers of all the provinces of Canada during last autumn this subject would have been taken up and discussed at that conference, because every one knew that the question of the rights of the Maritime provinces in connection with the transfer of these natural resources to the western provinces had been made the subject of debate in this House. My hon. friend the member for the city of St. John ^ (Mr. Pugsley) had, indeed urged this subject upon my attention in the session of 1912; and I said at that time what I hold to-day with regard to the whole subject. Mr. Pugsley asked me at that time, in connection with the Ontario boundary question and in connection, if I remember correctly, with the transfer of their resources to the western provinces, whether the position of the smaller provinces-Nova 
Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island-with regard to financial considerations would not receive attention. It was pointed out on behalf of the Maritime provinces at that time that being members of this Confederation they had certain rights in connection with lands that had been acquired by Canada in the first instance, and they also had certain rights by reason of the fact that Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba had had their boundaries very greatly extended and that there was no similar opportunity for the people of the Maritime provinces to have their boundaries extended. I said, in reply to the observations of the hon. member for St. John:
I quite appreciate the spirit and the object of the observations that my hon. friend has just submitted. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying to him what I have said very distinctly before, that the views he put forward do appeal to me, and I think, that in regard to the territory of these two very large provinces and in connection with the proposed transfer of the public domain to the three prairie provinces, the just rights of the Maritime provinces of .Canada must be taken into consideration.
And I had hoped that that subject would have been taken into consideration by the representatives of the governments of the various provinces; but apparently that was not done, and the subject remains for the consideration of this Government, and later, no doubt, for the consideration of Parliament.
A very important letter upon this subject was addressed by the Premier of Alberta to my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition, on the 20th day of March, 1911, and I propose, for the information of the House, to place some extracts from that letter upon the pages of Hansard. At a later date I propose to have all the documents in connection with this matter brought down in the form of a blue book so that they will be available to hon. members of this House. The letter from Mr. Sifton to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, under date of the 20th March, is very long. It sets forth many reasons urged by Mr. Sifton upon Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the transfer of a portion of the natural resources of the prairie provinces to the governments of those provinces. That portion of the letter which contains his claim is in these words:
Therefore, with these observations in mind, acting in accordance with the resolution of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, and believing that the request following will promote the good government and advancement of the province of Alberta without conflicting with the wider interests of the Dominion of Canada, the Gov-

eminent of the province respectfully asks your Government to grant the measure of control of the natural resources of the province as generally stated in the following request, and express the desire that your Government will take the matter into consideration and give effect to our claim:
1.	That the administration for the beneficial use of the province of all lands belonging to the Crown situated in the province of Alberta be transferred to the province, except the following :
(a)	Lands reserved by statute or Order in Council.
(b)	Lands reserved for Indians.
(c)	Lands earned by any person or corporation.
(d)	Lands agreed upon as homestead or preemption lands, etc.
In essence this means the grazing lands, swamp lands, and the lands that require to be irrigated.
2.	That all mines, minerals, timber and royalties belonging to the Crown situated in the province of Alberta, and all sums due in respect thereof on a date to be fixed by agreement, be transferred to the province of Alberta.
3.	That the interest of the Crown in the waters within the province under the Irrigation Act be vested in and administered by the province of Alberta.
No reply seems to have been given to that letter until the 7th of the following August, when Sir Wilfrid wrote a letter to Mr. Sifton from which I abstract the essential and relevant part of the answer:
I do not understand you to claim that the province of Alberta should be given the ownership or the administration of all the public domain in that province, but simply of the lands which are not solely agricultural. You recognize that the Dominion should continue to own and to administer the prairie lands which are immediately available for settlement and which are sought by the immigrants; but you ask that the province should be entrusted with the ownership and administration of all other lands and all the resources to be derived therefrom, viz., grazing lands, swamp lands, lands unfit for settlement except by irrigation, all the mines, timber, minerals and royalties belonging to the Crown, and all the waters now included in the Irrigation Act.
I have to observe that your proposition, if accepted, would constitute a material alteration of the basis on which the financial terms granted to the province were calculated, and that consequently those financial terms would have to be revised.
This material consequence being kept in mind, the request of the Legislature of Alberta might constitute a fair subject of discussion, without however, at this early juncture, committing ourselves to the acceptance of the principle involved.
The House will appreciate the fact that at that time the province of Alberta did not ask for the whole of its natural resources, but for only a very limited portion of them, and the reply of my hon. friend's leader was this:
I have to observe that your proposition, if accepted, would constitute a material alteration of the basis on which the financial terms granted to the province were calculated, and that consequently those financial terms would have to be revised.
My hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Buchanan) is astonished now, notwithstanding that declaration of his leader, of which he cannot be ignorant, because we have not handed over all the natural resources of those provinces to the control of their Governments without any revision whatever of the financial terms which were established by their constitutional Acts. It would have been well for my hon. friend the member for Medicine Hat, before making some of the suggestions which fell from him in the course of the debate, to have given .some consideration to the words and attitude of his own leader in that regard; and I must say that I do not see how it is possible for him to suggest to us now, in respect to a province whieh by its accredited representatives elected by the people, has stated over and over again that the terms contained in its constitutional Act were not only fair but better than the actual transfer of the lands themselves-I do not see how it is possible for him to suggest that we should hand over those natural resources, and leave the province to enjoy the very terms which were inserted in its constitutional Act as a consideration for the retention of those natural resources by the Government of Canada.
It is perfectly true that the subject was discussed between three Prime Ministers of the western provinces and myself about the time of the conclusion of the Interprovincial Conference. We had a very amicable discussion of the subject, and at the end of the conference I suggested that if they had any proposal to make to the Government with regard to the terms which I said was a very material matter to be considered, I would be glad to have them submit their suggestions to me in writing, and I would give them immediate consideration. In reply to that, I received towards the end of December, 1913, a letter from the Hon. Arthur L. Sifton in the following terms:
Dear Mr. Borden:
Inclosed please find letter on land question, signed by the premiers of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta.
Hoping that the question may receive early consideration, I am,
Yours very truly
(Sgd) Arthur L. Sifton.

The letter enclosed is in these terms:
After having an interview with you in rfegard to the questions in respect of which the prairie provinces have received different treatment from the other provinces of Canada, and at your suggestion a meeting of the premiers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, it has been agreed between us to make to you, on behalf of said province, the proposal that the financial terms already arranged between the provinces and the Dominion as compensation for lands should stand as compensation for lands already alienated for the general benefit of Canada, and that all the lands remaining within the' boundaries of the respective provinces, with all natural resources included, be transferred to the said province, the provinces accepting respectively the responsibility of administering the same.
Tours very truly,
(Sgd) Walter Scott,
" R. P. Roblin.
" Arthur D. Slfton. The Rt. Hon. R. T,. Borden,
Prime Minister, Ottawa.
This letter called for the transfer to the three western provinces of all the natural resources, without any abatement or revision of the sum which had been fixed in 1905 as compensation for those lands and which sum had been declared over and over again by the Liberal leaders of the West to be more than ample compensation for those lands. Only the session before this, if I remember correctly, we had taken back the swamp lands of Manitoba and thus the Government of Canada became seized of all the natural resources within the province of Manitoba, as it was seized of all the natural resources within the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan; and we made very considerable additions to the amounts receivable by the province of Manitoba out of the federal treasury by reason of the arrangement made at that time. Under these circumstances I could not regard the proposal put forward to me by the three premiers as a reasonable proposal or as containing anything in the nature of those terms which I had asked them to place before me at the conference to which I have alluded. In view of what had been said in Parliament, in view of the declarations which I myself, bad made in Parliament, I thought it advisable, as the subject had not been under discussion at the Interprovincial Conference, to place this communication before the governments of the three Maritime provinces, and I did so.
I wrote on the 8th of January, 1914, shortly after I had received this letter, to the Hon. George H. Murray, Premier of Nova Scotia :

Ottawa, January 8, 1914.
My Dear Sir,-In connection wPh - "'t, which has been debated in Parliament and which as I understand was discussed at the recent Interprovincial Conference, I beg to forward herewith copy of a letter which has recently been received from the Prime Ministers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. If you should desire to make any observations or to offer any suggestions or representations upon the subject my colleagues and I will be pleased to receive them and to give them consideration.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd) R. L. Borden. Hon. G. H. Murray, M.P.P.,
Premier Nova Scotia,
Halifax, N.S.,
On the 10th day of January, Mr. Murray acknowledged my letter in these terms: *
Halifax, January 10, 1914.
My Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 8th instant enclosing copy of a letter recently received by you from the Prime Ministers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba on the subject of northwestern lands.
I will discuss this matter with my colleagues at as early a date as possible, and if it is thought desirable, will take the liberty of presenting to you the views of our Government.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd) G. H. Murray.
Rt. Hon. R. L. Borden,
Ottawa, Ont.
Two or three weeks afterwards I received a letter from Mr. Murray under date of the 19th of January, which I shall take the liberty of reading to the House:
Halifax, January 19, 1914.
Dear Sir,-In further reply to your letter of the 8th instant, enclosing copy of a letter received by you from the Prime Ministers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, on the subject of the transfer of federal lands to the said provinces, I regret that I have not had an opportunity of reading the discussions which occurred in the House of Commons when the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were created. I know that the land question was very fully discussed and I think it was in connection with the enactment of the provincial constitutions.
The question first came up when the province of Manitoba was created. The same argument that was used later in the case of the other provinces was brought forward in support of a proposal to give Manitoba land. Sir John Macdonald took strong ground against it, making the particular point that in western Canada the land question was closely associated with the question of immigration and that therefore the Dominion, which had to spend so liberally for immigration, should have control of the lands. It is apparent that the Government of Sir Wilfrid Daurier took the same view in the case of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
I know that when the two new provinces were created the federal Government dealt very liberally with them in respect to financial matters. In comparison with the financial terms given to the Maritime provinces the financial arrangement seemed very generous and I always understood that the large annual grants

107&
of money were by reason of the fact that the western provinces did not get the lands. My recollection is that they got their generous subsidy in two distinct forms:
A portion for general subsidy and another portion specifically in lieu of lands. If this be the case it would look somewhat unreasonable for these provinces to ask, in view of the great financial difficulties of some of the other provinces, for both lands and the money. But I recognize the fact that the question of the wisdom of giving the provinces the lands is one between the Dominion Government and the western provinces and one on which I do not understand I am called to express an opinion, as this is a matter for adjustment between the western provincial Government and the Ottawa Cabinet. I desire, however, to respectfully point out to you;
(1)	That when it was deemed expedient to retain the lands in the control of the Dominion Government this was the consideration for a substantial money allowance being made to the provinces in lieu of these lands;
(2)	That the whole financial arrangement for the western provinces appears to have been made in a fair and generous spirit so that these provinces, in my opinion, do not appear to have any ground for financial complaint as to their treatment in comparison with the other provinces of the Dominion. In fact, I think I can present an almost unanswerable case in the other direction.
(3)	That if the allowances in lieu of land was. when made, fair and reasonable (as to which there does not appear to^have been any question) it certainly cannot be far an 1 reasonable for these provinces now to ask for both the lands and the money which was paid them in lieu of lands. The adoption of such a proposal by the federal Government would be an entire disturbance of the financial arrangement between the various provinces and calculated to produce wide-spread discontent.
(4) That if in the interests of any of the provinces it be deemed expedient to make further	grants from	the Dominion Treasury for provincial purposes, such action should only be taken as part of a general readjustment of financial arrangements in which all the provinces should have an opportunity to participate. If the needs of the western provinces call for additional financial grants (and I have no doubt such is the case) either by giving lands or better financial terms, I do not take the ground that their case should not be considered but I do, in justice to the other provinces, urge that their claims be inquired into and dealt with at the same time.
Tours very truly,
(Sgd) G. H. Murray, The Right Honourable R. L. Borden,
I also wrote on the 8th January, 1914, to the Premier of the province of Prince Edward Island, as follows:
Ottawa, Ont., January 8, 1914.
My Dear Sir,-In connection with a subject which has been debated in Parliament and which, as I understand, was discussed at the recent Interprovincial Conference, I beg to forward herewith copy of a letter which has recently been received from the Prime Ministers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. If you should desire to make any observations or to offer any suggestions or representation
upon the subject my colleagues and I will be pleased to receive them and to give them consideration.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd) R. L. Borden. Hon. J. A. Mathieson, M.P.P.,
Prime Minister, Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
To which I received the following reply under date of February 2, 1914:
Premier's office.
Charlottetown, February 2, 1914.
Re claim of Alberta. Saskatchewan and Manitoba to federal lands within their borders.
Dear Mr. Borden,-In reply to your letter of the 8th ultimo. I beg to say:
1.	That the grant to Alberta and Saskatchewan of $375,000 increasing to $1,125,000 each per annum as compensation for public lands was an allowance far exceeding in generosity any subsidy to the older provinces.
2.	That in 1912 Manitoba made restitution to Canada in respect of the federal lands granted to that province in order to receive in lieu thereof the exceedingly favourable terms granted to Alberta and Saskatchewan.
3.	That the claim of these provinces to retain their land subsidy as compensation for lands disposed of by the Dominion before they were established as (provinces is not well founded, because the Dom nion Government:
(a)	Bore the whole cost of development since these territories were acquired by Canada and established the new provinces free of debt.
(b)	Paid these provinces an annual subsidy on account of their having no debt.
(c)	The self-governing colonies had to furnish for themselves the public works and services which Canada provided for the territories before establishing them as provinces, and where the colonies had to borrow money for the purpose, it was afterwards charged against them on balancing the debt accounts between them and Canada.
4.	That if the subsidy for want of land is continued and the lands also granted to these provinces, it would give rise to a new or additional claim for compensation from every other province in Canada.
Faithfully yours,
(Sgd) J. A. Mathieson.
On the 8th day of January, I also wrote a letter to the Premier of New Brunswick which is in these terms:
Ottawa, January 8, 1914.
My dear Sir,-In connection with a subject which has been debated in Parliament and which, as I understand, was discussed at the recent Interprovincial Conference, I beg te forward herewith copy of a letter which has recently been received from the Prime Ministers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. If you should desire to make any observations or to offer any suggestions or representations my colleagues and I will be pleased to receive them and to give them consideration.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd) R. L. Borden. Hon. J. K. Flemming, M.P.P.,
Premier New Brunswick,
Fredericton, N.B.
107 j

To which I received the following reply under date of the 17th of February, 1914, only a few days ago:
Premier's office,
Woodstock, N.B., Peb. 17, 1914. The Right Hon. R. L. Borden,
Prime Minister,
Ottawa, Canada,
My Dear Prime Minister,-Some time ago you sent me a copy of letter received from the Premiers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta in regard to the control of the federal lands within the boundaries of these three provinces.
In connection with this subject the interests of the Maritime provinces are peculiarly and particularly affected. I believe the financial arrangements between the federal Government and three .western provinces were made having in view the fact that the federal Government was retaining the public lands within the three provinces, and a large amount was allowed them annually on this account. Such being the case, I do not think they have any just or reasonable claim to ask for the federal lands.
As to the wisdom of these three prairie provinces having handed over to them the public lands is a question between the federal Government and the provinces interested and affected, and I do not wish to express any opinion in relation to that question.
I wish to remind your Administration of the fact that in February of last year representatives on behalf of the Maritime provinces put forward claims for compensation on account of alienation of federal lands, the cases considered at that time being the large addition made to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario by Act of Parliament, and the provision in the western provinces in connection with what was known as the school lands.
The immense area of the public domain north of Quebec, north of Ontario and on the western prairies is our common property. It may be wise public policy to cede these lands to the provinces, and I do not dissent from it being done, but I cannot believe it would be right to do so without some compensation being made to the Maritime provinces, whose geographical position is such that they can receive no territorial expansion.
Tours sincerely,
(Sgd)'J. K. Flemming.
My hon. friend from Medicine Hat will observe that in the utterance of the 7th of August, 1911, which was communicated to the Hon. A. L. Sifton, Premier of Alberta, it was distinctly stated as the policy of the party of which my hon. friend from Medicine Hat is a supporter, that the transfer of the natural resources to the provinces could not be made nor could the proposal be entertained without consideration and revision of the financial arrangements which were established as compensation for those lands. He will also observe that the three provincial Premiers who claim to have some special interest on behalf of their provinces in this sub-
IMr. Borden. ]	.
ject, one of whom is a very prominent leader in the Liberal party in this country, the Hon. George H. Murray, put forward exactly the same view. More than that, Mr. Murray at the conclusion of his letter states most emphatically that the whole subject should be' considered at one and the same time. He says:
That if in the interests of any of the provinces it be deemed expedient to make further grants from the Dominion treasury for provincial purposes, such action should only be taken as part of a general adjustment of financial arrangements in which all the provinces should have an opportunity to participate. If the needs of the western provinces call for additional financial grants (and I have no doubt such is the case) either by giving lands or better financial terms, I do not take the ground that their case should not be considered but I do, in justice to the other provinces, urge that their claims be inquired into and dealt with at the same time.
It will thus be apparent to my hon. friend from Medicine Hat that there were some considerations to which regard must be given before these lands could be handed over to the ownership and control of the three western provinces. Having regard to the statement which I made in Halifax in 1907, and which I have since repeated on various occasions, -it is manifest that the proposal embodied in the letter from the three Premiers to myself, which I have placed before the House, cannot be entertained. It is manifest also that, unless they are disposed to modify that proposal, there must be not only consideration but inquiry. By what means any such inquiry should be undertaken it is not for me at present to say. All that I desire and need to say at the moment is that up to the present time, after consideration and discussion of this subject between ourselves and the governments of the western provinces, there has not been found any basis of readjustment such as was asked for in the letter of my right hon. friend who leads the OppositiQn, when he made his answer to the Premier of Alberta on the 7th day of August, 1911.
In conclusion, I adhere to what I have already said respecting the consideration which is due to the Maritime provinces of Canada in this regard, and I am very much impressed by the observations contained in the concluding portion of Mr. Murray's letter, that the subject to which attention has been called by my hon. friend from Medicine Hat and the subject which is pressed upon our attention by the Prime Ministers of the Maritime

provinces ought to be considered and dealt with at one and the same time. We are desirous of dealing with this question in a reasonable way, but it did not seem to me that the proposal put forward to us in December last by the three Prime Ministers of the prairie provinces was one that they really expected us to entertain.
5 p.m. I assume that they put it forward more especially as a basis for further negotiations. At all events, at the moment I have only this to say, that up to the present time those negotiations have had no further results.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker,
some of the chickens of my right hon. friend are coming home to roost and he finds it very diffeult to find a place for those troublesome birds.


