1914-01-23

FIRST READINGS OF BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 22, respecting Brazilian Traction Light and Power Company, Limited.-Mr. A. K. Maclean.
Bill No. 23, respecting British America Nickel Corporation, Limited.-Mr. North-rup.
Bill No. 24, respecting the Canadian Railway Accident Insurance Company, and to change its name to 'The Globe Indemnity Company.'-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 25, respecting the Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 26, to incorporate Pacific, Peace River and Athabaska Railway Company.- Mr. R. B. Bennett.
Bill No. 27, respecting the South Ontario Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Smith.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. D. O. LESPERANCE (Montmagny):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I read in the Ottawa Cidzen and in

the Montreal Gazette, both published this morning, an article which is as follows:
Motion to repeal Laurier Naval Act brought down in the House of Commons.
I), o. Lesperance, M.P., for Montmagny, gave notice last night of a Bill to repeal the Laurier Naval Act of 1910 establishing a Canadian navy. Mr. Lesperance is a Conservative, but in taking this action he is not in accord with the Government.
The notice he has given has caused somewhat of a flurry in the House, more especially among the members from Quebec, for in that province, at the general elections, the Act in question was a very big issue.
To Embarrass Minister.
It was rumoured about the House yesterday that a deal was in prospect whereby the Liberals would join with a section of the Quebec Conservatives and vote to repeal the Act on the ground that the Government is not carrying it out, and that while it remains on the statute-book an alternative permanent policy cannot be brought in. There is likely to be nothing in this, however, because, apart from the inconsistency of any such action on their part, the Liberal leaders have little in common with certain interests understood to be behind the move to repeal the Act. The bona tides of this action are also questioned, and allegations are made that it is aimed at a Quebec minister recognized generally as one of the ablest members of the Cabinet. With him certain people are not in accord, and an attempt to embarrass his position is hinted at.
This article contains two distinct accusations and insinuations which I consider as reflecting on my honour as a member of this House and a supporter of the present Government. I wish to give an absolute denial that, 1 at any time, either directly or indirectly, negotiated or attempted to negotiate with any leader, member, or representative of the Opposition in connection with this Bill. I also give an emphatic denial to the malicious charge that the aim of this Bill is to embarrass a member of this Government. In presenting this Bill I am actuated by a sense of personal honour and public duty, which this House will be in a position to appreciate when I move its second reading.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. H. F. McLeod for an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, resumed from Thursday, January 22.
Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, coming from Ontario, I should like to join my voice with those of others who have congratulated Their Royal
Highnesses upon the restoration of Her Royal Highness's health, and I especially congratulate His Royal Highness because he has been preserved from the greatest calamity that can happen to any man in this world of trials and troubles.
I wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address, more especially the mover because I know of nothing that would have a greater tendency to make a man nervous than speaking for the first time in this House, no matter whether he had spoken before other assemblies or not. The mover certainly made a splendid speech; and I have no doubt the seconder did also, although I could not understand what he said. That, however, is my loss.
One or two things were suggested by the mover with which I am not entirely in accord. He said that the Government were at present building up happy homes for working men and artisans. Just at present I do not see much to favour that statement, I am sorry to say; quite the contrary.
He also objected to the Transcontinental Railway in New Brunswick running through fifty miles of virgin forest where there would not be a pound of freight, and stated that the forests would he destroyed. The people living in New Brunswick must be of a peculiar character, because in Ontario a railway going through fifty miles of virgin forest would be considered as the means of developing an enormous quantity of freight. Saw mills would be erected all along the line; and therefore, judging from ordinary humanity, I am sorry that I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman that the Transcontinental would not also develop a certain amount of freight, if not a large quantity, even in New Brunswick.
I am not one of those who were surprised that the Prime Minister did not say anything in the Speech from the Throne with reference to reintroducing his naval contribution, because I imagine that the Prime Minister and the country at large had quite sufficient of that Bill last session. I was rather surprised, however, that the government did not, in the Speech from the Throne, give us some intimation of what their permanent naval policy would be. They did say that they were going to introduce a Redistribution Bill, and one would think that after the redistribution was completed they would go to the country. In that case, they should be educat-

ing the people in regard to their permanent naval policy, if they ever intend to have one. I was not surprised that they dropped the contribution, because I imagine that the country at least did not endorse it. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) said that he thought that, if the three ships had been gone on with, as proposed by the contribution last year, it would have been the means of reducing the armaments of the world. I am rather surprised that my hon. friend should make such a suggestion. I hope that he does not think he can make us believe that he really thinks so, because that is contrary to human nature. My hon. friend himself, if he had an antagonist, no matter in what capacity, mental or physical, would be one tof the very last to cease getting prepared, if he thought his antagonist was busy getting prepared. The mere fact of our contributing to an increase in the British navy would have been sufficient, in my judgment, to have stirred the German Empire, which is the nation that has been principally mentioned, to greater effort. We know that the Germans are very human in that regard. We know also that they have the means, because they did not reduce their naval expenditure, while they enormously increased their expenditure on their land forces during last season. That surely is an indication to us that, if we had joined with Great Britain in building more ships, that would have been the very thing that would have made the Germans increase their navy instead of decreasing it. There is nothing else that we could have done that would have assisted Great Britain to a greater extent in arriving at the naval holiday requested by the First Lord of the Admiralty than what we did do. It showed that while we, at least we-Liberals, were perfectly prepared to do our share to relieve Great Britain from our defence, we were not willing to enter into preparations for war in Europe. I think we did what the people of Canada expected us to do. With all due deference to the jingo and imperialistic elements in the country, I think the ordinary people who have to make their living, no matter what their vocation, whether farming or labouring, are very well satisfied that the Liberals, by their efforts, were the means of defeating a proposed grant of $35,000,000 towards increasing the naval armaments of Great Britain, which grant would have had the effect of increasing the naval armaments of the other European powers.
.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Does the hon. gentleman mean that the Liberal policy was such that the Germans would take no stock in it and therefore would not increase their armament?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The hon. gentleman no doubt -heard what I said; I think I spoke plainly. As to the attack that the Prime Minister made on the Senate, in my humble judgment, the Senate was absolutely justified in the position it took. I do not think the attack made by the right hon. gentleman will have any effect upon the mass of the people of Canada. The mass of the people, if they never were in favour of the Senate before, I believe, were in favour of its position in that case. The Senate simply asked the Government to carry out its promise and -allow the people to express their views on the question. The other day I read in the London Times an article which I ask leave to quote. We all know that, since last session, New Zealand -has decided to build its own navy. The following article from the Australian correspondent of the London Times struck me as rather odd in view of what the Times has published from its Canadian correspondent:
- Sydney, Oct. 7.
The first Dominion squadron, 'manned, controlled, and paid for,' as Lord Denman said on Saturday evening-, 'by the people of the Commonwealth,' has come to show itself to the people who made it. Every one is just a little proud; a little inclined to dilate with more emphasis than is absolutely necessary on * our boats ' and the show they make in and about Farm Cove; a little pleased to remind you that, though the United States fleet was bigger and far stronger in the aggregate, ' our battleship ' could blow any two of the vessels out of the water with ease. When that fleet was here the most characteristically Australian result of its visit was a cheerful and immediately popular song to the effect that
We're hanging out the sign from the Lecuwin
to the Line,
This bit of the world belongs to us!
It was no less characteristic that the people who so boasted at once began to make good the boast. 'We live in hopes,' said Mr. Deakin then, ' that from our own shores some day a fleet will go out not unworthy to be compared in quality, if not in numbers, with the magnificent fleet now in Australia.' Five years have gone by; the flags are up again, once more the main streets are triumphal avenues, and the great public buildings are ablaze every night from tower to basement with coronals and festoons of light; for in that five years such a beginning has been made of the Imperial enterprise which the then Prime Minister foreshadowed as neither he nor any of his auditors could then have dreamt of.
It is impossible not to make comparisons between the two occasions, but I need write down one only. Amid all the enthusiasm and curiosity which marked the crowds of 1908 one note was lacking-the personal-that is

very notable to-day. Never before have Australians, especially Australian mothers, watched the entrance of a squadron largely manned by their own boys. ' My boy's on the Sydney, and I must get down to the Heads to see him come in,' said one eager, tearful woman to the tram-driver when he slowed his overladen car on a steep grade. ' Our Tom was on duty when we went over the Australia; he wouldn't look at us, and quite right, too!" a father proudly told his fellow passenger on the ferry this morning. This is the note for the absence of which no amount of contributions, skillfully engineered through Parliament, could possibly compensate.
' Our ' ships and ' our ' boys will serve the empire better in times of stress than would twice the millions that Australia is spending on them.
That is our answer-at least that is my answer-to the assertions made here last year. I am sorry, as I have said, that the Prime Minister did not -see fit to give us some information of what his naval policy will be, for, so far as I know the minds of the Liberals, they are not opposed to doing their duty in any form to assist the mother country and relieve her of the burden of defending this country.
As to the Good Roads Bill, my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) thoroughly explained that subject. Of course, we know that the Prime Minister said that this ifioney could have been in the hands of the provinces for use this year, and that the lack of it was a great detriment to the provinces. I remember distinctly hearing him, and also the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane), tell us that it was their intention to give the money under the Good Roads Bill to the provinces according to population. But he will remember that we moved a resolution to the effect that this should he put in the Bill. No person in this House, or in this country, knows better than does the Prime Minister that that is the only way to legislate; no person knows better than he that such a provision should have been in the Bill. Had he been on this side of the House and we on the other, and had our leader made a statement that such and such would be the case but that he did not propose to put it in the Bill, I can quite easily imagine how indignant the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) would have been and how capably he would have discussed that question from the standpoint of the public right,- and quite properly too. The hon. member for Red Deer told us that wherever this matter had been properly explained the people did not hold the Liberals to blame. I can endorse what that hon. gentleman said, for I took the trouble to explain the matter to the farmers of our section of the country, and not only did we not get blame, we got praise, and so did 9
the Senate. The Prime Minister seeks to use the failure of the Good Roads Bill to pass as an argument against the Senate, but I do not think that cat will fight.
There is one thing on which I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. White), and that is on the fact that he has told us that he will bring the Estimates down at an early day. I hope he will carry that into effect. Last year, the time of the House was taken up largely with the discussion of the Navy Bill. The Estimates were not only not brought down at an early day, but they were brought down at an absurdly late day. Every person in the House was tired out. The Minister of Finance, referring to the fact that my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) had found fault with the expenses stated that we had voted last year for those expenditures. Now, I was here during all the time of the passing of the Estimates, and I know that we opposed very strongly some of the votes. Of course, we passed them. But why? Because hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House had just shown us the power they held over us by passing their pet Bill, the Closure. We knew very well what would be the effect of a prolonged discussion of any of the Estimates. We knew that our friends opposite, who had taken the great power conferred upon them by that Closure, could and would promptly pass the Estimates over our head regardless of our opinions.
Therefore it does not lie kindly with the Minister of Finance to tell us that we voted for the Estimates. After all, the Estimates are theirs, the expenditures are theirs, and they are responsible to the country; and I have not the slightest doubt that the country will hold them responsible. They are aware, as the hon. the junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) pointed out, of the very extravagant expenditures voted last year. The Minister of Finance says he foresaw the stringency that would affect the country during the latter part of the year, but, so far as I could read from the papers, the enormous and unnecessary expenditures in some lines have gone on. I need not discuss these expenditures. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance, in discussing the borrowings that he had made this year, told us that his predecessor, the Hon. Mr. Fielding, had increased the national debt in 1908 and in the forepart of 1909 by about $100,000,000. I looked up the public accounts after that, and I found that from 1897 to the 31st of March, 1911, the public debt of Canada had increased bv $78,503,456. That is to say that when the Liberals came into



power in 1897 the public debt was $261,538,596, and on the 31st of March, 1911, it was $340,042,052, making a total borrowing in round figures of $78,000,000. In 1908 and 1909 the borrowings were, in round figures, $100,000,000, but the maturities in 1908 were $37,000,000. So, during the whole time of the fifteen years regime of the Liberal party, the increase of the national debt was, in round figures, $78,000,000.
The Minister of Finance asked the right hon. the leader of the Opposition what legacy the Laurier Government had left him in 1911. He told us about the legacy of protecting the country against loss on the Grand Trunk Pacific bonds. He did not tell us that the real legacy left to him and to the country was a surplus of somewhere about $37,000,000 that year, which was followed during the first year of my hon. friend's regime, as I think he told us, by a surplus of $25,000,000. I know of no finer legacy that could have been left to the Finance Minister or the manager of a large corporation than an immensely profitable business. Canada certainly was in the position, when the Liberal party went out of power, of such a corporation, with an immensely profitable revenue. Yet immediately following that, two years afterwards, we find that the Government in power have not only commenced to lose that revenue to a certain extent, but they have begun to increase the public debt, they have begun to borrow money to carry on their business.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance also said that the Laurier Administration commenced the system of guaranteeing bonds. He said that the policy of guaranteeing bonds was a very bad one. I wondered at the time whether it was worse than giving away immense territories of the country. I wondered if it was worse than the policy that was followed with the Canadian Pacific of giving away, free of taxation for twenty-five years I think, large quantities of land in the western country that properly belonged to the people there. Was it worth these double and treble subsidies that were given to another transcontinental railway? As a matter of fact we did guarantee the bonds both of the Canadian Northern and of the Grand Trunk Pacific in place of making them direct loans. Had we made them direct loans we would have had to borrow the money ourselves,-and could probably have done it slightly cheaper. The policy may be bad, 'but I dou'bt whether we could have adopted a better policy at the time.
,
That brings me to this question of the financial stringency of the present day. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance read from the Labour Gazette a lot of notices from different parts of the country, in the fall of 1908, saying that there was a lack of work in the cities at that time. That is true. He read from a speech of my right lion, friend and leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in Montreal, saying that there was no cry during the fifteen years of the Liberal regime of the high cort of living; and to contradict that he read these reports of the Labour Gazette showing that there were at that time .men out of employment in the various cities throughout the country. I cast my mind back to that time and I quite appreciate that there were many men out of employment; but, as a matter of fact, there was no great cry or no cry that I remember at all, with reference to the high -cost of living. The reason of the stringency in 1907 and 1908, as was pointed out by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), was because of the lack of money to pay their way by the bankers of the United States, You all know that while some of us are unwilling to have truck or trade with the Yankees, we follow very closely the events that take place in the United States. We copy them very closely in very many ways, especially in commercial life. Nearly all the banks of the United States in the fall of 1907 and the early part of 1908 practically suspended payment, in fact I am not too sure that Mr. Forgen did not say, before the Banking and Commerce Committee last year, that all the banks of the United States at that time had suspended payment. Certainly most of them did and a great many failures took place. Now, our banks were alarmed that that feeling of unrest would spread to Canada and the consequence was that they reduced the lines of credit to the various manufacturers and commercial interests throughout Canada at that time. The fact is that at that time the banks reduced the lines of credit to the manufacturers and the consequence was -that the manufacturers were unable to manufacture up to their limit. There was no lack of orders that I know of, but the state of things this year is quite different. So far as I am aware the banks have been prepared and have supplied the manufacturers throughout the country with all the money they wanted. The commercial interests also could have got all the money they wanted from the banks.
My hon. friend from Waterloo (Mr. Clare)

