1914-01-26

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. E. B. DEVLIN:: In the absence of the right hon. the Prime Minister, I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, whom we are very glad to see again in his seat, if the Government has had any communication with the Government of the United States in respect to the substance of an article which appears

in a Government organ, the Ottawa Citizen, of this date, entitled: 'Joint Waterway from Duluth to Atlantic Ocean; International Commission discusses plans at Washington and will bring project to attention of the Canadian Government.' I am not reading the whole article, but just a portion of it:
Washington, Jan. 25.-A project for the joint construction by the governments of the United States and Canada of a deep waterway for ocean-going steamers from Montreal to Duluth, Minn., has been inaugurated through the International Joint Commission, which has jurisdiction over the boundary waters of the two countries.
The discussions instituted through the International Joint Commission are the result of a recent conference in Washington, in which Secretary Bryan, Chairman James A. Tawney of the American section of the International Commission, and Senator Charles E. Townsend, of Michigan, participated.
It was arranged that the matter should be taken up first with the Canadian Government through the commission. Chairman Tawney will confer soon with T. Chase Casgrain, K.C., chairman of Canadian section.
The project for an ocean waterway from the head of navigation on lake Superior to the Atlantic has been agitated for many years. It was considered seriously at the time when President Taft entered into reciprocity negotiations with Canada.
Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce): I have not been in as close communication with the Government lately as I could have wished, and in the absence of the Prime Minister I shall have to ask my hon. friend to repeat his question later when the Prime Minister comes in. I myself am not aware of any communication having been had.



FUNERAL OF LORD STRATHCONA.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce): I am sure that the House would like to hear the following cablegram from Mr. Griffith to the right hon. the leader of the Government:
London, Jan. 26, 1914.
Rt. Hon. R. L. Borden,
Ottawa, Ont.
The funeral service for the late High Commissioner held in Westminster Abbey to-day was attended by representatives of Their Majesties the King and Queen, Queen Alexandra, the Duke of Connaught, Prince Arthur of Connaught, the Duchess of Albany, Princess Louise, and many members of His Majesty's Government. There were also represented a great number of the leading scientific, educational and other bodies, as well as the Royal Academies of Art and Music. Public sympathy was most marked. The event was a great tribute to Lord Strathcona's outstanding personality, and unmistakably betokened great
good-will toward the Dominion of Canada which he so long and so well represented.
(Sgd.) Griffith.

Mr. F. B. CARVELL:: I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) to an article that has appeared in a number of papers. I am reading from the Ottawa Free Press of Friday, January 16, which contains a statement alleged to have come from one Captain R. F. Clift, a member of the Dominion Wreck Commission. This article says:
Captain Clift narrowly escaped being a passenger himself on the ill-fated Cobequid, and in recalling with some satisfaction the trouble he had escaped by his last-minute change of plans, denounced with outspoken bitterness the folly of compelling vessels of the type of the Cobequid to travel by the St. John route through the Bay of Fundy in winter.
' It is nothing short of manslaughter, no, it is worse, it is murder,' he said, ' to compel vessels to traverse the Bay of Fundy at a season when such terrifying hurricanes are likely to crop up and when fogs make it almost impossible to be certain of a successful battle with the dangerous racing currents.
' The Bay of Fundy has a rise and fall of tide of thirty feet, the greatest in the world, and the waters swirl through it at a perilous speed, so that when lashed into fury by storm, and obscured by fog, a shipmaster has not a fighting chance.'
The people of St. John, the captain continued, had used every kind of political pull to get the Royal liners to call, and had tried to coerce Sir Thomas Shaughnessy into allowing the Canadian Pacific railway vessels to come to St. John, but Sir Thomas had replied: ' No, I absolutely refuse to imperil my ocean liners by allowing them to go into the Bay of Fundy, with its dangerous cross currents.'
' It is absolutely jeopardizing the lives of captain, passengers and crew to send them across the Bay of Fundy in winter,' concluded the commissioner, * and the captains only do so under protest and agains their judgment. Halifax is the safer winter port.'
I should like to know if this man, Captain R. F. Clift, is a member of the public service of the Dominion and an official of the Department of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. If so, I desire to ask if this matter has been called to his attention, and if he proposes to investigate it, and, I would say, bring this officer to account for making such libelous statements as are contained in this article,


Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: Captain Clift, whose opinions have been quoted by my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B., (Mr. Carvell) is not an official of the Marine and Fisheries De-

partment. He is a retired sailing master, as I understand, residing in Montreal. From time to time, for a good many years past, the Wreck Commissioner, in investigating wrecks on the St. Lawrence route, is assisted by two nautical assessors familiar with the conditions of navigation. The Wreck Commissioner has on several occasions called Captain Clift in for such purpose and he has acted in the capacity of a nautical assessor. But he is not an official of the department; he is not in the pay of the department. The impression, which, it would seem, he himself tries to create, that he is an official is entirely without foundation in fact. I had read the unfair and unjust statement to which the hon. gentleman refers, and, knowing what a slander it was against the Bay of Fundy, at once called the attention of the Board of Trade of St. John to the matter and suggested that it would be desirable that steps should be taken to place the facts fairly before the public. Inquiry has been made into the wreck of the Cobequid by the Wreck Commissioner, Captain Lindsay, assisted by two nautical assessors. I understand that the report and judgment of that court has been prepared and in a few days will be given to the public through the press. While I have no right to forestall the conclusions which the court has reached, yet, having followed the evidence given at the inquiry with a considerable degree of care, I venture to express the belief that it will be found that the Wreck 'Commissioners are not of opinion that the wreck was due to any inherent danger existing in the Bay of Fundy, but to other causes altogether.
I think it unfortunate, that, in connection with a disaster of this sort, any one should attempt to make capital against any special locality or any special waters over which navigation into Canada has to take place. Charges from time to time have been made with regard to the navigation of the Bay of Fundy. While there are dangers in the Bay of Fundy, as there are dangers to be found in all waters which ships navigate, yet I think it has been demonstrated in the past, time and again, that the dangers which exist in the Bay of Fundy are no greater than those which exist in many other navigable waters of the world. A good many years ago, when the late Senator Ellis was a member of this House, some charges of this character were made on the floor of	Parliament when	the	question
was being discussed of subsidizing
rMr. Hazen.]
steamers from Ports in Great Britain to Canada. This was in 1887 or 1888. Senator Ellis put upon the record of ' Hansard,' where it can be found by any one who is interested, a statement carefully prepared by the Board of Trade of St. John, showing the ships coming to and going from the Bay of Fundy and going in and out of the Port of St. John, and specifying the number [DOT] of casualties occurring over a long period of years. The facts demonstrated beyond question that the Bay of Fundy was not a particularly dangerous water to mariners, and that the casualties during a number of seasons occurring in the Bay of Fundy are less than the casualties in many other ports of the world, upon which no such attack was made. It would be improper for me to reflect on the dangers of navigation of the St. Lawrence; these also have been much exaggerated. Of late years, with the aids to navigation provided and the means taken so far as possible to develop the means of protection to the mariner, a very great improvement has been made. It will be found, I believe, if a comparison be made- and no one attacks the record of the St. Lawrence-that the record of the Bay of Fundy is quite equal, if not superior, as far as casualties are concerned, to the great St. Lawrence route from the sea to Quebec and on to Montreal.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think this is going
rather beyond what is allowed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is very important,
Mr. Speaker. Let the hon. gentleman go on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it would be a
rather dangerous precedent to allow this debate to proceed at this stage.
Hon. Mr. HAZEN. I must bow at once to your decision, Mr. Speaker. But perhaps I may take a more fitting occasion to refer to the question raised by my hon. friend from Car-leton, N.B., which was a most proper one to ask. I must content myself now with saying that the casualty under discussion did not occur in the Bay of Fundy. I think that the inquiry by the Wreck Commissioner into the causes of the wreck of the Cobequid will be found to have been of the fullest possible character, and the result will be given to the public as soon as it is possible to do so.



MARITIME MAIL SERVICE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmorland):: I invite the attention of the Postmaster

General to the condition of the mail service between Sackville, in Westmorland county, and the eastern portions of the county over the line of the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island railway. I have just received a telegram from the eastern part of Westmorland, stating:
No train over this route since 19th. No mail 19th to 23rd. Mails now coming by team. Road could easily have been opened 23rd or 24th. Inquiries at railway office meet with no information given no remedy.
The railway referred to runs from Sackville to Cape Tormentine. It connects at certain seasons with a mail service to Prince Edward Island at Summerside. I would ask my hon. friend the Postmaster General if his attention has been called to the fact that the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island railway is snowbound, that the mails have been interrupted since the 19th of this month. This is a very important section of the country, and naturally the people are very much interested in having a mail service. They have a daily mail service when the trains are in operation, but, apparently, they have no such mail service now.


Hon. L. P. PELLETIER (Postmaster General) :: These things very often come to the notice of the department. The unfortunate part of the matter is that although the Post Office Department has a contract with the railway companies to carry the mail, it has no means of forcing them to do what they ought to do under certain circumstances. In this case there is a standing order from the department at once to get out teams or employ other means of transportation for the purpose of taking proper care of the mails. The particular point to which my hon. friend refers has not been called to my attention, because, I suppose, the officers of the department have instructions to do at once the next best thing in order to ensure a proper delivery of the mails to the public and it will be done in this case.



THE OCEAN LIMITED.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Henry Robert Emmerson: On Friday last the
general manager of the Intercolonial railway sent notices to the newspapers of the Maritime provinces to the effect that the operation of twenty-three trains of the Intercolonial railway system, including the Ocean Limited, would be discontinued on Monday of this week, that is to-day. Has this matter come to the attention of the hon.
Minister of Railways and Canals, and, if so, have instructions been sent out cancelling any such order, and providing that the operation of the Ocean Limited be continued as heretofore? Has the hon. minister any knowledge as to the other trains in question, and if so, what trains running over the Intercolonial railway are to be discontinued?


Hon. FRANK COCHRANE:: I have
no knowledge of any twenty-three trains being taken off. The Ocean Limited is to continue to run, and I shall be able to inform the House to-morrow or the next day as to whether that train will continue to run during the next two months.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Do I understand the hon. minister to say he has no knowledge of the discontinuing of the twenty-three trains mentioned?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Such an order went
out.


Francis Cochrane: I never heard of it.



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 Friday, January 23.
Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the adjournment, on Friday night, I was referring to the remarks the hon. Solicitor General had just made in regard to the policy adopted by the Senate in connection with the proposal of a grant towards the improvement of highways. The hon. Solicitor General contended, in good faith, no doubt, that the Senate had no right to amend the Bill which the House had passed, because, he said, in respect to a money Bill, to a Bill providing for the expenditure of a certain amount of money, the Senate cannot effect any amendments, additions, curtailments, or alter the nature and object of this Bill. He contended, moreover, that this Bill, though not intituled ' money Bill,' actually was a money Bill, and that the Senate should have kept their hands off it.
I said the other night, and I repeat it, there are dozens and dozens of eminent men in this House, and even in the Senate, who

certainly are as learned and as wise as the Solicitor General. The latter has, of course, the right to give his opinion; he is entitled to put almost absolute faith in the truth of his contentions; but he should leave the same freedom to others.
The leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Sir George Ross) is a man not to he trifled with. He has spent his life in parliaments, having long been the Prime Minister of his province, and to-day he has at his side to lend him a hand, men of long experience, men who are just as well acquainted as the Solicitor General with the laws and constitution of the country. I deny to the learned Solicitor General the right to deal in such high-handed fashion with whoever is of a different opinion, and to say: It is childish, it is laughable, it is preposterous! We have in this House large numbers of hon. gentlemen who have devoted their lives to study, who are perfectly in touch with our constitutional law and parliamentary usage, men who were members of this House long before the Solicitor General ever set his foot here, and who have disagreed with him. When I had an opportunity of addressing the House, the other night, I did so knowing where I stood, after looking up the points of law raised by him. and I was satisfied that he had no grounds justifying such sweeping conclusions as he arrived at. The learned Solicitor General should know one thing, and it is this: Whereas it is possible to make a nice little book with the things he knows, a very large one could be made out of what he ignores.
I have looked carefully into the Speech from the Throne. It appeared to me well prepared, well made, perfect in form, but terribly deficient in ideas. It contains nothing worth mentioning, save some expressions of sympathy to the Royal Family. Apart from that there is very little.
I smiled on reading the paragraph which heralded an increase in the number of senators. Why should the number of senators be increased previous to any increase in the membership of this House? As a rule, new senators are appointed only after the matter has been passed upon by the representatives of the people. In this instance, the first step is towards increasing the number of the senators. That is the way this Government goes about it. We style that putting the cart before the horse. Common sense would require that the number of members who express the will of the people should be first increased. In any case, I am anxious to see that Bill before the House.

I was surprised to find that the Speech from the Throne does not make any reference whatever to the navy, or to the thirty-five millions voted in spite of us during the last session. However, that legislation, according to hon. gentlemen opposite was the most important of all. It was so urgent that everything else had to be set aside to allow of its being passed. The hon. Solicitor General, as I stated a moment ago, is particularly well informed, and he endeavoured to make us believe that two and two make five. He it was who undertook to get a closure rule passed without submitting it previously to a committee for its overhauling and subsequent consideration by the House. Nothing of the kind was done. Nevertheless, that closure rule had been imagined for the purpose of getting the Navy Bill passed through the House. There is not a word in reference to it in the Speech from the Throne. I was greatly surprised to find that the members of the new Government had given up the navy which has caused so much trouble, and done so much harm. That navy, though, was a very desirable thing, since it was destined to save the British Empire. Now, there is not one word about it in the Speech from the Throne, not one.
The presence here of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster), whom I greet with pleasure, suggests to me the idea that possibly he may have been recalled purposely to answer me. Where has he been ? No one answers. Was he in China, in Japan, in Australia, in Asia? No one has informed us of the fact. I am beginning to think that I am a very important man, considering that the most experienced, the most wary, the best informed man in the ranks of hon. gentlemen opposite has been recalled to answer me. Besides, it is stated by the big guns and in the Government organs, that the right hon. Prime Minister may go to London to represent us in Great Britain as High Commissioner. It is announced at the same time that the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) may proceed to London as our High Commissioner there. If all the big guns depart, it is not surprising that others should be recalled to take their places. As for me, I would be glad to keep the Hon. Mr. Rogers here; it is so amusing when he tries to gag us, that I am intent on retaining him in our midst.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what has become of the navy? What has become of that pressing necessity of a thirty-five million grant