Robert Laird Borden: There is one of my right hon. friend's here.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will deal
with that also, but let us discuss one thing at a time. In order to get at the origin of this trouble, we have to go back as far as the year 1905, when we introduced and carried the Bill for the creation of the two new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. At that time there arose between the Opposition and the Government of that day, or rather between the Liberal party sitting on that side of the House and the Conservative party sitting on this side, a cleavage as to the disposition of public lands in those provinces. We took the ground, for reasons stated, to which I shall allude later on, that those lands should continue to be owned and administered by the Dominion, whereas my right hon. friend the then leader of the Opposition and his whole party claimed that they should be handed over to the provinces. Indeed, he took very strong ground upon that question; he spoke very strongly and even violently; he made the question an issue in the election of 1911. During the recess which took place on account of my absence in England while attending the Imperial Conference and the Coronation of His Majesty, he toured the provinces of the West and stated, in language as emphatic as he could make it, that if the Conservative party were returned to office, those lands would be handed over to the provinces; that the men of the provinces were free men; that it was therefore their right to have the administration of those lands, which properly belong'd to them. There 69
was no restriction then; there was no rider attached to the disposition of those lands.


Mr. MACDONALD:: No Maritime provinces then.


Wilfrid Laurier: They were the property of free men and those free men had the right to those free lands. But my right hon. friend has been two years in office and those free men are still waiting for their free lands. When my right hon. friend is questioned by my hon. friend from Medicine Hat as to what he intends to do in regard to the implementing of that promise, he is told by my right hon. friend: How impudent you are; what a change of heart you have had; at one time you were in favour of these lands being retained by the Dominion. But my right hon. friend forgets that, if my hon. friend from Medicine Hat has had a change of heart, he himself has also had a change of heart.


Robert Laird Borden: My heart is where it was before.


Wilfrid Laurier: He has had a
change of heart from what it was in 1905, when in the prairie provinces he pledged himself by everything that was sacred that when the Conservative party came to its own, the free men of the West would have the administration of those free land3.
Sir, the answer which the right hon. gentleman has given to my hon. friend from Medicine Hat, is such an answer as he often gives and in which he seems to take the greatest satisfaction. It is in effect: Well, I am not better than you were; true, I found fault with you and said you were wrong, but my justification for doing now that which I found fault witn you for doing is that you have no right to find fault with me, being no better than I, and besides,- well, ' I am here and you are there.'
But let us come to the broader aspect of this question. There is more than my right hon. friend imagines in 4he point he has attempted to make that the other provinces have to be taken into account in this matter. Let us go back to the Act of 1905. At that time I put it clearly before the House that the best policy for the Dominion to adopt was to retain these lands in the control of the Dominion and not hand them over to the provinces. I based myself on the precedent given in the creation of Manitoba; I fortified myself with the language of Sir John Macdonald, the man who is eulogized by Conservatives everywhere, but whose teachings they neglect every day of their life. Speaking on this



very subject as to the retention of the lands by the province of Manitoba, Sir John Macdonald used these words:
The success of the undertaking by the Dominion Government in and for the Northwest, depends largely upon the settlement of the lands. Combined with a great expenditure in organizing and maintaining an immigration service abroad and at home, Parliament pledged its faith to the world that a large portion of those lands should be set apart for free homesteads to all coming settlers, and another portion to be held in trust for the education of their children. No transfer could, therefore, be made, without exacting from the province the most ample securities that this pledged policy shall be maintained; hence in so far as the free lands extend there would be no monetary advantage to the province, whilst a transfer would seriously embarrass all the costly immigration operations which the Dominion Government is making mainly in behalf of Manitoba and the territories.
The great attraction which the Canadian Government now offers, the impressive fact to the mind of the men contemplating immigration is that a well-known and recognized government holds unfettered in its own hands the lands which it offers free, and that that government has its agencies and organizations for directing, receiving, transporting and placing the immigrant upon the homestead which he may select. And if the immigration operations of the Dominion, which involve so large a cost, are to have continued success and to be of advantage to Manitoba and the Northwest territories, your sub-committee deem it to be of the utmost importance that the Dominion Government shall retain and control the lands which it has proclaimed free to all comers. Were there other considerations of sufficient force to induce them to recommend their transfer to Manitoba, and as a consequence and by precedent the surrender to the provinces to be created from the Northwest territories, all the lands within their boundaries, then they would advise that the provinces holding the lands should conduct their own immigration operations at their own expense.
These views impressed themselves strongly upon me, and so I made them the basis of the Acts creating the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. I supposed, of course, that the views of the man who, of all men, had built up. the Conservative party and given it a policy would be accepted by his followers. In this, however, I was sadly mistaken. My right hon. friend, then sitting where I now sit, supported the proposition made by one of his followers that these lands, contrary to the judgment of Sir John Macdonald, should be taken from the control of the Dominion and handed over to the control of the provinces.
But, Sir, I am surprised at the position the right hon. gentleman takes with regard to the Maritime provinces, if the policy which he then advocated had been adopted and the lands given to the provinces of

Alberta and Saskatchewan, what right would the Maritime provinces have had to say a word? He settled that question by supporting a resolution, moved by Mr. Lake one of his followers, without reference to the Maritime provinces.
But there is another point, and one to which I will return later, and that is that we gave to the two provinces a money compensation in lieu of lands. We thought the compensation we gave them was ample, sufficient and reasonable, and I still believe it to have been so. If these terms, once established, are to be altered, I can understand very well that the Maritime provinces might feel that they should have something to say. But in 1905 we had to choose between giving money or giving lands, and the same interest on the part of the Maritime provinces was not created.
My right hon. friend at that time argued very strongly that the lands should be given to Alberta and Saskatchewan, and he made that question an issue in the elections-and he won. Then he had an opportunity of applying the Halifax platform. We do hear sometimes of tne Halifax platform-not very often. My right hon. friend himself is about the only one who speaks of it; the thing has been shelved and forgotten and now lies under the dust almost as of ages. But in the Halifax platform he declared that the western provinces should have control of their lands. If there was any soundness in that policy, it applies not only to Saskatchewan and Alberta but to Manitoba also. Within twelve months of the time when he took office, he had the opportunity of settling the boundaries of Manitoba. He gave Manitoba, properly, a very large extent of territory; but did he give control of the lands to Manitoba? Not at all. I said a moment ago that the right hon. gentleman had forgotten the teachings of Sir John Macdonald. But he changed his own teachings and his own mind and retained under control of the Dominion the lands within the territory added to the area of Manitoba. But he did more than that; he took back from the province of Manitoba the swamp lands which had been given to that province by the Government of Sir John Macdonald in 1885. Therefore he went back most completely on the policy which he had adopted and which he had pledged himself by everything that was sacred to carry out. I am not in the secrets of the party, but we judge men, of course, by their actions. It was in , the city of Brandon that he pledged himself that if the Conservative party came to

its own in the then pending election, the province of Manitoba should have its own lands. This having been his language, can he explain why the province was nc^ given its lands?
There is only one explanation for it; the policy to which he had declared his adherence-which was the policy of Sir John A. Macdonald-was so far-reaching that, not daring to carry it out, he came back to the old policy which he has so long combated.
My right hon. friend has told the House that I was asked' by the Premiers of the western provinces to restore to the provinces their lands and natural resources. I do not think that any exception can be taken to what I said in my letter to Mr. Sifton, which was read by my right hon. friend. I stand by that letter. I said to Mr. Sifton: You say you do not want the lands which are ready for settlement; you want the timbers, the water-powers, the gas, and the minerals; if you want these resources, which would be assets to the province, it is only fair that we should consider the representations you make. If I were again in office, I would be ready to discuss the matter again upon those terms. But I am not now in that position; the responsibility is upon my right hon. friend, who does not show much zeal or enthusiasm in the matter of restoring to the free men of the West the land, to which they are entitled. He showed far more zeal when he had less responsibility. When a man has no responsibility it is very easy to be patriotic and to make wide and sweeping assertions. When my right hon. friend said to the people of the West: You are free men, we will give you your lands, he knew that he was making a promise which he could not implement, but he did not know at that time that he would so soon be called upon to put his words into effect. The responsibility is now upon my right hon. friend, and he is taking advantage of every subterfuge, if I may use the word, not to do what he said he would do for the free men of the West.
But if my right hon friend were to implement his promise the Maritime provinces would have a right to complain. They would say: It is not fair that you should give them their lands and give them money terms also. I have no objection to my right hon. friend conferring with the Premiers of the Maritime provinces, but I am surprised that he did not bring the matter up at the conference of provincial Premiers. I charge this against him: it is not sufficient for him to say that the matter was not taken up at the conference; if the matter
mi
was not taken up, it was his duty to bring it up. In his Halifax platform he said that if he were put in office he would restore the lands to the people of the western provinces on fair terms. Having made that contract with the people of western Canada, it was his duty to implement it. It is for my right hon. friend, not the provinces, to take the initiative; it is for him to say:	You are entitled to these lands; you
are free men, and you must have them. It is very easy for my hon. friends to talk; it is not so easy to act. For my part, when we were in office I took a position in this matter which was not popular with my own friends, but I did what I thought I should do for the sake of the country at large, and it is now incumbent upon my right hon. friend to take the initiative in this matter, and to act as bravely as he spoke when he was in opposition.


Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of the Interior) :: The question of the restoration of the natural resources of the western provinces is one which has engaged the attention of the House on numerous occasions in the past. When the autonomy Bills for the two provinces were discussed in this House; prior to that time, when the autonomy Bills were mooted, and on several occasions since, the matter has engaged the attention of Parliament. I do not know why the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Buchanan) has 'brought the matter to the attention of Parliament at the present time, unless it is to endeavour to make some party capital on behalf of his own political friends. I think one may search his speech in vain to find just exactly where he stands on the question of the restoration to the provinces of their natural resources. I followed his remarks quite closely, [DOT] and although he reflected upon the Prime Minister of this country by alleging that he did not keep his word, and tried to fasten upon him the accusation of insincerity, he sat down without letting the House know whether he is in favour of the arrangement which he has been supporting all these years, and which was supported by his party, or whether he is in favour of the policy which was formerly enunciated and is -still adhered to by the Prime Minister of this country. We do, however, know where the present leader of the Opposition stands. We have found that the right hon. gentleman can be on all sides of a question at the same time, hut with regard to this -matter he wishes to impress upon the people of the country, through Parliament, that he stands exactly where he stood at the time the

autonomy Bills passed this House. The people of the West, therefore, will receive little 'Consolation from the speech of the leader of the Opposition to-day, for were the Liberal party back in power he would do just exactly what he has done in the past-refuse to the people of the West the restoration of their natural resources.
The leader of the Opposition has said that the Conservative chickens are now coming home to roost. If occasionally we do welcome our chickens back to roost, I do not think we can be accused of occupying that position quite as frequently as do hon. gentlemen of the Opposition, and I do think we can make the accusation of inconsistency and insincerity against the right hon. leader of the Opposition much more freauently than it can be made against the leader of the Government. After I have quoted a few expressions of his own and some of his colleagues on that side of the House, including the old cock himself, I am sure that the right hon. gentleman will admit that even in this case his chickens have come home to roost. It just happened that upon this very question the Prime Minister of Saskatchewan, a gentleman who has boxed the compass in his efforts to make party capital on this question of the restoration of the natural resources to the provinces', when the autonomy Bills were first discussed in this Parliament, took the position that the natural resources should be restored to the provinces of the West. He did it in 1901; he did it in 1902, and in 1903; but when it came to 1905, at the time the autonomy Bills were up for discussion in the House, when there was a premiership dangling before his eyes, he entirely reversed his position and came out in favour of the autonomy Bills, which provided for compensation in lieu of lands instead of the position he had occupied prior to that time.
I desire to quote a few words from a speech of the Hon. Mr. Scott on this question. It was in the session of 1911-12 of the Saskatchewan Legislature. He had brought in a resolution, not such a request as he is now making from this Government, but merely taking the ground that the public domains in the northern portion of Saskatchewan should be restored to that province, 'those of a purely local character;" and the Opposition in that Legislature brought in an amendment stating that they were in favour of having the agricultural, timber and mineral lands restored as well as the water-powers. H e-iticising that

amendment of the Opposition, the Premier of Saskatchewan said:
The proposal Is that the Government on behalf of the province shall ask for certain resources, all the hinterland, and all the public domain, with the exception of the agricultural lands. I really think, Mr. Speaker, that I have the right to urge that this Government should be given a unanimous mandate by this House in behalf of that proposal. . . I think, if he would accept kindly advice from me-
That is referring to the leader of the Opposition in the Legislature-
-that it would be well for him to return to the paths of moderation and good sense, and to cease the foolish action which it seems to me his sub-amendment means. This sub-amendment is an absurd production; it asks impossible things. It asks things that would leave Saskatchewan in an inequitable position, make Saskatchewan richer than any other province in Canada, except, possibly, the province of British Columbia.
So the request that the Premiers are today making, that all resources, including water-powers, mineral lands and agricultural lands, should be handed over to the provinces, was, just two years ago, considered by the gentleman who is now asking it on behalf of that province to be an absurd proposition, a foolish proposition, and he then asked the leader of the Opposition to be mild and moderate in his request, saying that it would place Saskatchewan in a position far superior to that which she should occupy. Yet, in the face of that declaration, the Premier of Saskatchewan has placed himself on record as asking these impossible things which he voted against in his own Legislature in 1911-12.


William John Macdonald: Was he not only asking what the present Premier of this country promised he would give him?


William James Roche: I am comparing the state-riient of the hon. member for Medicine Hat in accusing the leader of the Government of inconsistency and insincerity. I am asking how it is that the hon. member for Medicine Hat has never raised his voice, inside or outside of this' House, in condemnation of the policy described by Premier Scott.


William John Macdonald: I will tell you why: because he was expecting the Premier of this country to keep his word.


William James Roche: Then, he did not expect the Premier of his own province to do so. He expects the Premier of this Dominion to keep his word, but he has so poor an opinion of the Premier of his own province

that he makes no comment on his inconsistency and insincerity.


Mr. OLIVER:: I might inform my hon. friend that he is in error; the hon. member for Medicine Hat is not in the province of the Premier of Saskatchewan.