shakes his head. I do not know what his experience has been, but I am only speaking from my own experience-and I am interested more or less in various manufacturing industries in this country-and my experience has been that the banks were prepared to and did supply this year just as full lines, to put it that way, as last year to the manufacturing and commercial interests .of the country. But the manufacturers this year could not get sufficient orders. In 1907 and 1908 the manufacturers could get all the orders they could handle. But so far as I was concerned, we could not get the money to supply the material and labour necessary to fill the orders. Therefore I think .our right hon. leader was perfectly justified in stating at Montreal that there was no complaint at that time of the high cost of living. I do not remember there being any great cry about the high cost of living at that time and I must say that probably nobody here was more actively engaged in business of various kinds, though perhaps in a small way, than I was.
The Minister of Finance also told us in an ironical sort of way that our right hon. leader has had many fiscal policies. He told us that at one time he was a free trader as they have it in England and that he is now a free food trader for the moment, and my hon. friend emphasized 'for the moment.' But I did not hear the Minister of Finance say that our right hon. leader had brought about the preference with Great Britain. Our leader did introduce the preference with Great Britain. Perhaps he was an advocate seven years ago of free trade as they have it in England, but at the present time he is an advocate .of free food. You will notice that while he may have had many policies, to all appearances different on the surface, yet he has always been consistent. In all his policies his tendency has been to a reduction of duty and so it is to-day. I was present at the meeting in Hamilton and beard the speech of our honoured leader but I did not construe it as the Minister of Finance would like to construe it, that by free food our leader meant the duty being taken off all foodstuffs. I recognize that there are certain classes of foods from which it is not necessary to remove the duty, such as fancy canned goods, fancy cheeses, fancy pickles and that sort of thing, which we get occasionally on the tables of the swell restaurants and hotels, or on the tables of the rich. As far as I am concerned, I have never seen them ex-9i
cept on occasions of that kind and I do not think any of us will advocate'the removal of the duty on such go.ods because at the hotels and restaurants goodness knows they charge us enough to pay for the duty. By free food I understood our leader to mean free staple food. I am not speaking for the whole of the Liberal party but simply for myself and that is what I understood him to mean. The Minister of Finance also stated that if the duties were removed from all foods, it would affect according to the statistics of the YearBook, 6,985 establishments with a capital of $133,000,000, employing 252,000 men, paying $14,000,000 in wages every year and using material to the amount .of $175,000,000 and with an output of $245,000,000. That is a good argument to use to frighten the people, but when you dissect the proposition of our right hon. leader you will see that very few of those establishments would be affected. The minister went on to say that the output of cheese in Canada for the last fiscal year amounted to $37,232,969, and that there were 3,625 establishments employing men to the number of 6,147. And yet, he said, our right hon. leader proposed to take the duty off cheese. During the reciprocity debate I did not hear that any of our farmers were opposed to taking the duty off cheese. As a matter .of fact at the present time the dairying interests of this country are prepared to see the duty taken off cheese if the American duty is taken off. Our dairymen want the American market. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance said that the removal of the duty would destroy the cheese factories in this country and I could not help thinking when he was talking, of something I heard when I was a boy. I had an Irish friend who was ridiculing to a certain extent another chap that he was with. The other fellow got angry and said: Do you mean to make a fool of me, and the Irishman replied: No, the Lord took advantage of me; and I say the Lord, through Mr. Woodrow Wilson and the Congress of the United States has already taken advantage of my hon. friend. Let me toll the hon. minister that there will be a lot less cheese factories in Canada next year than there were last year-a lot less in Ontario at any rate and I think Ontario produces the bulk of Canada's cheese. And why? Because while at one time you could tell the farmers that they were entitled to the protection of their products just as the manufacturer is, to-day, so far as I know, there are no farmers that can be deceived in

that way any more. They are not afraid [DOT]of the duties being taken off; they are perfectly willing to have them removed. What they ask for is the open market and [DOT]cheap transportation. What will happen the cheese industry? As a matter of fact, [DOT]our export of cheese has been going down Tor some years. Why? Because, for one reason, there is a great consumption of milk in the larger cities at the present time. Since the Americans took the duty off milk, the price of milk in the western portion of the riding that I have the honour to represent has increased to $1.90 per hundred pounds. They are giving $1.90 per hundred in the western portion of my riding and shipping milk to Detroit. Cheese at 12! cents is supposed to net the farmers $1. Cheese at a price of 13! cents, which was paid late this fall, would net the farmers from $1.15 to $1.20 per 100 pounds. The City Dairy Company of Toronto have a *depot at Woodstock and uozens of teams come in every morning taking in a territory covered by half a dozen or more cheese factories. They are paying $1.60 per hundred, and they are paying in Thamesford, only 14 miles away, $1.90 qrnd shipping the milk to Detroit. You may ask the question ; Why do they not all send their milk to Detroit? The answer is that people in the vicinity of Woodstock had made a contract to deliver their milk in Woodstock. They are also shipping milk from Lakeside on the Canadian Pacific railway to Port Huron and Detroit at $1.90 per 100 pounds. While the farmer may occasionally be told successfully something that you want him to swallow, he is not so foolish that he does not know the difference between $1.20 and $1.90.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance told me, speaking of the commission that had been appointed to look into the high cost of living, that I was reported to have said at Attwood, Ont., that the appointment of the commission was a rotten farce. I am not so sure whether I said it was rotten or not, but I certainly said that it was a farce. I would not be surprised if I did add the other word, because I think that it had the germs of decay in it from the start. It was certainly built on a very tottering foundation and will do no good to the people of this country in so far as a reduction of the high cost of living is concerned. I did say that the appointment of the commission was a farce. I did also say that the main cause of the high cost of living was the lack of production. I still say so, but I also said at Attwood, and I
.
still say to-day, that the Government had it in their own hands a remedy, in so far as it is possible for a government to remedy it, the high cost of living by taking away the duty, by opening the door, so that when goods went too high, no matter what the goods were, on this side of the line, there would be an inducement to the people of the other side of the line that have them to sell to send them over here. That, I think, you will acknowledge, because I think it is a proposition that has a strong basis. If there are no artificial doors, production and supply and demand will regulate the market.
As to mergers or combines, if they are controlling to any extent the food supply of this country, the same would apply. If there is one thing that would do away with the control either by mergers or combines it is the opening of the doors to the other side of the line. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister says that the combines and mergers on the other side of the line are worse if anything than they are on this side of the line. That may be true in a sense, but there are no persons who fight
4 p.m. each other more than these mergers and combines, and it would be some years before the combines on the other side of the line could establish a working connection with the combines on this side of the line, if they wanted to do so in order to affect the cost of food. I am not one of those who think that the cost of food is seriously affected in a wrong way by cold storage. Cold storage may raise the price of food at a certain time of the year, but taking it on the average, the usual effect of cold storage is to keep the price down to a reasonable amount. In the summer time it does increase the price of perishable goods, but if it were not for cold storage at other times of the year the price of food would increase very much more than it does. If there is any combine in the cold storage business I am perfectly willing to see it investigated. I am perfectly willing to see any of these things investigated, but if there is anything in the world that would do away absolutely and entirely with any control of that kind it would be to take off the duties and let food circulate freely. The farmers of this country are perfectly willing that that should be done.
The hon. Minister of Finance says that his proposition to reduce the high cost of living is to educate the farmers, and he illustrates that by the Bill for $10,000,000 that was passed last year for agricultural

education. There never was a newspaper, yellow or otherwise, with a bigger headline than that $10,000,000, and there never was a big headline that was a greater deception. It might as well have been $1,000,000 a year and nobody would have paid any attention to it, but it was a great headline, a great advertisement, and nothing more or less in my judgment. I am not opposed to money being spent on the education of the farmers any more than I am opposed to what is being spent on the education of any other class of the people, but I want to tell the House that in so far as I know the farmers and I think I do know them, the farmers of Ontario are quite capable of farming properly if they have the inducement to farm properly. All they ask you for is cheap transportation and open markets. You talk about educating the farmers. The hon. Minister of Finance said that he would educate the farmers in order to do away with the high cost of living. I cannot help but think of the poor fellows that were on the submarine 7A, who went to the bottom of the ocean the other day, and I wondered if it would do them any good if in some years to come somebody undertook to educate the officers and men on submarines as to how to raise themselves from the bottom of the ocean. That very well illustrates the attitude of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance with reference to what he proposes to do for the education of the farmer.
My hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaff-ner) told us the other night that the Government had reduced express rates by twenty per cent, but I always thought it was the Railway Commission that reduced those express rates, and I would remind him that it was the Laurier Government that appointed the Railway Commission and made it possible for any public body in this country to reduce rates. And, if in their wisdom the Railway Commission should reduce freight rates, they will do so because the power was conferred on them by the Laurier Government. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Schaffner) also told us that under the new agricultural grant, educational plots of forty acres had been opened in each township or municipality in the West, and he pointed out that this would prove of wonderful service to the people of Manitoba. Well, that depends on the way these forty acre plots will be worked, and while no doubt many of these things have been so carried on as to reflect credit on the people and on those who manage them, others have proved failures. However, I hope this system will
be a success in the West. In my section of the country we have nothing of that kind. If the Minister of Agriculture were present I would point out to him that the Ontario* Government sends what is called a district representative to my section of the country and he has recently established a class ins the collegiate institute for educating the-farmers and their sons in scientific agriculture. I cannot help but think that if he would establish such classes once or twice a week in the schools in various parts of the country he would do more good than he would be liable to do in the' city of Woodstock, although at the same time he is doing good work there and I have nothing to say against that. But I was wondering if that is to be our share of the agricultural grant. At the various meetings of farmers which I attended this fall, I asked them if they had seen any signs of benefit from these grants which the Government are boasting so much about, and I could not find a farmer anywhere in our county who had heard of any benefit that had accrued.
Let me deal now with the duty on wheat, which is an important question at the present time. I understood from the Minister of Finance and from the Prime Minister that tiny are not inclined to grant the request of the western farmers for free wheat. I can inform them that, as far as I have been able to find out, the farmers of Ontario, of both sides of politics, have no possible objection to free wheat. So far as I have discussed it with them they say:	If the western men
think it will be a benefit to them, why not give it to them? After listening to the speech of my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) as to the results in connection with oats and barley and flax, I ask: Why does not the Government rise to the occasion and extend the benefit to wheat? The Government were the means of keeping the people of Canada from getting free markets in the United States two years ago, and if free cereals would be a benefit to the people of the West, why not let them have it? If the manufacturers want a duty put on or taken off any article, I am quite sure this Government or any other Government that might be in power at the time would be perfectly willing to listen to them, and I think it rather strange that while the farmers of the west are unanimous for free wheat, the Government should say to them: You do not know your own business, we will give you protection. I can-

not for the life of me see why the Government is disposed to refuse this boon to the farmers of the West, except it may be that they think it will hurt the millers. The milling industry is a large one in Canada, and I grant you it is the duty of all governments to look out for the interests of all the people and to legislate in the interests of the majority, no matter whether they are party friends or otherwise. It may be that this may hurt the miller, but why should it hurt the miller? As a matter of fact the flour made from Manitoba wheat is supposed to be the best in the world. The millers tell me that the millers of Great Britain require a certain amount of Manitoba wheat to mix with the softer wheat from southern countries, and I understand that the millers of Great Britain are ahead of the millers of the United States or of Canada in their system of mixing, which they have reduced to a science. But, after all, the best of their best quality of flour is made from Manitoba wheat. Then, if the Manitoba flour is better than any other flour, why should not western millers mark their flour so that they will get the advantage of that throughout the world? I cannot understand why that cannot be done, because after all people will pay for quality, and in that respect why have not our home millers an advantage over the millers of England and the United States? Of course, there is no possible doubt that if there were free wheat a great deal of western grain would be shipped to the United States by southern routes, and I recognize that we have built transcontinental railways at great expense to carry the grain from the West to the seaboard. .
I recognize that fact, and as a Canadian I am proud to see these railways built. At the same time, I can quite appreciate that the Government fear that the grain might be shipped to the south where the western farmers could obtain a better market. If that is not the fear of the Government, then why do they not give free wheat to the people of the West? There must be some reason of that kind. I think that the ordinary every day farmer in the West, with 160 or 320 acres, is not making money; and, if he is not making money, he will not continue to reside there. In that event we shall lose our great market in the West. We who do any manufacturing in the East know that Western Canada has been our greatest market during the last ten years. If these peo-
.
pie in the West are not making money- and they cannot make money under present conditions-then why not let them have an open market to the south of them, so that they can put themselves in a position to buy goods from manufacturers in the East. That is the question that faces us and that we have got to decide. I hope the Government will decide it wisely, because it has got to be decided one of these days. You may refuse.the market to the people of the West and you may cajole, although I doubt it, the farmers of Ontario to believe that they are protected and that they need protection. For two or three years, however, I have not found a farmer who will claim that he needs protection. He is perfectly willing to compete.
At the present time, in my judgment, you will have to do more than to give free food. The hon. Minister of Finance was absolutely right when he said that there are thousands of industries in this country that, perhaps, are not in a position to compete with the very keen and severe competition from Europe and the United States, because the European and United States manufacturers have greater markets at their command than we have. They have also got their business down to a greater science. We manufacturers in Canada will have to learn to systematize our business; but, at the same time, while there are thousands of industries in this country to which we must give a certain amount of protection, there are others that compete now in the open markets of the world. Why should they be protected here? There are some of the latter industries that come into direct touch with the farmers, and I, as a farmer, may tell you that, while there may be no combines in other lines of business in this country, the sellers of agricultural implements have a peculiar way of showing competition. To save your life, you cannot in our country buy a plough or a binder or any other agricultural implement that I know of from one salesman a particle cheaper than you can buy it from another. That is a strange thing, but I have tried it time and again. In my humble judgment, the prices are also too high. These sellers will be forced, if the duties are removed or lowered to a great extent, to come into keener competition, and that will be a benefit to the farmers. The farmer cannot afford to do everything. He will be perfectly willing to give up any protection that he may have, either on his animal products or his cereals. He also will require something that this Government can give him, that this Government will

be forced to give him. The time is coming, and we may just as well make up our minds to do it, as you cannot cajole the farmer any longer into thinking that he is protected by protection. He knows that he is not, he knows that he can compete, but he also wants a fair show in the open market. The hon. Minister of Finance, I dwell on what he says, because what he says to the country should be important-tells us that instead of spending the money on the Transcontinental railway, it would have been better had we spent it on agricultural education. At the time the Transcontinental railway was started, there was the greatest possible demand from the West for a means of moving the crop. We heard from one end of the country to the other the cry: What is the use of growing the crop when we cannot get it out, when it rots in the field? That is why we spent the money in building this new Transcontinental railway to move the crop. This last day or two I have heard speakers on the other side of the House say, with the greatest of pride, that there was no block in the moving of the crops this year. Why? Because otner railways had come in to assist the Canadian Pacific railway in the moving of the crops. The building of the other railways, the mere fact of the suggestion that other railways would be built made the Canadian Pacific railway improve its rolling stock and double-track its line. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company are like all other corporations. I have nothing to say against any corporation. Let them do the best for themselves. The Canadian Pacific railway are absolutely sane, and they will not do anything until they are forced to do it, and they were forced by competition and nothing else to improve their rolling stock and their facilities for moving the grain. If it had not been for that compulsion, there would be still the same old story, and the grain would be rotting on the ground there still as it did several years ago. That has been improved upon. If it will improve the opportunities of the people of the West to have an open market to the south, although the railways may suffer to a certain extent, the railways will look after themselves. If the grain is taken to the south, it has still to be carried to the markets in the east to the south of us. Why cannot our railways carry it to those markets just as cheaply as the railways on the American side of the line can? I think they can; and what is more, I think they will.
The people of the West tell us also that the transportation charges are too high.
They tell us that if they grow wheat, say at Regina, and they get sixty-five cents a bushel for it, that is not sufficient money to pay them. I have figured it up time and again with some of the best farmers to be found in the West, and I do not believe it is sufficient money to pay, except to farmers in a very large way of business. Remember that the country is not made up of farmers in a large way of business, and after all it is the ordinary farmer whom we must consider; it is the ordinary businessman whom we must consider. It is not the exceptions that we must consider in legislation of any kind. I could not help but smile when I heard my hon. friend (Mr. White) say that it would have been better if we had spent the money on agricultural education that we spent in building the Transcontinental railway.
There was another thing, very funny, that I heard my hon. friend the Minister of Finance say, and that was when discussing a statement made by my hon. friend the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) as to the duty on agricultural implements. He said that under reciprocity the duty was only reduced to fifteen per cent, which, he said, would have been there for evermore. The whole challenge from end to end of the land, when the reciprocity discussion was on, was that reciprocity was simply the thin edge of the wedge. But now the Minister of Finance tells us that this duty of if- per cent would have been left there forever if we had passed the reciprocity agreement. Hon. gentlemen opposite suggest that my right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is not always consistent, but surely he is quite as consistent as hon. gentlemen opposite, especially as consistent as the Minister of Finance when he makes ironical remarks. The whole question at this time, after all, is, what is best in the interests of the country, not a question of what is best in the interests of the Liberal party or in the interests of the Conserva-party. I believe that at heart we all recognize that. There is no denying the fact, I am sorry to say, that there is privation and hardship in the country at this time. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said that times will improve. I believe as firmly as I believe that I am speaking to you now that, unless there is some change in the administration of the country for the benefit of the West, the times will not improve there. They say to the people of the West:	Go into mixed farming.
They might as well tell me to go into flying. It takes money to go into mixed farming, and it takes time. It is the same as with

the agricultural education which the Minister of Finance advocated. It is true you may educate the farmer to a better system of farming under which he will grow more grain. The farmers in Ontario could raise from two to three times as much as they are raising now on the land which they use if they would farm properly. But it takes time to bring about these changes. In the meantime, what are the people on these 160-acre farms, and 320-acre farms-the small farmers of the West-going to do? Such a man, if his farm does not pay him, will desert his farm and let it fall into the hands of the mortgagee, and that will be a great setback to the country. He requires relief; he knows what that relief should be, and why not give it to him?