to avoid an impending war with Germany? According to these hon. gentle en, it was of absolute necessity to forw rd those thirty-five millions, otherwise bankruptcy was staring England in the face. We were told that the Laurier navy was only tin-pot and no good. We could easily afford to grant those thirty-five millions, because the country was prosperous, they said. We have surpluses every year; it is an easy matter to forward thirty-five millions, to make a wedJing p e eat, wit '.out the country be ng any the worse for it In spite of the Opposition, in sp!e of :ts most determined efforts, the House voted those millions. The Bill was forward :d to the Senate. The hon. gentlemen in die other House were suppose to swallow that pill without much protest, provided it was slightly sugar-coated. But it is not such an easy matter to have the veterans of the Senate to swallow those pills. The man entrusted with the interests * f Canada v as no tyro; he said to the ministers: You have cried high and low, you have contended and repea ed in the House, and a number of your friends who are representatives of the people hove sta ed in every quarter: No navy without a previous consultation of the people; no expend!'ure for that object previous to the holding of a plebiscite which the people have to be called upon to vote. These members of the Cabinet hailing from the province of Quebec, all of them, were especially outspoken in their denunciations of the navy, that confounded navy, we Will not have anything to do with it, they would exclaim. We would rather cut off a hand first, start a revolution, if nec ssary, rather than have a navy previous to consulting the people.
By the time they get into Parliament, it is a grant for the navy that must be voted, and in quick time. But the hon. leader of the Senate (Sir George Ross) is not easily fooled. He stated to the hon. Prime Minister and his friends:	You
stated that there would be no Navy Bill passed previous to consulting the people; you are bound to stick to your word. What a pity, Mr. Speaker, that men who are entrusted with the affairs of a country as important as ours should thus change their minds from one day to the other. Is it not painful to have to acknowledge to the people that those who are in power are not keeping faith, make light of their promises as soon as they reach power, passed from one side of the House to the other, and accepted portfolios? Should a poor man act so, he would be dealt with pretty harshly.
The man who does not keep his word is not of much use. A public man has no right to do on the next day the opposite of what he promised to do the day previous.
I am glad to see that there is to be passed through the House a Bill in respect to the navy which is of a kind to secure my approval, I must admit, especially if its promoter is acting in good faith, as I presume he is. I mean the Bill introduced by Mr. Lesperance, of Montmagny, repealing the Navy Bill. If that hon. gentleman is acting in good faith, and is, as I believe, an honourable man, for he occupies a very high social position, I think I shall vote for the repeal of that Navy Bill. But, it may be objected, are you not stultifying yourself, after voting in support of that Navy Bill? Quite right, I voted in support of that measure, but at the time the country was prosperous, and we had millions galore, and besides we were told that it was necessary to pass such a measure and that the revenue was sufficient to meet any expenditure it would entail, without having any detrimental effect on the nation's credit.
But, in the meantime, matters have taken quite a different turn. The Minister of Finance has been forced to admit that we are facing a serious crisis, that our finances are greatly embarrassed, that commerce is no longer prospering, and that we must not think of changing the tariff because trade might suffer in consequence. I am wondering whether we are still in -a position to undergo the expenditure entailed by the upkeep of a war navy. Thus in supporting a Bill providing for the repeal of that Act, I would not be going against my past record. The financial conditions of the country having changed in the meantime, the German peril having vanished, order and peace being restored, why should we have a navy? Since we have no one to fear in any quarter, why should we uselessly spend so many millions?
I may decide to build for myself a mansion at a time when I have the means of doing' so. But supposing I undergo heavy losses on my stocks, or supposing I am under the necessity of making some unforeseen expenditure, have I not the right to say to my architect: Pray discontinue; I am short of funds, my financial position is not what it was when I made up my mind to build that mansion; I am no longer in a position to make such an outlay. Am I not just as justified to-day in voting for

the repeal of that Navy Bill, which the Government was not willing to carry out when the country's finances were still in their past state of buoyancy and we were in a position to do things such as those?
I am at a loss to say what the leader of my party is going to decide, what position he will advise us to take; but if I am free, as I usually am, if I am at liberty to act in accordance with my views and decision, I say to the hon. member for Montmagny that he may rely on my support. However, I must add: Be candid about it, and let not that Bill be mere trumpery.
The hon. member is usually straightforward in everything he does. If I have the assurance that this Bill is introduced in good faith and in the best interest of the country, I shall very likely support it.
The navy was a necessity in days gone by; all were agreed as to that. I just now see in his place the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster). Assuredly he is not the first comer. He as wejl as all his friends in 1909 joined hands with the Liberals to say to the then Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) it is necessary that we should build a navy. The Hon. Mr. Monk was the only one not to give his approval to that expression of policy. But I was pleased later on to hear that gentleman say: I was not in the House in 1909 at the time that resolution was voted, but had I been present I would have voted in its favour.
So it is certain, indisputable, that both political parties agreed at the time in approving what the Laurier Government did later on. I mean the purchase of two ships as models, and the carrying on of those naval building operations as fast as the financial conditions of the country allowed it.
But later on hon. gentlemen on the other side changed their minds. They said: If we let that Navy Bill pass, Mr. Laurier will remain in power so long as he wishes. There is a fine opportunity to embarrass him, to impede his progress; let us change our policy and try something else. So these gentlemen went to the people with altered views; as a result we were beaten . on that issue, mixed up with another of as great importance, that of reciprocity.
So I have the right to-day, in the presence of those facts, to say that hon. gentlemen on the other side have not been sincere in the stand they have taken; they have not kept their word; but when they have to appear once more before the people
[Mr. Lafortune. 1
for a renewal of their mandate, they will be called upon to render a strict account of their stewardship. The people will exact a true and faithful account, with vouchers attached. They will say. What have you done in connection with the navy? You had agreed never to spend a cent on that acount before submitting the matter to the electors, a promise which you have broken in voting those 35 millions.
I now pass on to another viewpoint. The hon. Solicitor General stated the other night that the Senate had not the right to effect that amendment to the Highways Bill. I have previously discussed that question, and I do not wish to cover once more the same ground. But I say that this House had no right to provide any expenditure for that purpose without specifying what highways were to be improved and where, what amounts were to be expended in the various provinces, in what manner and under whose authority. The majority of this House having refused to point out the particulars which I have just given, I say unhesitatingly that the Senate had undoubtedly the right to vote the amendment it did vote. And while listening to some hon. members during the last by-elections, who contended that if we had not the highways proposed by the House, it was the fault of the Liberal Senators, I could not help thinking that these gentlemen were in bad faith.
When it is stated to farmers: You did not get the highways promised you, or the money voted for those highways, but that is owing to the Senate, that is owing to the Liberals who refused to accede to the wish of the House of Commons, you did not get the protection you were entitled to because the Senate killed the Bill, I say such language is grossly insulting to the members of the Senate, for it is attributing to them motives and intentions which they did not have.
Then there is the appeal to the people. That famous plebiscite, not a word is said in reference to it in the Speech from the Throne, and the Nationalists themselves did not dare introduce a Bill providing for an appeal to the people However, they stated time and again, and on every hosting, that what they wanted was an appeal to the people. Not a single meeting was held in the course of the last election without the Nationalists exclaiming: We want an appeal to the people, we want a p'ebi-scite, and we shall oppose every demand made by the new Government if that de-

mand is not preceded by an appeal to the people.
Those gentlemen are in power since 1911; this is the year 1914, and it is the first time an effort is being made to redeem the pledges given in 1911.
Then as regards reciprocity, it was stated at the time: 'Let well enough alone.' The country was prosperous and as a result it was not necessary to make any changes, these gentlemen would say. To-day they are unable to say: ' Let well enough alone '; they must be content with saying: ' Let bad enough alone.' Public confidence is impaired, the cost of living is higher than formerly, and when the Government is called upon to apply a remedy, they answer: 'Let bad enough alone.' Hands off. That is a sign of a change in the times. Another sign is the fact that business is at a standstill and that the oldtime prosperity has disappeared. I see .that the hon. Minister of Finance stated, according to the Star of Saturday evening, that public opinion was not asking for a change in the tariff. To be able to express such a view, the minister must have sought that expression of public opinion among interested people, among manufacturers who are intent on continuing to draw those large dividends for themselves. But let the Minister of Finance come down to the people, let him inquire as to their views, and he will acknowledge that public opinion requires a change in the tariff. Let him inquire from the workingmen, from the farming class, he will soon find out that those two classes require more protection. But if he is content with gathering opinions among his own people, I dare say the result will be slightly different. I say that an enlightened public opinion requires a change in the tariff, in order to ensure greater protection to those who are entitled to it.
Mr. Speaker, at Montreal, the chambers of commerce, the most important business corporations are clamoring for the immediate building of the Georgian Bay canal, and I am surprised not to see any reference to it in the Speech from the Throne. How is it that so little deference is shown to the wishes of such an important community as that of the metropolis of Canada? There is not even an answer forthcoming to the numerous petitions which have been forwarded to the Government. Not a word, not even a refusal. Not a single reason given why the Government should not start at once the building of that canal. Reference is made to the appointment of a commission.
But for fifty years commissions have succeeded one another. For fifty years past, engineers and other experts have been at work investigating the possibility of building that canal, and in every instance favourable reports were made stating that such undertaking could not be dispensed with.
If there is no intention of carrying out the Laurier Act in regard to the building of ships, if it is not intended to continue spending 35 millions, which amount the House granted against our will, to be spent on the British navy, then let us build that canal; the funds which these gentlemen proposed to apply to the development of the navy, let us apply them to the building of that canal. No, these gentlemen are unwilling to do anything, except folding their arms and managing the Government.
When it comes to spending money on the militia, though, to have them drill and exercise, expenditure follows expenditure, trip follows trip, millions follow millions; there is no cheese-paring about it. The people are not consulted, and funds are spent lavishly. I say the Government is not accomplishing its duty in not listening to the appeal of the great corporations for the immediate construction of this canal.
Mr. Speaker, the other day I read in the papers that the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) had been under the necessity of negotiating a loan of 20 millions in London. The amount was large, and he had not succeeded. England advanced only ten millions. Just think of a country like Canada making to England a gift of 35 millions just before applying for a loan of 20 millions for the carrying out of urgent and necessary work within the Dominion. That is an odd situation. Is it not an humiliation for our country to have to beg for a loan of millions from Great Britain, while at the same time making her a gift of an equal amount, simply to show our generosity. Previous to buying a piano or a silk dress for one's wife, the baker, the grocer, the cobbler and all other suppliers of primary necessities should have been settled with.
I regret that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) should not be in his place; I would have something of interest to him to give out. I suppose he was appointed Minister of Agriculture because he knew something about agriculture, because he was conversant with the needs of the farming community. If he was here, I would enquire how it is that there is no reference whatever in the Speech from the Throne indicating the least concern for the

welfare of the farming community. It is nevertheless an important industry, and in this connection, I may refer to a crop on which the people in my county largely depend, I mean tobacco. Why should not the Government increase the rates on foreign tobaccos in order to further protect our Canadian growers. Our tobacco growers have to stand the competition of the foreign leaf. In days gone by the Government went to a large expenditure for the purpose of encouraging and developing the growing of Canadian tobacco, but the time has come to go a step further. A duty of five cents per pound should be imposed on the foreign leaf in order to help the farmers improve their methods as well as the soil itself. Those who are the least conversant with agriculture are aware that a depleted soil must be enriched. Our farmers might easily enough stand the competition- of foreign imports, if they were in a position to restore to the land its original fertility. It is necessary to restore to the soil those elements of which continuous cropping has deprived it, and -accordingly to buy potash which costs fifty dollars per ton. How do you expect farmers to go to such an expenditure without the Government coming to their assistance? Put on a further duty on foreign tobaccos imported from Havana, Kentucky, and other parts, in a word, on -all tobaccos competing with our home grown leaf.
That would enable our growers to maintain the soil in the proper state of fertility; instead of obtaining a thousand pounds an acre, they would possibly get fifteen hundred.
I was discussing the question with a Government official, a man of great ability and experience, of French origin, Mr. Char-land, chief of that section of the Department of Agriculture. He stated that if tobacco were properly grown in Canada, on well prepared land, it should yield
2,000	lbs. per acre, while it barely yields half that quantity. That is, he says, on -account of the deficiency in potash. Too much has been taken out of the soil by tobacco growing; it has to be enriched in that particular.
Now, the Minister of Agriculture has not a single word in the Speech from the Throne to show that he takes an interest in the farmer's welfare. Under the previous Administration, I had called the attention of the then Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fish-

er), to the necessity of encouraging agriculture. I had requested the establishment of experimental stations in the principal districts of the province. He had given me his word that he would promptly see to it. But to-day there is no reference whatever to -the subject. What would be the effect of the establishment of these stations from the point of view of the farmer? We have at Ottawa an experimental farm which has. cost millions. I am not finding fault with -that expenditure; but I do not say that there should be a dismemberment of the experimental farm. Farmers from the neighbouring districts in Ontario -and Quebec come y early to, the -central farm to collect new information. They reach Ottawa about noon, take lunch, and proceed to visit the farm. That takes two or -three hours time and they return home practically not knowing any more than if they had never visited the farm. I say that the best departure would be to decentralize the experimental farm by establishing experimental stations in the various rural districts of the province. A station might be established at Three Bivers to begin with, then at St. Hyacinthe in the districts of Richelieu, Joliette, Terrebonne, St. Francis and elsewhere. These stations would be illustration stations, for the purpose of putting object lessons under the eyes of the farmers, and imparting to them the information they are in need' of. I was disappointed to learn some time ago that the farmers of the province of Ontario had obtained 53,000 samples of seed grain last year, while the province of Quebec had applied for 9,000 only.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, that there were numerous stations for the distribution of that seed grain. Let the -samples be handled out at the church door on Sundays; let them be taken from house to house, if required, so that our farmers of the province of Quebec may be in a position to compete with those in the other provinces. We have strong arms, endurance -and a fertile soil; we have industrious and temperate men; they are not sufficiently protected in that respect. We are taking good care of the industrial classes of -the manufacturers, but the farmers are not looked after, they are a negligible quantity.
As regards by-elections, I - shall say a word concerning them presently. I would like the Government to take proper measures to enable our farmers to secure large profits. Experts should be appointed to visit the various counties, examine the

soil, find out what are its deficiencies, teach the proper methods of cultivation, the way to cut, dry and cure tobacco and so forth. Is that not what the Government did for butter and cheese factories? Why could we not do the same to help on tobacco growing? There is a complaint about people leaving the country and the cost of living increasing all the time; but apparently nobody suspects that all that is because farmers do not get the encouragement they are entitled to. Farmers abandon their farms, give up farming and come to the cities to take up trades. That is an very well, but what remedy is there for it ? The remedy is to give a greater measure of protection.. If we had an experienced Minister of Agriculture, anxious to get posted concerning the requirements of the situation by obtaining information from those who apply to him for protection, he would soon realize the truth of what I say.
The intention, it seems, is to increase the representation of cities and correspondingly diminish that of the country districts. Is that a proper means of encouraging farmers to remain on the land? It is contended that cities have not a sufficient number of representatives, and it is proposed to grant them larger representation at the detriment of the rural constituencies. Whether a member from Montreal represents 100,000 or 20,000 people, it does not make much difference, because the territory covered is the same; a city member may in five minutes call a meeting at a given place, and he may be sure that there will be thousands of electors to go and listen to him. But that is not my case, far from it, and in order to meet my constituents I must travel for weeks, or even a whole month, through rough roads, cross the Laurentian mountains, to inform them of what I have done or applied for in their interest.
It is not so much a question of population as a question of territory to be covered. Though my constituency has not a very large population, it is more difficult for me to get in touch with my electors than it is for the representative in a large city to communicate with his constituents. In the cities there are newspapers, there are public bodies, there are large corporations to keep the electors' posted. It takes them five minutes every morning to read the report of the world's progress; while 'my constituents, who are settled in the mountains, where it is difficult to have access, are ignorant half the time of what is going on elsewhere. A part of the world might disappear without their knowing it; the pope may die and they will find out only long after. There is no longer any talk about the Laurier navy, but they have not heard of it.
So I say that instead of increasing the representation of large cities, it should be left as it is, and the representation of rural districts remain where it is. But it is objected that the population of cities is increasing enormously. Take for instance the division of Maisonneuve, the population of which exceeds 100,000 souls. Well, my acquaintance with the hon. member for Maisonneuve is such as to permit me to state that he is not worrying over that. He is free to call meetings any day at some point or other of his constituency, and even two or three every day, and thus come in contact with his electors in very short time. In cities, an auto is summoned, committee rooms are visited in no time, and everybody is interviewed. But just go in the Lauren-tides with an auto, and keep me posted as to your progress. If you are anxious that the population of rural districts should diminish further, ill-use it as you are threatening to do by depriving it of its representation in Parliament. You will find that farms will be deserted, and that it will be difficult to get your supply of cabbages and radishes, for which even to-day you have to pay pretty high prices.
To my regret, I do not find anything in the Speech from the Throne in reference to a very opportune move which the Government should make. The hon. Mr. Foster, who has travelled over Europe, should have seen to that while he was in London; I mean the doing away with the embargo on Canadian cattle. The Speech from the Throne is silent on that point. It is all very fine to trade with the empire, but our cattle, after being shipped across the pond, are looked over and slaughtered on the wharves, under pretence of tuberculosis; people eat them all the same. In that way our best animals are sold at a sacrifice, under pretence of safeguarding the public health, but it sells cheaper per pound than if it was classed No. 1 when still on foot.
Have any steps been taken by the hon. Minister of Commerce (Mr. Foster) to do away with that state of things, with that embargo on Canadian cattle? Supposing we are told that the Laurier Government has not done anything to relieve the situation, do you think the people will be satisfied with such an answer? Do you think the