William James Roche: The Premier of Alberta
occupies the same position, because in the session of 1912 Premier Sifton introduced a resolution into the legislature of Alberta calling for a transfer to the province of the natural resources, including everything but the prairie lands. He really took the same position as Premier Scott. Since then he has signed a memorial to this Government asking for all the natural resources, including the prairie lands, which he thought at that time should be left in the possession of the Dominion Government. What has happened in the meantime? A Dominion election; the Conservative party came into power. He did not wish to embarrass his own political friends when they occupied the treasury benches; but he thinks he can raise a little party capital now against the present Government by making these unreasonable requests, these impossible demands, which he declared in so many words he would not sanction or countenance in 1911.
In 1912 Premier Scott said:.
The justification of the retention by the Dominion of the provincial lands, hinged wholly on the immigration question. The Dominion Government could not and would not carry on a colonization policy unless it held control of the lands. But Ottawa-
That is, since this Government came into power, and he is now giving his reasons for asking; for these lands.
But Ottawa now calmly asserts that the colonization policy is carried on for all the provinces equally, for those which, like British Columbia, make a profit out of the public lands, as well as for the provinces whose lands are controlled by Ottawa. Such being the case, Sa katchewan should poss.ss the public lands in addition to the advantage of a colonization policy maintained at Dominion expense.
This is the reason assigned by the Premier of Saskatchewan for making a request now for our colonization lands- because this Government, a Conservative Government, has the hardihood to invite immigration to other portions of the Dominion than the prairie provinces. It is true that we do not want to discriminate, that we do not wish to leave ourselves open to the accusation of attracting immigrants alone to the Canadian Northwest, and that we are endeavouring to do justice to every
province in Canada. We have established an immigration propaganda not confined to the northwest alone, but seeking to encourage labourers and domestic servants, those classes on which we are paying bonuses, to come to the Maritime provinces, to Quebec and Ontario, just the same as to the prairie provinces, because we have thought that in doing that we are showing fair play as between all the provinces of the Dominion. Premier Scott reverses his attitude, and claims now that they should have the agricultural land as well as all the other natural resources of the province. That is a very weak argument, I think you will all admit. I wish to quote some further remarks by Premier Scott. At Hanley on July 31, 1908, he said:
Speaking of the land arrangement, I am perfectly satisfied that Saskatchewan and Alberta are the best off provinces in the Dominion of Canada as a result of these terms.
That is the terms provided by the Autonomy Bill. At Lumsden on August 7, during a provincial campaign-I ask the hon. member for Medicine Hat to pay attention to this-he said:
There was not a public man except a bitter
partisan wi.o bad o.iened his mouth o	oject who did not admit that Saskatchewan and Alberta had been made much better off by the federal administration of the lands than they would be, had the lands been unuer tneir control.
Now, surely the hon. member for Medicine Hat is not going to fly in the face of an expression like that and enrol himself among those who are extreme bitter partisans; for, as Premier Scott says, that is the only class of man in the West who would take exception to the financial terms provided in lieu of .lands, and would prefer the restoration of the natural resources instead of the arrangement provided by the antonomy Acts. He also said in his speech of October 10, 1910:
When urging the principle of local ownership of the lands, I know that all I hoped to obtain was recognition of our rights of proprietary interest in them. I certainly never expected the actual transfer to the new provinces.
This was from the Premier of the province, and now he has the hardihood to ask this Government to transfer those lands.
The former Premier of this country (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) expressed his views on this question some years ago, and he states now that he stands by what he said at that time. Then he took a precedent from Sir John A. Macdonald, but he went for another precedent to a place where he frequently goes

for precedents, particularly on fiscal matters-to the United States. To quote:
Prom the highest grounds of policy, I think it is advisable that the ownership of these lands should continue to be vested in the Dominion Government. We have precedents for this. This is a case in which we can go to the United States for precedents. They are situated very much as we are regarding ttte ownership of lands and the establishment of new states. Whenever a new state had been created in the American Union, the federal Government has always retained the ownership and management of the public lands.
Therefore he thought it was only right and proper that we should do so in this country, and he bolstered up his attitude by quoting the policy adopted by the United State_s federal Government. The right hon. gentleman says that he stands by that policy to-day; so the people of the West know just what to expect from him when we have a change of government.
Some of the right hon. gentleman's colleagues from the West also spoke on this question. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) said:
I, for one, am perfectly satisfied with the arrangement made, I think it is a better arrangement than to have handed over the lands to the provinces.
Mr. Talbot, now a senator, referring to the lands, said:
These residents of the proposed provinces, who look on this question from a sentimental point of view only, will no doubt favour provincial ownership, but I am convinced that the practical men, who consider the future prosperity of not only the new provinces hut of the Dominion as a whole, will be perfectly satisfied to have the land administered by the federal Government.
The former Postmaster General, now member for Eouville (Mr. Lemieux), said:
I claim that this domain is the property of the whole Dominion of Canada, and it would be [DOT] unwise and inopportune ' to part with it.
That is the position taken by those gentlemen at that time and I have not heard that they have since changed their position. Another gentleman, Mr. Crawford, formerly a member from Manitoba stated:
X think it would be a great mistake for this Parliament to leave the control of the lands entirely in the hands of the provinces. As I have said, so far as Manitoba is concerned there never would have been any question of provincial rights if the same liberal terms had been given Manitoba which are now being extended to the territories.
The province of Manitoba had its boundaries extended two years ago, and the hon. leader of the Opposition asks why we did
IMr. Roche.]
not restore the natural resources to Manitoba at that time. Hon. gentlemen will remember that it was at the first session of this Parliament. It had been promised by this Government and had been denied by the previous Government for many years. Manitoba had been pleading for terms of equality. She asked either for the restoration of the public domain, or to be placed on the same plane and given the same financial considerations as the two other western provinces. They got the same financial terms at the first session of this Parliament.
The Premier of Saskatchewan, for several years before the Autonomy Bill came in, had said that he was in favour of the natural resources being restored, to Alberta and Saskatchewan, but when the Bill actually came in he reversed his position and supported the Autonomy Bill. He attributed his conversion to the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver). That hon. gentleman has stated his opinion as follows:
One hon. gentleman said that the lands could be better administered by the province than by the Dominion because the people of the province were closer to the ground, and the interests of the province he said were Just the same as the interests of the Dominion. X beg to differ, their interests are not the same. The interest of a province in the land is in the revenue it can derive from the sale of the lands; the interest of the Dominion in the lands is in the revenue it can derive from the settler who makes that land productive.
The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) also said the financial terms were fair and reasonable.
I have quoted these gentlemen to show the inconsistent attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite. They have certainly condemned this Government for not having restored the natural resources up to the present time. The Prime Minister made his position very clear. Rome was not built in a day and the leader of the 'Opposition is certainly the last man in Canada who should reflect on any person, or on any head of a government, for not having implemented his pledge. I might recall to his recollection the platform of 1893.
You can run it down plank by plank, and I defy him to show one single plank that he implemented in the interest of the people in the fifteen years that he occupied the treasury benches. Still, because my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, at the third session since he has been returned to power, has not thus far restored the natural resources to these- provinces, the right hon. leader of the Opposition

lifts up his hands in holy horror and indignation-simulated, I have no doubt,- and tries to make political capital out of the situation, although he says himself that he stands where he did in 1905, and that if he were back in power he would not restore the natural resources to these provinces. We can very well see the spirit that is animating the right hon. gentleman in endeavouring to make political capital out of this particular incident.
Some of the western papers did me the honour of quoting, or misquoting, statements I am said to have made in the province of Saskatchewan prior to the last provincial election, and I wish to give an emphatic denial publicly to the report that represented that I had stated upon one or two occasions, in the city of Regina and in the city of Saskatoon, that unless the Conservatives were returned to power Mr. Borden would not restore the natural resources. It was a silly remark to attribute to me, a remark that I plead guiltless of, for it was never uttered by me. I might explain, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Borden, as leader of the Conservative party, had laid down in his platform that he was in favour of restoring the natural resources, the people of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, at the provincial elections, had voted against that policy. Not only had they done that, but at the last Dominion election they had voted against the policy of Mr. Borden. I asked was it reasonable to expect the Prime Minister to force upon an unwilling people something which they did not desire themselves. That is as far as my remarks went, and I think they were very moderate under the circumstances.
I know the contention has been put forward by hon. gentlemen opposite that there were other questions at issue in the Dominion elections of 1911, that among them was the question of reciprocity, that the people voted in favour of reciprocity, and they ask: Why not give them that ? There is quite a difference; reciprocity was a national question, it was an international question, it was a question in which every province of the Dominion was interested, and therefore the majority in the country, as in all countries where responsible government is in vogue, must rule. But this question of the return of the natural resources was specially applicable to the two provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan; it was an issue in the two provincial elections; the policy has been turned down in each of these provinces by large majorities; the Liberal Governments have been returned to
power; and therefore .the request of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister for a little time for consideration until these gentlemen can get together and agree amongst themselves is not unreasonable. You cannot blame the Prime Minister for taking time to consider this question in all its aspects.
I have quoted, and the Prime Minister has quoted, the statements that have been made on the platform and off the platform, in this House and outside of this House, by certain prominent Liberals as to the' position they occupy upon this question; and in the face of that we have this impossible, unreasonable request made by these same gentlemen that we hand over all these resources that every Liberal stated it would be foolish for them to ask for. Are these gentlemen in earnest, are they sincere, are they consistent ? They have made three or four requests, and we do not know which one they place most emphasis upon. If they get together, come to some finality upon the question and show that they are in earnest, it will then be time enough for this Government to give serious consideration to the matter.
It has been quoted as evidence in favour of the position of hon. gentlemen opposite that Premier Roblin signed this request. Premier Roblin asked for the same treatment for Manitoba that the other western provinces got, either upon the question of finance or upon the question of their lands. We granted the request of Premier Roblin, we gave the province of Manitoba equal terms with the other provinces of the West, and he is satisfied; but when the other two premiers asked him not only to retain what he had but also to get the natural resources for his province, most assuredly, if he had refused to sign that, would not these gentlemen have heaped opprobrium upon him for his refusal? The request made by the three premiers was, in my judgment, an unreasonable request. Having made the financial arrangements with each of these provinces at the time of the passage of the Autonomy Bill in lieu of public lands, the request that in addition we should hand over all the natural resources, in face of the declaration of these hon. gentlemen as to the difficulties in the way of immigration and from other standpoints, is an unreasonable request which I do not think Parliament would approve of, and is one which at the present time this Government does not approve of.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 78, respecting the Patent of Auto Wheels, Limited.-Mr. Fisher.
Bill No. 79, to incorporate the Bruce Peninsula Railway Company.-Mr. Middle-bro.	_
Bill No. 81, to incorporate the Canadian Press Association.-Mr. H. Clark.

Mr. G. E. McCRANEY (Saskatoon):: The hon. the Minister of the Interior, in the course of his remarks, expressed some surprise that the Opposition should have found it wise at this stage to inquire of the Government what progress was being made in the transfer to the western provinces of their natural resources. The Opposition need make no apology for calling the attention of Parliament to the condition in which this question now stands. The attitude of the Prime Minister has been known to this country for nearly ten years. His views have been the subject of two general elections; his pledges to the country have been most pronounced; and I would say, if there are irrevocable pronouncements on public questions, the pledges of the Prime Minister are in that class. This Government has been in power for nearly two and a half years, and so little has been done that, when we on this side ask for information as to the present state of the matter, we simply have quoted to us speeches delivered by members of the Opposition. Surely those speeches do not affect Government policy to-day. The Government is not looking for acquiescence in every respect in all its policies. The Government is elected because its policies in many respects differ from those of the Opposition, and the Government must assume its responsibilities. It is all very well for the Minister of the Interior to say to my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Buchanan), who has raised this question: What are your views? Have you come round to our views? He might as well ask what are my views. I have no hesitation in saying that I want to see the policy of the Prime Minister carried out; but what I think about this does not matter to the western provinces. What does matter to them is what the Prime Minister thinks.
The responsibility of the Government is to carry out with reasonable speed the

policies which it propounded before coming into power. Perhaps there is an exception to such a case, and it is when the necessity for carrying out a policy has passed or when there has been a change in public opinion. The situation with regard to this question of the transfer to the western provinces of their natural resources would not come under either of those heads.
The very fact that the Prime Minister was elected -on such a policy has given great strength to that policy throughout the West. There has been no change of sentiment with reference to the question, as shown by the declaration of the Saskatchewan Legislature approving the position taken [DOT]by the Prime Minister in 1911, and also by the memorandum signed by the Premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche) expresses the view that probably Mr. Scott did not expect that the province of Saskatchewan would ever receive these natural resources. The hon. minister has a very good understanding of human nature. When proposals have been postponed as this Government has postponed the proposal of its own leader in this matter; when promises are not carried out as in this case, what [DOT]more natural than that the people should begin to feel that the proposals will never 'be carried into effect or the promises fulfilled? If after such delay as in this case Mr. Scott has come to such a conclusion as the Minister of the Interior has indicated, the fact that the minister realizes it shows, as I have said, that he knows something of human nature. But that there is some unrest through the western provinces on this question I am quite certain. No doubt members of the Government have seen the speech of the hon. member for Calgary, in which he expresses himself as willing to throw in his lot against the Government if the natural resources are not handed over to the province of Alberta. Of course, I am not attempting to quote him with verbal accuracy, but I think I have given the sense of what he said. Why did the hon. gentleman say that? Surely it was only because he discerned among the Conservatives some dissatisffaetion and felt that if he could not assure them as to the action of the Prime Minister, he could at least assure them of what he himself would do if the Prime Minister's pledges were not carried out.
ihere are in this Administration three prominent members from the province of Manitoba: the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), the Minister of the Interior

(Mr. Roche), and the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen). I wonder how much they have to do with the present condition of delay. Perhaps the Minister of the Interior gave us the secret this, afternoon. He told us that the reason why Sir Rodmond Roblin did not ask that the natural resources of Manitoba be transferred to the province was that he was quite satisfied if Manitoba received from the Dominion as favourable treatment as Saskatchewan or Alberta had received. At the first session of this Parliament that treatment was accorded the province of Manitoba. The Minister of the Interior went farther and said that the reason that Mr. Roblin had signed the memorandum with Mr. Sifton and Mr. Scott was to protect himself against criticism; and I think I am fair in saying that it was not because he thought that it would be better that Manitoba should have control of her natural resources. Now, the three members of the Government whom I have named are in the close confidence of Sir Rodmond Roblin. Has he convinced them that the present arrangement is as good as could be made for the province of Manitoba? Are they the ones who are holding back the Prime Minister from carrying out his pledges? Are they the ones for whom he speaks when in answering us to-day he quotes the speeches which were made on this side of the House? I do not know of any instance in which when a question which has been an issue at the polls has been put before the Government with the request to carry out their pledges, there has been such an unsatisfactory answer as there has been to-day and so little prospect of the ultimate settlement of the question in relation to which those pledges were given.


Mr. F. L. SCHAFFNER (Souris):: It was not my intention to make any remarks in the present discussion. But a splendid example has been set by preceding speakers -one which I hope will be followed in other discussions-of speaking briefly and to the point. I-think we could save much time in this House if hon. members kept in mind the excellent qualities which these speeches exemplify. My hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney) has been the briefest of all, and under his example I venture to say a few words. It was my duty and my pleasure, at an earlier stage of the session, to make some remarks as to the extent to which the present Government has fulfilled the pledges made to the people before the election of 1911. Some of my friends were good enough to say
they were surprised to find that so much had been done within so short a time to fulfil these promises. If in the present case the Government has not gone as far as we expected they would, I believe it is the only case of the kind in their record, and 1 believe, more than that, that the fault lies with our friends on the other side of the House. I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)-I always have had. In many ways I admire him, but I cannot go so far as io say that I admire him for his consistency. In fact, in my opinion, the very word ' censistency ' is absent from his vocabulary, and its place is taken by opportunism.' Any student of this Parliament in the last few years, any student of the life of the right hon. gentleman, if he is fair, must agree with what I say. I was delighted, however, to hear the right hon. gentleman say to-day that his policy on this great question of giving the natural resources into control of the three prairie provinces was not like his policy of free food, a policy 'for the moment,' but that it had lasted from 1905 up to the present day. 1 inferred from what the right hon. gentleman said, and I think I was justified in that inference, that if he were in power to-day he would not change the settlement that .was made in 1905, that is, would not give to the Prairie provinces their natural resources. That is worthy of notice and of commendation. Many of the members of this House who have come in since 1905 may think that this is a new question. But it is not by any means new; it was discussed and fought out when the two autonomy Bills which provided for the establishment of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were before Parliament.
I have already pointed out the many promises that this Government has fulfilled; those respecting terminal elevators, the Hudson Bay railway, reduction of the tariff, reduction of freight rates, reduction of express rates, the Grain Commission, the Tariff Commission-although this last, I am extremely sorry to say, is not on our statute books. The Government has fulfilled those promises. Why have they not in the short time during which they have been in power fulfilled to the fullest extent the promises which our friends claim the right hon. Prime Minister made in western Canada with regard to natural resources? I submit that the reason may be found in hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. 1 would like to tell new members of the House that they will

