1914-01-22

CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SINCLAIR moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 9, to amend the Canada Shipping Act. He said: The object of this Bill is to enable captains bolding coasting licenses to sail as far south as the mouth of the river Plate. In former times captains holding coasting licenses were allowed to sail to any part of North or South America and around theHorn if they chose to do so. A few years ago the distance which they could go south was restricted to Cape Hatteras, but since then the distance has been extended to somewhere about the mouth of the Amazon. There are a large number of ships commanded by coasting captains who have business in South America, in such places as Rio and the river Plate and I see no reason why captains holding these licenses should not be allowed to sail to those ports. The object of this Bill is to define the places to which coasting captains can sail and to enable them to go further south than at present.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
-	PUBLIC BILLS.
Bill No. 8, to amend the Railway Act.-Mr. M. Martin.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 10, respecting Barcelona Traction Light and Power Company, Limited.-Mr. A. C. Macdonell.
Bill No. 11, respecting the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.-Mr. Stevens.
Bill No. 12, respecting-The Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 13, to incorporate The Central Canada Railway Company.-Mr. W. H. Sharpe.
Bill No. 14, respecting The Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company, Limited, and to change its name to ' The Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company.'-Mr. A. K. Maclean.
Bill No. 15, respecting The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Currie.
Bill No. 16, respecting The Lachine, Jacques-Cartier and Maisonneuve Railway Company.-Mr. Bickerdike.
Bill No. 17, respecting The Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Eripp.
Bill No. 18, respecting The Tillsonburg, Lake Erie and Pacific Railway Company.- Mr. Currie.
Bill No. 19, respecting The West Ontario Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill No. 20, respecting The Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. W. H. Sharpe.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister) :: It is fitting, and I am sure that in this all the members on both sides of the House will agree, that we should pay a tribute of respect to the memory of the grand Canadian who passed away yesterday. I speak of Lord Strathcona as a Canadian because, although born in the old land beyond the seas, his life work was almost altogether carried on in this country to the service of which he consecrated so many years of his life. He had a notable career, a career carried on especially in the early part of his life in the face of conditions and difficulties more arduous than those which most men are called upon to meet. When one looks back upon the great span of years over which his lifetime stretched, one is tempted for a moment to recall all that has transpired in His Majesty's dominions on this continent since Lord Strathcona first came to this country at the age of 18. At that time there was much political unrest in Canada carried in some parts of the country even to the extent of rebellion. At
that time we had not achieved the right of self-government, or enjoyed many of those constitutional liberties which have since been developed and have come into force from time to time Nearly half the period of his allotted life was passed before this Confederation was formed and after his first arrival in Canada in 1838, he saw in the succeeding years what one might call without exaggeration the complete transformation |of the northern half of this continent. He had been a notable figure in the public life of Canada for more than a quarter of a century before he undertook, at the age of seventy-six, to discharge the duties of the great oflice of High Commissioner for Canada. My right hon. friend knows perhaps better than I do the devotion which Lord Strathcona gave to those duties. I have known many men who were imbued with a high sense of duty, but I do not know of any man amjong all of those of my acquaintance or knowledge -who was more profoundly inspired by a sense of public duty than was Lord Strathcona. As the weight of increasing years bore upon him, it was almost pathetic sometimes to see the devotion with which he insisted upon performing even the minor huties of his office. In all the time that I had known him, and that was during the later years of his life, I was especially struck by the fact that time did not seem in any wav to have dimmed the freshness of his spirit, the vigor of his will or the strength of his purpose. The duties of the office which he discharged as High Commissioner for Canada were always important and sometimes delicate; and it is satisfactory to us to remember that no man more than he had a high pride in this country, in all that it has achieved and in all that it may look forward to achieve in the future and no man more than he had a deep and abiding interest in all that concerned the honour, the dignity .and the interests of Canada or was more concerned to discharge fully his duty in that regard.
I need not recall to the memory of the members of this House the notable events of his great career. Through many difficult conditions he advanced with indomitable will, and unshaken strength of purpose to great things, and $or many years he has been truly a great Imperial figure.
I believe that the example of his life may well be an inspiration to all Canadians and indeed to all the citizens of the Empire. Some one said many years ago that Thomas Carlyle spent his life in preaching earnest-