people have put in a new set of men without expecting an improvement in the condition of things? The people will soon realize that matters are not so well managed as they used to be. I shall charge the Government with sluggishness, with gross negligence in their dealings with the interests of the farming community, and for having neglected so far to take steps towards doing away with that embargo regulation affecting Canadian cattle. You propose granting 35 millions for the benefit of Great Britain, when your cattle are being slaughtered on the wharves in such fashion.
I am a farmer, I go in for the breeding of animals, and I say it is a crime to thus neglect taking steps towards putting an end to this state of things. You are aggrieved at seeing the people quit the land; protect us, help us, to begin with, and then we shall advise our children to stick to the homespun in preference to the silk hat of the city swell. But, in the first place, grant us the protection we are entitled to. We constitute 70 per cent of the population of the country, and that class which is so numerous is the very one which is ill-protected or not protected at all. We shall remain in the country, but under condition that you fulfil yourself your duty.
I charge with neglect the French-speaking members representing in the Cabinet the province of Quebec, for not making a better fight to obtain for us the measure of protection to which we are entitled. Not a line, not a word, absolutely nothing to show that they take some interest in the welfare of the farming class. For instance, petition after petition is forwarded, the newspapers in all the provinces are filled with expressions of opinion in regard to a world's fair to be held in Montreal. Resolutions passed by boards of trade, banks, insurance companies, large transAtlantic companies, etc., all go to state that, as a foregone conclusion, a world's fair should take place in Montreal. And there is not a word forthcoming from the ministers representing the province of Quebec; not a word showing that the Government are disposed to assist; they remain silent. It would seem that they hold portfolios with the firm resolve of avoiding all exertion, and that they are successful in attaining that object. Why do they not express their views as to the appropriateness of doing something in connection with the fiftieth anniversary of Confederation? One might think they have nothing to do with such matters. Well, I live on the
island of Montreal. We have there some highly valuable property. We have the right to know what will be the stand taken by the Government, what will be their position in regard to the fair.
Recently I read something in a newspaper which caused me much surprise; I could hardly believe my senses. It was stated that the right hon. Prime Minister, while in New York, had represented that he was not opposed to reciprocity. To read in a newspaper that the Prime Minister stated in New York, as being his ipse dixit, that he was not opposed to reciprocity, that comes rather as a surprise. And the right hon. Prime Minister has allowed that report to be circulated throughout the Dominion!
There is no one but knows that the Prime Minister has been the instigator of the movement against reciprocity. Good Heavens, what is this country we are living in! Who are the deceivers, and who are the deceived? The Prime Minister leaving uncontradicted the statement made in a newspaper that he was not opposed to reciprocity ! Well, Mr. Speaker, it is time for the sake of the dignity of this House that there should be a question put challenging these gentlemen to give an account of the view's attributed to them by newspapers.
There is still another question that puzzles me. I mean the famous Ne Temere Bill. Poor Mr. Laurier, many capital sins have been charged to you, when it was stated in Ontario: 'If the Ne Temere exists, it is Laurier's fault; he is unwilling that Canadian women of the Catholic faith shall marry Protestants. Put us in power, and I, Mr. Borden, will see to it that Protestants and Catholic intermarry.
How is it that nothing more is heard of it? Has it been forwarded to Jerusalem? During the last election the abolition of that Ne Temere decree had been promised. The intention was to legislate so as to do away with the enactments of the Ne Temere. The former Minister of Justice, Sir Allan Aylesworth, an eminent man, the most distinguished lawyer which I have ever met, gave his opinion concurrently with his leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He stated that the constitution did not allow us to deal with that question, that it was not within the purview of the Dominion Parliament, but remained within the jurisdiction of the Provincial legislatures. Subsequently, the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), a former judge, an eminent jurist, was called upon to express an opinion, and he agreed

with the views of Sir Allan Aylesworth and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Those gentlemen were not satisfied with that. The matter had to be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, in order to ascertain whether the stand taken by such eminent authorities was well grounded. So the question was submitted to the Supreme Court, and it was decided once again that this House has no jurisdiction. But the matter was not allowed to drop and was carried before the Privy Council in England. Here again the opinion expressed by the former Minister of Justice and Sir Wilfrid Laurier was upheld. All that resulted in an expenditure of fifty thousand dollars for the country, while Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Allan Aylesworth did not charge anything. In that way they succeeded in throwing away fifty thousand dollars, and the question is dead and buried.
There still remains the school question, that famous question. The Speech from the Throne does not say a single word about it, does not that make the least bit of reference to it, after all the talk on the matter we have had from the mouth of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I would like to enquire from him, if I saw him in his place, whether	he is still	of a
humour to call Sir Wilfrid Laurier a renegade, a perjurer, an unworthy French Canadian, a coward, as he did on the hustings, taunting him for not having settled that question. He had not enough insults to hurl at the head of the former Prime Minister, branding him as a renegade, a knave. Later on, being questioned as to the intentions of the Government regarding that school question, he answered from his seat that this school question had been settled by the Greenway-Laurier agreement) an agreement which I concurred in. Was he sincere when he was slinging mud at the former Prime Minister, or was he sincere when he had succeeded in getting in the manger himself? The member for Jacques Cartier con-j demned the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, adding that the policy propounded by Mr. Borden was even worse. That did not prevent him from accepting a portfolio in that same Government headed by Mr. Borden. True, he did not stay there very long after saying that he was bolted, riveted and padlocked to his ministerial seat. However, there was no padlock strong enough to retain him, and he unbolted, unriveted and unpadloeked himself; he
broke loose and ran away, and since has not been seen.
That is a well fettered man who runs away on the day following only. Since his resignation a very odd thing has been going on to my surprise; he has not in the meantime set foot in this House, and at the close of the year his friends passed a piece of legislation granting him his parliamentary indemnity. A man whom we meet every day in Montreal, on the street! He delivers lectures, but does not show up in the House. However, at the close of the session he gets his sessional indemnity all the same. We of the common fry, when we are absent one day, we are docked fifteen dollars; but as for this gentleman, he has the right to take it easy at the expense of the State, and at the close of the year small items will be inserted in the estimates for the benefit of those who have absented themselves. Well, I take exception to that way of managing things. You have sworn to protect the country's interests, to fulfil your duty as members of this House, to render your accounts and to give to Caesar whatever to Caesar is due. I deny you the right of pilfering the public monies and throwing them to the winds.
During our tenure of office, when we asked for subsidies amounting to $140,000,000, to meet the requirements of the country, we were branded as dishonest or incompetent administrators. But when hon. gentlemen opposite reach power, $140,000,000 are no longer sufficient. Last year it ran up to $250,000,000. What have you done with those millions? You have not a single word in the Speech from the Throne indicating the use they were put to. It may be objected that it is a little early to call for the estimates. That may be so; but should I wait a little longer, all will be dissipated, wasted.
I say that those men are not worthy of the confidence of the country, the confidence reposed in them by the people in 1911; they are not worthy of occupying seats on the Treasury benches. The Minister of Finance did not even state that he-proposed taking steps towards voiding the sale of that $300,000 property situated in Winnipeg, which has been given away for ten dollars.
Such are the deeds perpetrated in this twentieth century, in the capital of the Dominion. Have these hon. gentlemen lost their heads? One might come to that conclusion. No steps whatever have been


Mr. ANDREW BRODER (Dundas):: I am sorry I was not able to follow the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Lafortune) as fully as I would have liked. Perhaps in some respects I may be considered somewhat lucky. I do not wish to detain the House long, but there are a few things with which I wish to deal. In the first place, we have heard a great deal about emergency; whether there is an emergency or no emergency. It is all very well to argue about the relative positions of Germany and England, but whenever Great Britain has a serious rival on the sea we have an emergency, no matter who that rival may be. That being so, our responsibility must be apparent. Furthermore, I think that before we attempt to build a navy in this country we had better decide whether we are going to swim or fly. We all know that the question of an aerial fleet is a very prominent one in Europe to-day, and until we have decided whether we are going to swim or fly why not let Canada use Great Britain's plant, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, for building her warships. There is another consideration which every right-minded Canadian should think of. If we lay out this enormous amount of money on a plant to build vessels in Canada, there will be a large bill to pay annually to keep that plant up to date; otherwise it will become obsolete.
Another matter which has been brought up quite frequently is the Highways Bill. The right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition and his friends have been very eager to tell us that they do not want to hurt the Highways Bill. In other words, they want the child to cry but they are 12 .



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
afraid to whip it. That is the position they are in. The Senate, whether at the instigation of the right hon. leader of the Opposition or not, saw fit to change that Bill so that the Government could not accept it, and whether they so amended it for party reasons or otherwise, the fact remains that the Senate stands between the people and this great enterprise. The people do not wish to be deprived of this great benefit because of some technical opinion that some hon. gentlemen in this House may have. If we are to keep the people on the land in this country we must improve rural conditions, and any one who considers what the Highways Bill or a similar outlay properly expended as it has been in other countries would do for Canada, must admit that it would be a very great factor in keeping the people on the land. So long as they get good roads, it is a very small matter to the country what the opinions of any public man may be in reference to the effect of the Bill; and, while this proposal of the federal Government to assist the farmers of our country and the people who are interested in building roads is a new de-parure, it is one which is justified by the conditions in this country. Up to now the farmer has had to bear this great burden himself. But the burden has become too heavy for him, and hence the necessity of help from somewhere. One objection urged by hon. gentlemen opposite was: You would make political use of this Bill. I say that the federal Government, unless it declared these roads to be interprovincial roads, or in the general interests of Canada, could not go into any municipality or province and lay out one dollar of that money without an agreement on the part of the province and municipality as to how the money should be expended. The real trouble is that the measure is popular among the people, and hon. gentlemen opposite do not want us to get the credit. The right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition has told the country that his body politic is very sick or that it is seriously ailing. Let us see what kind of a prescription he suggests for a patient so seriously ill. It seems to me a very mild one, it is not heroic treatment anyway; in fact, he does not propose to prescribe anything at all. He says:
We regret to have to represent to Your Royal Highness that in the gracious speech with which you have met Parliament, whilst it is admitted that business is in a depressed condition, yet there is no indication of any intention on the part of your advisers to take any steps towards relieving such a situation.
He then called in the consultation the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael

[Stage Direction]
Clark), and he has he same prescription whether the patient is sick or well-free trade. That is all he can recommend. If that is the kind of treatment this patient is going to receive at the hands of the leader of the Opposition and the prominent doctor whom he has called in, in consultation, I think the patient will have to get along without the help of these gentlemen. They tell us that there is a stringency in this country, but I say this: outside of the large cities and towns-where undoubtedly there are unemployed, perhaps because the towns have been overspeculating in building-the people, and I am speaking now for the farmers of Ontario, were never better off. Some years ago when our Liberal friends were in power hard times commenced in the country and stayed in the country-not only in the rural districts, but in the cities and towns; but the conditions to-day are entirely different. And these hard times cannot last for long when the rural districts are prosperous and making money as they are to-day. I am not able to give a correct statement as to the unemployed. The right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition estimated the number at 100,000; but his figures have been criticised by those who seem to know, who say they are away beyond the mark. What would it amount to if the figures were correct? It would simply mean that 100,000 people from England, Ireland, Scotland and other European countries came into Canada in three months in the year 1912-13, that is, at the rate of 1,200 a day or 400,000 a year. Everybody knows that these people cannot get employment the day they land here. They have to wait for positions. So this calamity of which we have heard so much does not really exist.
We have heard a great deal about the high cost of living. I know a man can live cheap because I have had to do so all my life. There is this to be said about the high cost; it is largely in the mode of people's living. I met a man the other day who said, ' Look what my bread costs me, it is terrible.' I said: 'You are a young man, about 35 years old, are you not? Well, when you were a boy wheat was $1.50 a bushel, and your mother used to make her own bread. But now wheat is $1 a bushel. Your wife makes you go out and buy your bread, and I will bet you the wife does not know where the clothes line and the scrubbing brush are in your own house.' Let us look these things squarely in the face. I will give you another instance. A man goes down town and pays 50 cents for a bushel of potatoes, and then pays $1 car-
[Mr. Broder.l
riage to get them home, so that they are costing him $1.50 a bushel. As long as the people have money to spend they will continue to raise the standard of living and increase their expenditures. There is only one remedy for that condition. My right hon. friend and the Government, if they wish, may pass all the resolutions they like in this House; but they cannot make that hen running around the barnyard lay one egg more; they can not add a pound to the bullock in the stall or the pig in the sty. The man who feeds these animals is the only one who can do that, the producer must do it, and if we get down to the producer we will remedy this trouble if the common sense of the people comes into play. My right hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition, speaking in Hamilton on the 29th November last, said that he was going to put the farmer on the free list. That is free food. The farmer has been working for hundreds of years and feeding the world cheaply but now that his pork and beef, his mutton, his poultry, his dairy produce, his tub of but ter and his grain are getting up a little in price my right hon. friend says:	Wo
must stop this, we must put him on the free list. I noticed that when ho got down to Montreal he modified his attitude; he was not so string upon'this question down there. He met a very cautious gentlemau down there, one who had made a bad bargain, the ex-Minister of Finance, and he told my right hon. friend that he must be very careful on this question .So he was, and he , was also careful in the resolution which he introduced here the other day.
The right hon. gentleman must realize that Canada is not producing the quantity of dairy produce that we might expect from it, an agricultural country. How can we justify this? Just last winter a gentleman sat down to his breakfast in the city of Ottawa and he had for his breakfast eggs from Russia, potatoes from Ireland, bacon from Denmark and butter from New Zealand. That should not happen in this country. There is only one remedy and that is to get the people on the land. I do not say that you must restrict the liberty of a boy and say that he must stay on the farm, but the people who are coming to this country should be induced to go on the land. The farmer may be a sinner in some respects; he must give his hired man a home and if the hired man wants to marry and raise a family he should be allowed to do so. If this principle is carried out we
[Stage Direction]
will solve the question of agricultural production and of the high cost of living all over the country. There is no other legitimate way to do it. If we get down to the common sense of these things we must let the man who comes in from Europe or anywhere else feel that he is a part and parcel of the state, he should enter into our social conditions, be associated with our churches and schools and in this way become a living factor and a useful citizen in the neighbourhood in which he lives.
Then, we had a speech from our hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark). They had him at school but he has not improved any. They sent him down to Nova Scotia and they put him up against those big industries to see if they could break up that Cobden platform of his, but he came back as bad as ever. The hon. gentleman who took him down there is not in his seat just now, but I would say: Do not give up hope; there is hope as long as there is life. Take him down again. I was very much pleased to see and to hear that there was some possibility of amendment. The hon. member for Red Deer never seriously moved against the tariff while his own friends were in power although he is finding fault with that tariff to-day. I do not know that he has ever moved a resolution upon the subject. It is a strange thing that hon. gentlemen opposite now want profane hands to be laid upon that sacred edifice that they built. It was the greatest thing that ever happened in this country, it gave us all this enormous prosperity and now they want the thing torn down. They want profane hands to be laid upon it. The only thing that has been done with it so far is that it has been cut down a little but they are finding fault with it still. They thought it was a blessing five years ago, three years ago, eight years ago; it is a question whether it should not still be considered a blessing. That it may be improved we all know, but the last people who should find fault with it are the men who designed it and put it upon the statute book. But I suppose they must say something to the people and in a few years they will say it is a Tory tariff, that the Tories made it. That is what is going to happen. I will tell hon. gentlemen opposite that there is no doubt it will be improved and improved in the interests of this country. It is quite right that any tariff should have a certain degree of permanence about it, but conditions change and the tariff must change to suit the conditions. I am willing to go that far and to toll my right 12i
hon. friend that I have not the slightest doubt that it will be properly dealt with when the proper time comes.
There has been a good deal said about free wheat. I am not going to say much about that question because I cannot discuss it from the viewpoint of the western man, but I desire to say that the future of our western country is largely bound up in the fact that they must enter upon mixed farming. If they enter upon mixed farming they will get the bi-product of the wheat and the bi-product of the wheat is a very important factor in mixed farming. It is the life-blood of the dairy industry of Ontario and Quebec to-day. It is of the utmost importance that we should see to it that we have our wheat ground within this country and the flour exported to England or to any other country, because if the bi-product of the wheat is transferred to England or to some other country the dairy industry suffers very materially as a result. This bi-product can be shipped on the wheat at a less freight cost than it can after it is ground; hence the necessity of grinding the wheat in this country. Instead of being able to grind wheat into flour for about 14,000,000 people we should be able to grind for 50,000,000 people. How is it that with wheat shipped from Manitoba to Ontario, the millers can sell the flour cheaper to the Ontario man than to the man in Manitoba-simply because the bi-product has to be shipped out of Manitoba at a very heavy freight rate. This bi-product is virtually the profit of the miller and it is cheaper to ship the wheat down here, grind and sell the bran and shorts than to grind the wheat into flour in Manitoba and to ship the biproducts down here in bulk.
The men who look upon this question from the mere advantage of a few months hence are not perhaps looking at it from the proper standpoint of the future of this country. Every Canadian must feel that what I say is a fact who reads the statement made by Mr. Ruddick, the Dairy Commissioner, only the other day in addressing the Eastern Dairy Association at the town of Cornwall. I happened to be present and heard the statement and he was good enough to give me a copy of it. I wish, through the House, to present it to the consideration of the country. Before reading it I would like to explain that there is a great difference between cows and milch cows; there are a great many non-milkers. In the county of Dundas, within a radius of 20 miles, we had four years ago 30,000 milch cows and 13,000 non-milkers; to-day we have 26,000
[Stage Direction]
milch cows and 19,000 non-milkers. What is getting competent hired help to do the dairy the explanation of that?-the difficulty of work. The statement is as follows: Milch Cows in Canada.				
1901.	1911.	Decrease.	Increase.Ontario	
Quebec	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island	1,065,763 767,825 111,084 138,817 56,437 141,481 24,535 56,634 46,101	1,032,979 753,134 10S.532 129,302 52,109 155,337 33,953 181,146 147,687	33.7S4 14,691 2,552 9,515 2,484	13,856 9,420 124,512 101,586
Totals for Canada					
	2,408,677	2,594,179		
Total increase in 10 years, 1S5.502.
In the older provinces, as will be seen, we have a decrease in the number of milch cows. We should not be going backward in this respect, in Ontario and Quebec especially; we should 'be going forward. I call the attention of the House to the increase in the number of milch cows in the western provinces as shown by the above table, and I am sure every honest Canadian will be glad to know these facts. The number in the western provinces has increased very materially which is very welcome news indeed. These figures show a decrease in the number of milch cows in eastern Canada and an increase in the western provinces, which gives a net increase in the whole Dominion of 185,502. We lost in the old provinces 62,026 milch cows, and we gained in the new provinces, 249,374. It is a good thing to see our western provinces taking up the question of raising milch cows and going into dairy products. We should have enough of these products to satisfy our own people. While the number of our milch cows has fallen in the older provinces, Mr. Euddick shows that we have not decreased our output. That looks inconsistent, 'but the fact is that the improvement of the stock, the culling out of the poor animals, and the better system of feeding, have increased the product per cow. The average product per cow in 1901, was 2,850 lbs. of milk, and in 1910 it was 3,805 lbs. of milk, or nearly
1,000	lbs. per cow more than it was ten years previously. But that does not justify the falling off in the number of our cattle, because if we had the same number of cows in the older provinces in 1911 as we had in 1901, our product would be equal to