Mr. E. N. LEWIS (West Huron):: Mr. Speaker, speaking, as I do, for the first time from my seat in the front row of the Government side in this House, I trust you will excuse my diffidence and not allow any imperfection in my presentation of the matters which I wish to submit to prevent you from giving due attention to the facts which I desire to lay before you, and through you before this House.
I was disappointed at not seeing in the Speech from the Throne some reference to the transportation question in relation to the great inland waterways of Canada. I fear that many hon. members, coming as they do from parts of Canada distant from the centres of lake traffic, have no idea of the hugeness of that traffic. To convey to you some idea of what that traffic means, I desire to lay a few facts before you. Sir, we are fortunate in having in Canada a waterway of thousands of miles- to put it accurately-2,384 miles-reaching from the head of salt water navigation to the heart of the country and affording, to a great extent, deep-water navigation to the heart of the continent and making the line of least resistance for the traffic of the one hundred millions of people who line that waterway. To illustrate the size of this traffic, let me give a comparison of canal tonnage. Take the great Suez canal which now takes the traffic of the entire continent of Europe and the British Islands through to Australia and the Orient,-that traffic which originally went around the Cape of Good Hope-and we find that in the year 1911 there were 5,200 vessels passed through that canal, with a freight tonnage of 25,000,000 tons. In the year 1911 there passed through the Sault Ste. Marie canal 25,000,000 vessels.	In the year 1913, instead
of 25 000,000 of freight, as in the case
.
of the Suez canal, there went through the Sault Ste. Marie canal, 79,718,344 tons of freight. And I am proud to say that the quantity which went through the Canadian Sault Ste. Marie canal was 5,674,943 tons more than went through the United States canal at that point. Add to this the traffic that comes through from Lake Michigan on which are the great cities of Chicago and Milwaukee, and the traffic which comes from cur own Georgian bay, and it will easily be seen that the amount in the year 1913 must have been over 100,000,000 tons. This immense traffic on its way to the lower lakes passes in front of the riding which I have the honour to represent. But it will be seen that the questions involved in this traffic are not local questions merely but are of national importance. On the 9th of last November, Sunday evening, while the people on shore were in church, there occurred on the Great Lakes, a catastrophe absolutely appalling, the greatest that ever happened either on the ocean or on the lakes affecting Canada or the United States. The gale that arose at that time wiped out of existence fourteen great steel steamships, eight of them disappearing absolutely, not a soul aboard being left to tell the tale. The loss was 205 stalwart young men. And the vessels, as I have indicated, were not old, unseaworthy hulks, but fine steamships. One of them had been on the ocean for years. Another had been built in a Canadian port. And when the representatives of the owners of that vessel in the city of Toronto were told that the steamship Carruthers had been lost they simply laughed; they said that no gale on the lakes could hurt her. She was a vessel over 600 feet long, and had been	built by
the	best	men on	the	continent.
One steamship 505 feet long, laden with 9,740 tons of coal, turned over as if she -had been a cork, without a scratch. 0-f the great number of young men who were- lost in front of that port, sixty-four bodies were recovered. Only one of these had been drowned, the others -had all died from exposure, and no bodies were recovered so far that had not life belts on. I refer to -the vessels by name, the Carruthers, the Wexford, an ocean steamship which had been on the lakes for years, formerly in the Mediterranean trade; the Regina, a Canadian boat; the Price, the one of 505 feet long that was overturned with 9,700 tons of coal; the Argus, the Hydrus, the McBean, and Scott. These boats, Sir, could have been saved-I say so here -from the evidence that was given at the inquest-not -a soul need

have 'been drowned, had we been advanced in our aids to navigation. They have on the ocean a wireless call, I believe S.O.S., which gives notice when a boat is in distress, but this is an entirely different proposition.	There is no boat in the
world that could have lived or effected a rescue in that sea at that time with the heavy snow storm that then prevailed. To show you the force of the [DOT]storm, I may say that one boiat which was cast ashore on the American side, on which there was an insurance of $300,000, had a hole broken by the sea in her iron plates in the bow, into which you could put a barrel. Her inside bulkheads saved her until she went ashore-in fact all the boats that went ashore were saved.
Nothing could better illustrate the danger of the approach to Goderich harbour in a northwest gale than the fact that since the tragedy of November three steamers on three different occasions had attempted to enter that port in a northwest gale but had to put back to the open water. I contend that had the port which I represent and, which for the last ten years, the Govem-ment of this country have designated a port of refuge, and have been trying to make a port of refuge, had that port been a foul weather port instead of a fair weather port, [DOT]and had there been a wireless station with a hurricane call, there was not one of those boats that could not have been in shelter inside of three hours. As a basis for that opinion, I give you the record as produced at the inquest of the weather bureau in the city of Toronto. On Friday morning, the 7th of November, the *weather bureau sent out to the stations a warning that there was a strong northwest gale coming. The stations of all the upper lakes put up signals to that effect so that every captain had warning. That was on Friday the 7th. That storm continued through the 7th, and through the night of the 7th and on the 8th, but abated on the evening of the 8th. In the morning of the 9th of November the barometer on all the ships went up; the northwest storm signal was still up, but the storm had abated and the Kamanisti-quia left Goderich for Fort William at seven o'clock on the morning of the 9th of November. At half past ten o'clock she met the Wexford thirtv-five miles northwest of Goderich bound for that port, but that boat and her crew were never seen afterwards. At 10.40 o'clock on the evening of the 8th of November, the weather bureau in Toronto, according to the evidence in Toronto, had distinct information
and evidence that there was a northwest hurricane approaching. They were asked why they had not sent out that notice. They said that the telegraph lines were not working. They were asked why they did not use the telephone. I think, Sir, that on one or two occasions since then I have seen telephone messages sent to the lighthouse after the telegraph service was closed, to bring word of a storm. We have at Goderich the highest point on the whole of the shore of 200 odd miles, it is 120 feet above the water. To the north and south of the town the shore declines. I have asked that we should have a wireless telegraph station there. Even with the harbour entrance protected as I hope it will be, there should be still this extra call, because of late years the captains have not placed much credence in the weather bureau reports.
As to the importance of this port which I have the honour of representing, and to show you that this is not a local or parochial matter, but a national matter, we are a link in the great chain of inland navigation from our great northwest to the sea, and you all know that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. We do not compete with the great ports on the Georgian bay, Collingwood, Owen Sound. Depot Harbour or Meaford. Our trade is entirelv different, although we are eight miles nearer to Fort William and have a straight open course from the entrance to Sault river. The port with which we do compete is the port of Buffalo. To show you how the grain which is grown in Canada and should go through Canadian transportation systems is drafted away, I merely cite that up to the first of last September, 31,483,952 bushels of wheat: 2,465,490 bushels of oats; 1,721,679 bushels of barley; 6,319,303 bushels of flax, making a total of 41,990,990,423 bushels, went through the port of Buffalo from Fort William and Port Arthur.
We have in Goderich two large industries, one an elevator of over one million bushels capacity, which this year and the year before made over 50 per cent of its total value in earnings. That elevator is owned by people in western Ontario; every miller, in almost every town in western Ontario, from Toronto, Guelph, and London, to the Great Lakes, has stock in that company. We also have a mill which is directed by and connected with the Winnipeg	Western	Canadian Milling
Company, with a capacity of one million, and that mill grinds every day over two thousand barrels of
13d

flour from Manitoba wheat. That flour is shipped to every place in Canada. The stockholders of that mill are in almost every place in Canada showing you what I said is the fact, that the matter is mot one of local concern only.
To show you that the water traffic that passes through lake Huron is the greatest in the world I would cite the traffic of the great port of London which, during the year 1912, had 37,678,142 tons of freight and the great port of Liverpool which had 30,273,355 tons, the two together not making much more than two-thirds the amount which passes through lake Huron. All of this traffic is diverted to the other side of the lake because on our side of the lake there is no port with an entrance properly protected in case there is trouble from the northwest. We have a marine engine works in Goderich second to none in Canada engaged in building engines and repairing boats for this Dominion. Were that entrance properly protected a great trade would develop there. When I say we do not compete with the Georgian bay ports we do in this way:	Every dollar that is
spent on a port in the Georgian bay is for the trade that goes to that port, while there is no dollar spent in Canada on public work which can produce the result that would be secured if spent to protect this harbour on this two hundred and seventy miles of coast line, on the second largest lake in the world which has a depth of six hundred feet. I contend, contrary to some statements of one or two at the inquest and the matter was gone into exhaustively, and all the marine evidence that could be was taken-that the plans as set out by the engineers of this Government are amply sufficient to make that a safe harbour. The only thing necessary is that it should be done at once, not piecemeal. This is not a matter of politics, it concerns one side of this House just the same as the other. There is only a certain amount that need to be expended and a great deal would be saved by quick completion because owing to the conformation of the harbour it now fills in each year, involving yearly expenditures for dredging. In the name of Canada, I ask this Government, and this House, in the interests of the country and in the interests of humanity, to make this port a safe port of refuge as it was formally constituted by this Government many years ago, and I ask that it should be completed at once.
It is to be noticed that after the recent disaster the United States Lake Carriers .
Association spent thousands of dollars in rescue work on .our shore and paid for the rescue and other costs irrespective of whether the sailor found was a citizen of the United States or of Canada. Every dollar properly spent in public improvements is well spent. Too much cannot thus be spent.
In that connection I would like to recall fto the House a Bill which I had the honour of introducing in Parliament some years ago. It was a Bill, a very proper Bill, I think, in reference to the load line on ships -Bill No. 98, January 20, 1911. I think our ships on the Great Lakes should have a load line. While it has always been contended by ship owners that a vessel properly built with proper steam capacity and properly loaded would be safe in any storm, the recent disaster proves the contrary to be the case. The only Canadian boat saved that went through the storm was the Kaminis-tiquia. She was absolutely light and left the harbour of Goderich ten hours after the weather bureau in Toronto knew there was to be a northeast hurricane on the Great Lakes. The hurricane began at three o'clock m the afternoon of Sunday the 9th of November, and it was all over apparently that evening because the watches of all the men were found stopped about the same time.
There is another matter which seriously affects the people of western Ontario. I know more of western Ontario than other parts of Canada and I hope other parts of the Dominion are not affected as much as we are in the east. I refer to bank interest. Bank interest has recently been raised from 6 to 7 or 8 per cent. I know that because when I applied for some money to come down here to discharge my duties as a legislator I was told that I should have to pay 8 per cent on the money, although I believe the law says they cannot collect 8 per cent. But we cannot afford to go to law with a bank. I contend-and I ask the Minister of Finance to bear this in mind, for I have already brought this matter before the House-that when a bank raises its interest on loans from 6 to 7 per cent, it should also raise the rate it pays to depositors from 3 to 4 per cent. If they were compelled to do this it would benefit a great number of people because it is well known the farmers of western Ontario have many millions of dollars in the banks at 3 per cent. It is a poor rule that will not work both ways.
I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to another matter which has been called to my attention in several

communications and to which a great deal of publicity has been given in the press. I refer to some indemnity being given to a man or his family in the case of a man who has been imprisoned and afterwards found to bd absolutely innocent of the offence with which he was charged. In the year 1907 I drew up a Bill at the request of some legal gentlemen in Toronto, men of large and kindly spirit, but on presenting the same to the law officers of the House I was informed that I could not present the Bill as it was a Bill including the expenditure of money and must therefore be introduced by a member of the Government. Here is one letter which I' have just received in connection with this matter:
Let the country know that Parliament had been given the opportunity to clean the skirts of Canadian justice, over this gross miscarriage of justice. It seems to me, that it is one -of the strangest travesties of our laws, that there is absolutely no redress, from the State, in cases of the kind, where innocent men are punished, and imprisoned by the State, on the principle that ' The King can do no wrong ' when every one knows that a cruel wrong has been perpetrated by the representatives of the King, in the name of justice. Surely a compensatory Act could be framed to meet just such cases. That the King can do no wrong is surely a survival of mediaeval darkness, and the blind worship of an ancient fetish, that no legal redress can be obtained from the State, when the liberty of the subject has been subjected to gross injustice by the same State.
I do not believe that there will be very many cases requiring this kind of compensation. For eighteen years I was in charge of the criminal jurisdiction of one of the largest counties in Ontario, and I remember discussing this matter with the jailer who was a man of great thought. He stated that in the whole of his many years' experience as a jailer he only knew of one man who had been imprisoned and afterwards found not guilty.
The hon. gentleman who last spoke made some remarks in reference to the navy. I do not purpose entering into that question, but I would ask this Government if they could not see fit, in the interest of the sea-faring men of the Great Lakes and of Canada generally, to enter into negotiations with the mother country by which five or six large cruisers could be sent here at the Christmas season of the year in order that the young sailor men and fishermen of Canada, who have nothing to do from the end of November to the first of April, might be allowed to take a cruise from Halifax or St. John to the West Indies or other places, and to exercise with the big guns, they to be paid
their wages by the Dominion of Canada during that period, and, after three years of such exercise and winter cruising, to be called naval reserve men, and paid a certain amount in consideration of the fact that they would be at the beck and call of the State when needed. I agree with Lord Fitzwilliam, and other authorities, that the one great need of the British navy is men, and as we have 80,000 odd fishermen and sailors who have nothing to do during this portion of the year, and who would only be too glad of the three months' training and service with the guns, I contend that this would be a very effective way of showing our loyalty to the empire. These men, I think, would be fully entitled to the amount which they would receive up to a certain age limit after passing through their three years of training. There is no more deserving class in Canada than these men who are fishermen or sailors on the Great Lakes or the sea coasts of Canada. The farmer in our fine country knows very well when he goes to bed at night that when he wakes up in the morning he will find his fields in front of him, and his barns in their proper places; or, if they are not in their places, he will find his insurance policy, and not be at any loss if anything occurs while he sleeps. But the poor fishermen, generally hardy men of no great means, when they go to sea, have no idea whether they shall ever return or whether they shall find their nets or what they are looking for. It would be a deserving payment to men of that class.
There was one more question brought forward by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt); that was in reference to immigration. You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that I had a Bill before this House at one time to restrict immigration from certain parts of Europe. I refer to the southern parts of Europe. I think we should take warning from the example of the great nation to the south of us. From the time of the formation of that nation until 1830 they doubled and trebled in population out of the loins of their own people. They grew strong in stature and intellect. From 1830 to 1880 they doubled and trebled with an immense immigration, but where from? From the proper parts of the Old World in which to get a good class of immigrants-from the British Isles, from the north of France, from Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Norway, and they still grew a nation of men and women strong in