ness to the most earnest people in the world. Some lessons in earnestness, perhaps, might not be thrown away even upon the people of the British Dominions; and I am sure that the earnestness of purpose which is set forth in all the record and career of Lord Strathcona may well serve as an inspiration and an exemplar to us in Canada. [DOT] It is not for me to-day to speak at length of his great public service. In the office which he filled he discharged very important duties indeed and performed services of the highest character to this country and the Empire. Besides that his many benefactions for great charitable purposes are known to all men so that I need do no more than allude to them to-day. I consider that it would be a fitting tribute of respect to his memory that this House should stand adjourned until to-morrow and I shall move, seconded by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that the House do so stand adjourned; but before doing so I should like to read to the House a message which has been received by His Royal Highness the Governor General from the Secretary of States for the Colonies. It is in these words :
London, 21st January, 1914.
I desire on the part of His Majesty's Government to convey through Your Royal Highness to the Government and people of Canada an expression of deep sympathy in the loss which the Dominion has sustained by the death of Lord Strathcona, High Commissioner for Canada in London for the past seventeen years, a sympathy shared by his many friends in the United Kingdom and throughout the Empire.
His name has been for many years a household word among us embodying to all the thought of Canada and her marvellous progress, as well as of his own notable career distinguished by large public usefulness and magnificent liberality, and his memory is assured of an honoured and abiding place in the annals of the Dominion, to which he devoted his faithful service to the end.
< Sd.) Harcourt.
In conclusion, I am sure that I may, on behalf of Canada, of all the members of this House and of all the people of this country, convey to his daughter and to all the members of his family, the assurance of our deepest sympathy and of our sorrow for their loss.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, in whatever might have been proposed or suggested by the Government to do honour to the memory of the illustrious dead whose loss we deplore, we on this side of the House would have heartily and willingly agreed, believing that whatever might be done would hardly express
.
the deep sense of regret which now prevails from one end to the other of this land. Since Sir John Macdonald's time I do not know that there has been any Canadian who, on departing this life, left behind him such a trail of sorrow as Lord Strathcona. He is mourned by His Majesty the King, whose personal friend he was; by the peers of the realm, in whose illustrious House he had found an honoured place; by the authorities of commerce and of finance in the commercial and financial metropolis of the world, who had found in him an equal; by the poor of London, to whom on repeated occasions he was the incarnation of benevolent Providence; by the people of Scotland, the land of his birth, with whom he never completely severed his connection, and in Canada, the land of his adoption, by all classes of the cjommunity, rich or poor, high or low, of whatever creed or race it might be. This universal sense of sorrow is a tribute bestowed only upon men of strong personality, and to this class he undoubtedly belonged. Perhaps the secret of this regret, so universal and so deep, may be found in the fact that wherever he passed, amongst those with whom he came in contact, whether it was the Indians of the forest or the' prairie, or the most eminent political or commercial men in Canada, or in the highest sphere in London, he everywhere created a deep, a lasting, and a profound impression.
He came to Canada when he was only eighteen years of age, more than seventy-five years ago. At that time all his possessions were the sound, practical education of a Scottish .country lad and more than a full share of the characteristic qualities of his race: keen business acumen, courage, caution and firmness-firmness never loud and assertive, but always unflinching, the whole constituting a strong nature, adamant against all reverses, and never spoilt even by the most phenomenal success.
He came in the service of the Hudson Bay Company as a simple junior clerk, and from that humble station he rose step by step until he- became, after the death of Sir George Simpson in 1860, at first in fact and afterwards both in fact and in name the Governor of that historic company, a position which he held to the last day of his life. Here, perhaps, it may not be unfitting to remark that since the amalgamation of the Hudson Bay Company with the Northwest Company in 1821, almost one hundred years ago, that power-