the domestic consumption, and we would be exporting as well. The serious thing is that we 'are exporting no butter and we have lost our place altogether in the British market for that commodity. A few years ago I was bold enough to make the statement in this House that in the near future Russian Siberia would be a serious rival to us in many of the important products of our farm, and at the time my Liberal friends ridiculed the idea of Russia interfering with our market in England. But what is the fact to-day? Russian Siberia is second of all the countries of the world in the quantity of butter she ships to the English markets; Denmark is first. We have lost our butter trade there, and it is taken by others, and it will not be an easy matter to regain our position. Now there is another important consideration that I wish to point out, and that is that if the other counties in Ontario equalled in the number of cattle and the dairy output a few counties in Ontario, some in eastern Ontario and one or two in western Ontario, we would have double the number of cattle we have in the entire province at the present time. This shows the possibilities before the people of this country if they conscientiously enter upon the problem of knowing what an acre of land is worth. If it be possible, the Government should endeavour to show the people of Canada the possibilities of 100 acres of land. The boy or the man who goes into a corn field and sees but the weeds and the corn, is living far short of his privilege; he should see nature unfolding her designs to feed the world. That is his business. He should feel he is a factor in doing so, and if he does not

[Stage Direction]
realize it, he is falling far short of his duty. Supposing this country were a finished country as some. countries of Europe are, what would it mean to the world? Canada would be standing in the gateways of the world, holding out food to the hungry, so to speak; taking her great share in supplying the food of the world and doing her duty as an agricultural country. We are this year exporting enormously over what we were exporting last year. I have a little clipping here from the Star, and it quotes from the report of the United States Department of Agriculture Report, and it says this:
Canada is tha largest purchaser of American automobiles according to figures compiled by the United States Department of Commerce. The Dominion took 5,824 automobiles from the United States in the first eleven months of 1913, valued at $7,870,000.
We can not be very hard up when we can do that; we bought nearly $8,000,000 worth of automobiles from the United States in the eleven months, to say nothing about those made in Canada. I believe the farmer should have an automobile; no man in the world deserves it better than he if he can afford it, but when he is able to buy automobiles at this rate, he cannot be so terribly straitened in circumstances. I read further:
During the month of December, according to figures issued by the Department of Customs, the exports of Canada underwent a remarkable increase. The export of domestic produce during December 1913 amounted to $55,803,642, as against $38,658,625 in December 1912, the increase thus being $17,145,017 or 44%. By far the largest item in the total was the export of agricultural products which stood at $35,367,942 as against $22,859,325-
This would seem to back up my statement that the farmers are well off,- at least in Ontario.
-which stood at $35,367,942 as against $22,859,325 in the corresponding month of 1912, the increase being a trifle over $12,800,000 or nearly 55%. There also was a heavy proportionate increase in the export of manufactures, the figures being $5,599,086 as against $3,800,805, the increase being within a few dollars of $1,800,000 or more than 47%.
This does not prove there are so many unemployed.
There was also a heavy increase in export of animals and their products, the figures standing at $4,744,056 as against $2,791,550, the increase being $1,952,506 or nearly 70 per cent.
That no doubt is accounted for to a large extent by the shipments of cattle from this country to the United States. Taking the nine months, however, in which these shipments did not occur, there is still a large increase.
During the nine months' period ending December 31, 1913, the exports coming under the head of agriculture showed an increase of about 50 per cent over those of the corresponding period of 1912. They stood at $177,706,169 as against $119,209,170 in the earlier period, the increase being $58,696,999 in the nine months.
That does not look as if there were very hard times.
Animals and their produce also showed a substantial increase, from $36,740,883 to $43,568,859.
That shows an increase during the' nine months when .there were no shipments of cattle from Canada to the United States, owing to the fact that such shipments could not be made until the tariff was changed.	.
In regard to the products of the fisheries, the imports alone have fallen off to some extent during that period, no doubt because merchants were cautious as to buying owing to the talk of stringent times throughout the country.
I think, Mr. Speaker, u would be permissible for me to tell a story that was told the other day in the American Senate, because our friends here, who are so fond of reciprocity, would surely let me reciprocate in this respect. Our friends on the opposite side of the House are looking all the time for calamities, financial crises and financial panics.' The leader of the Republican party in the American Senate is like my right hon. friend, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in that respect. The leader of the Democratic side of the House told this story. He said that a man with an eye out came along one day to the doctor. The man said, ' Doctor, I want an eye put in. I don't want no glass eye; I want a flesh eye, one I can see with.' The doctor said, 'All right, I can put in a cat's eye.' The man said, ' All right, go ahead;' so the doctor fixed the man up. Some time later when the doctor saw the man again, he said, ' How are you getting along?' ' Oh,' the man says, * all right, but that eternal thing is looking for rats and mice all the time. Our friends are looking for rats and mice all the time. Of course, they are not going to find them, but I shall leave them in that position when I take my seat.
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: I have followed with great interest and great pleasure indeed the very witty speech which has just been delivered by my genial friend the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder). After having listened to him last

summer in his own good constituency, where I noticed that he was friendly with Tories and Grits alike, and that he could tell a good story to both and thus be elected
by large majorities, I can only repeat what I then said, namely, that the hon. gentleman should be transferred to another chamber. He has deserved that from his party for the many services which he has rendered the cause in the many townships and back concessions of Ontario, where he has been able to roll up the Tory majorities by his witty stories. There is a vacancy at present, and, speaking in all frankness, I am quite sure that the farmers of the province of Ontario, the farmers of Canada generally, would be proud to see my genial friend in the Senate.
In regard to the Speech from the Throne, I can only re-echo what has been said on all sides of this House, that the people in Canada, and I might say in particular the people of the province of Quebec, whose reverence for the Royal Family is well known, were most happy to learn that Her Royal Highness had so speedily recovered.
I have listened with great pleasure to the speech delivered by the new member for the county of York, N.B. (Mr. McLeod), and I must compliment him upon the very good impression he has made on the members of this House. He succeeds a member who for many years sat with us, and played quite a part in the debates of Parliament; I refer to Mr. Crocket, now Mr. Justice Crocket. By, the way, I see that my good friend the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) is in his seat. Would he explain to the House how it is that under his benevolent eye appointments to the judiciary are made from the House of Commons, when some years ago the voice of my hon. friend rang in tones of indignation against the appointments made by the right hon. the leader of the late Government (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier), because, forsooth, he appointed members of the House to the judiciary? My hon. friend from York has been elected to this House by acclamation, and I congratulate him upon this; but he has come through one of the broken pledges of the right hon. the leader of the Government and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, namely, that no appointments should be made from members of the House of Commons. The hon. member for York, his countenance beaming with optimism, told us that this country was but slightly touched by a wave of adversity. In New Brunswick, he said, money had never been so easy as it was last year. I wonder what is the opinion

of my good friend from Carleton, N.B., about the easy money in New Brunswick.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not so easy now as it was two years ago.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was surprised when my hon. friend from York made that statement. Oh, blessed Arcadia! Who owns the magic wand by which money is made so easy in New Brunswick and so stringent in poor Quebec and poor Ontario?
I have listened also with interest to the speech delivered by my hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Lavallee). He spoke with eloquence, and I hope that some day he will repeat in the English language what he said so well in his own mother tongue. Evidently the hon. member for Bellechasse has seen the light. I have known his parentage in the province of Quebec. He comes from good old Liberal stock, and I noticed that when he spoke the other day there was quite a tremor in his voice. He had evidently filled a gap, because, if I mistake not, at the last general election in the county of Bellechasse he ran, not as a Conservative, but as a Nationalist. Evidently, as we say in French ' II y a fagots et fagots '-there are Nationalists and Nationalists. Listening to the speeches of my hon. friend I find it departs from the red hot Nationalism to deep azure blue Toryism. ' II y a fagots et fagots '-there are Nationalists and Nationalists. He may claim to be still a Nationalist; but I say that he belongs to the insincere school of Nationalists. For there are a few sincere Nationalists in this country to-day-oh, very, very few indeed! I would like to know what his leader of yesterday, Mr. Bourassa, thinks of his opinions to-day. I am sure that if Mr. Bourassa were to write to the hon. member for Bellechasse he could not sign his letter as of yore with the subscription 'Yours sincerely.' But then, my hon. friend in his new Tory venture, has outrun himself, it seems to me. He has evidently delivered himself to my hon. friend the Postmaster General, who listened, yes, listened attentively to his enlogy. In his new zeal, the member for Bellechasse went so far as to compare the present Postmaster General with Sir George Etienne Cartier. Yes, he said that the present Postmaster General is the political heir of the great Conservative chieftain. If it were mine to give advice to my hon. friend from Bellechasse, I would give him the advice given by Talleyrand, the master of cynics and diplomats, to a young undersecretary who intended to enter the career

of diplomacy. He came to Talleyrand for counsel and Talleyrand said to him ' Et surtout pas de zele! '-above all, no zeal! This is the advice I would give to my hon. friend when he compares his new leader, the Nationalist of yesterday and the Tory of to-day with Sir George Etienne Cartier.
Now, coming to the Speech from the Throne, if I consider it in the constitutional light, I see it as a lever to put the parliamentary machinery in motion. The Speech from the Throne has to be delivered annually, just as a certain Chinese daily gazette which was published under the Ming dynasty had to be issued, with or without news. One day the newspaper appeared blank. The editor was asked: 'But why do you publish your paper-there is no news in it, there are no articles in it? ' He answered:	' But it has to be
issued; it is a daily gazette.' So with tne Speech from the Throne: it has to be delivered, it is the lever which puts the parliamentary machinery in motion. But, Sir, that speech is a blank; it is barren of any legislative proposals; it bears the evidence of hard times, notwithstanding my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder). It is as meagre as Canada's last Christmas dinner; it is as empty as the workingman's pail; it is as bare as a church plate at times; it is as nude as the spite wall on Elgin street. Its nudity borders on indecency.
But, before going into the few announcements which the speech contains, let me, for a moment, take a glance at it. First of all, I see that there is general satisfaction expressed at the fact that there has been a great expansion of trade. Indeed, we all know that, since 1897, there has been a tremendous expansion of trade. And my hon. friend the leader of the Government stated the other day that the expansion of trade which began in 1897 was not due to the fiscal policy of the leader of the Opposition, but that it was due to the old National Policy, and that the Liberal party on assuming office, had not altered that policy by one jot or tittle-that it had remained unchanged and that indeed the country had prospered notwithstanding the Liberal party. May I read the speech, or part of it, which was delivered by the old stalwart, the veteran of the Conservative party, Sir Charles Tupper-and we rejoice to know that he still enjoys perfect health-on the morrow of the introduction in this House in 1897 of the British preference, a policy coupled with the tariff resolutions introduced by the then Minister of Finance, Hon. Mr. Fielding?
We all remember that Sir Charles Tupper, speaking from the seat now adorned by the present leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), prophesied that the manufacturers in the various industries of this country would suffer, and suffer lamentably, if the Liberal policy propounded by Mr. Fielding were maintained. He said:
The result is that this tariff goes into operation and the hon. gentleman knows that the industries of this country are already paralyzed in consequence, while hon. members gloat over the destruction of Canadian industries. I was reading the wail, the sorrowful wail, of these industries in the Montreal Gazette, where one manufacturer after another declared that those industries were ruined, that their mills must close, and that they saw staring them in the face a return to the deplorable state of things that existed when the hon. gentlemall who last addressed the House was in charge of the fiscal policy of this country. I say that a deeper wrong was never inflicted upon Canada.
I feel that so far from rejoicing at it from a party standpoint, I deplore from the bottom of my heart the ruin that is going to be inflicted upon the best interests of Canada, and upon its great industries. Still, I unhesitatingly say that, from a party point of view, the hon. gentlemen are doing our work; they are showing the people of this country that no reliance can be placed upon the most solemn declarations that they make either in the House or out of it; they are showing the people of this country that, having obtained power, which was all they wished for, they are now prepared to abuse that power at a cost of sacrifice of the industries of Canada.
I am glad to say that the sad predictions of ibis great veteran were not fulfilled. Under the fiscal policy of the Hon. Mr. Fielding, coupled with the British preference, with the abolition of all the specific duties and the altering the duties on two hundred and fifty-five items of the Budget, I am glad to say, the country has prospered and expanded.
But we were told something else in 1911. We were warned that our trade should not be fostered with our big neighbour, the United States, that we should instead cultivate an interprovincial trade, and that we should maintain our connection with the mother country by still increasing our trade with Great Britain. Mr. Speaker, not later than the month of May last, I had the privilege of being present at a dinner given by the Government of Canada to the American bankers then visiting the city of Ottawa. Will you listen to the language of Mr. James J. Hill, a gentleman born in Canada, who has become in the United States a great railway magnate, as we know. Speaking about the trade relations between Canada and the United States, Mr. Hill