find interesting reading and ascertain the best way of turning .sharp corners if they go into the library and look up the speeches of some of their friends opposite who were in the House during the last Parliament, in which they opposed what the farmers of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba asked for in regard to the matter to which I have just referred. They will find that those gentlemen tried in every way to oppose the motions offered in that regard, some of which I had the honour of making myself, especially those dealing with the Hudson Bay railway and terminal elevators. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely), the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles), and I think the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. McCraney) spoke in opposition to these utilities in which the farmers were so greatly interested. When this Government came into power they gave the farmers all they asked for so far as these matters were concerned. Although the coast was clear, and hon. gentlemen were at liberty to give the necessary relief in these matters, they did nothing. What they did do with regard to the natural resources of these three provinces will for a timh prevent the Government, however much we or hon. gentlemen opposite might desire it, from giving the natural resources of these provinces to the people to whom,
I believe, they belong.
Prior to 1905, when the Autonomy Bills were introduced and passed in this House, Manitoba and, I think, the Northwest territories were getting a certain amount of money per head of population each year, and the Government of this country were administering their lands and natural resources. When the right hon. Prime Minister was giving to-day very lucid and honest reasons for the course'taken by the Government, the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) interjected a remark to the effect that if the Maritime provinces were not considered then, why should they be considered to-day? Upon the passing of the Autonomy Bills the Government of Canada, in addition to giving them a certain amount per head, retained administration of the land and public resources of those provinces. I do not intend to repeat the arguments which have been made here to-day, but every hon. gentleman opposite, from the right hon. leader of the Opposition down, believed that it would be in the interests of those provinces and in the best interests of this country that

those natural resources should be administered by the federal Government. And what did they do? The said to the two provinces:	We will give you a certain
amount of money in lieu of public lands and resources, in respect of which the two .prairie provinces receive special considerations. I think it is quite evident, therefore, that the remark of the hon. member for Pictou is not at all applicable to the circumstances. But the position today is very different. If hon. gentlemen opposite had taken the advice of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government, and had given to those provinces in 1905 their public lands, -we would not be facing this difficulty to-day. But a new order of things is arising; in addition to the subsidies, the Government of this country made arrangements with those three provinces to give them a grant of money in lieu of their public lands. I have not the figures at hand just now, but the amount those provinces agreed to take in lieu of their public lands runs into the millions.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Did the present Prime Minister not know when he made the promise that the amount would be in the . millions?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It does not make very much difference what the right hon. gentleman's view is. What we know is that the people of those provinces took the money, and they were glad to get it. I am glad they got it, and I hope that this Government, which is a Government that does things, will be able to find some way out of the great difficulty and unfair position in which friends opposite placed those provinces, The right hon. gentleman who leads the Government, and its supporters, are the people who are interested, and practically interested, in the farmers of western Canada. They are the gentlemen who have settled the other questions to which I have referred, and I am absolutely confident that they will be able to undo the terrible wrong that our friends opposite did and to remove the stigma they placed upon those provinces. I believe they will be able to find some way to satisfy the western provinces in that regard. Because, just as surely as can be, in the position in which we are now placed, the Maritime provinces will have to be considered, and, knowing as I do the ability and the desire of the right hon. gentleman to carry out any promise that he ever made, I am confident that he will be able to meet this difficulty and to overcome the evil wrought by our

friends when they took money in lieu of lands and will be able to grant what I believe we all so much desire, the restoration to those provinces of their public resources.


Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, if any one listening to this discussion wanted to be convinced of the exceedingly unfortunate and humiliating position in which the Government and their supporters find themselves on this question, they would have only to listen to the halting apologies that have been made by the hon. gentlemen who so far have undertaken to defend them in their present attitude of inactivity so far as carrying out the promises of the Prime Minister to western Canada is concerned. I must give the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) the general credit of being more candid if not in his statements at least in his admissions, and I am sure that the same fervent hope that he expressed, that the Prime Minister would find some way of extricating himself and his Government from the unfortunate position in which they find themselves as the result [DOT]of the Prime Minister's statements and promises before he came into office, I am sure my hon. friend is expressing exactly the prayer and the feelings of every hon. gentleman on the other side of the House.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That is what I did not say.	.


David Bradley Neely: My hon. friend may not have used the words that I did, but he certainly gave the impression, and I think I am not drawing any unfair inference from his words. I quite appreciate the fervent desire of my hon. friend to see the Government extricated from this humiliating position. But the hon. gentleman must remember that no one on this side of the House is responsible for that position. My hon. friend tells the House that certain financial arrangements were made with the prairie provinces when they were given their autonomy in 1905, and that the provinces accepted those arrangements. That is all very well and good, very good indeed; but that does not alter or change the fact that in 1911, six years after the autonomy Bills were put into effect, the present Prime Minister of Canada, then leader of the Opposition, made a tour of the western provinces. He said to the people of those provinces: I am the leader of the Opposition, but I hope some day to be the leader of the Government in this country;
and I tell you the men of the West that I do not think, and I never did think, that the people of the prairie provinces were fairly treated so far as the question oi natural resources is concerned. I am not repeating the words of the Prime Minister, but that is the idea.
I do not wish to repeat, but some of these utterances of the Prime Minister were remarkable for the emphasis that he laid on the point that he did not consider the arrangement made with the prairie provinces when they were given their autonomy to be just and right. That was his view and his contention, that they should have been given their natural resources, and he made a pledge, as definite and as absolute as words could make a pledge, that as soon as he came into office he would right the great wrongs that had been done to the western prairie provinces by his predecessors in office when he, by the mandate of the ypeople of Canada, became Prime Minister of this country. If it were something that he had promised for the far distant future it would be a different question. What does the right hon. gentleman say? How emphatic does he make his statement? These statements are so emphatic and so absolute in their words that I do not wonder that hon. gentlemen, in undertaking to defend the Prime Minister's position, absolutely refuse to refer to these pledges and promises. Speaking at Battle-ford in the tour of 1911, the right hon. gentleman said:
If it should be the will of the people of Canada to impose upon me the great responsibility of being called upon to form a Government in *Canada, and after that Government has been formed, the policy I have outlined will be carried out by the Government as I have stated, or one man of the Government will go out of public life.
He will go out of public life. I think the hon. gentleman is something of a prophet, I think he will go out of public life before very long when the people have an opportunity of passing on a Government that has so failed to implement its pledges as this Government has done. But here is the emphatic statement of the Prime Minister that if, after forming a Government, that Government would not support him in his promises to the people of western Canada to restore to them their natural resources he, a member of the Government, would go out of public life. There are no words in the English language that could make a stronger pledge or promise than this. Similar statements were made at other

points. I am sure that the Minister of Public Works will remember the fairly strong statements by the Prime Minister in the great reception for which I think my hon. friend was largely responsible, given the present leader of the Government when he commenced his western tour at his meeting in Winnipeg.
Now, our hon. friends across the way, including the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior, are trying to draw a red herring across the trail by saying to the Liberals in this House:	You took a
certain position many years ago on this question and we are but following in your footsteps. But the very point of the situation is in this, that the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government took a different position from the Liberal party many years ago when the two new prairie provinces were being formed. He held that position of his consistently up to the last general election and even as late as 1911, after arrangements had been made with the prairie provinces. If there is discontent and trouble in the West over the restoration of the natural resources, I ask who is responsible to a very large extent for it? It is hon. gentlemen like my hon. friend who has just taken his seat, and like the Minister of the Interior and the Prime Minister himself who, year after year, toured the West and told the people that they had not been fairly dealt with by the late Liberal Administration, and that if they would put the Conservatives into office they would get a square deal. Yet these same gentlemen are apologizing to-day for the inactivity of the Prime Minister in implementing his pledges. The Prime Minister last year, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin), admitted that he had made such statements to the people of the West. After the defeat of the Liberal party at the last election there was this meed of comfort to the people of the West, at all events to the people of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta who were so strongly in favour of the trade agreement arranged by the late Government; that if they were not granted free trade in natural products with our nearest neighbours, at least they were getting, so they thought, control of their natural resources. That in some measure would atone, they thought, for their loss in the defeat of reciprocity. There is no doubt in my mind that the leader of the Government and his friends got many votes in the West by the straight and definite pledge of the Prime Minister, that when be came into 
office he would give those western provinces control of their natural resources.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Does that imply a condemnation of the policy of the hon. gentleman's own leader?


David Bradley Neely: I am discussing the attitude of the Government in regard to the pledges given the people of western Canada. If the late Administration did not make pledges they were not responsible for carrying them out, but the leader of the Government is not in that position. He is in the humiliating position of having made a promise and having to come here session after session, and telling the men of the West that he does not yet find himself in a situation to implement his promise given in the tour of 1911. I had not the pleasure of hearing the Prime Minister address any of the gatherings; but, from the emphatic statements and definite promises he made, I would have it in my mind that he made those statements and gave those pledges knowing all the time the difficulties that stood in the way of implementing them, and having knowledge of the difficulties that my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) has just alluded to. Would not that be a fair inference? He makes a promise to the people of the West. Year after year he sat in this House as leader of the Opposition; he had considered this question from every standpoint; he did not utter a single word about the Maritime provinces when he toured the West in 1911; he did not have to go down to the Premiers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to find out what was right and just for the people of the West. Oh, no, he had solved the whole question himself. He knew the difficulties in the way; he knew that certain financial arrangements had been made in 1905 by virtue of the passing of the Autonomy Bill. I would not like to say that it was purely for the purpose of catching votes that he made those pledges. Will my hon. friend say it was for that purpose, and that the Prime Minister gave those pledges knowing all the time that he could not carry them out? His leader was thoroughly conversant with affairs and with the financial arrangements made by the two prairie provinces, and with every disposition in the natural resources either as gifts to railways, or corporations that had been made since the Government of Canada administered our western lands. With all these facts in mind, the then leader of the Opposition made these definite promises to the people of the West, and in view of that it is not at all strange that my hon.

friend from Souris should offer up the fervent prayer-not intended perhaps to be such, but sounding so much like one-that something might arise by which the leader of the Government could extricate himself from the serious difficulty in which those pledges had placed him. I did not expect that kind of support of this proposition from my hon. friend from Souris, nor did I expect the kind of support given by the Minister of the Interior.
While I am disappointed in those two gentlemen, there is another member from whom I expect to hear a great deal. We hope to hear from him before the conclusion of this debate, I refer to the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett). The member for Calgary for many years has been practically the mouthpiece of the Conservative party in the province of Alberta, their leading public speaker, and the exponent of good Conservative doctrine in that province. I understand that very recently the member for Calgary made a speech in his own city on that question of the restoration of the natural resources. He is reported to have said that if the Premier did not implement his pledge, he (the member for Calgary) would resign his seat in Parliament as a protest. If the hon. member for. Calgary made that statement he was only being consistent, because campaign after campaign in the provincial elections of Alberta the hon. member for Calgary has taken the position that Alberta should have control of her own natural resources.- I look for some real thunder on this question from the hon. gentleman who represents Calgary and, I might say, the entire Conservative party in the province of Alberta.
It is a useless thing for hon. gentlemen opposite to undertake to discuss the question of the fairness or the unfairness of the financial arrangements made with the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. You must have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that that has been the attitude taken by all the speakers on the Government side. They have discussed the Liberal attitude on this question. That is not the point, Sir. We are not discussing financial arrangements. We are discussing the position of the Prime Minister who, in opposition, and until the general elections had brought him into office, took the ground that the western provinces were unfairly treated, and who is responsible in a large measure for the discontent in the West over the arrangements made with those provinces through the autonomy Bills of 1905. Whether we on this
side of the House are satisfied or are not satisfied with these arrangements, we are not satisfied, I can assure the leader of the Government, that he should go on and hold up before the people of the West the possibility-not the possibility, but the definite assurance-that he would give to them all their natural resources when he came into office and then, Sir, turn around, as he did to-day, and practically put a wet blanket over the whole proposition. If I understand the English language, the words of the Prime Minister mean to the people of western Canada, as plainly as words can mean: Well, admitting the pledge and the promise, at the present time I can see no light on the horizon and as far as my wishes and hopes for the western people are concerned, at the present time, I, unfortunately, am in the same position in regard to the settlement of this question as when I came into office in September, 1911.
The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche) undertook to take to task the Premier of the province of Saskatchewan, the Hon. Walter Scott, for what he called his reversal of attitude on the question of the provinces controlling their natural resources. When the leader of a great political party, year after year, makes a pledge, a promise, that he will do a certain thing, would my hon. friend expect the Premier of the province of Saskatchewan, even supposing he was satisfied with the financial arrangements of 1905, to be supine, to remain inactive in view of the fact that that political leader at the general election had come into office and that the people had given him the authority and the power to carry out these promises and pledges? The Premier of Saskatchewan would be recreant to his duty, recreant to the people of his own province if, when the present Government came into office, he were not to call upon the leader of the Government to carry out the pledges he had made to the people of the West. Supposing it was magnanimous, supposing it was generous treatment proposed by the then leader of the Opposition, now the leader of the Government; notwithstanding, he gave the pledge and I say that the premiers of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba would fail in their duty if they refrained from calling on the right hon. gentleman to carry out his pledges. It must have been very hard for the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) to attack the attitude of his well-beloved friend and political leader in the province of Manitoba, the Hon. Sir Rodmond Roblin, and it must have been rather hard for the

hon. Minister of the Interior to take an attitude so antagonistic to the attitude of the leader of the Conservative party in his own province. I repeat that the premiers of these prairie provinces would have been recreant to their trust and their duties if they had not called upon the Prime Minister of Canada to implement the pledges that he had made when leader of the Opposition.
I have nothing to do with the Maritime provinces nor with the financial arrangements of the Maritime provinces. As far as the people of the West are concerned, if the Maritime provinces are not getting a square deal from the federal Government let their financial arrangements be readjusted. We have no fault to find with that but we ask, on behalf of the 9 p.m. people we represent in this House, that they be given that boon that the leader of the Government always said it was his determination to give them and that is the control and ownership of the natural resources of the prairie provinces.
When my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior undertakes to criticise the conduct and present position of the Premier of Saskatchewan, unfortunately, he criticises the position of his own leader in this House -the leader of the Government. When he talks about financial arrangements, and how the Premier of Saskatchewan said that he was satisfied with these arrangements, he is talking of something that is beside the question. If he says that these financial arrangements were adequate then my hon. friend is contradicting the position that he and all his friends have taken since the autonomy Bills were passed in 1905. If he says they are inadequate, that they are unfair and unjust, then he must take the position as a western man that it is the duty of this Government to change that' unfair and unjust arrangement and do what his party leader promised when they were in Opposition, namely, restore to us the natural resources of our provinces. My hon. friend from Souris pleaded for short speeches and I am going to be reasonable in that respect.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


David Bradley Neely: I am not at all surprised that an hon. gentleman says ' hear, hear ' because we are passing over to the hon. gentlemen some reminders and some home truths that I am sure are very unpalatable and when I spoke of concluding my remarks no doubt it gave a considerable measure of relief to these hon. gentlemen.

It is delightful to hear my hon. friends opposite have to admit how consistent my leader is upon this question and if I had to sit and listen to my leader being brought to task about an emphatic and absolute promise to the people whom I represented in this House, I too, would say, 'hear, hear ' if some one who was making remarks of that kind should happen to mention that he was about to bring his remarks to a speedy conclusion.


Mr. HENDERSON:: The hon. gentleman has heard that same thing imputed to his leader a hundred times.


David Bradley Neely: My hon. friends around me have put the word into my mouth-imputed. My hon. friend and his friends are very good at that sort of thing, but they fall very far short in the matter of evidence and proof on a great many occasions. Even if proven in a particular instance, it is at least delightful that on one occasion my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition finds himself the exception.


Mr. CROTHERS:: The hon. gentleman is easily satisfied.