ful institution has been ruled by two men,
and two men only: Sir George Simpson and Lord Strathcona.
When the territories of the Northwest and Rupert's Land were acquired by Canada, Donald Smith, as he was then, had acquired over these then distant territories a paramount influence; an influence of which we in these later days have little conception, and which was invaluable to Canada. It may perhaps be truly said that without that influence the transfer of those lands to Canada, which was not accomplished without bloodshed, would have been even more tragic than it was. His services in this connection never, it seems to me, have been properly appreciated, and certainly they never can be too highly extolled. The policy of the Hudson Bay Company had been to keep these distant lands solely as a vast hunting ground; but the keen business instinct of Lord Strathcona showed him that no force could resist the tide of advancing civilization, and, with characteristic promptness, he at once took steps to make the necessary change. The steps which he took were then eminently valuable to Canada.
He realized that the first need was communication between the East and the West. At that time railway communication had advanced westward only to the Mississippi river, and he organized, as we remember, a powerful syndicate to give communication by rail from the Mississippi river at St. Paul to the Red river, and from that point by water up to the junction of the Red river with the Assiniboine, at a point which has since become famous as the city of Wiitnipeg. But this was uiiiy a preliminary step; he bent his whole mind and gave his whole soul to the project of having the Eastern provinces connected by rail altogether on Canadian soil with the provinces of the West, and hence arose the project of the Canadian Pacific railway. It is a matter of history that in the construction of that railway he took a most prominent part; but it is not perhaps as well known as it ought to be that before the Canadian Pacific railway became an accomplished fact it was often perilously near collapse, and it was due to the splendid courage of Lord Strathcona and his associates, who more than once risked their all, that at last the Canadian Pacific railway came into being.
We are proud to remember that he was at one time a member of this House, and those who, like myself and yourself, Mr. Speaker, had the privilege of being his
colleagues, can testify that his sound judgment, his moderate views, his dignified conduct, always commanded the respect of both sides of this House.
It is due to the Government of Sir Charles Tupper to say that it is to that Government we owe the appointment of Lord Strathcona as High Commissioner at London, and no wiser selection could have been made or ever was made for a high office. My right hon. friend the leader of the Government has given some inkling of Lord Strathcona's intense devotion to duty in That capacity, and, as the right hon. gentleman has said, perhaps I am in a better position than he to know the particulars in that regard. Lord Strathcona's devotion to duty, his courtesy in all matters of business as well as in social matters, his generous hospitality, and above all his ever-watchful eagerness to put Canada to the front in all matters whether important or unimportant, made him certainly an ideal High Commissioner. The manner in which he discharged his duties was a constant source of pride to his compatriots.
Every one knows that his private life was on a par with his public life: he was a model husband, a good father, and a true friend. It was his privilege to attain a very great age, and perhaps it was still a greater privilege to him to realize, if he cared indeed to realize it, that as he advanced in years he grew more and more in the respect, the admiration, and the affection of his countrymen. His, on the whole, was a fortunate life, and it must be told that whatever he acquired of wealth, of reputation, of fame, and of public esteem, he fairly won and thoroughly deserved. It is my privilege, Sir, to second the motion of my right hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 2.35 p-m.
Thursday, January 22, 1914.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Customs for the year ended March 31, 1913-Hon. J. D. Reid.
Report of the Department of Agriculture for the year ended March 31, 1913-Hon. Martin Burrell.
Report of the Department of the Naval Service for the year ended March 31, 1913.- Hon. J. D. Hazen.
[Stage Direction]
Report of the Dominion Railway Commissioners for the year 1913; also report of the Commissioner of the Transcontinental Railway for 1913.-Hon. Frank Cochrane.
Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce, part II, for the year ended March 31, 1913.-Hon. Geo. H. Perley.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER announced that he had directed the Clerk of the House to lay upon the table his recommendation and the Clerk's report in the matter of the appointment of Mr. Francis H. Gisborne to the position of Parliamentary Counsel; of the promotion of Mr. A. G. Troop, Clerk of the Law Branch of the House, from Grade B of the Second Division to Grade B of the First Division; of the appointment of Mr. John Lockhart Godwin to the Assistant Clerkship in the Votes and Proceedings Office, with the grade of B in the Second Division, at an increase of salary provided by the Civil Service Amendment Act; of the appointment of Mr. Joseph Smith as the Chief of Stenographers for Members, to be graded A of the Second Division under the said Act.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 21, to amend the law relating to Merchant Shipping. He said: The purpose of this Bill is to amend the law in respect to collisions and salvage at sea so as to enable the Government of Canada to give effect to their adherence to the International Maritime Convention on these subjects held at Brussels on September 23, 1910.
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: Has this reference to the convention recently held in London?