made the following statement in the presence of the Minister 'of Finance and of the Prime Minister of Canada:
Most countries have been accustomed to value their relations with one another by the total money value of the commerce between them; and, rightly or wrongly, they have laid special stress upon that difference between imports and exports which is known as the balance of trade. Without asserting any theory as to its value as an indicator of prosperity or the contrary, both of which views have ardent champions, both sides will agree upon the fact that it is an important measure of commercial intercourse. In spite of all obstructions the commercial relations between Canada and the United States have grown to proportions that astonish even those familiar with the official figures. According to the report of the United States consul in this city, the foreign trade of Canada reached a total of over a billion dollars for the calendar year 1912. The increase over 1911 was 23.5 per cent. Of the total, 56 per cent was business done with the United States. For that same calendar year the balance of trade for the whole United States was $581,000,000 ; and of this $255,000,000 was due to our commerce with Canada. It supplied 44 per cent of the balance rolled up by our commerce with the whole world.
It is usual to speak and think of Europe as the best customer of the United States; and in so far as this refers to the United Kingdom, it is true. But the Dominion of Canada is far and away the second-best customer we have. The statistics have been brought down to cover the first ten months of the current fiscal year, which began on the first day of last July. During that time our exports to the United Kingdom were $524,000,000 ; to Germany, $291,000,000 ; to France, $131,000,000 ; to Canada, $338,000,000, and to all Europe combined, $1,294,000,000. No other country except Great [DOT] Britain and Germany even approaches Canada-aJs a buyer in the markets of the United States.
Mr. Hill talks common sense; he does not mix up loyalty with business.
This business has been done not by reason of any sentiment whatever about it on the part of either country, or of any artificial favouring conditions, but simply because it is more profitable for both to deal with each other than for either to deal anywhere else in a large percentage of its commercial transactions. And nothing can reverse or annul that condition which nature herself has established.
Further on, Mr. Hill compares the trade of Canada with the total trade between the United States and Seuth America. He concludes thus:
Swing the net still wider, and take in both American continents, from the Arctic Circle on the north to Cape Horn on the south, add Cuba and all the West Indies by whomsoever controlled, that nothing between the two oceans may escape. We did, in these ten months, a total export business of $630,000,000 with this western hemisphere; and of the whole Canada furnished fifty-four per cent. It seems to me that a connection so immense and so valuable to both parties is the central and controlling 
fact of every occasion like the present, when business men from both sides of the line get together to take stock of their present and their future.
At six o'clock the House took re-cess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Just before recess, Mr. Speaker, I was quoting a few sentences from a very elaborate address delivered in the city of Ottawa by that great Canadian, James J. Hill. This speech of Mr. Hill's, telling of the immense expansion of trade between Canada, our country, and the great republic to the south of us-and especially during the two years of the present Administration-only shows this cold fact: that you Cannot legislate against geography, and it furnishes the best rejoinder to that nonsensical slogan of the last general election, * No truck and no trade with the United States of America.' As I stated a moment ago, there are many things which should appear in the Speech from the Throne but which are not to be found in it. I have been reared in a school which, for many years, taught that there was no possibility of establishing a mutual preference between the mother country and Canada, but dnr-ing the fifteen years that our hon. friends opposite were sitting on this side of the House, we were repeatedly told that as soon as the Conservatives came into office, steps would be taken to have that famous mutual preference established between Canada and Great Britain. I did not expect that the right hon. gentleman the leader of the Government would implement the promises of his party at the first session of this Parliament. We gave him time. The second session came, but not a word about mutual preference. Oh, Mr. Speaker, I have a vague suspicion that the centralization policy advocated last year so earnestly by Mr. Bonar Law on the one hand, and by Mr. Churchill on the other, was perhaps the first step towards mutual preference. At all events nothing came out of it. But now in this third session of the Conservative Administration, when things have found their level and when the Conservative party is in a position to accomplish something, we find nothing in the Speech from the Throne to indicate that steps will be taken at the earliest oppertunity to establish mutual preference in trade matters between the mother country and Canada. I for one, do not believe in that policy. I think that if mutual preference were established, far from uniting the Dominions to the mother country, it would

estrange them. And further, in my humble judgment, it would estrange Great Britain on fiscal lines from the other countries of the world. But it is the policy of the Tory party in England, or at least the policy of one section of it, and it has been the policy preached by one large section of the Imperialist party of Canada. I do not argue that the Government should implement its promise in that regard. In my humble judgment such a policy would not be advantageous. I believe in the close relations of the mother country with Canada, but not on such a basis. * History,' to quote Webster, ' is not only the record of events; it is also the record of human experience.' In days of yore there was a preference between the mother country and the colonies. Every student of Canadian history will remember that before the repeal of the Corn Laws there was a British preference for colonial products, for Canadian products. But when, under the leadership of the two greatest men of the last century, Richard Cobden and John Bright, England espoused the cause of free trade, and when Sir Robert Peel, the Conservative Premier, repealed the Corn Laws, the British preference was abolished. What was the result as regards Canada? As soon as that preference was repealed there was discontent, there was rancour, there was bitterness and soreness of heart, and the first thing our political ancestors heard of was the famous annexation manifesto. The repeal of the British preference in favour of Canadian products was the cause of the issuance of the annexation manifesto of 1849. At the last general election I heard some of my hon. friends opposite repeating again that old story, that the reciprocity programme of the Liberal party would bring about the annexation of Canada to the United States. Some people had enough brass to repeat such a fairy tale. What was the cure of the annexation spirit which manifested itself in 1849? What, were the words of wisdom spoken by that great Governor General Lord Elgin (the scion of a great Tory family) in 1849, after the repeal of the British preference and the announcement of the annexation proclivities of Canada? Listen to this language. Surely it is applicable to-day. On November 8, 1849, in a letter to Earl Grey, the ancestor of our late Governor General, Lord Elgin wrote as follows:
So long as this state of things continues there will be discontent in this country; deep growing discontent. You will not, I trust, accuse me of having deceived you on this point. I have always said that I am prepared to assume the
responsibility of keeping Canada quiet, with a much smaller garrison than we have now, and without .any tax on the British consumer in the shape of protection to Canadian products, if you put our trade on as good a footing as that of our American neighbours; but if things remain on their present footing in this respect, there is nothing before us but violent agitation, ending in convulsion or annexation.
History repeating itself! Oh, certainly, Mr. Speaker, we do not expect to hear of any annexation movement in Canada just now. We are not now in the midst of a general election, so we may all proclaim our faith in British citizenship and in Canadian citizenship. There will never be any question as regards the deep and intense loyalty of every Canadian, whatever may be his faith on fiscal matters, bi$t there will be agitation in this country, and very serious agitation, particularly on the western prairies, as long as the present serious discontent exists.
Sir, the Government takes credit in the fact that the moving of the crops from the western prairies to the seaboard has been made easy and smooth. The Government thinks that our transportation facilities are adequate. Sir, I take that as the greatest compliment to the policy of the Liberal party during the last sixteen years in which they held office. My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) know that ten years ago, eight years ago, seven years ago, at the fall of every year, there was the fear that there would be a car shortage at the head of the Great Lakes. There is no more dread of a car shortage and I wish to pay here my compliments to the three great transcontinental railways of Canada. The Liberal party are not responsible for the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway system, but as my hon. friend from Edmonton pointed out the other evening, the double tracking of the Canadian Pacific railway was the direct consequence of the transportation policy of the Liberal party whilst in office. They are responsible for the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway without the degrading of the same line. The statement was made, by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) that the Liberal party was primarily responsible for the construction of the Canadian Northern system. We know, and I am in the judgment of my friends who represent the Great Lakes districts in this House, that the harbours of the Great Lakes have been improved by the immediate predecessors of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works. The St. Lawrence channel system was rushed to completion from 1896 until 1910. It was made

free from tolls by the Liberal party which was a bold policy, but the Liberal party did it. The ship channel between Montreal and Quebec was deepened; the port of Montreal was equipped as no other on the North American continent; and the port of Quebec was also equipped. I am glad to hear that the Government are going to complete that equipment. I hope that my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) is in earnest in the promises he has made to his Quebec supporters that the equipment of the port of Montreal will be completed.
Speaking of transportation, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised, after the many speeches that have been delivered especially around Montreal by hon. gentlemen of the Conservative party, some of whom I see before me now, to find nothing in the Speech from the Throne about the Georgian Bay canal. I am in favour of the Georgian bay canal, but if I mistake not, the moneys which were voted last year will be spent for just one link of that great international route. I believe that the Georgian Bay canal will be completed as soon as the improvement reaches a certain point on lake Nipissing. I hope I may be wrong, but, Sir, I am told by many that it is not the intention of the Government, in view of the intense rivalry existing between southern Ontario and northern Ontario, to proceed any further than lake Nipissing with the Georgian Bay canal.
While speaking about transportation, my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) was taken to task after prorogation, because, forsooth, he had not found it possible to settle the vexed question of ocean rates. Articles were published in the Tory press, and a statement was delivered even by the talented young man who is now Chairman of the Railway Commission, that with regard to this question of ocean freight rates the guilty man was my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. Well, the Chairman of the Railway Commission has gone to England. He has interviewed the mighties in England, the heads of the great navigation companies, and he has returned to Canada. What success has he obtained? What work has he accomplished? If he had accomplished something, if he had achieved any success, surely mention would be made of it in the Speech from the Throne.
We are informed that there will be a Civil Service Bill. I am told-I may be mistaken-perhaps my hon. friend may correct me-that it has already been distributed; but, if so, it has not been my good fortune to read it, At all events, it is the 
beginning, I suppose, of that much desired and much talked of civil service reform. Is it, Mr. Speaker, to be based on Sir George Murray's report? Are we going to have an army of under-secretaries? I know that many of the young talented bloods of the Conservative party have been promised under-secretaryships. Perhaps it explains why some amongst my hon. friends of the Nationalist party have become rabid zealots of the Tory party. Are we going to have under-secretaries, or is the Conservative party going to improve, if it can be improved, the Civil Service Act introduced by the ex-Minister of Agriculture-I refer to the Hon. Sydney Fisher? We may differ as to Mr. Fisher's politics. I regard him as one of the ablest men who ever sat in this Parliament, and, with all due respect to my hon. friend from Chateauguay (Mr. Morris), the new member whom I am pleased to see seated here this evening, I think that the loss of Chateauguay was Canada's loss, that the defeat of Mr. Fisher was the defeat of the House of Commons and of Canada. Mr. Fisher was the first one to introduce a real Civil Service Bill based on the competitive system; that is to say, the British system.
It is universally admitted, that whether he serves at home, or in the Crown colonies, or in the Indian Empire, the British civil servant is the most efficient in the world. And, Sir, that is because the spoils system is unknown in England and because the man who enters the British civil service knows that he has a career in that service. But the great Conservative party in this country, always so ready to speak ill of American politics, has since it came to power applied to the Canadian Civil Service the worst feature of American politics, namely, the spoils system. The Liberal party, following the lead of the Hon. Mr. Fisher, adopted the first Civil Service Bill based jon competitive examinations for the inside service, and although I have asked the Postmaster General for the last two years if he intended to apply that beneficent system to the thousands of employees in the outside service of the post office, I have been able to elicit from him only smiles and vague answers. I trust that the Civil Service Bill which is promised in the Speech from the Throne, will extend to the outside civil service of Canada, the protection and benefits now conferred on the inside service.
We are informed in the speech that at last a Redistribution Bill will be introduc-

ed this session. There are not many members in this House to-day-there are none with the exception of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition and yourself, Mr. Speaker-who were present in 1882 when the first Redistribution Bill was introduced by Sir John A. Macdonald's Government. But, though we were not present we all know what scars the gerrymander of 1882 left on the hearts of the Liberal electors of Ontario. We know that in 1882 and again in 1892 an attempt was made, to use an old Tory expression:	to dish the
Grits, and we know that by picking out a township here and a township there, the Tory gerrymander created a few Grit hives to serve the purposes of the Tory party. But, Sir, what was done in 1882, and what was perpetrated in spite of Liberal protests in 1892, is no longer possible in this year of 1914. Let us not forget what the Hon. Edward Blake suggested to Sir John A. Macdonald. He told him that although he could not successfully prevail against the advantage he had to carve the constituencies as it suited him, yet he should at least respect the historic boundaries of Ontario and Quebec. In 1902, when in turn it fell to the lot of the Liberal party to introduce a Redistribution Bill, what was the policy pursued by the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then Prime Minister? Some young Liberals of that day, animated with an undue party spirit, expected that the Conservatives then sitting in opposition would get a dose of the same medicine they had served out to the Liberals in 1882 and 1892. But, the great leader of the Liberal party, always fair, then gave a lesson not only to his opponents but to the too fervid partisans of his own party, and he introduced a Bill with a schedule in blank, leaving it to a joint committee of the House to delimit the constituencies. And, on the report of that joint committee the Bill was introduced, which, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, was never criticised and was adopted unanimously. That was the Liberal method in 1902 as contrasted with the Tory method in 1882 and 1892.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: Was the report submitted by the committee concurred in by all its members?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The question is a fair one and I shall answer it. As I remember, when the Bill, based on the report of the Committee, was introduced, it was suggested that the two ridings of Hastings had been improperly dealt with and that they should be divided differently, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier acceded to that request and the Bill
was amended in that respect and made unanimous.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. member is mistaken.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I shall be glad to hear the hon. gentleman correct me if he can, but I appeal to his spirit of fair play, and I ask if it is not a fact that the Redistribution Bill of 1902 was considered, even by the opponents of the Liberal party, as a fair measure giving justice to Liberals and to Conservatives alike. With my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), I do trust in the spirit of fair play and the sense of honour of the right hon. the Prime Minister of Canada. Why should we not rely on the honour of the Prime Minister of Canada, and who will believe for a moment that he would descend to mean tactics to dish a political opponent? I do not believe that the Prime Minister of Canada would descend to dishing the Grits, and neither do I believe that public opinion would stand for it in this year of grace 1914.
I am told, I may be wrong, and I shall be glad to be corrected if I am wrong, that there are sinister influences behind the Prime Minister of Canada. I am told, for instance, that my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), whom I regret not to see in his seat and my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) have been consulting their friends around the country in the province of Quebec, to know whether this or that parish, this or that ward on the island of Montreal, should not be better annexed to this or that county. I am not positive about it. It is rumoured, and if it is not true I would be only too glad that it is not.
A Bill will also be introduced to increase the representation in the Upper House. The notice is already on the notice paper. Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that in this connection there is an undue haste to pour new blood into the august chamber? Where is my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster)? Why, to increase the representation in the Senate Chamber, to think of reforming the Senate by deforming it! Where is the hon. member for Lincoln? Mr. Speaker, do you remember his speeches against the Senate? His silence at the present time, to say the least, is very ominous. I was reading the other day the memoirs of a woman of genius, Madame de Stael. In the preface of that work, I came across a sentence. Madame de Stael had been expelled from France by orders of the Emperor Napoleon; she was sojourning in Germany and was writing to a