David Bradley Neely: In one case the evidence of my right hon. friend's consistency is absolutely conclusive when it comes from the mouths of my hon. friends opposite, because they would not make the admission if the facts did not absolutely prevent them from doing anything else.
This is the situation in which we find ourselves to-day in our western country. My hon. friend says that this Government has done everything that the farmers ask. I will venture to say that my hon. friend has knowledge that is not possessed by 95 out of every 100 farmers in western Canada.	You would need to take a
fine-tooth comb to find the individual farmer in the West who considers that he has been well used by the present Administration. What has the present Government done for him? what has my hon. friend done in the present session? Does he know what is the boon that the western farmer has asked from this Government? So insistent was the demand for that boon that even the Tory Legislature of the province of Manitoba endorsed the proposition, and what dees my hon. friend and every hon. gentleman opposite do when this question comes before the House for discussion and decision? All of them with heads hanging it .is true, voted against the proposition that meant the greatest boon to tbt western farmer that he ever had. Yet my

hon. friend Has the temerity to tell us that this Government has done everything that the farmers want.
My hon. friend said that they were going to take over the terminal elevators. What have they done? They have bought an expensive site from Mackenzie and Mann and built one lone, lorn elevator at Fort William. That is a fine implementing of the promise that my hon. friend gave his constituents as -to what would be done with reference to terminal elevators in case of a change of government.
We are not, however, -discussing that point; we are discussing the question of whether or not this Government proposes to stand in the way of what -the Premier of Canada asserted again and again from 1903 to 1911 as being the right and just due of the people of the West, namely, the control and administration of their natural resources. Notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister was opposed to the dearest wish of the people of the West when he went there on his western tour in 1911, yet I am sure that every man in this country, from coast to coast, admired the manly way in which he faced the situation. As he addressed western audience after western audience, it was well known to him that many men in his audience were opposed to his views on the trade agreement. But what did he say? He said to those people: If you were to make me Premier to-morrow, I would not support that trade agreement with the United States. Although a great majority of our people disagreed with him on that point, they admired his courage in making plain his position and not quibbling on the question. To offset the disappointment of the western people on that score, he dangled another boon before the eyes of these provinces that since their inauguration have had acute problems to solve and difficulties in the matter of providing means of transportation, better roads, etc., for the fast incoming settlers. He held out this boon to the people of the West, that, while he would not support this trade agreement that was so dear to their hearts, when he came into office his first act would be to give to those provinces their natural resources. The people admired the courageous stand of the Prime Minister when he said: ' I will not support reciprocity, even if it costs me the premiership of thi3 Dominion.' But what are they to think, after that courageous stand, if the Prime Minister now turns his back on the promise that he has given them, and that
has secured for him the western vote to a large extent, and says to the people of western Canada, in -deed if not in words: My pledge to you in 1911 was nothing but a bauble held up before you to catch your votes; I am now in office, and I propose t# remain in office without carrying out and implementing the promise which means so much to you people of the West?


Frank Oliver: The question before the House to-night is not a question of natural resources; it is a question of governmental good faith. As to what the members of the late Government thought in regard to the arrangement made with the western provinces respecting subsidies and natural resources,-there is no question as to their good faith then and now. A definite arrangement was made in the broad light of day; an agreement was arrived at which was satisfactory to the people of those provinces at that time. The Government of that day stood by that agreement; they believed that it was right in principle and right in practice. They stood by it then, and they stand by it still. When that agreement was being made, the party of the Opposition, led by the present leader of the Government, took issue with the then Government on the question of principle. The then Government held that it was in the best interest of the country that the natural resources should be administered by the Dominion Government. The party of the Opposition, led by the present Prime Minister, took the view that it would be more to the interest of the country that these natural resources should b'e administered by the provincial Governments. It was a question of principle ; there was fair room for difference of opinion, and naturally, of course, the view of the Government prevailed. It was not a question of financial advantage; it was a question of principle in regard to matters of administration, because when the financial arrangements were made, it was accepted on both sides of the House; it was accepted throughout Canada; it was accepted in the provinces principally concerned, that the financial arrangements were adequate, fair, reasonable, satisfactory to the provinces, and the only fault found with them in other parts of Canada was that they were too liberal in their terms. The law was passed; th-e provinces were created; a condition existed on the responsibility of the late Government. Conditions were fixed, and, as has been said here to-night, it would be difficult for this

Government to change them even if it wished to do so. A condition had been created which was satisfactory to all parties concerned. It might have been considered that the incident was closed. But it was not closed, because of the action of the then leader of the Opposition, now leader of the Government. You, Mr. Speaker, and the House will remember that when the financial arrangement with the two western provinces were made, a part of that arrangement was based upon land; a part of the subsidy was in lieu of land. It is not necessary to go into details as to how the calculation was made, but, as a matter of fact, a large proportion of the subsidy given to the western provinces was given in lieu of their right to the lands, which were to be administered by this Government.	In making that
arrangement it was deemed that the land had a certain value. I find, on reference to the report of the Department of the Interior, that in the year 1903 the sales of western lands made by the railway companies and the Hudson Bay Company had averaged a little less than $3.50 an acre, and in 1905, when the financial arrangement was made, the average price had increased to $5.09 an acre. It was on that condition of land values in the West that the financial arrangements were made.
The new provincial governments assumed their responsibilities, and there followed the most rapid agricultural expansion in those two provinces tha-t ever occurred in any country in the world. That meant that the burdens of provincial government were increased far (beyond the expectations 'that existed when the governments were formed. With every additional settler came a demand for advantages to he conferred through provincial expenditure. Not only in the matter of roads, bridges and public institutions, hut it is a matter well known to the House that these two prairie provinces have been compelled to incur indirect indebtedness to the amount of many millions of dollars in order to secure railway facilities to meet even in a measurable degree, the influx of population that followed their organization. They have had to assume burdens of responsibility because of the rapid development of the country far beyond what was expected when these two provinces were formed. Naturally, with that increase of population, with that requirement of railroad building and road construction, came an increase in the val"

' of the land. I

find that, whereas, in 1905 the average price of land sold in the prairie provinces was $5.09 an acre, in the year 1911 the average price was $12.16 an acre, and while five millions of acres were sold in 1905, nearly twenty millions of acres were sold in 1911.
It was not wonderful at all that, in view of the unexpected burdens that were laid upon the provincial administrations, and with the marvellous and equally unexpected increase in the values of the lands of those provinces in the years between 1905 and 1911, the sympathizers, the friends and even the emissaries of the then leader of the Opposition and present leader of the Government, found it easy throughout these provinces to explain that they had made a bad bargain with the Grit Government in regard to their subsidies and natural resources, and that the remedy would be to put in power the man who, when these subsidies were being arranged, had insisted on the provinces being given their natural resources.	Circumstancesto borrow a word from my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White)-synchronized, so that it was possible for a political campaign to be organized in those provinces dangerous to the provincial governments and correspondingly politically advantageous to the party then in Opposition in this House.
It was not without knowing, what he was doing that the then leader of the Opposition made the proclamation at Halifax that one of the principal planks in his somewhat lengthy platform was the giving of their natural resources to the prairie provinces. In view of his explanation here to-night as to why he cannot give these natural resources now, it is notable that he made the announcement right in the capital of the Maritime provinces. If the wishes of the Maritime provinces are dominant in this matter, it might have been supposed that the right hon. gentleman would have taken cognizance of that fact at the time, representing a Maritime constituency and being present in the Maritime provinces, and knowing as well as he does now, what position those provinces occupied in this Confederation.
The position, then, was this: A foundation had been carefully laid for a campaign that would secure the adhesion of the people of the prairie provinces to the leader of the Opposition on a pledge distinctly made by him that on accession to power he would transfer the natural resources to these provinces. Mr. Speaker, we have heard of corruption in elections, we have heard of brib-

ery in elections; and, I will not mention any names, but we Rave here in the House, gentlemen, or I might say, a gentleman, whose name is very frequently associated with the idea of corrupt practices in elections. The leader of the Government-I regret that he is not here to-night-goes to the prairie provinces and from every platform offers to the people a bribe of not less than $200,000,000 if they will give him power and authority in this Dominion of Canada. I say no such corrupt proposition was ever placed before the people of Canada as was placed before the people of the prairie provinces during that campaign. The leader of the Government found then, and he will find when the next election comes, that the people of the prairie provinces are not for sale. I say it was a bribe, corruptly intended. It was not effective,' so far as those provinces are, concerned. But what will be said after to-night's debate, during which the Prime Minister was challenged here in his place in this House as to the promise he made, and refused either to implement the promise or to indicate that he ever will implement it? My hon. friends, on this and on frequent occasions, have used the argument, addressed to us on this side. 'You did the same.' I say that you may search the records of the Canadian Parliament during the regime of the late Government or any other government that ever held office in this Dominion, and you will not find the case of a Prime Minister who took the position that was taken to-day by the Prime Minister of Canada in this House. The question at issue is more than a question of natural resources; it is a question of good faith on the part of the Government of Canada. I say that, on the confession of the Prime Minister to-day, this Government of Canada has absolutely played false to its own pledges in one of the most important questions that it could possibly have undertaken to bring before the people of the country.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It seems to me that we are spending more time in the discussion of this subject than the facts and circumstances of the matter warrant. Hon. gentlemen opposite, as is their custom, are not in this matter quite accurate as to the facts; they have become very enthusiastic and very eloquent upon false premises. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) became quite warm a moment ago in denouncing the Prime Minister for a breech of pledge, but it seems to me that hon. gentlemen opposite 70
mis-state wihat the pledge was. They have repeated over and over again to-night that the Prime Minister when in Opposition pledged an absolute and unconditional transfer of these lands to the different provinces. There is no evidence whatever that he did so. The Prime Minister said that he would transfer these natural resources to the provinces upon fair terms; hon. gentlemen opposite, in their speeches to-night, have left out these three words, ' upon fair terms.' The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) grew very heated over the matter, and said that the Prime Minister had made an absolute and unconditional pledge to transfer these lands to the provinces. That is not so, and there is no evidence that such is the case. It was a conditional pledge. If the words ' upon fair terms ' had not been used, it would be implied, perhaps, that the provinces would accept the transfer and undertake to administer the lands without anything further being said about it, but these words, ' upon fair terms,' were used. Before hon. gentlemen opposite find fault with the Prime Minister of this country they should establish that the provinces have offered fair terms, and that the Prime Minister has Tefused to transfer the lands.


Frank Oliver: The provinces were not taking the initiative in the matter; it was the Prime Minister who took the initiative.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: He took the initiative by saying, in substance: I will transfer these natural resources to the different provinces upon fair terms.


Frank Oliver: It was up to the Prime Minister to say what he considered the fair terms to be.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The provinces have not waited for him to make a proposal of that kind; they have proposed very unfair terms. The terms as contained in the document signed by the three premiers, as I understand them, are, in effect: We want to retain the money that we got for, these lands in 1905, and get the land. too. That is the only offer and those are the only terms proposed by the various provinces interested in this matter. The premiers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta say: We desire you to transfer these natural resources to us, and we will keep the money we got in lieu of these natural resources in 1905. The Prime Minister said: I will transfer these natural resources to the provinces upon fair terms, but no fair terms have been offered; on the

]094

contrary, very unfair terms have been offered. I wish to ask the hon. member for Edmonton now if he thinks these natural resources should be transferred to these various provinces, and that the provinces should in the meantime be allowed to retain the financial advantages conferred upon them in 1905 ?


Frank Oliver: That is not the question before the House. The question before the House is that the Prime Minister made certain promises which it is up to him to fulfil.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I quite admit that, but there is no evidence that he ever broke those promises. There is no evidence that a fair proposition was ever made to him. The proposals made by the three provinces were unfair, and the Government of this country is perfectly warranted in refusing to accept such unfair terms. It seems to me, as I said at the outset, that we are wasting a lot of time over nothing.


William Erskine Knowles: The discussion which has taken place to-day in regard to this matter, while it may not, in all probability, be crystallized into legislation, will, I am sure, be for the good of the country by reminding the people of the broken promises of the present Government. It is a good illustration of nerve, the way in which our hon. friends opposite in the most flamboyant fashion possible tell me that the Prime Minister has kept every other promise and surely we might overlook this one broken promise. Let us look at a few promises the Prime Minister made before coming into office. If we are asked whether they have been fulfilled or not we will not be so sure that our right hon. friends are so correct in their confidence that all the promises excepting one have been kept. My hon. friend who has just spoken is an outstanding illustration of a broken promise. Before the last election he went into the county of Elgin and told the people that if the Laurier Government were defeated and the Borden Government put into power the unfortunate farmers who had invested money in the Farmers Bank would be reimbursed. The people in the West believed the present Prime Minister when he promised their lands would be restored, and many voted for him for that reason. The farmers of Elgin believed, unfortunately, the present Minister of Labour in the statement that the Farmers Bank subscribers would be reimbursed and they voted for the present Minister of Labour, member for one of the Elgin seats. That

promise has not been carried out but has been trifled with and played with.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Is the hon. gentleman
aware that before the close of the last session the Prime Minister pledged his word to bring down legislation in regard to the Farmers Bank this session.


William Erskine Knowles: When?


William Cameron Edwards: Just before the close
of the last session.


William Erskine Knowles: That he would reimburse the farmers who invested in the Farmers Bank?


William Cameron Edwards: That he would bring
down legislation this session in regard to the Farmers Bank.


William Erskine Knowles: I did not say that the Minister of Labour stated that the Prime Minister would, after three years, bring down certain unknown legislation. I did say that he had stated that the Conservative Government if put in power, would reimburse the farmers who had invested in the Farmers Bank. I am not aware that *the Prime Minister had stated that he would, during this session, bring down legislation definitely and absolutely reimbursing the farmers who put their money into the Farmers Bank.


Mr. MURPHY:: He repudiated the Minister of Labour.


William Erskine Knowles: I am glad to be informed on that, although I do not think there is much necessity of repudiating the Minister of Labour. But even if such a promise was made last session it is just an illustration of the way the hon. gentlemen, when asked to take any promise, will swallow it and then just after the election is over vomit them all up again. The hon. gentlemen got into power largely upon promises that if they were returned to power they would bring in legislation that we overcome all the evils and vices of the Ne Temere decree and they got many hundreds of votes. I do not know if they got any in the vicinity of Grey county or not, but they got many because of the belief of a certain party in certain portions of Ontario that the Conservative party, if they came into power, would bring in legislation that would do away with the vices and evils of the Ne Temere decree. Did they do that? Was there any honesty in their promise or were they again fooling and befuddling the people? I have no hesitation in saying that in that instance again the Conservatives were deliberately making promises that they never expected to be

called on to fulfil and never intended to fulfil if they were placed on the Treasury benches. I go farther and say that the hon. gentlemen opposite sit to the right of the Speaker because they deceived the people of Canada from one ocean to the other. If my hon. friends are so very confident that they have the country behind them for the way they have carried out their promises and pledges, when they had such a great invitation and temptation to go to the country a year ago why did they not go, and see if the people were of the same mind as the hon. gentlemen opposite said they were? I think actions speak louder than words. The reason is that the hon. gentlemen knew that the people of the Dominion of Canada have realized that they were fooled and deceived and hoodwinked in the election of 1911, and if they had had an opportunity a year ago or to-day they would show their resentment of such deceiving election promises as were made to them. May we not take the navy as another illustration? These gentlemen in the province of Quebec not only put their money into the Nationalist' election, but told all the Nationalists: If you vote for us against Laurier we will see to it that, in the very first session, the Navy Act is repealed. Was not that promise made by some twenty-one Nationalists who to-day have seats in this House and keep this Government m power, as straight and honest and honourable outwardly as a promise between man and man could be made, and has that ever been done? Did they not say they would resign if that was not done, and did they not, because of that, get more than twenty seats in the province of Quebec because those who to-day are following in the wake of this Imperialist jingo Government promised, if sent to Ottawa, that they would be even worse than Laurier in his opposition to the present Premier in his naval policy? The present Government, I say without fear of contradiction, hold their seats on the Treasury benches-and I say it in no spirit of desiring to say any more than I believe to be the truth-because they deceived and misled and befuddled the people of Canada and got their support under false pretenses. My hon. friend who spoke last says that the present Prime Minister never promised this. No, he does not say that; he says it is not proved that he promised it. A year ago I read in the presence of the Prime Minister, on the occasion of the discussion on a certain amendment that I proposed to the Grain Act, the very promise which my hon. Mend from Medicine Hat referred to to-day, in which the Prime 70}
Minister said distinctly and categorically: 'If I am elected to office I will see that the lands are restored to the prairie provinces that were withheld in the autonomy legislation of 1905, or else one man will go out of public life.' I leave it to you as an impartial man, is there any fairness in that? Not a bit; it is quibbling and equivocating, and saying: Well, I am not tied up to that promise, because a man named Murray in Halifax says this or that about it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would say that such expressions as quibbling ate not permissible in debate, and it would be well to avoid them. I could cite several decisions of Speakers to that effect.


William Erskine Knowles: If the expression is unparliamentary I do not ask you to cite the cases; your word is as good as your bond.
I did not know it was unparliamentary, and I, of course, withdraw it; but nothing will make me say that they did not quibble. I did not mean to use an unparliamentary term, and I withdraw the word; but the members have no doubt got the idea that I wish I had the power to put in more parliamentary language. The fact rerhains that to-day we axe told that the lands are not restored to the prairie provinces, and to say that this is because a gentleman named George Murray says this and that and the other about it is something that to my mind is nothing but trifling with the question. Unless the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government can send a message to the people of the prairie provinces giving some better explanation than that for the non-fulfilment of that promise, the belief will be confirmed in the minds of the farmers of the prairie provinces that the right hon. gentleman never expected to carry out that promise, and never expected to be called upon to -carry it out, and never intended to carry it out even if he were called upon to form a government. Their belief today is that the right hon. gentleman then was just offering them something as a sop and a bribe in place of his opposition to the proposed reciprocity legislation.
The hon. gentleman who spoke last says in one breath that there is no evidence of any promise, although, as I have said, the promise has been read twice in my hearing in the presence of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government. He has never denied it. Here it is in a paper which I am sure the right hon. leader of the Govern-


William James Roche: I said that to-day?