who are treated with some contempt by the more astute politicians who sit in the ministry from the plains of the fertile West. More than wheat grows there.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a very significant statement: more than wheat grows on the plains of the fertile West. We have some positive statements in this article. One is that this Government is controlled in Montreal. He goes on to say:
Not only the legislation alone, but the policy of the Government Is dictated by the railways and the banks and the big interests in the city of Montreal.
Now, there could not he a more sweeping indictment against any. Government, and I wish you to note that this indictment is made by a man who ought to know.
That is not all. In addition to the outside influences that we are told control this Government, there is a system of internal boss rule. Special reference is made to an astute minister from the plains of the fertile West, who not only controls the ministry, but treats with contempt the members of the Cabinet who come from the province of Ontario.
In Japan, before they adopted western ideas, some fifty years ago, we are told that there was an official called the great Shogun, who had complete control of all the legislation and of all the official business of the Empire of Japan. He was supposed to be second in rank to the Emperor; but he was not second to the Emperor in power; in fact, he had authority above the Emperor himself. He had complete control in the Empire of Japan. When the great Shogun said: Go, the people went; and when he said: Do this, they did it; for, if they did not do it, why, their heads were cut off.
To speak plainly, my reading of this article which I have just submitted to you, Sir, is that the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) suggests that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Kogers) is the great Shogun of this Government, and that this great Shogun goes so far as to treat the Ministers from the province of Ontario with contempt. I do not call this witness, however, for the purpose of showing that there are dissensions in the Cabinet. I produce this evidence for the purpose of showing that the policy and the legislation of this Government are dictated by the big interests. If any one on the other side of the House disputes that fact, I would ask him to fight it out with my hon. friend from South York.	.
The second witness I am going to produce is no less a gentleman than the hon. Minis-,
ter of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen). We all know that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is a man of very great ability and energy. When he took up the important portfolio of Marine and Fisheries, very high hopes were entertained of him in the Maritime provinces; and I have no doubt that it was felt on all sides that he would administer the affairs of the department for the development of the great fishing industry of this country. I feel sure that he would have lived up to those high expectations, if he had not in some cases been ruled by outside influences.
Let me give you an example of how the Department of Marine and Fisheries is dictated to by the big interests. There is. an old regulation, which was passed, I understand, in the year 1894, prohibiting the export of sockeye salmon from the province of British Columbia. It was not a tariff regulation; it was absolute prohibition. The fisherman who caught the salmon could not sell them to the American buyers. If he did so he incurred the penalty of confiscation of his boat and his license, and he was put out of business. He must sell to somebody [DOT] within the province of British Columbia, or not sell at all. That was a regulation which occasionally bore hard on the fishermen. I have been told by hon. members from British Columbia that often the price on the south side of the line was better than the price on the British Columbia side, and even on some occasions the canners in British Columbia would not purchase the fish from the fisherman at all, and that he had to dump them back in the sea. I am not dealing just now with the question as to whether that regulation is a bad one or a good one. It was passed by the old Conservative Government in 1894, and has existed throughout the whole period of the Liberal Administration up to the present time. It may be a bad regulation or it may be a good one; but the question that I am discussing is that the Conservative members from the province of British Columbia, when they were in opposition, took the ground that it was a bad regulation, and that it ought to be repealed. My hon. friend the member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) was the champion of the fishermen on different occasions for ten years during the time of the late Administration. I often listened to the speeches on that question and I used to think that he made out a pretty strong case. In order that I may give him fair play, I shall quote his own words as they appear in

' Hansard ' referring to this regulation. They are to be found on page 8424 of ' Hansard ' 1910-11. He was applying at that time for the repeal of the regulation. He makes the statement that there	is an	absolute fish combineamong the canners of British Columbia. Then he goes on to charge Mr.	Brodeur, then	Minister of
Marine and Fisheries, not only with preventing them from selling their fish on the Canadian side by limiting the number of licenses, but with prescribing an absolute prohibition of export so that when a Canadian fisherman has 400 or 500 fish in his boat ready to sell, and no Canadian canner will buy them, and when an American canner within a few miles away holds out his hand for those fish, the minister says, I prohibit you by force of law taking those fish across the boundary line. My hon. friend from New Westminster described the regulation as a cruel one. He goes on to say:
We find the Minister of Finance standing up for the capitalists against the fishermen. The minister should he of all men the first to stand by the poor fisherman who is not able to protect himself.
Later on in the same debate, he speaks as follows:
Under the law as It has stood the fishermen are absolutely prohibited from selling their fish on the American side. They are prohibited from exporting it at all, but the canners have not been prohibited from importing fish. Upon bringing it into the country, it is true, they pay a duty, but as they export the greater part of their product, that duty, minus a very small charge for office fees, is always refunded to them, so that the transaction costs them nothing more than putting up a cheque from the time they bring the fish into the country until the time they export it.
After the present Government came into power, I must say it is to the credit of my hon. friend from New Westminster that he endeavoured to carry out his promise to the fishermen. In the session of 1912, the matter was brought before the House. I think it came before the House on the motion of my hon. friend the member for Comox-Atlin (Mr. Clements). Several hon. gentlemen from British Columbia on that occasion repeated the old protest against this regulation. They said it was a bad regulation; that it should never have existed, and they demanded its repeal. They said it was not in the interests of the fishermen, and that it was altogether in the interests of the canners. They condemned the Laurier Administration for not having repealed it. After
the discussion which lasted for a day, I think, the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) summed up the dehate. He denounced the regulation. He said he was surprised that such a regulation could be possible. He stated that he had already repealed it and that statement was received with tremendous cheers by his supporters from the province of British Columbia. We on this side of the House thought that our friends on the other side had scored a kind of victory over us. Let me read a part of the minister's speech on that subject. I quote from page 2492 of the ' Hansard ' of 1912. This debate took place on the 5th of February, 1912. The minister said:
The effect of that regulation was this: a boat might catch 300 or 400 salmon and on bringing its catch to the cannery would find a notice posted up to the effect that on that day the cannery would not take more than 100. One would think that the fisherman could then take his fish to the American or some other market; no, under the regulations he was absolutely prohibited from doing so, so that he had to dump his extra supply, in come cases 200 or 300 salmon, back into the sea.
Acting on representations or representatives from British Columbia endorsed by the officials of my department on Saturday last I had that regulation repealed, so that now the fishermen can send their fresh fish to other markets than to the canneries.
The regulation we have repealed was probably passed years ago, before the fisheries were properly understood, and when probably some wealthy men had sufficient influence to have this regulation made in their own interest. It was then continued in force from year to year until it became a serious scandal and a great subject of grievance to the fishermen.
I wish you to mark these words of the minister : ' On Saturday last I had that regulation repealed.' Now, Mr. Speaker, you will be surprised to learn that this regulation was not repealed at all and that it is still in full force. What is the explanation? No sooner was this declaration of the minister's sent abroad in the newspapers than the combine in British Columbia woke up and for the next day or two kept the wires hot with messages to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to the Prime Minister, to everybody who, they thought had influence with the Government. We had these telegrams placed on the table last year in response to an order of this House, and from that return I wish to quote. The first telegram which I will quote is addressed to Hon. J. D. Hazen, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and is signed by W. D. Burdis, secretary of the British Columbia Canners' Asociation. This association, I am told, represents all

the large canneries in British Columbia. There is evidence of this in the papers submitted to the House. Among these are the following: The Fraser River Canning Association, Limited, British Columbia Salmon Cannery, Canadian Canning, Limited, the British Columbia Canning Company, Limited, the British Columbia Packers' Association, Limited, the Anglo-British Columbia Packing Company, and the Wallace Fisheries, Limited. All these fish canning companies are in this combination, represented, we are told, by Mr. W. D. Burdis, who signs this telegram:
To Hon. J. D. Hazen, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa.
Repeal of fishery regulations prohibiting export of raw fish reported in the press. If correct, salmon canners in British Columbia desire respectfully to enter their earnest protest against the removal of the restriction, as it would be disastrous to the industry, already seriously handicapped. It would constitute a reversal of a carefully considered policy adopted by the Conservative Government in 1894, would promote piracy and dishonesty, and deprive citizens of this province of much labour, to the advantage of competitors in the United States. You are prayed to suspend action in this connection, pending receipt of a memorial setting forth the facts.
W. II. Burdis,
Sec'y B. C. Salmon Canners' Assn. Yiou will notice incidentally that this telegram says that it ' would promote piracy and dishonesty ' to allow a British Columbia fisherman to sell fish to the Yankees. In eastern Canada, in the last election, we were told that it would be unpatriotic, and bad for the flag, if we were allowed to sell a barrel of fish or a bundle of shingles to the Yankees. But they go further in British Columbia; it would be piracy-which is punishable by death-in the opinion of the British Cblumbia Salmon Canners' Association, for the fishermen to sell their fish in the United States.
The next telegram I shall read is one to the Prime Minister, which that right hon. gentleman turned over to the Minister of Marie and Fisheries, in the following letter:
Ottawa, Ont., February 19, 1912.
Deputation from British Columbia salmon canneries arrive Ottawa Monday morning next to interview Minister of Fisheries and Cabinet regarding new regulations authorizing export of Canadian Soekeye salmon to American canneries, taking business away from our canneries and Canadians employed. Last year every man and boat was put into service. We were short sixty-five per cent of deliveries in actual sales. If exportation allowed it will be resented by Pacific salmon industry, wholesale grocers, consumers everywhere. Election decided against reciprocity. This new movement will reverse will of people by Order in Council.
.
Cancelling of boat taking very objectionable. Hope nothing be done until deputation heard. Regret Hon. Hazen's departure for Washington before deputation arrives.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) R. L. Borden.
Hon. J. D. Hazen,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa, Ont.
The third telegram is from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in Toronto. It appears that the canners' combine in British Columbia, fearing that they had not sufficient influence with the Government to secure the reversal of the Order in Council, decided to apply to headquarters. They went to the Manufacturers' Association in Toronto and asked them to send a message to the Government in regard to this matter. And here is the message:
Toronto, Ont., Feb. 20, 1912. Hon. J. D. Hazen,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa.
Advisory Committee Canadian Manufacturers' Association, in conjunction with the Association's British Columbia Branch, strongly urge retention of regulation prohibiting export of raw salmon pending a thorough investigation of the situation by experts, believing that its cancellation at this time may injuriously affect the canning industry of that province. This association stands firmly by the principle of manufacturing Canada's raw material as far as possible in the Dominion.
G. M. Murray, Secretary.
To sum up the whole story, which is a rather long one for me to go through today, it comes to this: First that regulation was condemned by the Conservative members from the province of British Columbia year after year while they were in opposition. Second, it was an issue at the election in the province of British Columbia in the general election, and I" am informed that hon. gentlemen opposite who were candidates in British Columbia, in that election pledged themselves that if they were elected they Wiould have it repealed. The third point is that this was declared to be a bad and oppressive regulation by a number of British Columbia members who spoke after the election of
1911	in the discussion in the session of
1912	to which I have referred. In the fourth place, the minister consulted the officers of the department, and the officers of the department said that it was a bad regulation and ought to be repealed. In the fifth place, it appears from the statement of the minister himself that he consulted the British Columbia members supporting the Government-and it happens that all the members of this House from British Columbia are on that side-agreed that the regulation was a bad

regulation and ought to be repealed. The sixth point is that an Order in Council was prepared, and, as I am instructed, was passed, cancelling the regulation and declaring it repealed. The seventh is that the repeal of that obnoxious regulation was announced in the House by the Minister of Marine; and, after all this had happened, a telegram from the combine in British Columbia, and another telegram from the Manufacturers' Association at Toronto, were sufficient to send them all to the woods, and to hang up the regulation which the Minister of Marine declared was iniquitous, and it is still in full force. I submit that, in that case at all events, I have proved my case. But if it is necessary I can give you further proof. Let me refer you to the fact that when the fishermen on the Atlantic seaboard, in the session of 1912-13, applied for free cordage for their lobster traps, a privilege that had been granted to them for years by the late Administration, they did not get this privilege because the cordage combine had more influence with the present Administration than the fishermen had. Let me also refer to the fact that when the western settlers, after the election of 1911, applied for a proper construction to be put on the tariff clause relating to rough lumber imported into this country, the Government listened to the lumber combine of British Columbia rather than to the settlers, and the settlers had to fight their case through the highest courts of the realm before they could beat the Government out and regain a concession which had been granted to them by the late Administration. And last, but not least in consequence, let me refer you to the fact that when, a few days ago, a unanimous resolution was passed by the Legislature of Manitoba asking for free wheat, they apparently got the cold shoulder from this Administration because free wheat is not acceptable to the railway companies and to the millers. The member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), I understand, is to follow me. Perhaps he will tell us whether the Government are really in favour of giving free wheat to the West or not. We would also like to hear from him on the question of free agricultural implements. I understand he was the champion of the farmers some years ago in regard to free agricultural implements, and moved an historic resolution in regard to this question. I presume he 10
did not accept the office of Solicitor General without some understanding about these two important questions, and it would be interesting to know just what attitude he and the Government he supports take in regard to these questions.
In the Speech from the Throne reference is made to the fact that there is a certain amount of depression in Canada at the present time, but no remedy has been suggested, and may I venture to say that there is no remedy possible without an attack upon the privileges of the big interests, and we can hardly expect that there will be any remedy applied by this Government; it would be a kind of suicide for the present Government to apply any remedy of that kind. But they have tried to administer consolation to us by telling us that we have in this countrv unbounded resources. No doubt that is a good thing, but such resources are not much good to a hungry man. Think what a comfort it would be to one of the poor fellows waiting in line to get into some soup kitchen in Montreal or Toronto to be told that in this country we have boundless resources! It reminds me of the story of the Bourbon princess who, when she heard that people in the streets of Paris were crying for bread, at the time of the French revolution, said: * If bread is so scarce as that why do they not eat cake or biscuits?'
Reference has been made in this debate to the navy, although it does not form any part of the speech from the Throne. It is a strange thing that the speech does not refer to this important question. Hon. members who have spoken on the other side, or most of them, have condemned the Senate for their action in regard to the navy. Let me ask, what is the offence of the Senate in reference to that question? As far as I understand, the offence of the Senate is that they have adopted the Conservative policy. The Conservative policy was that no step be taken until first there was an appeal to the people. I suppose that every Conservative in this House who was here in 1911, in the preceding Parliament, voted for Mr. Monk's amendment that no steps should be taken in regard to that very important question of a navy until first there was an appeal to the people. How is it that these hon. gentlemen are in any position to criticise the Senate in regard to this matter when the Senate has simply adopted the policy they themselves laid down? Why, Sir, about twelve months ago, the Prime Minister himself proclaimed