friend. She said, ' Since Bonaparte lias been crowned Emperor of France, a great silence has been heard in Europe.' I found the expression ' to hear a silence ' rather strange. It must indeed be a very ominous silence. Sir, I hear the silence of my hon. friend from Lincoln when mention is made of an increase in the number of the Senators. Is he dreaming, perad-venture, of a Senatorship or is he sleeping on the woolsack expectations?
This is briefly the bill of fare for this year. There are several courses of platitudes for the party heelers, but there is a diet of negations for the Canadian people. There is nothing about the economic conditions of the country. What is the chief topic to-day in the cities, in the rural parts of Canada, in the homes of Canada? The high cost of living, the fiscal revolution created by the unemployment of the labouring masses and the agitation in the West for free wheat. The Government answers with words to the clamours of the people. My hon. friend the Minister of Play-he describes himself as the Minister of Play, and I hope I am not libelling him when referring in this way to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers)- was asked the other day his opinion about the present high cost of living. What was his answer given at Halifax, the capital of Nova Scotia, represented by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Borden) and by that able gentleman the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean)? Oh, he offered a cure to the ills of the high cost of living. Here is what he said:
To my mind the high cost of living is an indication of the prosperity and expansion of the country. If you want cheap living, give us a few years of hard times.
This is what fell from the lips of my hon. friend the Minister of Labour. There are more than words in this answer. It is adding insult to irony. It reminds me of what happened three or four years ago when the Clemenceau Government was defeated in the French Parliament. It was after a speech delivered by the Prime Minister, by that old tiger, Mr. Clemenceau, who had made quite a witty speech; but his speech was in a way rather unfortunate, and as a result a vote was taken and the Government was defeated. Some one went to that caustic journalist, Henri Rochefort, to get his opinion about the fall of the Government. Mr. Rochefort's quick retort was, ' The Government has committed suicide by firing words into its brain.' When I read the 
answer given by the hon. Minister of Labour, that hard times are a good thing for the country, I say that the Government is committing suicide by firing words into its brain.
Sir, what is the situation to-day after two years of Conservative rule in Canada? It is admitted that when the Liberal party left office three years ago we had enjoyed fifteen years of abundant prosperity, so much so that, when the elections of 1911 took place, our friends on the other side traversed the country and preached to the people of Canada the wholesome gospel of ' let well enough alone.' The trade of Canada was buoyant and our credit in the financial world was excellent. Canada's loans were at that time considered as the leading and best securities on the London financial market. What is the situation today? Is it not a fact that we are facing a most terrible industrial unrest in this country in spite of the high protection which the manufacturers of Canada are enjoying? Who on the other 3ide of the House speaks of the strike at Nanaimo where Canadians were ordered to shoot on Canadians? Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, the speech delivered by the hon. Minister of Militia (Mr. Hughes) two years ago when he said:
' What is the best form of patriotism for young Canadians? Learn to shoot, learn to shoot.' Well, Sir, the British Columbia soldiery are very patriotic. They were ordered to fire on the strikers of Nanaimo. Many of the strikers are in jail to-day. Let us come now to Vancouver. I am informed that in Vancouver there are 17,000 people out of employment. Let us come to Regina. There the mounted police are obliged at this moment to put down bread riots. Think of it; in the great wheatgrowing district of Regina we actually have bread riots and the mounted police are obliged to protect citizens against the rioters.


Mr. STEVENS:: Will the hon. gentleman permit me a question? Will he kindly inform the House the authority for his statement that there are 17,000 out of work in Vancouver? And will he permit me to make a very brief statement?


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: So much the better for Vancouver. My information is to the contrary. That, however, is a matter that can be ascertained. The Board of Trade and the Relief Organization, the Mayor and councillors-the powers that be in Vancouver-are investigating the question. Two thousand five hundred-it is not difficult to investigate that number. . I suspect there is a little more * than that. At all events, I take the word of my hon. friend. We shall get the facts, I am quite sure, after the investigation by the Relief Committee, the Mayor and other authorities.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Will the hon. gentleman tell us when the bread riot occurred in Regina?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I read it in the press only a few days ago.


Arthur Meighen: It was only a joke.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No joke in that. It has not been contradicted in the press. We have the members from the West on this side of the House, and I am assured that the mounted police have been ordered to patrol the streets of Regina in order to prevent a riot.


Arthur Meighen: I was in Regina myself on the night to which the press refers, and I can assure the hon. gentleman that there was no bread riot or any other riot.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In Winnipeg we have, according to the Mayor, three thousand men unemployed. In Toronto, I suppose, everybody is working? But I happened to be in the city of Toronto on the 12th of the present month. It was the day of the inaugural address delivered by Mayor Hocken. If my hon. friend will take the trouble-for me it is always a pleasure -to read the Toronto News of the 12th instant, he will see a big headline, something like the great ' scare heads ' that we had in the last election, showing that Mayor Hocken said: Before proceeding to business, gentlemen who have been newly elected, we must proceed to the relief of the 15,000 people who are out of employment in the city of Toronto. Now, in Montreal, whither I go occasionally-Montreal, which is represented by my hon. friend from Maison-neuve (Mr. Verville)-there are 40,000 people out of employment. I know as a matter of fact that the hours of labour have been reduced in the Angus shops, in the Grand Trunk shops, in the Canada Car shops. I will not name other shops where the people are simply put out of employment for the whole winter. In Quebec-I appeal to my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) as to this-were it not for the Government works this winter there would be serious trouble in that city. Is it not a fact that the principal trade of Quebec, the shoe trade, is now locked up ? Is it not a fact that we have had strikes and lockouts all along the Intercolonial railway from the city of Levis to the city of Halifax? Last year the Government boasted of the prosperity of the country. This year, unfortunately, we are the sad witnesses of a declining trade, a shrinking revenue, and unemployment. And the excuse given by the Minister of Finance for this sad condition of things is: Oh, well, in 1907-08 there was also a temporary check. Yes, it is true, in 1907-08 there was a temporary check in the prosperity of the country. But concurrently with that temporary check there was a cut in the expenditure of the Dominion. Under the Liberal Government, in the last year that Government was in office, the expenditure amounted to $120,000,000. This year, in the day of adversity, the national expenditure amounts to $250,000,000 in round figures.
The credit of Canada in the financial world has been impaired, I do not wish to be unduly severe with the Minister of Finance; I have a good deal of sympathy for him. If he were now in his seat I would ask him permission to say that he may well raise his standard and his ideals to the height of the standard and ideals of Hon. W. S. Fielding, his predecessor as Minister of Finance. With Mr. Fielding, statesmanship was more than empty words; it was character, it was conviction; it was sincerity of purpose; it was service and fitness. I say again, the Minister of Finance may well look up to his predecessor as an exemplar.
The Minister of Finance complains that the Liberal London press has been inspired -as if the London Tory press last year during our debate on the $35,000,000 tribute had not been daily inspired from this country representing the Liberal party as a party of disloyal men. Leaving aside the London Chronicle, which, according to its standard of ethics does not publish anything except the truth about our financial condition, let us take the Pall Mall Gazette,

a Tory paper in London which shrieks its jingoism daily. What did the Pall Mall Gazette say about the last loan venture of the Minister of Finance? It said that it was the greatest fiasco which ever took place in England in the case of a Canadian loan. What about the Daily Mail, a paper with a large circulation, devoted to the jingo party in London? The Daily Mail on December 16 used the following language:
Canadians, until recently, stood easily highest
amongst the Colonial securities and not many months ago the Dominion of Canada's 35 per cents (there was no 4 per cent then) stood some half a dozen points higher than corresponding western Australian stock, whereas now, the western Australian 4 per cents recently issued at 97 stand at 2 premium, while Canadian 4 per cents issued at the same price stand at one-half discount.
Sir, the financial stringency of 1907 affected the whole financial world, but during that period Canada, under the financial leadership of Mr. Fielding, the ex-Minister of Finance, was never branded as it was of late by the jingo Tory press of Lon-dofi, England. Sir, Mr. Fielding preserved the credit of Canada not only at home but abroad during the stress of 1911.
I now come to that vexed question of the high cost of living. In Canada, a young country rich in resources, it is abnormal that during the last ten years the percentage of increase in the cost of living has reached the figure of 57 per cent, as against 15 per cent in Great Britain and 17 per cent in the United States. I know that the causes of the high cost of living are many and diverse. I know that we can attribute this condition partly to depreciation in the value of gold, partly to the desertion of land, to the increased urban population, to uneconomic methods of marketing, to a wrong system of cold storage, and to the trusts and mergers. Speaking about cold storage, I observe that my genial friend across the way (Mr. Bradbury) has a Bill on the Order Paper to regulate the cold storage trusts. I hope this Bill will be taken into consideration as soon as possible, and, for my part, I intend to give the hon. gentleman the best support I can. But, apart from those causes which are well known, and which are not objected to because they are clearly self-evident, is it not a fact that
9 p.m. the drainage of our Canadian products southward is also a cause of the high cost of living? At present milk, cream, fish, beef and potatoes are drained out of Canada by United States consumers. We were told, it is true, that the

United States market was of no consequence to Canada, but if we look at the exports to the United States during the last three or four months, we can see what are the effects of the jug-handled reciprocity which we are enjoying at present. I grant, Mr. Speaker, all the other causes of the high cost of living, but I say there is another, and that is the tariff-the food taxes. That cause is apparent; we can deal with it, and we can deal with it at the present session. Here are a few of the taxes which the Canadian consumer has to pay every time he sits down to a meal:	Canned
meats, 27J per cent; bread stuffs, 171 per cent; flour, 60 cents a barrel; fresh meats, 3 cents a pound; rice, 75 cents a quintal; sugar, $1.08 a quintal; oatmeal, 60 cents a quintal; eggs, 3 cents a dozen; butter, 4 cents a pound; cheese, 3 cents a pound; condensed milk, 3} cents a tin. This tariff on the food products appearing on the table of the workingman is a direct cause of the inflation of prices. Besides, the customs revenue tells the tale. We import foodstuffs from at least (fifty countries. During the year ended last March, Canada imported from the United States foodstuffs to the value of $23,072,100, on which duties amounting to $4,816,000, in round figures, were collected. From Great Britain foodstuffs to the value of $5,355,000 were imported, even with the British preference, the duties upon which amounted to $1,075,000. With respect to France and Germany the same applies, with a lower percentage of duty. So we are face to face with the fact that we pay duties on foodstuffs to the amount of more than $11,000,000 yearly, and this is one of the self-evident causes of the high cost of living. Speaking for myself only, and committing no one with whom I have the honour to be associated,
I say that I am ready to stand for the wiping out of all duties on the foodstuffs consumed in Canada. What has been good for the mother country; what is good for the American consumer at the present time, is good enough for me, a Canadian.
But we are asked: Are you going to deprive the farmer, who is, after all, perhaps the greatest producer in our country, of the little protection which he now enjoys? But is he not also a consumer? The articles of which I have given a list, and on which duties are paid, are consumed as well by the farmer as by the workingman, and if the duties on these articles are wiped out, the farmer will benefit by it. But, Mr. Speaker, when protection is concerned, you can always make an argument if

you wish to fasten and tighten around the neck of the farmer the collar of serfdom. In this conflict of opinion as to the removal of food taxes, who is the best judge, after all? Canada, thank Heaven, is a great farming community; Canada and the Canadian West is one of Nature's greatest farms and the Canadian grain growers and grangers fairly represent, I think, those classes of industry. What did the grain growers advocate, the farmers of the great prairie provinces west of Lake Superior, and even the farmers of the province of Ontario? First and foremost, larger markets for western wheat. Next, free interchange of foodstuffs and agricultural implements, free cement, free lumber, increase of the British preference to fifty per cent, and free trade with Great Britain within five years. I, for one, do not say that all this can be granted at one fell swoop, but I do say that free wheat, at least, which is being sought by both the political parties in Western Canada, should be granted by the Government. We were told this afternoon by the genial member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) that, like that American with the eye of a cat, we see nothing but rats and mice around us. Let us see what rats and mice the grain growers saw, the men whom you are so anxious to protect? Let me quote a few crisp sentences from the memorial presented by the grain growers when last they came to Ottawa.
Expansion in farming operations has ceased. Uess than 100,000 acres has been broken in 1913, as against an estimate of 4,000,000 two years previous; and this in the face of the fact that upwards of . half a million immigrants have been brought into that western country within the last three years.
The last two years have demonstrated that western farmers are not going to continue to grow crops at a loss. They cannot grow grain at a profit in larger quantities without other markets and alternate route for shipment. So long as our grain is forced to go for export through one channel that lends itself so readily to the manipulation of grain speculation, and the Imposing of excessive freight charges by combinations of transportation companies, we need look for no great increase in production.
In the four years, 1908 to 1911, when the growth of the West was at its height, the crop area increased from 8,312,956 acres in 1908 to 17,488,117, in 1911. The next two years showed a decrease of 1,259,617, and It remains with this Government to say whether we revert to this rapid growth of the decade ending 1911, or remain as we have since.
We submit that the wider market afforded us by accepting the offer of the United States for free interchange of natural products would have the same effect in stimulating the raising of wheat, oats, barley and flax as free access to the United States market for cattle has already done for that line of farm enterprise. Not only because it would provide another market for grain, but also because it would provide a competitive route for transporting grain to Europe.
We ask that all food stuffs be placed on the free list as we believe that the taxing of food is a crime against humanity.
The sensible thing for the Canadian people to do is to stop borrowing money, pay for what we buy and produce for export to meet our obligations.
Wherein should we tax the benefit of money invested in agriculture for the benefit of capital invested in manufacturing?
A few men become millionaires, while the masses become poorer; a few live in mansions, while many are forced into slums.
Manufacturing is unduly expanding, while the farming industry languishes because of being drained of its life blood. *
Farmers do not object to pay their share of the cost of Government. They are willing to submit to any system that will be of equitable taxation, levied for revenue purposes only.
That is the situation as described by the very farmers whom the Government is so anxious to protect. I was reading the other day a Life of John Bright, written by a nephew of Macaulay, Mr. Trevelyan. It is the latest biography of John Bright, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a short passage from that work, describing the condition of the people in England at the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws. It seems to me that there is a close analogy between the condition he describes and the one described in the memorial left in the hands of the Government by the grain growers and the grangers of the West. It reads as follows:-
We your petitioners, dwell in a land whose merchants are noted for their enterprise, whose manufacturers are very skilful, and whose workmen are proverbial for their industry. The land itself is goodly, the soil rich, and the temperature wholesome. It is abundantly furnished with materials of commerce and trade; it has numerous and convenient harbours; in facility of internal communication it exceeds all others. For three and twenty years we have enjoyed a profound peace. Yet, with all these elements of national prosperity, and with every disposition and capacity to take advantage of them, we find ourselves overwhelmed with public and private suffering. We are bowed down under a load of taxes; our traders are trembling on the verge of bankruptcy; our workmen are starving; capital brings no profit and labour no remuneration; the home of the artificer is desolate, and the warehouse of the pawnbroker is full; the workhouse is crowded and the manufactory is deserted. We have looked on every side, we have searched diligently in order to find out the causes of a distress so sore and so long continued. We can discover none in nature or in Providence. Heaven has dealt graciously by the people; but the foolishness of our rulers has made the goodness of God of none effect.
As I said, the description of the conditions of life among the farmers and work-


Mr. BURNHAM:: May I ask the hon. gentleman-?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not for the present. I
am quoting figures, but after I am done my hon. friend may put his question. Now, let us take the figures in connection with the great fundamental industry of agriculture. In the United States agricultural implements are free, whereas in Canada the farmer, whom the Conservative party is so anxious to protect, has to pay from 121 to 25 per cent duty for his machinery. The table of figures is as follows:
Article.	Canada. U. S.
Agricultural implements. . 121 to 25% Free.
Shoe machinery	15 to 271% Free.
Sewing machines	20 to 30% Free.
Type-setting machines. .. 12J to 20% Free.
Typewriters	171 to 25% Free.
Steel manufactures	20 to 35%	5 to 15
Bituminous coal	35 to 53". p.c.
per 100 lbs. Free.
Leather belting	10 to 15% Free.
Patent leather	15 to 25% Free.
Harness	20 to 30% Free.
Having dealt witn the tariff, and successfully, we will see the result before long in the United States. Mr. Wilson also dealt with the currency. I have nothing to say on this subject as I feel, and I know, that in Canada we have probably the best currency system to be found anywhere.