William Erskine Knowles: I do not remember the hon. gentleman saying it, but I will read what he said on one occasion while the election was going on:
Hon. Dr. Roche said it was not to he expected that Hon. Mr. Borden would force this policy upon an unwilling government as represented by the present Administration-
That was the trouble.
[DOT]-who have always advocated a contrary policy. Was it unreasonable, he asked, to request that if they desired to have their assets handed over to the provinces, that they should return a provincial government which has always advocated this?
Although this party boasted that they were the party of provincial rights, two ministers of the Crown go into the provinces, tell the people how to vote in a provincial election on locaJi issues, and request them to send representatives to Regina who are favorable to Mr. Borden. The hon. Minister of the Interior says that it is a most reasonable thing for him to request the people to elect a Conservative Government in provincial affairs, because then probably they will get their lands. Words like that, spoken by men who have taken the oath as members of the Government and who sit about the Cabinet table to advise His Majesty on things appertaining to the state, and spoke in new provinces like Saskatchewan and Alberta, which are in a formative condition with
many people casting their ballots for the first time, hold out a bribe to the people, constitute the grossest interference with provincial rights that I have ever heard of. To 'request,' he said! The right hon. Prime Minister, in Brandon in 1911, says nothing about requesting a change of government and nothing about George Murray. He just throws himself right flat before the people and says: Here is one man who will go right out of public life, who is going to turn his whole back on public life, if immediately after being elected, he does not give the people back their land. Then his cabinet minister goes to Saskatchewan on the eve of the provincial elections and says to the people: We think it is reasonable that we request that you shall not put Scott back but that you shall put Haultain in power and then you will get your lands. But the people did not fall to the invitation.


Mr. ROGERS:: They were not allowed.


William Erskine Knowles: If the hon. gentleman had seen his homestead inspectors as we saw them on that occasion he would be the last to say that they were not allowed. They were allowed, and my hon. friends came up to Regina for the purpose of influencing the provincial elections. They lost their valuable time without any need whatever. I hope they will come every time we have a provincial election, stay longer, talk more and make more promises, because the people know what their promises amount to now. They like them to come anyway. They are gentlemen and citizens and we are pleased to see them, and no doubt, by a little direction from Winnipeg, or Ottawa, there would be people in Moosejaw or Regina, who	would get up another banquet.
But as far as the effect upon the elections of 1912 was concerned, as shown.
by the results, we were certainly
10 p.m. not injured by the visit of these-hon. gentlemen. I may say in all seriousness that such conduct on the part of the leaders of the Government party wl)o, by -matchless audacity, could say they were the party of provincial rights, in this attempted dictation to the people of Saskatchewan was the grossest interference with provincial rights. I repeat that this promise to restore the lands to the provinces was a bid for the people's votes, and it was a promise that the Conservative party never intended to carry out because the belief is that they never intended to carry it out and will never carry it out.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply.
Arts and Agriculture-Patent Record, $30,000.
["(Translation.)-I am somewhat surprised at the zeal displayed by the hon. gentlemen opposite, who voted, when in power, a few hundred thousand dollars only, for agricultural purposes, whilst the present government is now spending $3,950,000 for the same object.\nThe hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) is amazed by the great increase in value of the property around Quebec; let me tell him that coming, as he does, from the province of Quebec, he should not wonder. It is true that, when his party was in power, Quebec felt satisfied with the the sole mention of the name of the then Premier, who has done nothing for their city; and there lays the reason why Quebec and its neighbourhood did not grow as it does to-day.\nWe have now in the Postmaster General a man who has taken so much interest in Quebec's, and its surroundings, welfare, that property valuated, one year ago, at $5,500 is to-day sold for $32,000. This is due to the fact that during the last few years Quebec and its surroundings have taken such an increase, that property, in the neighbourhood, will reach unforeseen high prices, and the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) must not be looking for a stumbling-block, which does not exist.\nWe have in the Postmaster General a man who has taken Quebec's welfare to heart.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.42 p.m.\nThursday, February 26, 1914."]
Mr. KYTE:: I notice there is an increase of $10,000 in that vote. Will the minister please explain it?


Hon. MARTIN BURRELL (Minister of Agriculture):: The vote of $20,000 last year was insufficient and a supplementary vote is to be asked for the present fiscal year. We find that $30,000 will be required for the next fiscal year. This is just for copies of the Patent Office Record, which is issued in rather greater number now and at greater expense. About 1,200 copies of this work are issued to libraries, senators and *members. About 272 libraries in the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada get copies of the Record. The revenue of the patent office exceeds $100,000 and is greater than the running expenses.


Mr. NESBITT:: What is the object of issuing the Patent Record?
Mr. flURRELL: It is to give the public an exact knowledge as to the various patents that are issued and to keep a complete record of them!


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Of what practical benefit is it to have the Record published? Do the public really appreciate that book? It comes to me as a member of the House; I sometimes look at the cover, but that is ' about all. I fancy the general public look upon it in the same way. It is an expensive book, and it strikes me as being a great waste of money.


Martin Burrell: To anybody interested
in patents it would be of the greatest value. I suppose it would be like any other Government publication; lots of blue books that my hon. friend would be interested in would not be looked at probably by people who get the Patent Record, but you have to issue these books to members and senators. In the libraries of the country where these Patent Records are on file, the information as to Canadian patents is absolutely invaluable.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is it a constant repetition of the same thing?


Martin Burrell: No, not necessarily at
all.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The Patent Record shows the new patents that are issued?


Martin Burrell: It keeps absolute track

of all the patents that are issued in the Canadian patents office.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Each month does it show the patents?


Martin Burrell: Each month.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am very largely of the same view as my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). The Patent Record comes to me; but what good it is I do not know.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend is not interested in patents.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No, I do not believe they are of any use when they are issued.


George William Kyte: How many copies of the
Patent Record are issued each month?


Martin Burrell: About 1,200.


Charles Murphy: What arrangement as to printing of the Patent Record has been made by my hon. friend?


Martin Burrell: The practice is carried on as it has been before, through the Printing Bureau.


Charles Murphy: All the work was not
formerly done in the Printing Bureau.


Martin Burrell: So far as I know, it has been.


Charles Murphy: I think only a portion oi the work is done there, and I would like to know where the rest is done.


Martin Burrell: I cannot give my hon. friend the precise information, but as far as I know it is all done through the Printing Bureau now.
Arts and Agriculture-Experimental farms- Maintenance of central farms and maintaining of additional branch stations, $770,000.


George William Kyte: There is a new publication
from , the Department of Agriculture called the Agricultural Gazette of Canada. Is it intended to continue this publication from time to time?


Martin Burrell: Yes, it will be issued every month. I think that is explained in the publication. We have had the matter under contemplation for some two years. As my hon. friend probably knows, nearly every civilized country issues an official magazine on agriculture. We thought that the time had come when Canada could very well afford to follow suit. We have altered our magazine a little from those usually published, inasmuch as we are not accepting advertisements or making it

commercial, but simply keeping it as a register and reflection of agricultural work in Canada, not only in the Dominion but in the provinces. I think my hon. friend will agree that this particular magazine will serve a very useful purpose in Canada at the present time.


George William Kyte: Will the hon. minister be good enough to say under whose supervision this magazine is prepared?


Martin Burrell: It is prepared under the editorship of Mr. Spencer, who has long been connected with our publication office in the inside service.


George William Kyte: Has the staff been increased with a view to performing this work?


Martin Burrell: Yes; we have an assistant editor, too, Mr. Dawson.


George William Kyte: On looking over this publication, which is a new publication to me, I find that there are some very serious inaccuracies. Will the hon. minister be good enough to say how many copies of the Agricultural Gazette have been issued?


Martin Burrell: It is issued monthly to the senators, to every member, to all the papers in Canada, to the secretaries of provincial agricultural societies, to the official agricultural workers in all the provinces in Canada and in the Dominion, and to agricultural colleges. The idea was not to put it into general circulation except to subscribers, who would get it at a little below cost price. We thought that we could afford to issue it to subscribers for $1 a year. That is the price of it in other countries. With that exception, it is free to those whom I have mentioned. If my hon. friend thinks that there are in it a number of inaccuracies, I shall be only too glad if he will call my attention to them at any time, because we are taking great pains to have this magazine accurate in all its statements. In my hon. friend's own province, I have received some very pleasant criticisms from the members of the local Government.


George William Kyte: I shall be very glad to call the attention of my hon.'friend to what I regard as a very glaring inaccuracy. On page 2 of this Gazette I notice the following:
To the press: Freely use all or any of the information contained in this magazine.
Then, on the fifth page, there is a foreword from the Minister of Agriculture, stating among other things:
To know what others have accomplished, to know their methods of work, to learn the reasons for their successes and failures, is to broaden our own sympathies and to stimulate our own enthusiasm. It is hoped, therefore, that the Agricultural Gazette may promote the common1 good by linking up the efforts of widely-scattered students in the same field. It is hoped that the Gazette will prove of great assistance.
The hon. minister counsels us that we should know what others have accomplished, but I notice that the Gazette is designed not for the purpose of information, to publish what others have accomplished, but to suppress what the late Minister of Agriculture has done for this country. On page 30 there is a table of figures, prepared,
I presume, in the office of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. It covers the periods 1899-1900, 1904-05, 1910-11, 1911-12. 1912-13, and 1913-14. The sums of money spent by the Department of Agriculture during these periods are presumed to be given upon this page. I notice that during the period 1899-1900, according to this Gazette, there was not a dollar spent for civil government by the late Minister of Agriculture. Neither was there a dollar spent in 1904-05 by the late Minister of Agriculture for civil government. In 1910-11 there was $193,246.16 spent; in 1912-13, $231,900; in 1913-14, $287,225.	1
notice that in 1899-1900 there was not a dollar spent for cold storage warehouses, and in 1904-05 there was not a dollar spent for that purpose, for cold storage of fruit, for health of animals, for meat and canned food, for the feed branch, or for the livestock branch. In 1904-05 not a dollar was spent for Dominion exhibitions, but the amount of money spent during the years in which the hon. minister himself had charge of the department is set down in a' manner such as to attract the attention of the casual reader. There is an inaccuracy more important and more glaring than that. I notice in the column setting forth the expenditure by the Department of Agriculture in 1913-14, there is put down, in addition to all the other expenses, the sum of $700,000 spent under the Agricultural Instruction Act. On page 30 the total amount spent by the present Government during the period 1913-14 for agriculture, including the sum of $700,000 under the Agricultural Instruction Act, is $3,183,725. Then, on page 62, where a summary is to be found, we are told that the Dominion agricultural appropriations for 1913-14 amount to $3,183,725, and under the Agricultural Instruction Act to $700,000. On page	30 the	total expenditure,
for agriculture, including this $700,000

under the Agricultural Instruction Act, amounts to $3,183,725. On page 62, the hon. Minister of Agriculture adds this $700,000 again to tiie total. Therefore the hon. minister is very particular and careful that every dollar expended by his department and under his guidance shall be set down in this Gazette.
Not only that, but he sets it down twice, though expenditure of public money made by his predecessor is omitted entirely from the publication. Let me call your attention to the fact that the press of the country is requested to freely use all or any of the information contained in this magazine. Well, now 'the press of the country' includes a new publication which has come out recently called the Federal Press Bulletin. It has upon the front page a very excellent photograph of the Minister of Public Works, and it also refers to the expenditures made by the present minister in connection with agriculture. And here on the first page we have the following:
In the last year of the Laurier regime the total vote for agriculture was $1,646,234. The first year of the Borden Administration, this was increased by over a million, to $2,703,400. Last year the vote jumped to $3,381,725, and this year's Estimates will show an increase of $600,000 more, making a total of $3,987,087.
The votes by year for four years were:
1911	$1,646,234
1912	  2,703,400
1913_	 3.381,725
19147"	  3,987,087
So, this bulletin, issued for the purpose . of informing the people-misinforming them rather-as to what the present minister is doing is set down the same inaccuracy- they set down the figures of agriculture with $700,000 duplicated. Some explanation seems called for concerning the putting into the hands of the public such an irresponsible publication as this. The whole of this magazine, taking it from the first page to the last, contains inaccuracies quite as glaring and indefensible.


Martin Burrell: Will the hon. gentleman please point out some more of them?


George William Kyte: Yes, I can point out more. In a ' foreword ' over the signature of the minister, this appears:
The magazine is designed ... to supply to the press and to those who are engaged in agricultural work, facts and information relating to the educational and scientific side of agriculture.
But here on page 6 is a statement that the Hon. Frangois Evanturel was the first Minister of Agriculture. The fact is that

the first Minister of Agriculture was the Hon. N. F. Belleau, in 1862. At page 10, under the special heading ' Exhibition * Branch ' the magazine speaks of the World's Centennial Exhibition in 1876, and then jumps to the Pan-American in 1901. No leference is made to the Paris Exposition of 1878; Antwerp, 1885; Colonial and Indian Exposition, 1886; Liverpool, Royal Jubilee Exposition, 1887; Doncaster, Royal Agricultural Society, 1891; Chicago World's Columbian Exposition, 1893; Antwerp, 1894; Stockholm, 1897; Omaha, 1898; Paris, 1900; Glasgow, Scotland, 1901. At page 17, there is a list of experimental farms up to date. But it is interesting to note that the dates of their establishment are not shown. Were they shown it would be seen that all these farms except three were established by the late Minister of Agriculture. It is perfectly obvious why the dates are not given. With regard to the expenditures by the late Government under the head of ' Civil Government ' an expenditure of $1,200 is omitted in 1900. In the matter of experimental farms-


William Cameron Edwards: Before the hon. gentleman leaves that point would he be good enough to state what experimental farms were established by the late Government?


George William Kyte: I should- be able to state it if this magazine contained the information, but as it does not contain it and I have no other authority at hand, I am not in a position to give the names.


William Cameron Edwards: I understood the hon.
gentleman to say that all but three were established by the former Administration.
I do not think he is quite correct.
'Mr. J. J. HUGHES: The statement made was that there were only three established by this Government.


George William Kyte: With regard to the figures of expenditure, I was about to say that an item of $8,000 appropriated for experimental farms is omitted from the figures of 1900. The items for dairying and cold storage omit a sum of $20,000. The whole vote for health of animals amounting in 1900 under the late Government to $65,000 is omitted, as also is an item of $1,600 for fumigation stations. In the Estimates of 1904-5 there were appropriations under Civil Government in the main Estimates amounting to $95,082.50 which were omitted from the figures of this magazine. Other items omitted for this year are Health of Animals, $190,000; Fumigation Stations,

4,000; Foreign Exhibitions, $240,000; a grant of $50,000 for the Dominion Exhibition at Winnipeg; and appropriation for National Live Stock Records, $5,000. In the Estimates of 1910-11, there was omitted under the head of Civil Government $195,653.32, as well as $50,000 under Health of Animals. Now, as I stated a moment ago, every page of this magazine contains inaccuracies quite as glaring and as inexcusable. It does seem extraordinary that a magazine bearing the imprint of the Government and intended to be quoted by the newspapers, and containing the minister's photograph as well as those of of other ministers, should contain such inaccuracies. We have the assurance of the minister that ' to know what others have accomplished; to know their methods of work, to learn the reasons for their successes and failures, is to broaden our own sympathies and to stimulate our own enthusiasm.' In view of that, I should have thought the minister would endeavour to put before the reading public of the Dominion of Canada, and especially before the farmers, a correct summary giving an accurate idea of what others have done for agriculture before the time when he himself assumed the office which he holds at the present time.