Mr. HAZEN:: No; this has reference to the convention which took place at Brussels in 1910.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to call the attention of the Postmaster General to a complaint which I have received from Toronto, and to several other
,
complaints on the same matter, which I have received from members of the Montreal Board of Trade. These complaints have reference to the Atlantic Mail Service. I shall read two paragraphs from one of these letters so that the minister may give his explanation:
Dear Mr. Lemieux:
There is a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the business community here, and I have no doubt elsewhere in Canada, over the English mail service which is now being furnished. As I understand it, we are so excessively patriotic that we will not let our letters go by New York, although in that way they would reach their destination several days sooner than by the Canadian service. I can speak from personal experience in saying that this has caused serious business inconvenience to my firm on many occasions, and I am sure you would have no difficulty in getting many expressions of a similar-nature.
As a concrete example, after the English mail closed here last week at six o'clock on Tuesday morning, there was no mail until Thursday night at six o'clock when it closed for Saturday's sailing of the Tunisian.
I wish further to ask the Postmaster General if the arrangement still prevails that if one routes his letter 'via New York,' that letter will be sent by the New York route and not by the Canadian route?


Hon. L. P. PELLETIER (Postmaster General):: There has been some dissatisfaction with the Atlantic mail service, due principally to the fact that we have been disappointed by the two new and splendid ships of the Allan Line, the Alsatian and the Calgarian, not coming into service at the date we expected when the contract was entered into. On account of strikes, and for other reasons, as I am informed, these steamers, which should have gone into the service in July or August, are not yet in commission. I am, however, pleased to say that the Alsatian will begin her Atlantic service from Halifax this week. The arrangement is only for a year, and if any other similar arrangement is entered upon, the Government will see that the ships are such as to render first class Atlantic mail service to the people of Canada. The rule is in force that all Canadians who wish to have their mail sent via New York have the privilege of doing so if they so direct their mail matter.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. H. F. McLeod for an Address to His Royal High-