Mr. W. P. MACLEAN:: Oh, oh.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend, the
radical, does not seem to !be a great believer in what I am expressing now. He may have occasion to speak later on in the debate, but, this, at least is my opinion. Having dealt with the currency system President Wilson is now dealing with the trusts and mergers, one of the causes of the high cost of living. It is useless to mince matters, it is just as well to speak plainly and honestly to the privileged class, who, since 1879, have been enjoying their privileges. Contrast the attitude of the President of the United States as regards trusts and mergers with that of the Canadian Government. The President presented the case, he said ' as it lies in the thought of the country/ reiterating 'that private monopoly is indefensible and intolerable,' and declaring that conscientious men throughout the nation would not be satisfied until practices now deprecated by public opinion as restraints of trade and commerce were corrected. ' We are now about to write the additional articles of our constitution of peace ', said the President. ' The peace that is honour and freedom and prosperity.' Besides suggesting the scope of legislation, the President made a personal appeal for an atmosphere of friendliness and co-operation in Congress while handling the problem. Then the points of the new legislation are given, but I need not recite them, because they appear in the public prints. Contrast, Sir, the attitude of the President of the United States as regards the trusts, combines and mergers with the attitude of the present hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers). We have in the memorial of the Grain-growers' Association a direct attack on the combines, the mergers, and the monopolies existing in Canada; we heard last year authoritative statements with reference to them from the hon. the Labour member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville); we heard the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) the other day unveiling the famous lake steamship merger, and we all remember the case of the United 'Shoe Machinery Company. Some years ago the Liberal Government passed a Combines Investigation Act and the first combine to come under the operation of that legislation was the United Shoe Machinery Company. In May, 1910, the Hon. Mackenzie King, then Minister of Labour, introduced the legislation, and, some time afterwards various complaints were made by the manufacturers of boots 13
and shoes in Canada, that their business was hampered and made unduly costly by the trade methods of the United Shoe Machinery Company of Canada. It was alleged that the company, which was an adjunct of the United Shoe Machinery Company of the United States, was a perfect sample of a combine in restraint of trade. A board was appointed over which Mr. Justice Lau-rendeau (now the city attorney for Montreal) presided, and on October 20, 1912, that board reported:
The United Shoe Machinery Company is a combine, and by,the operation of the clauses of the lease quoted in the foregoing, which restricts the use of the leased machinery in the way therein set forth; competition in the manufacture, production, sale, and supply of shoe machinery in Canada has been and is unduly restricted and prevented.
To make a long story short, the board reported against the United Shoe Machinery Oompany, and the company was liable, according to the law passed in 1910, to a fine of $1,000 per day. In the month of November last, I find in the Labour Gazette, the report of the Deputy Minister of Labour dated July 15, 1913. After citing facts it concludes with the following significant statement:
The Board's report having been published in the Canada Gazette of October 26, 1912, the date on which the company would be subject to the operation of section 23 was advanced to May 6, 1913 and thereafter. At the date of writing the department has not been made aware of any action taken as a result of the board's report.
1 do not see the Minister of Labour in his seat but I am quite sure the United Shoe Machinery Company is still at liberty to uphold its combine, and to restrict trade and supply in Canada according to its sweet will. Again, I say: contrast the attitude of the President of the United States with the attitude of the Canadian Minister of Labour-


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman state that the United Shoe Machinery Company has done nothing in pursuance of the finding of the board?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I take it from the report published by the Deputy Minister of Labour that they have not. That is the authority I have, and I will read it again:
The board's report having been published in the Canada Gazette of October 26, 1912, the date on which the company would be subject to the operation of section 23 was advanced to May 6, 1913 and thereafter. At the date of writing the department have not been made aware of any action taken as a result of the board's report.

1!)4


Arthur Meighen: That date is prior to the date up to which the board had extended the time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The limit is fixed by the legislation; it is automatic. Then, after that date had been reached, it gave the United Shoe Machinery Company another delay, and after that nothing was done. The United Shoe Machinery Company did not pay the fine of $1,000 a day. If it has paid since I would like to know from the Solicitor General.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman does not seem to understand me. The time was extended by the Board, and the article he quoted from was written before the expiration of that time. The company is not under obligation to pay. A prosecution in the criminal courts would be necessary, and the finding under the Act, to which my hon. friend has referred, would be of no value whatever in the prosecution. The criminal courts would have to assess the fine after proof of the facts having been given. The hon. gentleman can scarcely state that the company has done nothing, up to the expiration of the time stated, namely the 5th of May, to comply with the finding of the Board.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Solicitor-General can supply me with the information. The Deputy Minister of Labour says the company has done nothing.


Arthur Meighen: But that was before the time had expired.
Mr.- LEMIEUX: I have given the date of the report published in the Canada Gazette. What have they done since, anyway? I am told that they have done nothing, and that the combine still exists. If the legislation passed by the ex-Minister of Labour, Mr. Mackenzie King, is not elastic enough, and the Solicitor General- representing the West as he does and representing it very creditably-is anxious that this combine should be destroyed, why does he not employ his legal acumen to implement that legislation? I am sure that when the Solicitor General has a little conversation with the Minister of Labour he will find that there are influences at work in the Department of Labour, and that the United Shoe Machinery Company has some friends in office, and, that nothing will be done. But, if the legislation is not perfect, I hope the Solicitor General will see that it will be made perfect.
The Minister of Finance, after surveying the whole situation, gave rather drastic advice to the farmers of this country. He

said to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald): Do not be a bear on Canadian conditions, and he told the farmers to be possessed of rational optimism. The Minister of Finance told us: We are going to educate the farmers; we will make the farmers increase their production, and everything after that will go on smoothly. Sir, I can anticipate the answer of the farmers to the candid advice given by such a candid friend as the Minister of Finance; I know that the answer of the farmers will be: Give us wider markets; give us free food, free wheat, free agricultural implements, and make war on the trusts and the combines and the monopolies. The Minister of Finance spoke with sarcasm about the famous Cobden metal, but I would point out to him that Cobden and Bright captured England some sixty years ago by appealing to the common sense of the people, and not to prejudices. I for one do not care to catechise in this House, but it is not bad, perhaps it is even *quite opportune that we should retain the fundamentals on this question of the producer and the consumer. In reading the diary of John Bright on the existence of monopolies in England, I find the following wholesome truisms. He says:
Monopoly presupposes some advantage, to those who possess it. It gives to them the protection of the market and excludes foreign grown corn in order that in a market insufficiently supplied they may obtain a higher price than their corn is really worth. This higher price can only be obtained by preventing the food market being as abundantly supplied as it would be if the regular laws of commerce were not interfered with. This higher price therefore exists and is procurable only from the existence of scarcity intentionally created by law.
This is a wholesome truth propounded by John Bright, quite an authority on the matter and quite a friend of the common people who, to use the words of Abraham Lincoln, must be really loved by the Almighty as they are so numerous. Mr. Bright goes on to say:
This increased value places the food out of the reach of those whose means are most limited, whilst the most wealthy classes are still able to procure as much as they require. The pressure of scarcity comes then upon the poorest portion of the people. In a besieged city the rich and powerful can hold out longest-[DOT]
For instance, the noble eighteen could hold longest against the fifteen thousand asking Mayor Hocken for free bread and free soup.
[DOT]-the poor and defenceless feel famine soonest This law-made famine is unequal, sparing the rich and crushing the poor.

That is the story of the bread rioters in Regina.
Famine on board a ship at sea would be equally borne by all. Admiral and cabin-boy would share the biscuits, but as the Corn Law scarcity is created for the special benefit of one class, it is but likely that all the suffering should be averted from that class. The scarcity affects various portions of the community, in the inverse ratio of their power to endure it. The labourers probably are the only class that feel it in a positive insufficiency of food, and of these the weakest and poorest, whose labour is least valuable and least skilled, bear the greatest intensity of suffering.
Perhaps this may appear a little out of date, and I hear sneers from some of my hon. friends on the other side. But who will dare deny that in this young country of ours we are face to face, in Winnipeg, in Vancottver, in Toronto, in Montreal with slums and with people underfed? If you read the morning press, you will find that clergymen from nearly all the great cities are clamouring to-day in favour of the underfed and against the slums. Though the fundamentals may be a little out of date, though I may appear a little archaic in my economic, notions, yet I believe that it is well for Canada that someone should rise in the House of Commons and speak the language of tiuth, commonsense and justice to the monopolists who have enjoyed their privileges during thirty or forty years. Oh! but we are told, that the right hon. the leader of the Opposition has changed his policy. He was first of all for free trade as we have it in England. Then he was for a continental union. Then he was for unrestricted reciprocity. Then he was for readjustment of the tariff; finally he became in favour of restricted reciprocity, and now he is a free fooder for the moment, as said with smile the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White). Say what you like, take the whole course of the right hon. gentleman's career, whether he advocated continental union-and it is not proven-whether he fought for unrestricted reciprocity-and unrestricted reciprocity found favour even in Ontario in 1891-though he was for free trade as we have it in England, for restricted reciprocity, though he is to-day in favour of free food, there is something of consistency in his stand-he is for the reduction of taxation. He is not for the increase of taxation and the consolidation of monopolies, combines and mergers. Permit me to quote one phrase of Sir Robert Peel's letter to a friend of his. He, too was considered as a great apostate, because he stood for the people against the big interests.
Some of the masses even were against him as they were against Cobden and Bright.
In a letter, which a friend of mine read in the British Museum and which he copied three or four years ago, because it was in his own handwriting, I found the following phrase which applies very well to the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier):
I have many difficulties to contend with r much misrepresentation and obloquy to encounter on the part of those whom I verily believe I am protecting from evils and dangers , of which they seem little aware.
When the right hon. gentleman disappears from public life-and I trust that this is a far-off contingency-he may well say, with Sir Robert Peel:
I shall leave a name execrated by every monopolist who maintains perfection for his own individual benefit, but it may be, I shall leave a name sometimes remembered with expressions of good will, in those places that are the abodes of men whose lot it is to labour and to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow.
Nothing has been said about the naval question, and possibly this is the cause of the nervousness of the Postmaster General. The naval question, much to your surprise, Mr. Speaker, perhaps much to your comfort, is now amongst the departed. The hearse that took the Naval Bill from this House to the Upper Chamber left, the corpse where it should remain. The naval question has been shelved by the Government. I will not recite the various phases of the naval question, although I am tempted to do so by the presence in this Chamber to-day of the author of the far-famed resolution of 1909. We know, first, that this motion was introduced in 1909 in favour of a Canadian navy. We know, further, that it was made unanimous. We know, also, that the right hon. leader of the Government (Mr. Borden) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) in their speeches in the House of Commons, in England, at Halifax and in Ontario, favoured a Canadian navy as per the resolution of 1909. We know that the Drummond and Artha-baska election took place in 1910. It was found out, perhaps by the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk), that the Liberals' difficulties were the Tories' opportunity. We know that it was through the election in Drummond and Arthabaska that the Tories had their first vision of a victory. We know the contradictory attitudes taken by the ex-Minister of Public Works in the province of Quebec, and by

the then leader of the Opposition (Mr. Borden) in the English-speaking provinces of the Dominion. We know that in the campaign of 1911 the Tory jingoes were paying -yes, I have it on the authority of Mr. Bourassa over his own signature-the Tory jingoes of Montreal and Toronto were paying for the sowing of the Nationalist seed in Canada. We know what happened; we were defeated, of course. The first session took place. My hon. friend the Prime Minister was feeling his ground. Would he repeal the Naval Bill? Would he introduce a new naval policy?-the Tory jingo policy of centralization as against the policy of my right hon. friend the present leader of the Opposition? The Prime Minister went to England, accompanied by his fervent home ruler, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), and by that fervent Nationalist-of that time-the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier). When they came back a banquet took place in Montreal at the Windsor hotel, and we are familiar with the declarations made By the Prime Minister. He told his hearers: I have my information from the proper sources, I have consulted the Admiralty; the House will convene in a few weeks; I shall submit my naval policy to the faithful Commons of Canada, and if Parliament prove unfaithful, I will appeal to the people of Canada. The emergency appeared on the 5th of December, 1913. We remember the heroic resistance of the Reform party against the tyranny and the stampede of the jingo party. We are aware of the effect, the damaging effect, of Mr. Churchill's letter. We had closure-'a good French word misused for a very bad thing; closure was introduced under the master hand of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers). We know what was the answer of the Senate to the action of the majority in the House of Commons. While not referring at all : to the little incident before our Easter duties of last year, now that the atmosphere of the House of Commons is serene and peaceful -is it not a fact, Sir, that events which took place since last session have vindicated the course of the Canadian Liberal party? I listened to the lecture at the Canadian Club in this city on Saturday by Mr. J. S. Ewart. We may differ as regards Mr. Ewart. He is an independent; he is above party politics. But as regards his perfect knowledge of the affairs of the British Empire, I think we can all take Mr. Ewart's word. Read that lecture of Mr. Ewart's, and read it again. He tells us that since last session the Australian navy is an accomplished fact, the Australian navy with the Australian flag at its mastheads. Since last session New Zealand has started a navy. Since last session-when my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Aikins) on his return from Europe declared that war was actually in existence between England and Germany-there has been a rapprochement between England and Germany. And if you look at the Annual Register for last year, you will find that the best customer that John Bull has is Germany. So far, then, our course has been vindicated since last session. More than that, the policy propounded by the Conservative party in this House-I should say the policy re-echoed by the Conservative party in this House, for that policy was imposed on the Prime Minister of Canada by Mr. Churchill, by the clerks of the Admiralty and by the party of centralization in England-the best authorities amongst the Imperialists in England, Imperialists of the sanest kind, men like Mr. Richard Jebb, Admiral Henderson and Admiral Fremantle, have declared that the policy propounded by the right hon. leader of the Opposition was the only good policy for Canada and for the empire. I shall not weary the House with quotations, but I repeat-Sir Richard Jebb, one of the best known apostles of the Imperial gospel, a disciple of Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Milner, Admiral He iderson and Admiral Fremantle have declared that the time has come to accept the policy of the leader of the Canadian Opposition. More than that, the London Times, the Thunderer-inspired at times-has approved of the Australian navy and the New Zealand navy. By that admission it has approved of the Canadian navy. But it had approved of the Canadian navy before. As I say, I do not care to weary the House with old extracts, but after the Conference of 1911, the Times shouted with joy at the announcement that at last there was to be a great Imperial policy based on the declaration made by the one who had been singled out in that Conference by Mr. Asquith as the Nestor of the Conference-namely Imperial unity based on local autonomy. Sir, the naval question has been shelved; the emergency has disappeared, and the time is now ripe for a permanent policy. As a Liberal, and as a loyal Canadian, I say to the Government, now that the emergency has disappeared, bring down a permanent policy; let it be along the lines of the Australian policy, and you will find the Canadian Liberal party with the Government, and supporting that policy. The emergency has disappeared but the Gio-