Martin Burrell: I do not wish to take up much time in answering my hon. friend (Mr. Kyte). I do not think it was necessary for my hon. friend to take quite the tone he has taken. He assumes that I deliberately set to work to publish this magazine, not in the interests of agriculture, but directly in the interests of the Conservative Federal Department of Agriculture. I must disclaim anything of that kind. If he knows anything of newspaper work, he knows that a minister who is engaged in supervising and running a fairly large department cannot undertake to read the proofs and verify the information in a magazine of that kind. I can only say that if there are inaccuracies-and I have no doubt that it may be that there will be inaccuracies - these will be very quickly set right. The item of $700,000 on page 62 should not, so far as I can see, have been repeated, but I do not think anybody could have been misled by that. With regard to my hon. friend's items, I do not see that the figures for 1910-11 or for the subsequent year are omitted. The gentleman I put in charge of this work was not placed in the Civil Service by myself; he worked under the Hon. Sydney Fisher, and I believe him to
be a thoroughly capable and thoroughly reliable man who has no political axe to grind. So far as any instructions I have given are concerned, they have been directed to ensuring that all the information published in this magazine is correct, fair and clear. So far as my trying to make political capital out of anything of this kind is-concerned, I have never failed in this-House or on any platform in the country to state in the most absolute and frank way that when my predecessor initiated any work for the benefit of agriculture in this country I did not hesitate to recognize it, and, so far as it was considered to be good, to try to carry it on and expand it. I do not want to take a mean or narrow view of this;.
I do think my hon. friend is very much beside the mark in the tone of his criticism. A large portion of the information published in this magazine is derived from the various-officers of the provincial governments, including the Liberal Government which my hon. friend supports, and if he will read the-next number of the magazine, which is now on the press, he will see a reference there very different in tone from the remarks which the hon. gentleman has made to this committee. The article is from the provincial secretary of agriculture, who looks at this matter from a somewhat broader aspect than my hon. friend does, and who recognizes that we. are making a fair and honest attempt to do something in the interests-of agriculture, regardless of party. While it may appear that we are boosting ourselves politically-the hon. gentleman does not want me to leave out of the magazine everything this Government has done-I think I can say with absolute truth that I am trying to meet in as fair and frank a way as I can the needs of the situation, and to publish this magazine, regardless of polities, in what I believe to be the best interests of agriculture. I am obliged to my hon. friend for having pointed out any inaccuracies, and I shall be very glad if he or any other member of the House will call attention to any mistakes in this magazine, as the sole object we have in view is to give a fair reflection of both Dominion and provincial agricultural activities, for the benefit of all the farmers in the country.


George William Kyte: I am obliged to my hon.
friend the Minister of Agriculture for the certificate he furnishes of my adherence to the Liberal Government of the province of - No.va Scotia. I may point out that the information supplied by the Liberal Government of Nova Scotia which appears in this magazine is correct, and that

the information supplied toy the Government at Ottawa is absolutely incorrect. I could, I suppose, have gone to the hon. minister privately, and intimated that I had discovered Some grave inaccuracies in his publication, but I do not think I have exceeded my right in calling public attention to the matter in this way. The hon. minister very properly says that the actual supervision of this work can not be chargeable to him, and that he is not responsible for its inaccuracies. I quite agree with him in that, but strange things are being done, not only in the Department of Agriculture but in every department of this Government, since it came into power. Whether or not they have changed their subordinates I do not know, but I do know that things are not done in many of the departments at the present moment as they have done in the past. Advance notices of Supplementary Estimates, for instance, were not given by the late Government in counties where byelections were about to be held, as was done in the counties of Antigonish and Victoria in the province of Nova Scotia within the last year. That was brought to the attention of	the	Minister of
Public Works last year, and be disclaimed any knowledge of the information having been given out, but a gentleman by the name of Buskard who, I understand, is the minister's private secretary, was the handy man who gave the information for the purpose of influencing the vote in the county of Antigonish a year ago. Further investigation as to the source of information which Tory politicians had as to the votes which were to be passed in this House for the county of Victoria will disclose the fact that the Minister of Public Works' handy man, Mr. Buskard, gave out information beforehand to influence the electors in that constituency. I say, therefore, that while the ministers themselves disclaim any knowledge or responsibility, they appear to have introduced a system of exploitation of the public service which has been unknown in the past, and the sooner the people of this country are brought face to face with a knowledge of the facts, the better it will be for the country, as well as for the ministers themselves.


James Joseph Hughes: The assertion that these are only inaccuracies is, in my judgment, altogether too mild. It is a case of glaring misrepresentation, and I think the hon. minister will come to that conclusion if he looks carefully through the publica-

tion. The man who prepared that statement, I care not who he is, is unfit to prepare anything. If he thinks it is correct, he is not qualified for the work; if he knows it to be wrong, that is still worse. I know he is not fit to edit a publication of this kind, and I will give you the proof. In addition to what the minister, and I think, the hon. member for Richmond, (Mr. Kyte) called inaccuracies, I find, under the appropriations for 1899-1900, that the sum of $175,000 for the Paris Exposition, which can be found in the main estimates, was omitted. How that item could have escaped the attention of any man in the Department of Agriculture who was preparing a publication of this kind, I am quite at a loss to understand. Is there not more than an inaccuracy? According to this publication the total amount appropriated by the late Government in the year J899-1900 was $271,000; I find that the total amount appropriated that year was $594,762. In other words, $323,762 were left out, or 120 per cent more left out than were put in. Could that be called an inaccuracy? I do not think so. All these mistakes, or the major portion of them, have reference to the years during which the late Government had the management of the Department of Agriculture. According to this publication the appropriations for the Department of Agriculture in 1904-5 amounted to $388,000, and the correct appropriation for that year was $972,082, this publication being wrong to the extent of $584,082, or 150 per cent.
Mr. -BURRELL: The hon. member is aware, of course, that several branches have been taken out of the Department of Agriculture, and this list is only what pertains to agriculture proper.


James Joseph Hughes: I am giving the
items of civil government under the heading of agriculture. In 1911-12, 1912-13 and 1913-14 you include that.


Martin Burrell: I will not speak positively, but in this list for civil government, as my hon. friend knows, a very large spending department, that of the Census, which has gone out of the Department oL Agriculture, is not included. Those things not relating to agriculture are not put in. My hon. friend referred to leaving out the Paris exhibition. I fancy he will find that no exhibition work is included here. I might have put in a very large amount in connection with the San Francisco and Ghent exhibitions, but

my recollection is that we have not put these in, but have simply put in what relates to Canadian agriculture.


James Joseph Hughes: I see under the
head of Dominion grants to exhibitions $200,000 for 1913-14.


Martin Burrell: I do not see it; I only see $50,000.


James Joseph Hughes: Oh, yes, $50,000; that
is right.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr.	HUGHES:	My	hon. friends	applaud very quickly. But under the late Government $50,000 was expended on the Winnipeg exhibition, and that is left out of this publication. Was it because it was expended under the late Government? Will my hon. friends applaud now?


Martin Burrell: I see it is in 1910-11. I
do not know why it is left out in the other year.
Mr.	HUGHES:	But	not in the	year
i am referring to.
Mr.	BURRELL:	My	hon. friend	was
speaking of the Paris and some other exhibitions. , I think all those big exhibition votes were left out because they were not considered to relate directly to agriculture.


James Joseph Hughes: Why was the vote for the Winnipeg exhibition left out in 1904-05?


Martin Burrell: I do not know.
Mr.	HUGHES:	The	information	contained in this publication has doubtless been published by a great many of the agricultural papers in this country. I see here the minister says:
Without the assistance of the press the wide dissemination of knowledge would be impossible, and to its members we trust this publication will be of use.
In view of the facts that have been brought to the minister's attention to-night, does he really think the publication is of any proper use to the press of the country?


Martin Burrell: I am bound to say
that I think it will be of very great use. I think my hon. friend has not a very good sense of proportion. I am not disputing that there may be inaccuracies. Surely my ,hon. friend does not mean to say that the inaccuracies mentioned, which are not very grave and can be easily removed, have a political aspect? He does not mean to say that for that reason all the information in this book, dealing with every province,
giving a historical resume of agriculture and education is to be chucked by the board because of one or two errors that my hon. friend thinks have political significance. I think he is taking a small view.
I cannot agree with him and I do not think the country will agree with him.


James Joseph Hughes: That is the worst
feature of this case. He says there are only one or two mistakes and there are more mistakes than there are entries in those years. In 1900 there are five items left out altogether that ought to be in and there are not many more put in. The amounts left out are larger than the amounts put in. The next period there are eight entries for very large amounts left out. In 1905-00 main Estimates item 55, on page 35, $100,000 for the health of animals is left out; Supplementary Estimates, item 22, page 4, $50,000; Supplementary Estimates, item 30, page 4, $40,000 left out. Foreign exhibitions I shall leave out because the minister says he has not put them in under the other headings. That is the year that the exhibition grant at Winnipeg, $50,000,- is left out; National Livestock Record, Supplementary Estimates, item 4, page 4, $5,000 left out. Those are only one or two of the inaccuracies.


Martin Burrell: If we want to show the gradual development of agriculture and its encouragement by the federal Government -and surely it is a good thing to develop agriculture-it is a good plan to show the amounts that have been expended. The hon. member will admit that figures in the main are accurate.


James Joseph Hughes: I want the minister to
understand that this publication is entirely misleading and improper. If the minister will admit that something will have been accomplished.


Martin Burrell: I cannot admit that.


James Joseph Hughes: That would be admitting what is a fact, and if he would say that he would withdraw it or in the next publication call attention to the misrepresentations or inaccuracies that are contained in this publication, it would help to remedy the evil. If the minister is going to give information at all he ought to give correct information.


Martin Burrell: Let me assure my hon. friend, who I do not think wants to be unfair, that I am not animated by any other considerations; and I would be very glad to have the corrections made. It could not be done in this number because I think it

is now in the printer's hands, but in the March number any substantial errors that are pointed out I will be glad to have corrected. I have no other wish than to do what is fair. The hon. member is holding me up as a very demon of political iniquity. He thinks I am inspiring all these things, when I know I will be subject to criticism and rightly so, unless the information is honestly and fairly set out. The hon. gentleman never yet saw the first number of any paper or magazine, a new venture, that did not contain some mistakes. I am afraid that he is holding me responsible to too great a degree.


James Joseph Hughes: If there were only a few mistakes there would be some excuse.


Martin Burrell: None of us are infallible, not even the youngest.


James Joseph Hughes: When the mistakes
are so glaring and prominent and amount to so much, and when they all happen to be in the period during which the late Government had charge of the Agriculture Department, it cannot but strike one as a peculiar feature in connection with the publication of this Gazette.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Suppose we take it for granted that the Minister is in earnest over his publication. I find that the first number is devoted to a description of the work done at the Experimental Farms; the work of the cereal division and the chemistry division is explained. Will the other numbers be on the same line, or will they deal with agricultural education proper, that is, the feeding of pigs, the growing of crops, and things of that kind? While I appreciate the Minister's efforts to give information to the public, I think that this paper, if it is to be any good, should get into the hands of the farmers, and merely telling them that you have a poultry division and a cereal division and things of that sort will not be of much benefit to the ordinary farmer. The mere fact of sending this pamphlet to members of Parliament, three-quarters of whom are not farmers, will not benefit the farming community. It is much on the same principle of sending a Patent Record to me, it would be absolutely useless. I looked through this pamphlet carefully for any information such as I might find in a farmers' magazine, but I did not find any.
I am not finding fault at all. If there are mistakes in this first number, I take it for granted that the Minister is absolutely truthful when he says he did not know of 
these mistakes. Still, as his name appears on the second page, he should have had some supervision over the contents. His name appearing like that, is a guarantee of the truthfulness of the pamphlet, and he should have been a little more careful, I think, in looking over the proof sheets. I would like to know what is his ultimate object, whether these pamphlets are to be given to the farmers or to members of Parliament?


Martin Burrell: I am sorry I have not fuller information about this. I did not expect this magazine question to come up to-night, because it is largely associated with a vote taken under the Agricultural Instruction Act, and is not very closely associated with the vote we are now discussing. When I had the idea of this magazine in my mind, I wrote a long letter to every Provincial Minister of Agriculture in Canada, explaining my idea; that I thought it was time for Canada to follow in the wake of every progressive country and have an official magazine of organized agriculture. I asked them to express their opinions, and told them that we were trying to avoid that criticism which has perhaps justly been made of all governments, that government publications take such a long time to get out that the press and the people do not get at the results of the work that is being carried on. It was partly with the idea of meeting that criticism that we issued this magazine, giving monthly a brief statement of agri-cunural and research work, and items of scientific and practical interest in connection with the departmental work here and all over Canada. My' hon. friend will understand that you cannot judge any publication by Its first number, or even by its second. Rome was not built in a day. The magazine is prepared with the idea of giving a general survey of agricultural conditions in Canada. We will welcome the suggestions of any hon. member for making this publication better, because I think a work of this kind should go on, no matter whether this Government is in power or any other Government.


James Joseph Hughes: Will the minister publish the correct tables in the March number that should have been published in this number?


Martin Burrell: We shall be very glad to make any corrections.


William Cameron Edwards: This discussion reminds me of a certain gentleman who com-

plained to a newspaper editor about certain things he had printed about him. The editor said: ' My dear sir, if you could only see the things I did not print about you, you would not complain.' I think the hon. gentlemen opposite, instead of criticising this first number, should congratulate themselves upon what has been kept out of it. For instance, there might have appeared in that issue the statement which the former Minister of Agriculture, Hon. Sydney Fisher, made in the session of 1909, to the effect that the farmers of Canada were a lazy, slipshod and indifferent class of people. I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite will not complain that the editor was kind enough to omit that. I must say, of course, that it would be extremely interesting reading to the farmers.


Frank Oliver: When did he make that
statement?


William Cameron Edwards: You will find it in
' Hansard ' of the session of 1909. I will get the exact page for you later. This magazine might also have referred to the statement of the former Minister of Agriculture in answer to a question that I put him in 1909, that for the 10 years previous to 1909 the Liberal party had only expended a little over $6,000,000 in the interests of agriculture, or an average of $604,000 a year. Hon. gentlemen opposite will not complain that that was omitted. I repeat that hon. gentlemen opposite should feel grateful because of the things that have been left out of this publication. If we were to go into details of what was not done under the former Government in the interests of agriculture, we could not hope to get it in one issue of the magazine, or in one issue of the papers published in the city of Ottawa. The omissions are legion. What did they do in the fifteen years they were in power in the interest of agriculture? Lei them point out anything that they did. They made promises previous to 1896 of what they were going to do, but they did not carry out a single promise that they made? If you take the consensus of opinion from one end of Canada to the other amongst the farmers, they will say that this present Government, in the two years they have been in office, have done more in the interest of agriculture than the Liberal party did in the whole fifteen years they were "in power.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I think it will be found that what the Hon. Mr. Fisher did state was that the farmers of Canada, if a great
many of them did not farm in a miserable, slipshod manner, could raise a good deal more stuff on their farms than they do. I rather think that that statement was absolutely true and that the present Minister of Agriculture will agree with it. If he does not, he does not know much about what the farmers in Canada are doing. 1, as a farmer, am quite free to say that if it were not for the slipshod manner in which some farmers carry on their farming operations, they could vastly increase their production. I am not finding any fault with my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture for omitting from these pages some of the items that were devoted to agriculture, because I am not one of those who think that the Government gain so much as they probably think they do by what they call the expenditure on agriculture. The farmers, as far as I know them, are not asking for pap feed; they are asking for an open and free market and cheap transportation. The farmers in my section of the country are absolutely capable of managing their own affairs and giving themselves largely their own education. They are able to compete with any other farmers in the world if they have free markets and are able to sell to the highest markets. I think my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has quoted the Hon. Mr. Fisher improperly when he simply puts in a few words without telling what the discussion was about.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I do not think any one has taken the exception with reference to the item now under discussion, that there has been anything left out in the past except regarding that amount. It is for the year 1899-1900 and also for the year 1904-1905. That item is given in full. I take the view that instead of criticising the minister as you have been doing, you ought to give him credit for having given the Estimates for the last two years the late Government were in power when the Estimates were higher than they were at any time previous to that. No exception has been taken to the Estimates given during these two years. I was a little surprised that the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) could not get any information from this pamphlet. I did think, a few weeks ago, when he was speaking on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, that he was sadly lacking in such information as he could find in such a pamphlet as we have here. I notice here that the manner is stated in which the grant under the Act for aid to agriculture

is expended in each of the various provinces. With reference to the province of Ontario, the province from which the hon. gentleman comes, if I remember rightly, in speaking on the Address, he said: Who knows anything about how this money has been expended ? I have addressed gatherings up in my riding and I have asked the question: Where has this money gone ? If the hon. gentleman had just looked here he would have found that his own district, and those districts to which he 11 p.m. referred on that occasion, are provided for out of this amount, because he will find that of the $195,000 paid to the province of Ontario, $80,000 was paid for district representatives. He also complained that nothing was being done to encourage agriculture in the public schools; yet, he will find by looking through this pamphlet that there was $10,000 devoted to that purpose. Some of the schools in his own riding received an appropriation for that purpose.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Not one.


Donald Sutherland: I have to differ with my hon. friend.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Name them.


Donald Sutherland: The school on the tenth line of East Zorra.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I asked the people that on the tenth line, and they said not. Do they or you know better?


Donald Sutherland: You did not ask the right people.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I ought to have asked some Tories, I suppose.