ness 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 Tuesday, January 20.
Mr. CLARENCE JAMESON (Digby, N.S.):: Mr. Speaker, it must have been something of a surprise to this House a day or two ago when the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) criticised the Government because of its large expenditures. It is not so very long ago that the hon. junior member for Halifax used to applaud large expenditures upon the part of the Government. He used to defend expenditures made by the Government. In this House and outside of it, he used to support expenditures made by the Government whether they were great or small, whether they were wise or otherwise, whether they were good, bad or indifferent. But there seems to have been a change since the old days. To be sure, in those times, the hon. gentleman had a seat upon this side of the House. He was supporting the Liberal Administration. Can it be that, having crossed over to the other side of the House, and having followed his party into opposition, he has so materially changed his view-point? If there ever was an occasion when the (junior member for Halifax should have come into this House with gratitude in bis heart towards the Government, it is upon the present occasion, for the constituency which he represents is now, for the first time, receiving justice and ample justice at the hands of the federal Government.
Throughout the length and breadth of the land other great works are being undertaken by this Government in their comprehensive scheme for the development of Canada east and west; and the hon. junior member for Halifax, who by the way did not object to the expenditures for the splendid terminals and docks in his own constituency when they were being discussed last year, should not lose sight of the fact that throughout Canada other places like Halifax were long neglected by the Liberal Government, and that they are entitled to consideration which they are now receiving from this Government. I think that the hon. junior member for Halifax, when he has more fully considered the matter, will conclude that it would be only fair and just for him to congratulate the Government upon its expenditures rather than to condemn it.
From passing references which were made by hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to
the recent by-election in South Bruce, we may conclude that the Liberal party was rejoiced at being able to carry one seat out of the seven by-elections which were held during the late recess. But there is something which this House might well remember and which the country should remember as well. That is, that in three constituencies in which by-elections were held recently, the Liberal party was unable to place a candidate in the field, ft should also be remembered that Ghateauguay, which since Confederation has always been in the Liberal column, has recently returned to this House a Government supporter whom we on this side of the House very cordially welcome. The Liberal party should also bear in mind that South Bruce-of their winning of which they are so proud -in the local elections of 1911 gave to the Liberal candidate a majority of 398. That election was held two months after the general Dominion election in September, 1911, and at a time when Sir James Whitney, Premier of Ontario, was at the very height of his power.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) set himself the task of commiserating certain members of this Administration who vainly expounded the policies of the Government in South Bruce. If they were chagrined at the result of their mission, no person is better able to sympathize with them than the hon. gentleman's leader, for he has suffered from bitter experiences in the past. It is not so long since his tour of the Maritime provinces in 1911, but that we may recall the result. He came attended by that gifted orator,
* who was, Sir, your predecessor in the last Parliament; by his Minister of Finance, as purse-bearer; by his Minister of Public Works, who with lavish hand dealt out breakwaters, public buildings and docks, and by his Minister of War, whose pockets ' bulged with epaulets, stripes and medals, as rewards to those who, against conviction, might still be induced to remain steadfast 'in the faith. Never did a political warrior come better equipped to re-establish his power in the Maritime provinces, 26 of the 35 seats of which were then held by his supporters.
He spoke in a large number of places, and in several of them great meetings were held. Digby was one of such. All that special trains, free tickets, bands, processions, bunting and American tourists with their flags, their mottoes and their cash could do to make the event of immediate and lasting benefit to the Liberal

cause, was done. Even free food, on which the right hon. gentleman is now very strong, was to be had.
In the ridings of Westmorland, St. John, Digby, Annapolis, Kings, Hants, Halifax, Colchester, Cumberland, Pictou and Queens, Prince Edward Island, the people gathered to listen for the last time to the right hon. gentleman in his capacity of Prime Minister of Canada. With what result? In Westmorland, the majority of his Minister of Railways was reduced from 1,395 to 64; in St. John, that of his Minister of Public Works from 496 to 65. In Digby, my own majority of 131 became 260. In Annapolis and Hants, seasoned Liberal veterans were defeated. In Kings, his Minister of Militia went down before the lance of his young opponent. From Halifax, we welcome the 'Prime Minister. In Cumberland, the Liberal candidate was overwhelmed. In Colchester, the Conservative majority was three times doubled. In Pictou, the Liberal majority was reduced.


Mr. MACDONALD:: How much?


Clarence Jameson: Some reduction.


William John Macdonald: The great amount of ten.