that policy of an appeal to the people. Everybody remembers that in the citv of Montreal a banquet was given to the Prime Minister which was attended by four or five hundred of the leading Conservatives in this country, and that at that banquet the Prime Minister made a very impressive and eloquent speech which appeared in the press of the country with great headlines, and no doubt made a great impression on the people of this country. He said that there was a crisis in the affairs of the empire; he heard the German guns in the North sea, he had visions of trouble for the empire and he said that, so far as he was concerned, he would do his duty, he would clear his skirts, and he laid down a policy which he said ought to be adopted. He said:	' I will call Parliament together, and submit a vote to Parliament asking for $35,000,000 for the immediate help of the empire in regard to naval affairs; if Parliament refuses to vote the $35,000,000 I will appeal to the people of Canada. He carried out part of his programme. He called Parliament together, he appealed to Parliament for $35,000,000; Parliament refused it but he did not appeal to the people of Canada. He thought better of it. No man knew better than the Prime Minister that an appeal to the people of Canada on that question would meet with defeat and consequently he did not make the appeal and I submit that neither the Prime Minister nor anv of his supporters is in a position to-day to criticise the Senate for having adopted the policy that was approved of by the Conservative party and their leader. There has been a very large number of vagaries in connection with this naval discussion and when the history of it comes to be written it will be a very interesting chapter indeed. Two years ago or a little more, hon. members from the province of Quebec thought that the Naval Act ought to be repealed. I understand that many of them came here under pledge that they would repeal that Act. That was an absurd kind of pledge because the Naval Act deals with a number of other things in addition to the navy; it regulates the protection of fisheries on our coasts. We have always had a Naval Act in this country. Prior to Confederation, in the little province from which I come, seventy-five years ago, we had a Naval Act; we had regulations that are to-day in the Naval Act and if the Naval Service Act had been repealed by these gentlemen they would have had to enact immediately another one or else
.
there would have been a great deal of confusion in the affairs on the coasts of this country. But you will remember that after the opening of the first session in the fall of 1911 my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Sevigny) put a question on the order paper: Does this Government intend to repeal the Naval Service Act? He did that very early in the session. This question was called over again and again for several months. I well remember the scene that used to happen every week when the Speaker called this question. A cloud came over the manly brow of my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel) and an extra wrinkle came into the face of my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier). The Prime Minister himself looked anxious, and the question was allowed to stand week after week, and it was only towards the end of the session that they mustered up courage to say:	'Yes, we will repeal the
Naval Service Act.' But the Naval Service Act still stands, and there has been no further word from the Government so far as I know that it is to be repealed. That strikes me as one of the vagaries in regard to this question. A great deal of amusement was created amongst several members of the House at the position taken by my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) in his speech on naval defence. He was speaking about rivets and riveters. He said he had information that when a ship was approaching shore the rivets fell out in buckets' full, and as there were no riveters in this country capable of putting them in again, it would therefore be unsafe to have ships on the coast until we could get riveters. That seemed a very amazing statement to hon. members on this side of the House, and especially to my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) and myself, who live in a town where there are hundreds of as good riveters as you can find anywhere in the world. And New Glasgow is not the only place in Canada where you can find riveters. The latest phase of these vagaries on the part of the Conservative party is in regard to a proposal to establish a shop on the banks of the St. Lawrence somewhere about opposite the city of Montreal. It is stated in the newspapers that the British engineering firm of Armstrong, Whitworth & Co. have organized a company to start a shop at Montreal. Sir Percy Girouard, I understand, is president of the company, and there are a number of able financial men on the board. But the curious thing about it is that while this company is stated in

the newspapers to be building a shop for the purpose of making high grade steel tools and articles of that kind-and it is hoped later on to build ships-yet considerable alarm has been created in the Conservative press over this matter. The Ottawa Citizen has almost gone into hysterics over it. It thinks these people are going to come up here on the Hill and put the German bogey in front of the members, and we shall have to build ships whether we want to or not. That appears to be the idea of the Citizen on this matter. And I understand there are a number of old women in the Tory party who are losing their sleep at nights over the proposed shipyard in Montreal. I think we should be very much pleased to see a new industry coming to Canada. In the discussion of last winter, the argument that our hon. friends opposite used was that we could not build ships. And now they are afraid that we can build ships.
Reference was made in the Speech from the Throne to changes in the Civil Service Act. We are not aware of the nature of these amendments, but you will not blame us on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, if we are somewhat skeptical about what this Government will do on the question of Civil Service. My hon. friend the Prime Minister, when he was on this side of the House, was a Civil Service reformer himself. He laid down the principle that no man should be dismissed for partisan reasons, that all appointments should be made on merit and not as a reward for party service, that civil servants should be permitted to go on a political platform and make speeches in opposition to the government that was paying them their salaries, provided they did it in a decent and manly way. These are high sounding principles, but how have they been carried out? Will any one pretend that A. B. Morine was appointed on his merits as the best man in Canada for the high position to which he was appointed? Or that Captain Landry, that jailbird down in the county of Richmond, was appointed on his merits? These are only examples. Eighty officials were dismissed in my own constituency, and not one of the appointments made to fill the vacancies was on merit. The appointments were all made as [DOT] a reward for party services. I do not know how many cases there are like this throughout the country, but there must be thousands of them. There have been so many of them that the Government have not been able to count them themselves. More than
year ago a motion was made in this 10|
House asking for a list of these dismissed officials, and while no doubt officials have been working hard at it for a whole year they have not yet been able to give us the list of men turned out of office by this Government.
There are other questions, such as the road question, which is a very interesting one to the people I represent. I take the ground that the Government never intended to make a genuine road Bill. If they had intended to do so, they had an opportunity. There are only six clauses in that Bill, and five of them were passed by the Senate without any amendment. The sixth clause was the one giving the Government power to spend the money just as they pleased ana in whatever province they pleased. We had the assurance of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways that this would not be done, but Prime Ministers do not last forever, and Ministers of Railways come and go, too. Changes may take place, and when we pass a Bill we expect it to be permanent. We expect a Bill that will be workable when we have another Prime Minister and another Minister of Railways. The Government refused to accept the amendment that was made by the Senate in regard to that matter-an amendment that made the Bill a perfect one.


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN:: Does the hon. gentleman refer to the sixth clause? He says all the others were passed without amendment.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: I refer to the amendment the Senate proposed to make in regard to the way the money should be spent. I will read the amendment:-
The sum of money voted in any year to he expended under this Act shall be apportioned among and paid to the several provinces of the Dominion in proportion to the population of such provinces respectively as shown by the then next preceding census.


Arthur Meighen: What clause is that in amendment to?


John Howard Sinclair: The sixth clause.


Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN:: My hon. friend said a moment ago-and the statement has been repeatedly made-that five clauses were passed without amendment. Does he adhere to that statement?


John Howard Sinclair: Is that not correct? I think I am correct in saying that in the end five clauses were passed. There might have been slight amendments but the battle was over the sixth clause. It is no use quibbling over the exact number of clauses.

The Senate proposed that the money should be distributed among the provinces according to population, and that amendment the Government rejected. If the Government had really intended to give a genuine Road Bill to the people of this country that was their opportunity, but they did not want a road Bill. What they wanted was a Bill for the outdoor relief of the Tory party.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Howard Sinclair: At six o'clock I was
referring to the Highways Bill, and I had pointed out that the issue between the parties was in regard to section 6 of that Bill. The Senate insisted upon a distribution of the money among the provinces in proportion to population; the Government refused to accept that proposal and the Bill was dropped. It has been often said that the Senate was to blame because the Highways Bill failed, but I place the blame at the door of the Government. If the Government had accepted the Senate amendments they would have had a working Act under which the money would have been expended to the advantage of all the provinces, but the Government absolutely refused to accept the principle of a fair division among the provinces according to population. Perhaps the best way for me to place this matter before he House is to read the reasons given by the Senate as to why they referred the Bill back to this House with their amendments attached. The Senate gives these reasons:
1.	Because section 6 of the Bill empowers the minister to undertake the construction or improvement of highways in any province, which would be a contravention of the letter and spirit of the British North America Act, 1S67, and of the uniform practice under that -Aat, for which contravention no sufficient cause has been shown.
2.	Because the said amendment affirms in effect that it is undesirable that the minister or the Dominion Government should usurp the functions of the provincial administration in the building and maintenance of highways and bridges.
3.	Because the said amendment will not hamper the Administration in carrying out its policy and in applying the funds placed in the Estimates for that object under conditions and regulations it may deem just and proper to make, sufficient provision being made in earlier clauses of the Bill for co-operation between the federal and provincial governments.
4.	Because section 6 of the Bill is a violation of the principle of responsible government, inasmuch as the Dominion in expending provincial subsidy would not be responsible to either the provincial or Dominion legislature.
.
I invite the Solicitor General to take up these reasons one by one and to deal with them, and if he is able to answer them he will do more than has been done by any gentleman on his side of the House during all the discussions that have taken place on the Highways Bill. Is there any good reason why this money should not be divided among the provinces according to population? The reason why it should be so divided is obvious, and the Prime Minister pledged himself to the principle. But the whole question became a question of this Government wishing to hold on to the patronage of the road money and that is the reason the Government refused to agree to the Senate amendments. What they wanted was to have an opportunity of using this money in whatever way might seem best to them for election purposes or for any other purposes. And, Mr. Speaker, we have very ample reasons for making that statement. Everybody remembers the history of this transaction; everybody remembers that the Bill was introduced into this House at the first session of the present Parliament and that the ink was scarcely dry on the Bill when the by-election in South Renfrew took place. We all remember that four or five ministers of the Crown went up to South Renfrew to take a hand in the election and amongst others the Minister of Customs. I was not in South Renfrew at the time but there is a leading Conservative newspaper published in South Renfrew called the Renfrew Journal, in which an account of the several meetings is given. I wish to read to the House an extract from this Conservative newspaper setting forth the conduct of the Minister of Customs on the Highways Bill. The Journal says:
Dr. Reid then turned his attention to the good roads' movement advocated by the Conservative Government at Ottawa, and the bald way in which he handled this topic disgusted all decent men, who look for something higher than this kind of talk from a Cabinet minister. The burden of this part of Dr. Reid's speech was that South Renfrew should vote for Dr. Maloney and the Borden Government would then spend money in this district for good roads.


Mr. BRADBURY:: What are you reading from?


John Howard Sinclair: From the Renfrew Journal. The inference was that if they did not vote for Dr. Maloney they would not get the money. That was the use the [DOT]Government intended to make of this money and that was the reason why the Government took issue with the Senate and refused to agree to the Senate amendment,

[DOT]which was to the effect that the money (should be divided equitably among the (provinces according to population. What a spectacle it was to have a Minister of the Crown in a Government that professed to be a decent Government; that came into power on a cry of purity, when the very first by-election took place rushing up to South Renfrew and peddling out road money to. the people of that riding for their votes; and road money that he did pot have. I am not surprised that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House took the ground that that Bill would not be a (Satisfactory Bill to the people of this country unless it contained a provision which would prevent this or any future government from using the money in that improper way. Again, we must not forget the fact that this question came up at the last session of this Parliament, and it came up in rather a peculiar way. My hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. J. J. Hughes) referred to the extraordinary way in which the Government dealt with this matter at the last session of Parliament, namely, that in the Estimates, after the Bill had been defeated, and when everybody knew there would not be any Road Bill, the Government laid before the House an item in the Estimates for $1,500,000 to be expended on roads under the Highways Bill. The* Government was well aware then that there was no Highways Bill and that there could not be any Highways Bill. When that vote came before the House, my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) pointed out that this House could not vote the money to be expended according to the provisions of the Highways Bill when there was no Highways Bill, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) said:
* For this year let us vote to give this to the different provinces of Canada so that they may have the benefit of the one and a half million dollars on their roads and he moved an amendment to that effect. But every Conservative member of the House, including the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways, voted against the principle of thus distributing that one and a half million dollars amongst the provinces last year. This proved beyond doubt that with the Government it was not a question of expending money on the roads at all, but a question of having the patronage of spending the money themselves. If they had any desire to give that money for roads, the amendment of the hon. member for Carle-ton gave them an opportunity to do so and show their good faith.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman read that amendment?


John Howard Sinclair: I have not the amendment before me, but I remember verv distinctly that the amendment was to strike out the words: 'to be expended according to the provisions of the Highways Bill.' That would give the Government $1,500,000 to be distributed amongst the provinces for road money, but the Government reiected that amendment.


Arthur Meighen: What provision would there be by which the Government could see that the money was so expended? That is the point I want to get at. As to the effect of the amendment, what provision would there be by which this Government could see how it would be expended?


John Howard Sinclair: It would simply have the effect of turning over that much money to the provinces for the year, to be expended on the roads of the province.


Arthur Meighen: How could this Government see to the expenditure? Suppose the provincial Government did not so expend it, how could we enforce that expenditure?	.


John Howard Sinclair: They would have to trust the local governments if the money was voted by Parliament for the purpose of building roads in the different provinces, and distributed according to population, as it was put in the Estimates on that occasion, I see no difficulty in the Government's handing this money over to the various provinces to be used in that way. The provinces would see to its expenditure.


Arthur Meighen: Neither do I, but I see a difficulty in enforcing it.


John Howard Sinclair: I cannot make it any plainer than I have endeavoured to do. There is a very marked difference in the way in which the Government have dealt with this question of road money as compared with the way with which they have dealt with the agricultural grant. I think it will be remembered that when the agricultural grant was introduced the same criticism arose. The Government agreed that the agricultural grant should be turned over to the various provinces according to population. That was done, and there has been no difficulty about it. Wherein is the difference between the agri-

cultural grant and the road grant that justifies the Government in taking a different position in regard to the road grant?	We are back to the same old
reason which I gave you before, the Government insist on retaining the patronage. There is no other reason. I would like my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) to deal with that when he speaks in regard to this matter.
My hon. friend from Kings county, Prince Edward Island (Mr. J. J. Hughes), in speaking of the extravagant expenditures of the Government, referred to the fact that the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) had given an order for 350,000 unnecessary padlocks. Perhaps the best way for me, in case there should be any misunderstanding, is to read what the Postmaster General said and what the hon. member for Kings said. The hon. member for Kings said:
The Postmaster General last year gave a contract for 350,000 padlocks for $350,000- Hon. 1.. P. Pelletier: Never.
Mr. Hughes: Well, perhaps he did not give the contract for them, but he ordered padlocks for the mail bags sufficient to last forty or fifty years, I am told.
Mr. Pelletier: That is not a fact.
Mr. Hughes: More padlocks than have been used in this country since Confederation.
Mr. Pelletier: I have told the hon. gentleman that that is not a fact.
Mr. Hughes: What are the facts in connection with the matter?
Mr. Pelletier: My hon. friend should know the facts himself, since he is speaking about the matter.
Mr. Hughes: The Postmaster General will not tell me the facts; I know that statement was made repeatedly in this House.
Mr. Pelletier: It was denied repeatedly.
Mr. Hughes: How many were ordered?
Mr. Pelletier: There were 10,000 ordered, and not one delivered.
I had the curiosity to look up the record as to what was said by the Postmaster General on the 19th day of March, 1913, when he was asking for his post office estimates for the outside service. I find, on page 6294, the following conversation between the present Postmaster General and the late Postmaster General:
Mr. Lemieux: How many new locks have been bought for the mail bags?
Mr. Pelletier: 350,000.
Mr. Lemieux: From whom?
Mr. Pelletier: A firm in Ottawa of which Mr Carling is the manager; they were the lowest tenderers.
Mr. Lemieux: What is the price?
Mr. Pelletier: One dollar per lock.
Mr. Lemieux: Is it a great improvement?
Mr. Pelletier: Oh, yes, first-class.
,


Mr. PELLETIER:: Would the hon. member permit me now as a matter of fairness? Surely I think everybody should be good natured about this matter, as I have been. It has been mentioned repeatedly before this House; and I am sure the hon. member for Guysborough knew that this information was asked me at a moment when I had the assistance of the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General here, and he gave me the information. A few days after, a statement was read by me in the House from the gentleman who had given me that information, stating that he had made a mistake; that he had misinformed me about the matter. All this was put before Parliament. Does the hon. member for Guysborough think it fair to read that part of it and not read the following statement correcting that?


Mr. OLIVER:: May I ask the hon. Postmaster General if the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General is still in the service of the Government?
Mr. PELLE'riER: The Assistant Deputy Postmaster General is still in the service of the Government; but, if my hon. friend thinks he should be dismissed, I should like to have his opinion about it.