Donald Sutherland: I could -point out some more things that he could learn about for which money has been expended, but he did not want to be fair, he did not want to give the provincial government credit for doing anything, and he was trying to belittle this Government and to make it appear that the money that was paid for agriculture was not accomplishing anything in the province of Ontario. I think that some hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, and it is not going to amount to very much after all.
Some of the criticisms that were made by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Ky.te) could be explained away with a little conf.Mr. Sutherland.]
sideration. There is also some very valuable information given in this pamphlet in regard to the item that is now under discussion, and I hope that every hon. member of this House will peruse it carefully. There is information that will be of great value in regard to the amount that is expended for experimental farms and stations. The statement was made that all of these stations, with the exception of three, were established by the late Government. I can only say that I see that provision is made for establishing another one in the province of Quebec that is not included in this list. There are also several others, and I think that when the total is made out it will amount to more than three.
I desire to call the minister's attention to the fact that with the twenty experimental farms, outside of the central farm and the seven sub-stations, there are only forty acres in the province of Ontario devoted to experimental purposes. Of the 6,669 acres in the Dominion of Canada constituting experimental farms, there are only 40 acres in Ontario set apart for this purpose, and this area is devoted, I believe, to experimenting in regard to the production of tobacco. That surely offers food for consideration to the members of this House. We have heard a great deal this afternoon from hon. gentlemen opposite about the lands in western Canada, and how they should be handed over to the provinces. We also heard some hon. gentlemen making the claim that the provinces were receiving greater benefits by leaving these lands with the Dominion Government. When you consider the large amount compared with former years that has been spent for experimental purposes, and when you realize that there are only 40 acres and a very trifling expenditure devoted to experimental purposes in the whole province of Ontario, you will come to the conclusion that some change must be made in this respect and made in the very near future.
I have here a document brought out by the Conservation Commission last year. It contains an address delivered by Professor Fernow of Toronto University, before this commission in the city of Ottawa on the 28th of December last. I do not believe that there was ever a document published by the authority of any commission under any government that did any province in this country so great an injury as that document has done, and it is absolutely necessary for this Government to see that at an early date experimental farms are

established in the northern parts of this province. I could show that the man who delivered that address had not a proper knowledge of the conditions, having simply gone through the country on a four days' trip on the Transcontinental railway and in a motor car. Having done that, he thinks he is in a position to deliver, before the Conservation Commission, an address to be circulated in pamphlet form broadcast throughout this country and making it appear that northern Ontario is a cold, barren, inhospitable country to live in; that it is a frozen country where one is liable to have frost and snow at any season of the year. When I read that address, I was *wondering what the hon. gentlemen from the western provinces would say if such a document was circulated in respect to the western provinces, because the land which Professor Fernow inspected was not nearly as far north as the city of Winnipeg, yet because it is in the province of Ontario, it is anything but desirable. That is the condition under which Ontario is labouring at the present time and has been during all these years.
Ai little experimental farm has been established by the present Administration in the county of Essex. I give the hon. minister credit for doing something, even if it is an experiment with regard to growing tobacco. But there are other things to be done in this province that ought to be done in the very near future.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In answer to my hon.
friend Irom South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) in regard to his reference to me, at every meeting which I attended, I asked the farmers if they had seen any advantage of the money voted for agricultural education. In every instance there was dead silence. I only repeated that and I will repeat it again. My hon. friend says that the Minister of Agriculture by that donation paid the district representatives. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if that is true, because we had district representatives long before that grant -was made. For several years the province has supplied district representatives in various sections of the country.


Donald Sutherland: You did not have them in the county of Oxford.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No, but in various sections of the country. They were applied for, not to the Dominion Government, but to the provincial Government, and were granted by the provincial Government. The gentleman to whom I referred is a very nice
young fellow, and I do not say anything against him, nor did I say anything against him when I was addressing the House before. I thought he should rather hold classes in the country schools than at the Collegiate institutes. I gave him credit for what he did at the Collegiate institutes. He had a good class there and the young men in his class felt that they were benefited. I tol'd the Minister of Agriculture that this instruction should be extended to the country schools and not left entirely to the city schools. At that time he agreed with me.
As to my stating from this Gazette what was done for agriculture in Ontario at that time, that would have been impossible, because this book was not issued until after that.


Donald Sutherland: All the more reason why you should appreciate the book.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have said nothing
against the book.	I asked the minister
what the future issues were going to be. If they are to be along the same lines as this, I quite frankly say that I do not believe that there will be any benefit to the agricultural community, 'but if, in the next issues, he intends to give the results of experiments in certain lines of agriculture, the probabilities are that benefits will result if these issues reach the people. There is no object in their being sent to members of Parliament and that class of people, because in that case farmers do not get this information.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I am bound to say with the hon. Minister of Agriculture that I expect .a great deal from this publication, provided it is published in the real interest of the farmers and that there are not to be found any such inaccuracies as were pointed out this evening. I thank the hon. minister for having published this Gazette from the very first number in both languages. The people in Quebec will appreciate that.
Not only are there inaccuracies, which my hon. friend promises to remedy, in the information contained in this Gazette, but i find that some of the answers given by my hon. friend during the course of the session on this very question of exhibitions, international and universal, are inaccurate. I am quite sure that it was inadvertent on the part of my hon. friend that such information was given to the House. For instance, on February 2, I put the following question to my hon. frierfd:
What amount of money has been spent by the federal Government since 1896 for the uni-

versal or international exhibitions which have been held the world over?
My hon. friend's answer was: ' $2,129,132.05.' I took the Auditor General's reports since 1896 and made a general survey, and I found that my hon. friend or an officer in his department had erred by something like $629,118.84. I have here a tabulated statement which gives exactly the figures year by year. I am quite sure that this has escaped the attention of my hon. friend and that it is not his own mistake but the mistake of one of his officials.
Speaking about the expenditure of the Department of Agriculture, I would like to know who in the department of my hon.' friend is the land purchasing agent. I understand that my hon. friend some months ago purchased at Lev;s a site for a quarantine station. I wish to call my hon. friend's attention to this fact that, unless he pays particular attention to his agents in or around Quebec, he will find that the farmers of this country, my hon. friend himself, and the Government of Canada, are being mulcted. Let me give an instance. My hon. friend, in July 1913, bought some lots at Levis for a quarantine station, paying the sum of $32,750. Would he believe me if I tell him, that that very site, had been purchased one year before for $5,500? Is it possible that within a year property in Levis should have advanced at that rate?


Mr. SMITH:: What has that to do with this item?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will tell the hon.
gentleman what it has to do with the farmers of Canada. On the 30th of July, 1913, Mr. W. R. Dohan sold to the Department of Agriculture this site for a quarantine station for $32,750. Four days previous, on July 26, 1913, he had bought this site for $25,400 from a man named Dussault. His profit in four days amounted to $7,250. Dussault, of St. David, had purchased this property one month before, paying for it $12,200, thus within a month and four days a profit of $13,200 had been made out of the Government of Canada. This property had been purchased from one Buteau in July, 1912, eleven months before, for $5,500. Now, is it not fair that the minister should know these facts? He is head of the department which takes special care of the farming interests in Canada. Is it a good thing that the money of the farmers should be squandered for the benefit of land speculators in the city of Levis? I think not; and I know that my hon. friend will look

into these facts and see to it in future that the department and the farmers of Canada are not mulcted for the benefit of land speculators.


Martin Burrell: I think that one expression which the hon. gentleman dropped towards the close of his remarks goes far to explain the situation-' land speculators.' He knows that for a very long time past we have been in trouble in regard to a quarantine station in Quebec. It was a difficult question to solve, and we have given it a lot of attention. About a year and a half ago we endeavoured to formulate a plan to secure the necessary land. We found the prices of land going up every day, and we could not deal. Finally, I did get word of the property to which he refers and I sent the Veterinary Director General down, and he, in consultation with Mr. Couture, whom the hon. gentleman knows, went into the whole case. It is very important to the stock raisers in Canada to get satisfactory quarantine ground in Quebec where so much of the stock is landed. After a reputable citizen of Quebec-whose name I have forgotten at the moment, but which the committee can learn of from the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier)-had given a value on this property, and after a very careful examination to make sure that it was suitable for our purposes, after reports not only by the Director General but also by Mr. Drisdale, the Director of Experimental Farms-a man not appointed by me, but by my predecessor, as my hon. friend knows-which reports and investigation showed that the property was more admirably suited for our purpose than any other in the district, we concluded that we were justified in buying it. I do not know the facts as to the previous transactions except as given by my hon. friend. It is quite possible that a year ago the property was not worth half the money. But I have seen cases in the West, as I am sure he has seen them in the East, of property that has gone up ten and twenty times in a year, by reasons of some element of speculation entering in. So far as the depart-iment is concerned, we were absolutely careful to see that the property for our purposes was worth the money and that it was more suitable than any other for our purpose of safeguarding the live-stock of Canada.


Mr. PELLETIER:: As my hon. friend
and colleague has referred to me, I wish to tell the part which I took

in this matter. On one occasion whilst in Quebec on business, I received a telegram from my colleague informing me that a property was offered him for the purpose of a quarantine station and asking me if I could give information as to the value. I was not able to go to Levis to visit the property, but suggested that a man should be engaged to look at it, a man who is above reproach and is regarded as absolutely honourable and trustworthy by everybody, Mr. Audet, a notary of Levis. I told my colleague that whatever Mr. Audet reported he could depend upon. I do not know the property myself, but know in a general way where it is situated. I understand that Mr. Audet investigated the matter and sent the valuation to my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. minister is
well versed in real estate in and around Quebec. Would he say that a piece of property in Levis bought in July, 1912, for $5,500 could be worth in 1913 the sum of $32,750?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am not surprised
at that at all. Property has increased in Levis and Quebec to a very great extent. I do not know the figures in this case, but I can tell the hon. gentleman the property purchased within the last two or three years in Levis or Quebec could not be purchased to-day except at a very great advance.


The CHAIRMAN:: I am afraid hon. gentlemen are wandering a little from the item under discussion. We are now dealing with item number 44, experimental farms.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will the hon. minister
explain the increases there?


Martin Burrell: It is to provide for a general extension of the. whole system of experimental farms, and for dealing with any new properties we may have to acquire in any part of the country. I need not tell my hon. friend, who is familiar with the whole farm system, that the work is growing in every branch. For instance, at the central farm the expansion has been very great, and we are very much crowded for room. Within the last few years we have adpoted a system that is different from the old one. We have specialists who are carrying on, in connection with the central farm, a series of experiments in connection with various lines of agricultural research at all the farms. In Ottawa, where we used to have the live-stock industry and the field husbandry carried on under one officer, Mr. Grisdale, we have now a separate live stock branch, under the direction of Mr. Archibald, who came from Nova Scotia, and a separate man in charge of the husbandry. We have also additional specialists in fodders and grasses. All this is very valuable work. If, after long research and experiment, we find that certain things are of great value to the farmer, when that information filters down to the man operating the farm, it may make all the difference in the world between his profit and loss when he comes to carry out the suggestions that are made.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: How do you get that
information to the farmer?


Martin Burrell: Of course it is got to
the farmer in a great many ways. It is got to the farmer through lectures delivered by various provincial agents; through the publications of the department, of which we now issue nearly two million, having greatly increased the list. These publications, though it is possible that some persons do not read them, are read with great interest and profit all through Canada. Through such agencies as the Gazette we are publishing, and in a number of other ways, this information goes perhaps not directly to the farmer, but ultimately does get to those interested. The information may go, for instance, to the Macdonald school, to the schools at Guelph, Truro or to those which are established in Alberta at the present time, and through these agencies the information is communicated to hundreds and thousands of people whom we could not reach. So that in the end my hon. friend will see that the information filters down to a great many people whom it is very necessary to reach, if they are to get the help in their work that they certainly wish to get.	So far as	we are
concerned, it is our business to try to give that information to those interested in such a way as to help them in their work. If I had time it would not be difficult to prove that in spite of drawbacks and in spite of some things which have been the subject of, perhaps fair criticism, the general work of the experimental farms is doing much for Canada and for Canadian agriculture. I would almost say that we are ahead of any other country so far as the research and investigation and experimental work that has been, carried on in Canada is concerned. The present system was inaugurated in 1886 by Sir John Carling, it was carried forward and expanded under my predecessors, and we are carry-



[Stage Direction]
ing it further forward. I hope that we will be able further to improve it, and that we will have the support of everybody in trying to ^mprove and expand it.
Mr. EOBB:: This agricultural Gazette
tells us that the department has two experimental dairy stations, one at Finch, making cheese and butter, and another at Brome making butter. Would the minister tell the committee if the experimental station at Brome is making butter at the present time, and where that butter is being shipped to?


Mr.   BTJKRELL@: I am afraid that I could not give my hon. friend the details of every item offhand. I may say, however, that I shall be glad to give him that information when we come to deal with the item of dairy work.


James Alexander Robb: In order to give the minister an opportunity of making a fair statement with regard to the matter, I think I should tell him to-night the position I hold because of representations made to me by people who are patrons of this particular creamery. I am told that they are not making butter in that creamery, that it is run now as a skimming station, that the cream is sold to a man named Olmstead at Sutton, and that Mr. Olmstead is shipping this cream partly to the United States.


Martin Burrell: I shall be glad to get
my hon. friend all the information he requires. I am not afraid to say that the work carried on in this respect by Mr. Ruddick meets with the approval of everybody. I am sure my hon. friends opposite found Mr. Ruddick to he a very competent man, who has the entire confidence of the dairy men throughout the country, and I am confident that the experimental work carried on under him in that regard must be accomplishing some good.


Robert Rogers: I would suggest to my
hon. friend leading the Opposition that the committee rise and report progress.


Frank Oliver: This is an important item, and seems to be attracting a good deal of attention. Perhaps we might pass a smaller item and let this one stand.


Martin Burrell: I shall be glad to come back to the item at any time.


Frank Oliver: One of the questions I
wish to ask the minister is what results are being obtained from experiments with Prelude wheat.


Martin Burrell: I hope my hon. friend will not hesitate to come back to the item

after it is passed; I think it is only fair, and I shall be very glad to give him any information he may require.


Frank Oliver: Perhaps the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), who is now in his seat, will give the quotation to which reference has been made.


William Cameron Edwards: I quote, from 'Hansard ' of March 3, 1900, pp. 1963 and 1964, the following words used by Hon. Sydney Fisher, then Minister of Agriculture:
It is tlie farmer's slipshod methods in this country which is the limit of our agricultural production. The only pity is that the farmers of Canada are not doubling and quadrupling their exports every year. If they do not do it, it is not for lack of teaching or lack of knowledge ; it is for their lack of interest in their work, their lack of industry, and largely, I believe, for the lack of that labour which is necessary in the carrying on of our farming operations.
The assertion that there is lack of interest in their work is a charge of indifference.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Many of them are indifferent.
y Mr. EDWARDS:	That would apply to a
great many who are not farmers.


Frank Oliver: They are nearly as bad as members of Parliament.


William Cameron Edwards: And when it charges
them with a lack of industry I presume I am right in interpreting that as an accusation of laziness-
-and largely for the lack of that labour which is necessary in the carrying on of our farming operations.
I say that in not one of these particulars was the then Minister of Agriculture justified in charging the farmers of Ontario, as he did, with indifference, laziness and a general lack of interest in their particular vocation, because I claim that if you examine into the record of agricultural production in Canada and compare it with that of agricultural production in other countries you will find that those words cannot be truthfully applied to the farmers . of this country, and that when the minister at that time was placing that blame upon the shoulders of the farmers and at the same time declaring that he, as Minister of Agriculture, had furnished them with all the knowledge and facilities they required, he was simply trying to unload his own defects as minister upon the shoulders of the farmers whom he had not properly served as minister. I say he was not

warranted in making the statement that he *did, that agricultural production in this country gave the lie to every charge he made against the farmers of the country, and that he, as Minister of Agriculture, himself presuming to be a farmer, was the last man who should have made that charge. I call attention to that as one of the things which I presume those who got up this Gazette were aware of and out of a kindness of their hearts had refrained from placing on the record.


Mr. BOULAY:: (Translation.)-I am somewhat surprised at the zeal displayed by the hon. gentlemen opposite, who voted, when in power, a few hundred thousand dollars only, for agricultural purposes, whilst the present government is now spending $3,950,000 for the same object.
The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) is amazed by the great increase in value of the property around Quebec; let me tell him that coming, as he does, from the province of Quebec, he should not wonder. It is true that, when his party was in power, Quebec felt satisfied with the the sole mention of the name of the then Premier, who has done nothing for their city; and there lays the reason why Quebec and its neighbourhood did not grow as it does to-day.
We have now in the Postmaster General a man who has taken so much interest in Quebec's, and its surroundings, welfare, that property valuated, one year ago, at $5,500 is to-day sold for $32,000. This is due to the fact that during the last few years Quebec and its surroundings have taken such an increase, that property, in the neighbourhood, will reach unforeseen high prices, and the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) must not be looking for a stumbling-block, which does not exist.
We have in the Postmaster General a man who has taken Quebec's welfare to heart.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.42 p.m.
Thursday, February 26, 1914.