Clarence Jameson: While Queens, Prince Edward Island, which had formerly elected two Liberals, sent two Conservatives in their stead. To sum up, the right hon. gentleman's majority in those provinces declined from 16 to 3. In every constituency in which he spoke, except three, his candidates were defeated, and the extent of the disaster was only limited by the field of his operations. If any political leader might well sympathize with another in like case should he meet him, it would be the right hori. gentleman.
The country has heard much of late from the right hon. gentleman and his followers in regard to the high cost of living in Canada. We all deplore it, but no one should do so more than the right hon. gentleman himself, for the high cost of living in this country, while due in part to worldwide conditions, is largely due to the policy pursued by the right hon. gentleman during his term of office. To an immigration policy which brought into this country many consumers and relatively few producers; to an agricultural policy which studiously avoided all problems, but more particularly the problem of increased consumption and decreased production, and to the disastrous effect of bau roads upon the
[Mr Jameson],	[DOT]
rural life, of the Dominion, with which he made no attempt whatever to grapple.
To lessen the cost of living, is it not necessary to popularize life in rural communities and to increase production? Is the right hon. gentleman sincere when he deplores the high cost of the dinner table? If so, why did he use his artificial power in the Senate to twice defeat the Highways Bill, which was the first step, and a long one, towards reducing that cost?
This is the record, but it is not all. In 1910 the right hon. gentleman's Minister of Labour, with all the enthusiasm of youth, laid on the table of this House a report which showed that the cost of living in Canada had steadily increased from 1897 to 1910. Does the right hon. gentleman forget this, or does he merely think that the people have forgotten it, when he berates this Government for conditions which his own policies did so much to create, and did absolutely nothing to redress.
During the right hon. gentleman's term of office the cost of living in Canada increased 35 per cent, and because of conditions created by the policies which he had pursued, and which could not be immediately arrested, it has since increased 7 per cent. The right hon. gentleman ignored the 35 per cent increase which was heaped up during his term of office, but he has been making the country ring with that 7 per cent increase.
It is related of a captain whose ship had been cast away and was sinking, owing to an error of judgment on his part, that seeing the members of the crew lashing themselves to spars and floats, he tied himself to an anchor. The right hon. gentleman's party recently experienced shipwreck owing to an error of judgment, and now we find him tying himself to an anchor-the anchor of the high cost of living.
The right hon. gentleman has recently declared a free trade food policy. Is it not rather surprising to find the right hon. gentleman reverting to the practice of former Liberal leaders in opposition: the practice of coquetting with the Nemesis of his party in the form of a trade policy? What misfortune has it not brought to the Liberal cause? Look at the political history of this country. 1878, defeat; 1882, defeat; 1887, defeat; 1891, defeat; 1911, defeat-and on each occasion a Liberal trade policy! What a record of defeat, disaster and disappointment! And yet we find the right hon. gentleman applying the same old Liberal remedy to his hurts; -the remedy of a hair of the dog

that bit him-a trade policy once more. What a record that policy has had, to be sure: always good to raise a cheer, it never could produce a majority.
But the right hon. gentleman appears to have ignored certain facts which the people of this country cannot afford to allow him to forget: first, that during fifteen years of office he boasted of a prosperity that was the direct outcome of a protective tariff policy, the National policy of Sir John A. Macdonald. And, second, that the great and constant warfare which is being waged between the nations of the world to-day is the struggle for commercial supremacy. The generals are the statesmen of the respective countries; the weapons with which they fight are the tariffs, while the rank and file of the army consists of the princes of agriculture, the captains of industry, and their employes. ' Disarm your men, throw away your weapons, expose yourselves to your adversaries,' says the right hon. gentleman, ' and we, the great Liberal party, the party which always goes out of office and stays out on its trade policies, will defend you.' Sir, do you think that the farmers of Canada would subscribe to that doctrine? I do not believe they would.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) visited the province of Nova Scotia recently on a political mission. It has been said of the hon. member for Red Deer that he has buffaloed the trade policy of the Liberal party. I do not know whether that is the case or not.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Would my hon. friend tell me again what the verb is?


Clarence Jameson: Well, it means something in the nature of a stampede. The hon. gentleman made a self-conducted tour through the province, and he spoke in a number of places. The burden of his lay was that he had had some "teers which had gone into the United States under the new Wilson tariff and for which he had received one dollar per hundred pounds more in the United States market than he would have received in Canada. And now we find the hon. gentleman's leader seriously suggesting the removal of the tariff, with the view of meeting the problem of the high cost of living, so that our Canadian consumers can purchase in the United States market, in which the prices according to the evidence of the hon. member for Red Deer, are higher than in the Canadian market. It would appear that the great Liberal party, which has so many heads, and consequently so many minds, is becoming quite distracted.
The hon. member for Red Deer, during the course of his speech the other day made an interesting remark regarding the removal of the tariff on wheat. He said:
Have the farmers not the right to speak for their own industry? I contend it is the right of the wheat growers to be the judges in this matter.
I presume the hon. gentleman means in the matter of the removal of the tariff on wheat. I would like to ask, if it is a fair question, whether the hon. member would take the same view with regard to the stock-raisers, whether he would say that they also should have the right to speak for their industry and to say whether or not the tariff should be taken off. The hon. gentleman does not reply.