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friend does
me the honour to ask my opinion-


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do.-


Frank Oliver: I think that any minister who receives such information from a responsible official is not doing himself justice in retaining him in his service and in the service of the Government, and is attempting to shield himself behind that official.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is not a fact. It is not true.
Mr. SINCLAIR; I think it is quite true that my hon. friend made several explanations in regard to this matter after he was severely criticised by the ex-Postmaster General. I quite agree that he withdrew and made a different arrangement. That is the way I understood it, that he abandoned the first arrangement and made a different arrangement altogether, but that took place after he was attacked by the ex-Postmaster General. These statements made by my hon. friend from Kings (Mr. Hughes) were justified. The answer that my hon. friend the Postmaster General gave to my hon. friend from Kings was not as polite and courteous as it might

have been under the circumstances, and I am glad to have my hon. friend's explanation. I knew the explanation would be forthcoming and I was not going to speak about it unless he was in his seat, but I wish to give him the opportunity to explain if he could, the attitude he took in this matter last night.
There are a number of other things that I had intended to deal with on this occasion, such questions as the branch railways which were promised by the present Administration and which have not been built, the question of high cost of living and some other questions which I may have an opportunity of dealing with at some later stage in the session.
I wish to say, however, before I sit down, that we 'On this side of the House are not hoisting any signals of distress. We are not asking for any quarter. We are in the best of good cheer, and we are quite willing to bide our time and take what the future has in store for us as a party. We are confident of one thing, and that is that the Conservative party were never less formidable as a fighting force than they are today. They need settled beliefs and a moral issue of some kind just about as badly as any party ever did.
' Canadians cannot build ships.' ' Canadians are not big enough to trade with their nearest neighbour on equal terms.'
' Hard times is the only cure for high prices.' ' Soup kitchens must needs come.'
* Let bad enough alone.' These are not inspiring battle cries, Mr. Speaker. The truth of the matter is, the leaders of the Conservative party at the present time have no convictions on any of the great questions that are now before the country. No man can tell what their permanent naval policy is to be. No man can tell what their policy is on so important a question as the British preference. No man can state what their policy is on the reduction of the duties on agricultural implements or the abolition of the duty on wheat. They agree on one thing, and one thing alone, and that is reckless expenditure-put the screws on the consumer-wring all you can out of the people and hand it over to the great Shogun to spend it where he can get most votes for the Conservative party-let us eat and drink for to-morrow we die. An end to all this must come sooner or later, and the sooner it comes the better for the people of Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, my only purpose in
rising is to devote some time-I hope usefully-to the discussion of one special feature of the topics which have been referred to in the pres nt debate. I do not believe it would serve any useful purpose for me to wander over all imaginary topics -giving a. sentence or so to each-that, while interesting in themselves, are undoubtedly of very little value in making any substantial advance in our present discussion. As to the address to which we have just listened, I have only this to say, that the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) travelled so discursively over so many topics, and spent so little time-or at all events so little thought-on each, that he has said nothing that demands a very exhaustive reply. A great part of his address was devoted to certain regulations which he complains of as being in force as regards fishing in the province of British Columbia. It must be a matter of congratulation to the people of British Columbia that they have always in this House the hon. member for Guysborough to look after their interests as to fishing in the waters of the Coast. He then proceeded to make inquiries, and to invite myself to give them an answer, as to tne position of this Government on the subject of certain items of the tariff. His request in that regard was implemented by a similar one from the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). There seems to be a general desire on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite that I should anticipate the duties of the Minister of Finance and announce the Government's position in regard to all items of the tariff. I am not surprised that the hon. gentlemen I have referred to should evince some interest in that regard. It may add interest to their speeches-and if so it is to be forgiven. But I was surprised to hear the request made by the hon. member for Guysborough, implemented by a ' hear, hear ', from the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) himself.
The hon. member for Guysborough invited me to say, and apparently thought it was my duty to say, what the policy of the present Government was to be specifically as to the duty on wheat and the products of wheat. He also invited me to say here and now, anticipating that I was to follow him, what was to be the position of the present Government as to the duties on farm implements. Well, hon. gentlemen must know, and if they do not, certainly no member of this House knows better than the hon. leader of the Opposition himself,

that I should be giving incontestable evidence of my incompetency for my present post, that I should be showing once and for all that I had no sense of the responsibility of office, if I were, in a debate on the Address, to state what the duty on any article would be in the revision of the tariff. It would be interesting indeed if the right hon. leader of the Opposition-than whom no one knows better the duties of. a minister or of a Solicitor General, who is not a minister, in regard to anticipating the Budget Speech-would inform the House what "was in the back of his head when he said, 'Hear, hear,' in response to the request of the hon. member for Guysborough that I should announce the Government's position as to the duty on wheat and on agricultural implements. The time will come when both subjects will be fit subjects for discussion in this House. The revision of the tariff will be made in due course. When it is made, I, as associated with the Government, will do one of two things-I will accept full responsibility for the tariff as promulgated in that revision, or if I cannot do so I will sever my present association with the Government. When the tariff is revised, free wheat, agricultural implements and all other such matters will be fit and proper subjects for discussion. And I will be right in at the death; the hon. gentlemen's curiosity shall be satisfied to the limit.
I have heard considerable discussion of a topic on which I purpose specially to treat, a subject that now is first brought before the Canadian people and one which in its present form at all events has never yet before been the subject of discussion in this House-free food. Apparently many hon. gentlemen opposite see value in the free food cry. - On the other hand, judging from the vagaries of hon. gentlemen opposite, there is a very powerful section of their party who see very little value in free food as a political issue. There is little to be gained, perhaps, in discussing the merits of the question, because we are not sure yet where the Opposition stands with regard to it. We are not sure whether this policy of free food is to be inscribed upon their banner or not. It was put there on the 26th of November, 1913, hut it is notably absent from the amendment submitted in this debate by the leader of the Opposition. Therefore, in doubt as we are as to the adhesion of the Opposition to this cry, very little can be gained by extended discussion. But, as to those on both sides of the House who see at present in Canada .
nothing to be gained by the free food policy, those who would regret, and regret exceedingly, its	adoption as a	part of	the	tariffpolicy of	the Dominion,	I can	give	themthis consolation,-that there is little to fear in that regard. In the speech that the leader of the Opposition delivered in the city of Hamilton when he threw out the gospel of free food to the people,	he	tookcare to	warn them	that	he	was
a very cautious politician. He took care to tell them as regards his last cry, reciprocity, there was not much more to be said. He had no recriminations to make in regard to it, and the sentence with which he closed his reference to it was that it was his prayer that the dead past would bury its dead. He went on then to propound the new gospel of free food, but he added this very suggestive sentence, as quoted from his speech as reported in the Toronto 'Globe':
During the fifteen years that we were in office we had been very chary in making any alteration in the tariff. The reason is that when we place a tariff of customs duties we create an atmosphere in which our manufactures and industries are developed and if you were, to cut out or remove that tariff all of a sudden, the result would he very injurious.
Following out the principle of action that he there expounded, he admits that the Government retained virtually the National Policy with microscopic modifications, to use the very excellent vocabulary of the hon. member for Bed Deer (Mr Clark); and the reason he did not put his changes into force sooner was that it would be too sudden and that it would cause a shock to the commercial mechanism of Canada. So to those who feel in their hearts that free trade, if it became a matter of practice instead of a matter of preaching and theory in Canada, would be something to be feared, for them there is this word of consolation, that the right hon. the leader of the Opposition has all the years to think about it between now and the time when he gets into office, and many may he the .variations that he may decide upon in that time; and then, after he gets in, he will have fifteen years for deliberation, because if he Should enforce it and so radically modify the tariff all of a sudden, it would mean disaster to the industries of Canada. So. at all events for this generation now living, we have little to fear from the new doctrine of free food.
What I purpose to deal with most is the question of the Highways Bill. It has been alluded to, I believe by all, or almost all of the hon. gentlemen opposite who have taken part in this debate, and a vigorous attempt

has been made to throw the onus of the rejection of that Bill upon the Government of the day. It has been said by the hon. member for Red Deer, and repeated or echoed by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) and the hon. member for Guvs-borough (Mr. Sinclair) that all of the unfavourable impression that was made upon the country by its rejection by the Senate was entirely dissipated since they had an opportunity of thoroughly explaining it to the people. I wondered, as they talked, what explanation they gave the people. I wondered if they gave the innocent people the explanation they ventured to give this House. Was not the House struck by the careful study apparently that had been made of this Bill by the hon. member for Guysborough, who stood in his place and stated that five clauses of the Bill had been passed by the Senate and that because they rejected the last clause was no reason for blaming them for rejecting the Bill, or the statement made by the hon. member for Red Deer, usually a little more careful, that five clauses of the Bill had been passed by the Senate and only the sixth clause had been touched when, as a matter of fact, everybody knows that five clauses were never passed by the Senate either in 1912 or in 1913 and that the sixth clause was never passed at all, that the fourth clause was amended in both years and the sixth rejected in both years. The question before the House is whether or not this Government were justified in rejecting the altered Bill as it was brought down by the Senate or whether they should have accepted it. If this Government should have accepted it, all things considered, the onus is on this Government. If they should not have accepted it the onus is on the Senate and to that point I purpose directing my discussion.	,
What was the Highways Bill? The Highways Bill, as brought down in both years in the same form each time, was a Bill containing five clauses the effect of all of which was to empower the Government of the day to expend such money as might be voted in the Supply Bill through the agencies of the provincial governments upon a comprehensive system of highway improvement. The preamble of the Bill set out that it was desirable in Canada to enter upon a comprehensive and useful system of improvement of the highways in order that the general transportation facilities of the country might be made what they ought to be. The Bill then went on to say that the Government might divide among the provincial
governments, upon such terms as might be mutually agreed upon between the two governments, a sum of money to be voted in the ordinary way in the Supply Bill.
It further stated in clause six that in addition to that power the Government of the day should have the right, with the consent both of the legislature and of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province in question, to expend the money directly upon highways if they conceived such was the better course. That is to say, that such share or part of such share as might afterwards be voted in the Supply Bill to a province might, with the consent and approval of the Government of that province and of the legislature as well, be expended through the direct agency of this Government upon this general scheme of highway improvement. That was the sum and substance of the Bill. It was sought to be amended in this House. It was stated by hon. gentlemen opposite and argued most vigorously that a clause should be inserted binding the Government to divide that money proportionately between the provinces and further stated that clause six should be eliminated and whether or not both the provincial and the Dominion governments conceived it to be in the interests of the country that the money should be expended through the direct agency of this Government, they should be stripped of power to do so. These two were the contentions advanced by hon. gentlemen opposite. I would be the last to argue that this House should not have the say now and at all times as to the distribution of this money, as to the principle of its distribution and I should likewise be the last to argue that the general principle of that distribution should not be on the basis of population, proportionate to the population of each province. I propose to argue first of all that the Government was not only justified but was bound to reject the Senate amendment on the ground that these amendments were not in the interests of the Bill and, were vitally antagonistic to the principle and purpose of the Bill and I shall argue that, aside entirely from the merits of the amendments a greater principle was in question, that of the power of the Senate to interfere by amendment in such a Bill and that, aside from the merits altogether, this Government would not have been justified; would have been truant to its trust and to the people of this country, had they accepted these amendments. Now, on the first point, 1 have acceded that this House must always maintain as part of its prerogative and part

of its duty the control of expenditures and its division among the provinces and that furthermore the general principle of that division should be under ordinary circumstances, a principle of proportion to the population of each province. Then why reject the amendment to clause four proposed by hon. gentlemen opposite, which provided that the Government should be disabled from expending that money in any other method than by the hard and fast rule of expenditure in proportion to population. It must be remembered, first of all, and I cannot impress this too strongly upon hon. gentlemen here, that the Bill known as the Highways Bill did not set aside any specific sum of money from the treasury of Canada. It simply provided machinery by which, when the money was set aside or voted by this House, it should be used through the agencies of the provincial governments for the benefits of our common highways. That was the purpose and end of the Bill. It was essential because ordinarily the control of highways is not within the jurisdiction of this Parliament under the British North America Act, and if we chose to use the agencies of provincial governments, the Bill was essential that we might do so. This House might have undoubtedly, by simply declaring the improvement of this highway or that highway was necessary for the general advantage of Canada, (with the sanction of Parliament), expended the money when and where it liked without the agency of any Bill at all; but in order to secure the benefit of the machinery of the provincial governments and to avoid duplication and the frittering away of money on worthless machinery, the Government decided to put through a Bill to utilize the machinery already provided. Having shown that no money was specifically appropriated or set aside out of the treasury of Canada by that Bill, it will be apparent to all that the Bill did not require to be first of all premised by an introductory resolution, that it did not need to be anticipated by the sanction of the Governor General himself. By section 54 of the British North America Act that is essential in one circumstance and one only, that is when the Bill itself sets aside a specific amount of money for a specific purpose. When that is done, the sanction of the Governor General must be secured. That was not done by this Bill, but none the less the Bill, ordinarily speaking, was a money Bill, in that it designated the purpose for which money afterwards voted should be spent.
It will be seen, therefore, that for the rea-.
son, and the very clear reason, that no money was voted by the Bill, a subsequent Bill would be necessary in order to vote the money, and that subsequent Bill would have to be introduced by resolution sanctioned by the Governor General of Canada; and in that subsequent Bill it would have to be provided how and on what principle the money should be distributed through the provinces. Now, it will be clear to the hon. member for Red Deer that the House of Commons of Canada, in refusing to specify in advance in the enabling Bill- the Highways Bill-that this money should for all time be distributed pro rata according to population, did not in any way alienate from itself the right to say that that should be the basis of distribution. This House still had the right to say in the Supply Bill which was to follow, and which alone was to vote the money, how that money should be divided, and upon what principle it should be distributed, and this House not only had the right, but was bound to say so in that Supply Bill which was to follow. Why then was it necessary, why then was it of value that the clause should be inserted in the Highway Bill itself ? By what right do hon. gentlemen opposite argue that this House in the year 1913 or 1914 should bind the hands of the Commons for years and years to come in regard to the distribution of this money? So long as the right and the power is vested in this House to determine the distribution, then this House has reserved to itself every right it has or ought to have, and that right was reserved and was reserved to be exercised in the way it always has been and always should be exercised. Does anybody deny that?


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: In the light of the explanation which the hon. gentleman has given, what is the use of the sixth clause?


Arthur Meighen: I am coming to the sixth clause and I am not at all surprised that the hon. gentleman should desire to get past his argument on the fourth clause. This House had the power and always has had the power to decide as to the distribution of the money of the people of Canada and this House never can, at all events never should, divest itself of that right and power. I ask again what right is there in the Commons of Canada of 1913 to tie the hands of the Commons of Canada of 1917 as to the method of distribution? Is it not the Commons of that day that should decide as to how the money of that day should be

divided? Does my hon. friend from Eed Deer think that a superior wisdom is resident in the members of this House to-day over what is likely to reside in them five years from now? Why should we abbreviate now the power that we claim to be so valuable for the Commons of years to come? So that not only was no good object to be served but a very bad object would have been served and a bad principle would have been adopted if we had attempted to put in a general Bill that hard and fast restriction. I have admitted that ordinarily the principle of distribution should he that of pro rata according to population. Is that disputed by any one in this House ? But does any hon. gentleman say that circumstances might not arise when he himself would vote for a different principle of distribution ? Does any hon. gentleman say that he cannot imagine those circumstances? If so, then why does he vote to tie the hands of Parliament in this regard ? Nobody rises to say he cannot imagine such circumstances. Why ? Because every hon. gentleman opposite voted for a different system of distribution in a very similar Bill. That is why they do not rise. The hon. member for Guysborough says:-


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD:: You are not
teaching school to-night.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member says we are not teaching school. It might be of advantage to him if some one would.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is very, very smart.


Arthur Meighen: I say they know they have voted for a different principle of distribution and they voted for it in the same session. I may inform, though I am not teaching school, the hon. member for Guysborough that the principle of distribution according to population was not followed in the agricultural instruction Bill at all. A different principle was followed approximating to it, but not that principle itself. In the Agricultural Instruction Bill the principle was to distribute the first $20,000 of money to the provinces, and there was also to be distributed a certain fixed sum -$20,000 I think it was-to veterinary colleges-two inroads upon the principle of proportionate distribution; and all the hon. gentlemen opposite voted and voted without question for that distribution. Why then should they tie the hands of future parliaments from adopting a principle which they themselves have already adopted in the
distribution of money? There are circumstances that one might easily imagine when it would not only be not the best but would be positively bad legislation to distribute the money according to population. In the year 1913 no such circumstances existed, and the Supply Bill, which was brought down as evidence of the good faith of the Government, did vote the money and did divide it on a population basis. But if that Were followed as an inexorable law, if it were known to the various provinces that it was going'to be followed, come what may, then it would be quite within the power of the province to say: ' We are going to get our money from the Dominion Government for highway improvements and we will restrict our own expenditure on highway improvements and let the Dominion Government do it. The result would he that, instead of this policy resulting in the improvement of the highways, it would simply result in the money being spent in some other way by the provinces and Canada paying for the highways of the provinces instead of the provinces themselves. I do not think that the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) will compliment me by saying that that is a very great stretch of imagination or of ingenuity. I thfnk it will be plain to him that it is not only a possible but a quite probable result.