conda has also disappeared from Paris. I suspect that some fine Italian hand will some day sooner or later bring back the Mona Lisa of the Tory party, the emergency. When will it be restored and adorn the walls of this Parliament? Mr. Speaker, you need not guess it; we all know it. The emergency invented last year and shelved this year will be restored as soon as there are any rumours of a general election. It is needed for the flag-waving campaign. The ' no truck, no trade ' cry is now too old a song; the cry of ' Canada as an adjunct of the United States ' is dead and buried, and a new patented flag-waving campaign is needed to re.urn the Tory party to office. But the ' wolf, wolf ' cry will not succeed a secand time. I know that certain jingo papers are trying to make themselves believe that there is an emergency. It must not die, it must not disappear. I read in the Montreal Star of Saturday the following lines:
The airy manner in which Sir Wilfrid Daurier dismissed all question of a naval ' emergency ' -past, present or future-the other day in Parliament, passed the comprehension of those who take an intelligent interest in foreign politics. The proofs of an ' emergency ' are so plain, so plentiful, so painfully omnipresent, that it is incomprehensible to men who bother with anything outside their own bailliwick how a statesman of Sir Wilfrid's stature could possibly blind his eyes to what is written in massed bayonets across the continent of Europe.
I wonder if the gentleman who in his sound sober sense wrote the above lines is one of that organization of crooks described by Lord Welby, who uses the following language:
We are in the hands of an organization of crooks. They are politicans, generals, manufacturers of armaments, and journalists, all of them anxious for unlimited expenditure and given to inventing scares which terrify the public and terrify ministers of the Crown.
I am quite positive, Mr. Speaker-and I am sincere in this-that the gentleman who said that the emergency was written in massed bayonets intended to terrify my hon. friend the Minister of
10 p.m. Public Works. Lord Welby continues that he could remember six war scares, each one made to order, and in each case of which the public had been gulled. Each time the scare had been exposed later on, but each new scare took, and resulted in enormous expenditure on armaments. These, are the utterances of Lord Welby, a member of that august assembly, the House of Lords, which was reformed by Lloyd George, the much-talked
of minister who has himself advocated a reduction in armament. I would not for one moment leave the House with the impression that Lord Welby is a crank, and that he did not know what he was talking about. I hold in my hand a little blue book-not the blue book which the Government intends to give as bread to the consumers of Canada, the report of the investigation of the high cost of living commission, but a little book bearing the suggestive tittle:	' The Six Panics and Other
Essays,' by F. W. Hirst. Mr. Hirst, as we all know is the financial authority of the British Empire. He is the editor of the London Economist, a paper which is eagerly read every time it reaches his office by the Minister of Finance in Canada. Mr. Hirst is no crank; he is a good Britisher. Of course he has a little failing: he is a Radical. 1 commend the reading of his book to every member of the House of Commons. There were six panics in England during the last century. The first lasted from 1847 to 1848, and it originated by a letter of the Duke of Wellington. It was addressed to a British officer, and afforded painful evidence of enfeebled naval power. The iron duke, speaking about the painful evidence of enfeebled power of the naval forces of Great Britain, naturally excited public opinion, and the people were led to believe that the French were going to invade England. Mr. Hirst explained how tile panic ended:
This panic ended dramatically. Lord Russell was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Budget produced on February 18, 1848, raised the income tax from sevenpence to a shilling in the pound, in order to increase armaments and to reorganize the militia in accordance with the Duke of Wellington's advice. When this addition to taxation came into view, in association with preparations against the danger of invasion, the danger seemed to diminish and the panic abated.
And strange to say, a few weeks afterwards the invader entered England, but it was the aged French King Louis Philippe who went to England not as an invader but as a refugee. He had lost the crown of France. The second panic-again a French panic-lasted from 1851 to 1853. Lord John Russell, speaking in the House of Commons, said:
Really, to hear or read some of the letters, some of the language used by some portion of the press, one would imagine that these two great nations, so wealthy, so similar in enlightenment, were going to butcher one another, merely to try what would be the effect of percussion caps and needle guns.
Mr. Joseph Hume, the veteran economist, describes the condition in England in one of the debates as follows:

Our present panics are not due as in times past to the old women, but to our having too many clubs about London, containing so many half pay officers, who have nothing to do but to look about for themselves and their friends. These are the people who write to the newspapers anxious to bring grist to the mill somehow or other.
And you know how the panic ended.
The alarm was constantly stimulated by startling paragraphs in the newspapers. One day the French army at Rome was reported to be chafing and dissatisfied, because it could not share in the invasion of England and the sack of London; the next there were whispered revelations of a secret plan, divulged by General Changarnier, for invading England and seizing the metropolis (which he publicly contradicted) then we were told of a plot for securing a naval station in the West Indies: next, the French Government had sent an order for steam frigates to Messrs. Napier of Glasgow.
Admirals on half pay were every morning surveying the channel and seeing on the horizon the French frigates coming with the invaders. How did the panic end? Mr. Hirst tells us that a little arrangement took place between the War Office in London and the War Office in Paris and the panic ended by the union of the French and English armies for aggression in the Crimea. The third panic lasted from 1859 to 1861. It was again a French invasion scare but Richard Cobden published at that time a little book entitled, The Three Panics, That ended the scare. There was another panic in 1884. Mr. Hirst tells us how it started.
According to an old official of the Admiralty this first success of ' the advanced school of naval thought ' was one ' most unexpected ' and owed its origin to the merest accident. Lord Salisbury the Conservative leader on a visit to Portsmouth in the summer of 1884 had heard discontent expressed about the state of the navy by some of the officials there and referred to the matter in a speech, which seemed to express a doubt as to whether the navy was strong enough to ensure the national safety.
A few days afterwards the question was taken up by Mr. Stead, the journalist. The Annual Register, alluding to him, remarked:
In nearly all quarters the Government's answer to the popular demand was pronounced inadequate. Nevertheless there arose a few anti-alarmists or skeptics who declared that the outcry in the newspapers was chiefly, if not wholly, the work of the professional advisers of the Admiralty, assisted in a great measure by the large ship builders, whose yards were empty and whose trade was temporarily at a standstill.
And the fifth panic was called the dreadnought scare. I need not worry the House with that. We all know that when Sir
Henry Campbell Bannerman became Prime Minister he reduced the expenditure on the Navy Bill by many million pounds. Immediately the shipbuilders and armour platers raised a row and a campaign was started in the press to get England to build dreadnoughts. England had already one at the time, but as Germany was contemplating the building of many dreadnoughts, England was urged to start building them too. We all remember, too, the Blatchford scare and the articles written by that famous Socialist. We remember too that farce, humiliating for England, which was played all over England and even in the city of Ottawa-an Englishman's Home. You remember the lines, Mr. Speaker.
We want eight-
We won't waitdreadnoughts. Thanks to Mr. Hirst, we all know now the source of the dreadnought scare. It was started and paid for 'by the armour platers and we know how ultimately it failed. But we had another panic not so very long ago. We can have no more panics about dreadnoughts and superdreadnoughts, but not many weeks ago we were terrified by an air-ship panic. Officers on half pay I suppose, had seen lights in the firmament that were neither stars nor meteors; surely they must be the lights of the Zeppelins. And the press immediately started a campaign for supplying the home Government with airships. They succeeded. This is what Mr. Hirst says:
Previously, on February 20, this business side of the agitation came to the surface in a news column (headed * Aeroplane Purchases- Machines for the British Army and Navy') which runs as follows:
And he then gives the number of machines bought by the English Government at the instigation of a few comedians writing in the press for the airship firms. Mr. Speaker, I have said enough on this subject. We in Canada have been for the last few years the laughing stock of the armour platers and of the insincere jingoes. I admit that many, in fact the majority of the jingoes, act in good faith but there is too much jingoism in Canada; too many people believe that they are born to save the empire. Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister of England, can be depended upon in matters Imperial. In 1911 he served us with a notice in his answer to Sir Joseph Ward. He said that never so long as he was Prime Minister of England would the foreign policies of Great Britain be controlled by the overseas do-

minions. That was a notice very courteously and very firmly served on the empire savers. Mr. Asquith will not abdicate even for the prime ministers of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. He with Sir Edward Grey, is the inspirer responsible for the foreign policy of Great Britain and he does not intend * to abdicate his functions. We have besides, it seems to me, our own problems, we have our own difficulties; we have the tariff to deal with, the labour question to deal with, we have the Hindu agitation in British Columbia to look after, and we have the yellow immigration to cope with. These are problems, these are difficulties, which can well occupy the time of the ministers of the Crown in Canada. Let us therefore turn our attention to Canadian affairs. We should not be ashamed to deal with Canadian affairs. We are building up our country. The mandate of the Prime Minister of Canada is the Dominion's mandate, not the empire's mandate. Serving Canada is serving the Empire.
Too much militarism in this country! Militarism is not a healthy condition. I believe in a moderate military expenditure. I believe that the common people of this country are ready to bear their share of military expenditure, but, Mr. Speaker-the rides-the joy rides-of my hon. friend the Minister of Militia (Mr. Hughes) in Europe with his gold-plated staff, his antics, his hiring of automobiles at $25 a day, is indeed a very poor advertisement abroad for our young country. The expenditure is out of all proportion. If I may be allowed I will again quote John Bright:
I do not care for military greatness or military renown. I care for the condition of the people among whom I live. Palaces, baronial castles, great halls, stately mansions, do not make a nation. The nation in every country dwells in a cottage and unless the light of your constitution can shine there, unless the beauty of your legislation and the excellence of your statesmanship are impressed there on the feeling and condition of the people, rely upon it you have yet to learn the duties of government.
The hon. Minister of Finance is shrugging his shoulders:	Well, we won the by-elections anyway; we won six out of seven. I have here the circulars which were distributed in the county of Chateauguay, where, as my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has said, a double appeal was made. I know that the farmers were told to vote for the Government because the Government would give them road money and the French-Canadians in the county of Chateauguay were told what, by the Deputy
Speaker? Mr. Speaker, I might inform you, en passant, that your deputy was in that election contrary to all precedent, and he was there holding public meetings. The great constitutional party respecting old usages and customs! Well, Sir, he was there distributing circulars telling what?
Mr. Borden is the friend of the province of Quebec. Never have we been so well treated as since he has been Prime Minister. Contrast that with the Laurier regime.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, you remember what the Mail said about Laurier being so lavish with the province of Quebec and so stingy with Ontario?
Contrast with the Laurier regime the attitude of Mr. Rogers. He is more generous with the province in the distribution of public works than was Mr. Pugsley, the Liberal minister, thirteen million dollars of public money comes in one year. There are public works for all over the province. Twenty-five million dollars will be expended by the Borden Government in the province of Quebec this year.
Then follows the words, ' eloquent figures.' We have here the figures for wharfs and rivers and the Quebec harbour. My hon. friend the Postmaster General thinks a little of Quebec. Here are the appropriations in the Main and Supplementary Estimates for harbours and river improvements. Here we find in high headlines:	Quebec,
principal items; Main Estimates, and Supplementary Estimates; page after page of them; divers public works and it says that this money will be expended in 1913-14. At the end there is a resume as follows:
Public works, main estimates .. $2,443,000	00
Public works, supplementary estimates	
974,000	00Harbours and rivers, main estimates	
1,016,075	00Harbours and rivers, supplementary estimates	
703,956	54Public works, chargeable to capital	
1,514,000	00Divers public works	
4,700,095	00Total	$11,351,126 54
Then there is this appeal:
Electors of Chateauguay, will you return to the Brodeur-Lemieux regime, or do you prefer the regime of Mr. Rogers and prosperity for
the province of Quebec?
Then we find also the following:
Mr. Borden is fair with the French-Canadians. We have rather a large portion of patronage.
I am afraid that is an appeal to the appetites of the people. What do you think, Mr. Speaker, of the action of your Deputy Speaker? Let us row read another leaflet:

Since Mr. Borden has been made Premier, the province of Quebec is much better treated than under the Liberal regime.
I hope the Mail will publish that.
Mr. Laurier used to neglect his countrymen because he used to say that on account of his nationality he could not do as much for them, but under the Conservatives we have two judges on the Supreme Court. Mr. Laurier has left us with one, Mr. Brodeur, who is the weaker of the two. Sir Rlzear Taschereau has been succeeded by Mr. Fitzpatrick. When Mr. Gobeil, Deputy Minister of Public Works, took his pension, Mr. Laurier replaced him by Mr. J. B. Hunter, an Englishman. And -when Mr. Gourdeau left his office as Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Mr. Laurier appointed Mr. Johnston, of Cape Breton, another Englishman. From 1896 to 1911 the Laurier Government did nothing for the harbour of Quebec, but it suent millions for the harbours of Ontario and the Northwest.
Much better to have an English-Canadian as a prime minister than a French-Canadian as Laurier was. Since Mr. Borden has been in office he has shown the greatest sympathy for the French-Canadian ; he loves our race.
Then there is quoted a few phrases from a speech delivered in the House of Commons on the 22nd of March, 1905; it is too long to translate, but it is no doubt very eloquent and it does justice to Mr. Borden's broadmindedness. The article goes on to say:
The Borden Government has shown by acts
that it respects our race. Is it not true-
Oh, Mr. Speaker, I come to you now; this is for your benefit:
Is it not true that 15 French-Canadian translators for the blue books have been appointed this year after having passed examinations? Even Liberals have been appointed. It is because Mr. Borden wants to be just to our language that he ordered these appointments.
In spite of you, Mr. Speaker.
Under Mr. Laurier it was impossible to have blue books in French until two years after their publication in the English version. Why should we not be just towards Mr. Borden when he is such a good fellow, especially when he gives us what Mr. Laurier has so often refused? Under the Liberals there was but one judge at the Exchequer Court, the Hon. Mr. * Justice Cassels. Is it not true that Mr. Borden has appointed another one, the Hon. Mr. Audette, a French-Canadian? Why should we not recognize such acts of justice? Since Mr. Doherty has been Minister of Justice he has appointed in his department two French-Canadian lawyers, Messrs. Beauchesne and De-Salabery. All the lawyers in the province of Quebec who have done business with Mr. Doherty for the past two years know that there is very serious amelioration in that direction. Mr. Borden has appointed a Senator from Nova Scotia, Mr. Girroir, a French-Aeadian from Antigonish who had been mentioned to Mr. Borden by the Acadian leaders themselves. Mr. Borden has appointed as Chairman of the
fMr. Lemieux.]
Joint Waterways Commission the Hon. T. C. Casgrain, a French-Canadian, and that appointment is really quite creditable. Thus is it with all important posts in the civil service; we have our large share of patronage. We receive much more since the last two years than we have over received during the whole tenure of office of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
The Minister of Finance said: ' We won the election in Chateauguay.' Yes, Mr. Speaker, they won the election, but I give you the means by which they won that election in Chateauguay. The Minister of Finance, 1 know, is a bookworm, and he is fond of Napoleonic literature. Not very long ago I read new memoirs describing the campaign of Napoleon in Russia, and I saw related there that as the army of Napoleon, made up of soldiers and adventurers from all the countries of Europe- French, Spaniards, Prussians, Italians, Austrians-as that army entered the great solitudes of Russia some of Napoleon's staff of generals met an old Russian pope and conversation ensued between the humble Russian and the several invading generals arrayed in uniforms glittering in gold. They told the poor old man that they were sure of reaching Moscow, that they were confident to defeat the Russians, and that the army of Napoleon would triump after a brief campaign. And the old Russian said to one of the staff; general, you will cross with your magnificent army of adventurers the Beresina and you may cross the Niemen, and you will possibilv reach Moscow, but count your troops and your eagles as you advance, and count them again as you come back.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is also on his way to Moscow with his gorgeously uniformed general, the Minister of Militia. In the ranks of the Tory party are to be found men of all stripes; we find some of the eighteen insurgent capitalists represented by the Minister of Finance; here are the loyal Orangemen and there, the pious Ultramontane -look at him just facing me now. I see in that army stalwart Tories, plenty of them, jingoes and Nationalist musketeers. They have passed two sessions and we are entering on a third. We may have a fourth session, but some day, the general elections will come. Napoleon with his generals and his adventurers went into the solitudes of Russia after Ulm, Friedland and Jena, and they crossed the Beresina and they crossed the Niemen, but his ragged remnants of a once grand army had to recross these rivers in their retreat, and they had to meet Wellington at Waterloo.

The Tory army may cross tlieir Beresina and their Niemen, but the e'ections will come, sooner or later, and they will soon have to face their Wellington, and, at the same time, meet their Waterloo.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I suppose I will not disappoint
the House if I say that I have no intention of speaking at such length as my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). The hon. gentleman has spoken for three and a half hours. I shall not judge the matter of his speech, because it might be thought by some who know that we have not been very intimate friends in the past, that my judgment is prejudiced. However, I venture to say that I do not think it will take me one-quarter of the time to travel over the same ground and to place the facts as they really are, not as he imagines them to be. It is not expected that the House should sit very late to-night, and consequently I move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On the motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.35 p.m.
Tuesday, January 27, 1914.