Michael Clark: I must not be understood as not wishing to reply; I did not wish to interrupt my hon. friend. My meaning was that the farmers ought to be the judges as to how prices would be affected by the removal of the tariff. If I did not make that clear I wish to make it clear now.


Clarence Jameson: I am glad that the hon. gentleman has made the statement clear, it was not quite clear to me as it stood; it is perfectly clear now.
There must be some better remedy, some better method of dealing with the high cost of living than that proposed by the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition, namely, the purchasing of our commodities in a higher market.
During the last ten years the Canadian urban population has increased GO per cent and the rural population 17 per cent, although in the Maritime Provinces the rural population has actually decreased. This means, of course, that the consumption of farm products has tremendously increased and the production has not been increasing correspondingly, with the result that the cost of the dinner table has gone up.
This Government, when they came into office, recognized that to have cheaper food the production of farm products must be increased, and they set about popularizing rural life and so starting a movement of the people back to the land. Towards that purpose they have bent their energies, and I think I may fairly and frankly say that during the two years which they have been in office they have done more in that way than was accomplished during the whole fifteen years of their predecessors.
The measures which they have taken were, first, a good roads policy. This is something for which the country has been



hoping and asking for many years, something the value of which cannot be overestimated. Good roads would increase the value of farm lands, bring his market closer to the producer, lessen the cost of carriage of products to market, and so lessen the cost to the consumer.
Secondly, the Government provided for a grant of $10,000,000 for instruction in agriculture, to enable those desiring to become farmers to obtain that knowledge of the' science of farming which is now regarded as essential to the successful prosecution of the industry; to help those who wish to go back to the land to fit themselves for their great undertakings and enable them to get the greatest return for their labour.
Thirdly, they instituted the parcel post system which will establish communication between the country merchant and the farmer, between the producer and the consumer, thereby saving both time and expense.
Fourthly, the extension of the rural mail delivery which has been energetically proceeded with all through the country.
Tariffs may or may not affect the cost of the dinner table, but there is no doubt that by increasing production the cost of living will be decreased and by the popularizing of life in the rural communities these desirable results will be attained.
It is to be regretted that owing to the partisan action of the Senate the Highways Bill has been destroyed. Hon. gentlemen opposite were in office for fifteen years during which time they might, had they so desired, have introduced legislation to this end. They could have framed it to suit themselves, they could have moulded it as they chose, but when it was introduced by this Government they took the only possible way of preventing the country from getting the benefit of this splendid piece of legislation.
Surprise has been expressed by some hon. gentlemen opposite, I do not know whether or not it was simulated surprise, that the Prime Minister does hot intend to reintroduce the Naval Aid Bill of last session. The hon. the junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), in referring to this, spoke of ' cowardice on the part of the Government/ as he termed it. There is no cowardice on the part of the Government, neither do I think there is anything in connection with this matter regarding which hon. gentlemen opposite should be surprised.
After weeks of debate, discussion and obstruction last session; after this Parlia-
,
ment had been compelled to amend the rules of debate; after the Government had been obliged to apply closure, the Naval Aid Bill passed in this House and went up to the Senate. There, at the dictation of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, it was destroyed, destroyed by men whom he had placed in the Senate.
What is the condition of affairs to-day? We have the same hon. gentlemen opposite, we have the same right hon. leader of the Opposition-I do not believe he has experienced a change of heart-and we have practically the same Senate. Why should the Prime Minister invite further humiliation for Canada in the eyes of the world by a repetition in the (Senate of what occurred last year?
Mr. Speaker, the issue is clear before the people of this country. We have, on the one hand, an Opposition navy of the type of those two great bulwarks of Canadian autonomy, the Niobe and the Rainbow, and we have, on the other hand, the Government proposal of a Canadian division of the Imperial navy. We know what the naval policy of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition means. It means, as he has very clearly explained in the past, the severing the ripe fruit from the parent tree, in other words the taking of Canada out of the British Empire, the beginning of the disintegration of the British Empire. Canada, he says, is a nation, and no one I know of disputes this fact, although lately he has been finding fault with some of those who agree with him on that point. But it should not be forgotten that not long ago the right hon. gentleman was busily engaged, with President Taft, in endeavouring to make Canada an adjunct. Canada is a nation but for my part-and I think that in this I may speak generally for the people of Canada-I do not desire to be simply a citizen of a minor nation when I am today and may honourably continue to be a citizen of the greatest Empire that the world has ever seen. And because I believe in the maintenance of that empire, because it can only be maintained by an efficient navy, because I believe that the maximum of efficiency at the minimum of cost can, for the immediate future be provided by the proposals oi the Prime Minister, I shall continue to support those proposals.	i
Since he came into office two years ago the Prime Minister has been attacked by the Liberal press and Liberal speakers probably more bitterly and more persistently than any other man who ever occupied the