Mr. CABVELL:: As far as I know,
the several provinces in Canada will want to spend all the money they can get from this Government, or all the money thev can get from any other source whatever, in order to make the highways what they ought to be. But my hon. friend is drawing on his imagination to the full extent if he thinks that if the Dominion Government and Parliament pay the money, and if they trust these provinces, they will refuse to do their proper share in connection with the improvements of the highways.


Arthur Meighen: I have no doubt that they will be willing to spend what money they can get, but they might save their own money for other purposes. That being the case it will be seen that there would have been no object at all, and that a very bad principle would have been imbedded in our methods, if we had adopted the suggestion of hon. gentlemen opposite and put this hard and fast rule into the Bill. We reserve for this House of Commons all its powers and rights in this regard, we strip it of no part of its prerogative at all. We held for 1913. rnd all the years there are to follow, the right

to determine once and for all how the highway money was to be spent.
Now, for fear I might forget it, the hon. member for Guysborough referred to an amendment which he mentioned, but which he did not read, by the hon. member for Carleton to the effect that the Senate having stripped the Bill of clause 6 and having so amended clause 4 by this cumbersome method, we should have accepted the Bill, or that the Bill being dropped, we should simply have come forward in our Supply Bill and voted money into the treasuries of the provinces. I ask what power would have been retained by this Government to see that the money so voted into the provincial treasuries was expended for the purpose for which it was voted? No conditions could have been attached to the Supply Bill. The conditions in the Highway Bill were swept away. The money would have been simply spilled into the treasuries of the provinces and the provinces would have been depended upon to spend the money for highways. Is that fulfilling our duties as the Government of Canada? The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) will not say so, I know. The hon. member for Edmonton will not stand up in his place in this debate and say that this Government is relieved of its obligations to the people by voting money into the provincial treasuries.
We know that there is a part
9 p.m. of the moneys of the Dominion
Government in respect to which we do relieve ourselves of all obligations of trusteeship by voting it into the provincial treasuries and that part is represented by the annual subsidies because that is a part of the framework of our constitution. But the words of the constitution apply to no other moneys whatever. As for all other moneys that are not so designated by the British North America Act and amending Acts we are the trustees, we can never divest ourselves of that responsibility, and we have no right whatever to vote that money into the treasuries of the provinces and not to follow it and see that it reaches its proper destination. We must, if we are true to our trust as guardians and custodians of the money of the people, see that the money gets to its ultimate destination and see that it is spent for the purpose for which it is intended and we must trust to the responsibility of no other Government but our own in that regard.
If I were to quote an authority in opposition to the contention of the hon. member for Guysborough, I would quote the hon.
.
member for Edmonton himself, because he said in his place in the House just last session, and argued at some length, with great force and with correctness, that this Government would not be justified in so voting money into the treasuries of the provinces but that this Government was bound to follow this money and see that the money was spent for the purpose for which it was intended.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend has been good enough to mention my name and to ask for my opinion.


Arthur Meighen: No, I have stated the opinion the hon. gentleman has given.


Frank Oliver: I would like to say that my hon. friend has not stated the opinion I gave in regard to the Highways Bill.


Arthur Meighen: I have quoted the hon. gentleman, and quoted him with approval, on the question of the responsibility of Parliament for the money entrusted to us and as to whether we can relieve ourselves of out trust by voting money into the provincial treasuries as suggested by the hon. member for Guysborough. I have quoted him against the contention of the hon. member for Guysborough, and I have *quoted him with absolute correctness.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: May I
ask the hon. gentleman a question? I followed his argument very closely. What objection is there to increasing the subsidies of the provinces in order to help the provinces to get better roads?


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid my hon.
friend has not followed me very closely.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, I have.


Arthur Meighen: Because I have stated that if it were done by the methods advised by the hon. member for Guysborough there would be no machinery and no method by which this Government could see that the money was spent to the best advantage of the people and that it was spent for the purpose for which it was intended. The responsibility to see to that would be shifted from the shoulders of the Government to the shoulders of the several provinces and we have no right to so divest ourselves of our responsibilities.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Might you not do that by amending the British North America Act?


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps so, but that is not the suggestion of the hon. member for Guysborough.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, but on general
principles.


Arthur Meighen: The British North
America Act is not amended yet, but the hon. member for Guysborougli homes forward and says we ought to do it without an amendment and that we are truant to our principles because we do not.


Frank Oliver: Under what authority has the constitution and practice of the Dominion of Canada placed the roads up to date?


Arthur Meighen: I stated that in the
early part of my address but I will repeat it more fully if the hon. member desires it; that is, I will give my own opinion for what it is worth. The highways of Canada are within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures, in so far as they are local. At the same time, the Dominion Parliament would have jurisdiction over a highway that had become of a national character say by reason of its passing from one province to another and we could exercise our jurisdiction over any highway if we adopted the method so often utilized of declaring that the improvements, or any special works upon a highway, were for the general advantage of Canada. But by reason of the general principle that highways are within the provincial jurisdiction, then, in order to enable us properly to act and at the same time properly to conserve the rights of the Canadian people and discharge our own duties to the full, we require an Act by which the machinery of the provinces may be used for the purpose of spending this money, but all the same, we are able, by virtue of the conditions imposed and plans devised and accepted, to follow that money to its destination in order to see that it is spent on a general, and uniform and useful system and that it does the greatest good to the greatest number of our people.


Frank Oliver: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to state to the House what he considers to be the reason why the provincial governments cannot fully and properly be trusted with the expenditure of any money that is necessary and available for the improvement of the highways?


Arthur Meighen: That is not the question at all. Whether they can be trusted or whether they cannot be trusted we have no right to lay upon them a responsibility that the constitution fixes upon us.


Frank Oliver: I understand my hon.
friend to admit that the constitution places the responsibility regarding roads upon the provinces and not upon the Dominion.


Arthur Meighen: Very well, but so far
as the expenditure of the money of the Canadian people in the Dominion treasury is concerned, be that expenditure upon highways or upon anything else, that trusteeship is vested here, and the hon. member for Edmonton is himself a most vociferous authority that we can never strip ourselves of that responsibility.


Frank Oliver: I see a very vast difference between expenditure by this Government on purposes for which this Parliament is responsible, and expenditure on purposes for which the provincial governments and legislatures are responsible.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman believe that expenditure for educational purposes differs constitutionally speaking from expenditure for highway purposes?


Frank Oliver: I certainly do.


Arthur Meighen: Then the hon. gentleman must be informed and informed very quickly that education also is within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures.


Frank Oliver: I do not know that it is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures, or otherwise, this Parliament has gone out of its way to vote money for technical education.


Arthur Meighen: And we have voted
money for highways, and education is just as exclusively within provincial jurisdiction as the highways are within provincial jurisdiction.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will ask the House to keep in mind that the discussion so far has entirely centered upon the merits of the amendments themselves. The argument, so' far as I have been able to advance it, is, that on the merits, the amendment to clause 6 should have been rejected and must have been rejected by any government that remembered its duty to the Canadian people. As to clause 6: It will be recalled that the Senate not only amended clause 4 by fastening upon it this hard and fast system of distribution, but also entirely struck out clause 6 which provided:
The minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council and upon such terms and conditions as are prescribed by order in council, may undertake the construction of any high-

way or the improvement of any highway in any existing province and may expend in such improvement or construction the whole or any part of the sums voted by Parliament for such subsidy to that province.
Provided, further, that the minister shall first obtain the necessary authority from the legislature of such province and the consent of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
That is to say, if, as a result of the joint wisdom of the Government of Canada and of the legislature and government of the province with which we may be dealing for the time being, it is decided that better results could be obtained by expending the money through the direct machinery of this Government, this Government should have the power to do so. It must be remembered that before that could be done provision must be made by the legislature of the province in question as well as the consent of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of that province obtained before the Government of Canada itself could exercise that right. That clause was reviewed in very alarming terms by the hon. member for Eed Deer; he said it was meant to catch votes, and he proclaimed that it should never be allowed in this country, that this Government should be able to go and spend money here and there, because if they had that right they could make promises and catch votes. But his concern for the result of this clause was tame even, compared with the concern of the leader of the majority in the Senate. In order that the full import of this may be clear to the House, the name of the leader of the majority in the Senate should be mentioned, Sir George Ross, ex-Prime Minister of the province of Ontario. He feared the pressure that we would be able to exercise over the legislature; he said we would be able to put our hands upon the legislature and say, 'Do as we say or we will not give you money, and the legislature in terror would submit. And that pressure, the leader of the Senate held to be a very great invasion of the constitutional rights of Canada. He said:
That means that the Dominion Government is putting its hand upon the legislature of a whole province to swing that legislature to its own ends.


Hon. Mr. CLORAN:: Hear, hear


Hon Sir GEORGE ROSS (Middlesex):: Now did you ever hear of anything of greater enormity than that? Suppose the Imperial Government put its hand upon the whole representation of Scotland, or on the one hundred and three members for Ireland, by some financial consideration, in order to swing them around to some policy of the government. I believe Lord Castlereagh did that in 1800. Ireland
,
was brought into the union with England and Scotland.


Henry Joseph Cloran: And he committed suicide afterwards.
So that the vocabulary of the hon. member for Red Deer is quite outdone by the vividly expressed fears of the leader of the majority in the Senate. He describes the Highways Bill as the greatest enormity he thinks he ever heard perpetrated since one hundred and thirteen years ago when, he says, Ireland was brought into the Union by a wholesale system of oppression and constraint.
One would think in the first place that hon. gentlemen opposite had never heard of any such pressure having been brought to bear before; that they never heard of the insertion in any Bill of a clause such as this. And it may be a matter of surprise to the hon. member for Guysborough-because I do not think he has spent a very great deal of time considering this subject-it ;may be a matter of surprise to him to be told that he himself and the other side of the House in general allowed to go through this House, without a division and I believe without debate, a clause on exactly the same lines in another Bill of similar purport. I refer to the Agricultural Instruction Bill of 1913. The Agricultural Instruction Bill of 1913 set by a specific sum of money, $10,000,000; $700,000 for 1913; $800,000 for the following year, and so on, until $10,000,000 should be appropriated for the purpose of agricultural education. The Bill went on to provide means by which this money should be spent through the agencies of the provincial governments along a system to be outlined by this Dominion Government, and by which the machinery of the provincial governments should be utilized for the purpose of the expenditure of this money and of getting the greatest results therefrom. And the Bill went on to provide a clause similar in terms, though not exact in terms,-and I shall point out the difference later,-it went on to provide a clause similar in terms to clause 6 of the Highways Bill, and that clause was passed by this House with the assent of hon. gentlemen opposite, and it passed the Senate as well. The Agricultural Instruction Bill, clause 7, voted money for education in agriculture in these terms:
The Governor in Council may make such regulations as are deemed advisable for giving effect to the object and purpose of this Act. And notwithstanding anything in this Act, the minister with the approval of the Governor in Council and with the consent of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of any province_

Hon. members opposite will remember that that is all the consent that has to be obtained.
-and upon such terms and conditions as are prescribed by the Governor in Council, may expend in any such province in any year the whole or any part of the grant provided by the province under this Act for the purpose set forth in the preamble to this Act.
If any hon. gentleman opposite can explain upon what principle he votes for that clause of the Agricultural Bill and denies his vote for a similar clause in the Highways Bill, I would like to hear that explanation. The only difference between the two clauses is this, that whereas in the Highways Bill this Government, in order to expend the money directly on agricultural education, must first obtain the consent not only of the Government of the province but of the Legislature as well; on the contrary, in the Agricultural Instruction Bill, this Government may spend the money directly without the agency of the province, but only upon the consent of the Government, and not of the Legislature at all. This Bill was voted upon and put through, after the similar clause in the Highways Bill was denied in 1912 by hon. gentlemen opposite and by the Senate at their dictation. So the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) should have explained upon what principle he believes this clause 7 not only innocuous but valuable and denies to the Government clause 6 of the Highways Bill. Why should clause 6 be in? Can hon. members opposite not conceive of circumstances under which it would be advisable and expeditious and economical to spend the money directly under the Dominion Government, in a special case, rauier than through the agency of a provincial government? Presuming, for example, that it is a road that runs between the provinces, presuming tlfat the machinery for improvement is more convenient, would it not be advisable so to spend the money without utilizing the machinery of the two provinces? The spirit of the Bill was to utilize the two provinces, but it was only right and proper that means should be provided in special cases, and if both parties should consider it advisable, the money should be spent directly. In the case of money voted for agricultural instruction it might be U3ed, and the power might be used if a government saw fit in order to invite votes in special localities. They might go to a special locality and say: Here, we will establish an agricultural college here; we will establish an experimental station.


Michael Clark: Not nearly so handy as roads.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member
came from the province of Saskatchewan I could understand his familiarity with the use of such clauses in respect of roads. At all events the hon. member's mind must admit that the principle is exactly the same; and if there is vice in one there i3 vice in the other; and that if he votes against one, to be at all consistent, he must vote against the other, but he did not do it. Now, I have pointed out that circumstances might easily be foreseen, under which it would be advisable and in the interests of Canada that the money should be expended directly under the agency of the Government of Canada. Consequently no purpose could possibly be served by the elimination of clause six. Why? If we are to act on the fears of hon. gentlemen opposite; if that principle is to govern our legislation in this House, what are we going to pass? We shall have to repeal the Public Works Act. The Public Works Act provides that the Government of this country, through the Public Works Department may spend money here, there and anywhere thorough-out the country, and presumably that money can be used for political purposes. If the principle is right that that power should be denied the Government, then I say we should repeal the main provisions of the Public Works Act. If this power should be denied the Dominion Government, it should be denied the provincial governments; it should be denied to all governments. Then I ask:	How are we
going to have our institutions built or controlled at all? We have to entrust such power to our governments but a principle of our constitution is that our governments are held directly responsible for the use of that power, and we would not protect the people by abridging their power. We protect the people by holding the Government alone accountable for the exercise of the power reposed in them. The Government has never in any way endeavoured to evade that responsibility, and I trust it never will. So much for the merits of the two amendments as they stand themselves.
I come now to a more powerful objection, an objection that to my mind appears insuperable, and that I venture to think will appear utterly insuperable to hon. gentlemen opposite if they will only give their minds fair play. I make the argument, that I now propose to make, with special con-

fidence to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), because I believe that if he fully apprehended the significance of the Senate's action in this regard, he would be the last to approve of their interference. The hon. member for Red Deer apparently has not read in the records of the Commons both of 1912 and 1913 the real reasons placed upon ' Hansard ' for the rejection of the Senate's amendments. I have not heard them quoted, I have scarcely heard the main reasons referred to by hon. gentlemen opposite, and I am at a loss to understand the educating influences of those speeches that have been delivered by which they have switched the population of this country against the Government of the day and behind the matured wisdom of the Senate, because they have utterly ignored the main reasons stated by the Government for the rejection of the Senate's amendments. It is a matter which should be, at least in general terms, within the knowledge of all that the Senate of this country has no power either to initiate or to amend or to interfere with Bills appropriating money; nor have they power in any way, by methods direct or by methods indirect, to circumvent or in any way at all to affect the distribution of the public money. That is a principle of the constitution, not only of this country, but of the mother country, from which we derived it. It is not a new one; it has been in force there with growing strength since 1628. It has been affirmed and reaffirmed time without number, and violated in any important instance, yes in any material instance, never since that time. It is true the Lords of England, who are in a position analogous to the Senate of Canada, have ventured in certain instances to interfere with such Bills by methods sometimes indirect, sometimes direct, to affect the expenditure of money, to affect the conditions under which it should be expended; but they have done it by a direct negative of the Bill in question, and it is generally argued, and, I believe, generally accepted, that the Lords and the Senate of this country, while they have not the power to amend or interfere in that way, have the power of rejection. But I can point out even this in that regard, that the Prime Minister of Great Britain on the 2nd of December, 1909, argued with very great force, if not with resistless force, that the power of rejection as well as the power of amendment was dormant, moribund and for all practical purposes dead. It may be questioned even now if the power of rejection is as intact as it was years ago;
[Mr. Meighenl.	#
and as to the power iof the Lords in England or the Senate in Canada, it is generally accepted that, whether by methods direct or by methods indirect, they are without power to interfere by amendment and if they have the power to interfere at all they must take the full responsibility of rejection. I do not think that I shall be asked by hon. gentlemen in this House to support what I have said by quotation. Back, as far as 1628, the Commons of England, on the advice of the law Lords, tomitted from all such Bills reference to the Lords and made such Bills the Acts of the Commons alone. And in 1771, by a standing order of the House, the following was reaffirmed as the law of England:
That all aids and supplies granted to His Majesty by Parliament are the sole gift of the Commons, and all Bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the Commons, as it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit and appoint any and all such Bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords.
This is as far back as 1671, or, to make it more easy to remember for the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), about one hundred years before Adam Smith was born, at all events before he wrote his ' Wealth of Nations.'


Michael Clark: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to correct him? Adam Smith published his ' Wealth of Nations ' in 1776, and so the hon. gentleman has proven that Adam Smith wrote his book two years before he was born.


Arthur Meighen: I said, at all events
before he wrote the ' Wealth of Nations.' I did not pretend to be exact, but I think I may pay myself a compliment, because, though I had not looked up the date, I guessed it within two years. It is the law of England as set forth in the words I have quoted that taxes and the appropriation of taxes, are the sole prerogative of the Commons and that the consent of the Crown and of the peers is necessary only to clothe it with the form of law. We in this country, by a standing order passed in 1873, reaffirmed the same as the prerogative of the Commons of Canada and as entirely beyond the jurisdiction of the Senate of Canada. That will be found in the Rules of this House, and, so far as I recollect, the rule is word for word with the standing order of the British House of 1671. So, not only have the

Senate no power to initiate, but they have no power to ' direct, limit or appoint ' the ' ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications ' of such grants. These are the words, taken from the standing orders of this House, always affirmed to be the law of Canada, and until this Bill was put through, never materially invaded by the Senate iof Canada. Now, it may be said that inasmuch as this Bill does not specifically appropriate money from the treasury, it is not a money Bill, and the Senate therefore has a right to interfere. It is not a money Bill in the sense that it does not appropriate specific money, but it is a money Bill in that it directs, limits, makes conditions and qualifications under which money afterwards to be voted is to be expended; and the Senate of Canada have no power under the constitution in anv way to limit or affect the qualifications under which money to be voted shall be expended. So, it is a money Bill so far as the power of the Senate to amend it is concerned. What purpose could it serve to say that they have no power to interfere with the provision of a Supply Bill and alter the purposes to which money voted in the Supply Bill shall be directed, if they have power, in the case of this Bill, to make alterations and in that way divert money to be voted under a Supply Bill? It is only a roundabout way of getting at the same thing; they are interfering with the conditions and qualifications of the appropriation of the money of the people of Canada voted by the people's representatives. It is clear that for three hundred years this has been beyond the prerogative of the Lords, and it has always been beyond the prerogative of the Senate of Canada. It would be an anomaly, an absurdity, if this House were to quietly accept amendments so made by the Senate in derogation of our rights, no matter what may be the merits of the proposed change. The greater principle is superimposed, for it is the duty, and one of the first duties of the Commons of Canada, representing the people of this country, to preserve to ourselves the prerogative that has been ours for generations, and that has been the protection of the British people for centuries, and not meekly to abrogate our powers in favour of any irresponsible body, or of any body whatever. That is the great duty imposed upon us, a duty from which this Government will not shrink. We are the custodians of that right, and we do not propose to have it robbed from us bv anv body of men. What would be the result, it II
we meekly sat down under this Senate amendment?


Mr. McKENZIE:: I did not follow the
hon. gentleman's arguments very closely. As a matter of the history of this Bill, will he please tell me whether it was dealt with as a money Bill when it was introduced in this House?


Arthur Meighen: I have already dealt
fully with that. When the Bill was brought forward for the second reading, the right hon. leader of the Opposition objected on the ground that there had been no recommendation or sanction of the Bill bv His Royal Highness the Governor General, and that the Bill had not been introduced bv resolution, and the right hon. gentleman argued that it was a money Bill. The leader of the Government objected, not that it was not a money Bill, but that it did not appropriate specific money and therefore did not come under the rule which requires the preliminary sanction of the Governor General. The Bills that reauire to be so introduced are Bills appropriating part of the public revenue for a specific purpose, which this Bill did not do. Now. that must be clear. Whether the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) calls that a ' money bill ' does not matter.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Then it was not dealt with as a money Bill in this House?


Arthur Meighen: ' Money bill ' is only a name. This Bill did not appropriate any specific part of the public revenue, and for that reason it did not require to he introduced by resolution. The hon. member can call it a money Bill, or a silver Bill, or anything else he pleases. It did not possess that element of a money Bill, but it did possess another element. Let me get this into the mind of the hon. member for North Cape Breton, and then I am sure that every other member of this House will understand it clearly. I say it did possess another characteristic of a money Bill, as it proposed a purpose to which money afterwards to be appropriated should be put. It provided the conditions and qualifications under which money afterwards to be voted should be spent. That is a characteristic and element of the Bill, and the Senate cannot interfere with that Bill because if they do it they are running contrary to the standing order of 1678, one of the elemental principles of our Constitution. Surely that must be clear. The hon. member from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie)-



perhaps I do not do justice to his mind, it may be that he refuses to have this made clear to his mind. He is trying to follow the example of his elder brothers in the Senate and he is endeavouring to shelter himself behind the phrase ' a money Bill,' which has one of two characteristics, if it is to provide money it must be preceded by a resolution and if, secondly, it is to provide the manner and the limitations under which it is to be expended it comes under the second classification and in either case the Senate cannot interfere.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am learning fast. Does my hon. friend say that the authorities of this House made a mistake in allowing the Bill to go through without being preceded by a resolution or did they gloss it over and allow it to go through as a money Bill when it really is not a money Bill.


Arthur Meighen: I have not the slightest question to make of the rectitude of the Speaker's decision when he decided that this Bill was not such a Bill as required a resolution, that it did not come within the clause of the rules of this House that describes when and under what conditions a Bill must be so introduced.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that it underwent a process of evolution in going to the other House and became a money Bill?


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps I can address myself with confidence to the task of overcoming the clouds in the brain of my hon. friend, but I cannot, with confidence, address myself to the task of overcoming his prejudices. It went through no evolution between here and the Senate, it was the same Bill there as here, he can call it a money Bill or anything he likes; it is not a Bill that came within the clause of our rules, a special clause providing for the introduction by resolution of a money Bill; but it was a Bill that, as plainly as the nose on his face, came within the rules that prevented it being interfered with by the Senate. The hon. gentleman will perhaps admit that it is not the same clause at all that describes a Bill so to be introduced and the clause that describes such a Bill as is without the pale of the Senate of Canada. They are altogether different, and the hon. member does not deceive anybody, I do not think he even deceives himself by harping on the expression ' money bill.'


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is unkind, the *word ' harping ' is not a nice one.


Arthur Meighen: I invite my hon. friend to
get away from the phrase 'a money bill.' The Senate appeared to think that no Bill should be allowed to pass through appropriating money to the provinces, unless they themselves see to it that the money is properly distributed. In the first place, they have no right so to interfere. What right have they -to tie the hands of this House? What right have they to attempt to tie the hands of future Houses of Commons? If they can do this what is the position? After we have passed the Highways Bill we come to the Supply Bill, we go to vote this money to be spent under the provisions and subject to the qualifications set out in the Highways Bill. We have accepted the Senate amendment. We have allowed the Senate to dictate to this House how such money shall be distributed. We have allowed them to invade our prerogative to that extent. Then when the Highways Bill is under debate some hon. gentleman proposes: let us distribute this money according to the method followed in the Agricultural Instruction Act, let us divide so much money among all the provinces and let us distribute the rest according to population. Oh, some gentleman gets up and says, no, we cannot do that, we are forbidden to do that by the Senate amendment to the Highways Act. The hands of this House are tied by an amendment in the matter of the distribution of our money. Is such a course not an interference with the prerogative of this House to guide solely the distribution of our funds and the purposes to which the money of this country is to be put? The Senate has completely desecrated and has lifted entirely out of the Constitution the sole control of this House over the money of this country, if we permit the Senate to interpose as they proposed to interpose in the Highways Bill.
As I said before, one would imagine that it had been an immemorial principle of the Upper House never to permit a Bill of this kind to go through, appropriating money to provinces, unless it first of all dictated to this House the principle on which it was to be distributed. It will be a matter of surprise perhaps to hon. gentlemen opposite that just one year before the Senate fastened on this notion of inserting this amendment to clause 4, they allowed a similar Bill to go through with very little criticism and only twelve votes against it, which permitted money to be distributed among the provinces and did not stipulate any principle on which it was to be distributed, that was the [DOT] Agricultural Aid Bill of 1912. That bill provided in very terms that the Government of

Canada might give the various provinces sums to be voted afterwards in the Supply Bill to be used to aid agriculture and no clause was inserted in the Senate tying the hands of this House or of future Houses in the distribution of such money. Consequently the Senate itseilf is on record as acceding to the principle that this House and this House alone has the control of the distribution of money, whether that distribution is effected by one Bill or by two.
Furthermore, it was argued in the Senate of Canada that the whole Bill was unconstitutional, that inasmuch as highways were within the jurisdiction of the provinces we had no power to interfere at all, whether we employed the agencies of the provincial Government or not, that the whole Bill was in direct conflict with the constitution of Canada; and the leader of the Senate majority argued for that principle and argued lengthily if not strongly. But he did not take the responsibility of negativing the Bill. The Senate had the power if it had any power to interfere at all, to reject the Bill. If the Bill was unconstitutional or if he so believed, it was his duty, if he had the courage of his convictions, to negative the Highways Bill altogether. Why did he not do it? Why did he not ask his followers to give a direct negative to that Bill, and not ask them to take the roundabout method, which is only an excuse, of making the Bill impossible legislation by encumbering it with vicious amendments? The reason is apparent to every member in this House. The leader of the Liberal party in that House knew that no matter for what excuse he negatived that Bill it would be clear to the humblest intelligence in Canada that they had killed the Bill and he preferred to do it by a more ingenious method, by attaching to it amendments which he knew could not be accepted by this House or any other that had in its conscience the duty of preserving the prerogative of the people's representatives. He took the roundabout and indirect method rather of fastening an amendment to clause four and eliminating clause six, knowing, as he must have known, that by doing that they were accomplishing their aim perhaps in a manner that would provide an excuse, plausible to those who did not fully understand the question; but he refused to go about it in the direct and manly way of negativing the Bill as was in his power. So it resolves itself into this, that the Senate fastened on the Bill amendments that they knew were not in their power to pass, they knew that in lli
doing so they were flying in the face of one of the elemental principles of our constitution, they knew in doing it that no Government could possibly accept such an amendment, and they knew that the result would be to destroy the Highways Bill once and for all. Consequently it must be clear to anyone who does justice to his intelligence that their purpose from the beginning was to destroy the Highways Bill just as the result was to destroy the Highways Bill. There the responsibility lies. They took that responsibility knowing full well the result, and the responsibility being there we intend it shall remain there; and we do not propose that in the Highways Bill or in any other Bill the rights that have been the rights of the people's representatives throughout the history of this country and the mother country shall be invaded in any degree by the Senate of this country. If they attempt to invade those rights whatever may be their purpose, whether manfully stated or whether concealed, we propose to resist that usurpation and to maintain for ourselves the control over the expenditure, the control over the conditions, limitations, and qualifications of expenditure, which has been implanted in our Constitution and which has been there for many years gone by. For these reasons I say it must be clear to all that this House was not only well advised but this House was bound not only on the merits of the two amendments themselves but for a higher reason, for the reason that these amendments were brought down in violation of a principle of the Constitution which it is our duty to preserve-this House was bound I say for these two reasons to reject those amendments. It must be clear the Senate knew this House was so bound and the responsibility then is plain to all, and I believe it is plain to the hon. member for Red Deer. The responsibility for killing the Highways Bill is upon the Senate, and whether in a future Highways Bill or otherwise they attempt to invade the prerogative of the Commons of this country the Bill which they so attempt to mutilate will be rejected by this House for such has always been the practice of this House whether under Liberal or Conservative Government. But the Senate cannot by rejecting the Bill in this roundabout method get rid of the responsibility that we fix upon them now, and that will sit upon them for all time to come.


Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, my first remarks will be directed to you: I say I am

satisfied and happy to see you back in good health ready to take up once more the labours of the session. I beg of you to accept my heartiest New Year's greetings for yourself and family.
I listened with pleasure to the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen), who has just taken his seat. As usual he has shown ability. He is a good lawyer, with a great deal of experience, but at the same time' a hair splitter. He was well deserving of promotion.
I have not forgotten that during the session of last year, he succeeded in putting through the House a closure rule. He satisfied his friends that the members of the Opposition should be gagged, and thus attained his object. He was paid spot cash. He is now entrusted with the position of Solicitor General. He is doing well, let him keep on.
To-night he spoke for almost an hour and a half in an endeavour to make us believe that the Dominion Parliament has jurisdiction over our public highways. That is quite a feat. That is a money bill, he says. No, it is not a money bill, but it is a silver bill we passed. Those Senators are ignorant people. The leader of the majority in the Senate, Sir George Ross, who has spent his life in various legislative assemblies and was for a long time the prime minister of his province, does not know anything. The hon. member for Portage-la-Prairie (Mr. Meighen) is the only one who knows anything. He is the learned one. No one else is acquainted with the constitutional law of this country; as regards any others, it is absurd, farcical, a proof of ignorance to say so. You know nothing, he says, and I know all.
What a killer, what a smotherer of the members of the loyal Opposition. He got what he was after, a post of honour, and he chuckles over it. He used to brand us as patronage seekers; now he has slipped into our boots; he is there and we are here.
The hon. member for Red-Deer (Mr. Clark) is also an ignoramus. There are here grey-haired men who have spent their lives in this Parliament, but they are not any the wiser on that account. They are deaf, blind, ignorant, without any acquaintance with the laws of the country. I alone am acquainted with them, I am the only professor, a second Napoleon forsooth.
If we are to believe the hon. Solicitor General, the Dominion Parliament has the right to do anything it pleases. Now, who
.
will believe it? According to his contention, the Dominion Parliament has control over the highways. Now that is rather startling.
The Solicitor General has set himself to the task of teaching a lesson to everybody. However, we also have studied the law oi the land, we grasped its purport before he did, before he became a professor. And we know perfectly well that the Dominion Parliament exercises those powers only which have been conceded by the various provinces of Canada. It does not possess any other than those which were delegated to it. The Dominion Parliament has no control whatever over highways. According to the Solicitor General they would be under that Parliament's control, while at the same time it could not be compelled to say how much money was going to be spent on those highways, in what districts they were to be built, or under whose supervision. No one has any information as to that.
But the hon. Solicitor General finally sought salvation in the direct agency argument. We have heard of that before. The Senate who are better posted than you in respect to the constitution, have decided that there is no direct agency governing this country.
Mr. Chairman, it is getting late, and in accordance with arrangements made, I understand, I shall now move the adjournment of the debate, in case there should actually be, as I believe an agreement to that effect.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate ajourned.
On motion of Mr. Rogers the House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.
Monday, January 26, 1914.