same office. But my right hon leader has been selected by the people of this country to perform great and important duties. Even as Sir John A. Macdonald was chosen by the people of Canada to initiate the National Policy and to develop our manufactures, so the Prime Minister of to-day has his mandate from the Canadian people. The mandate to protect and to encourage our agricultural, fishing and other great industries, to equip and develop our national ports, to preserve for Canada and Canadians the benefit of our growing transportation, and to maintain, so far as Canada is concerned, the integrity of the British Empire and secure for Canada in the councils of the empire that voice to which her importance now entitles this Dominion.
And right well has the Prime Minister entered upon these great and important duties. But though he has entered upon them ably and prosecuted them with energy, they cannot in the very nature of things be brought to fruition in two years or in four. And the people of Canada who have entrusted the Prime Minister with the carrying out of these splendid policies have confidence in his integrity, his judgment and his ability. They will not be turned aside by the carping criticism of hon. gentlemen opposite-which they know to be inspired by burning jealousy and remorse at loss of office. But on the contrary they will accord to the Prime Minister, by legitimate and constitutional means, whatever time may be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of his great and important purposes.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: As, owing to the regrettable illness of my colleague from Prince (Mr. Richards), I happen to be the only member from Prince Edward Island on this side of the House at the present time, and inasmuch as I have some views on the subjects that are now before the House, I take this opportunity of expressing my opinions thereon before the debate closes. I listened the other evening with a great deal of attention to the speech of the right hon. the Prime Minister and I gathered from that speech that the right hon. gentleman does not approve of the Senate as at present constituted and that he certainly does not approve of the action of the Senate in regard to the Naval Aid Bill of last year. My impression is that the right hon. gentleman with the very valuable assistance of Winston Churchill, Windermere and the Montreal Star, not being able to bring on a war with Germany, would not be opposed to having Vi
a scrap with the Senate, but my right hon. friend might find these gentlemen fairly formidable opponents if pressed into active service. The speech of the right hon. the leader of the Government more than justified the action of the Senate last year in regard to the Naval Aid Bill. He stated that at the present time arrangements of an international character are being considered as a result of which there might be a retardation or cessation, of the mad armament building which the nations of Europe have been carrying on for the last few years. Under these circumstances the Government of this country, he says, is going to wait and see the result of these arrangements before doing anything further in regard to supplying the di'ead-noughts that were to be constructed under the Naval Aid Bill of last year! Could there be a better justification of the attitude of the Liberal party on this question, could there be a better justification of the action of the Senate in asking the Prime Minister to consult the people of Canada before! embarking upon that course? The Prime Minister has stated in effect that those ships may never be needed and that our action or interference might be an embarrassment to the mother country in her negotiations with other countries. The Prime Minister on September 21, 1912, speaking at the Windsor hotel, stated that he would ask Parliament for a contribution and that if Parliament did not grant that contribution he would appeal to the country. He repeated that statement on December 5, when introducing the Naval Aid Bill in this Chamber. All the Senate did was to take the Prime Minister at his word and to say that in their estimation also, an appeal to the people was the proper course to pursue, and further that inasmuch as the Bill was a departure, from the policy laid down by both parties and unanimously agreed to by Parliament a year or two before, they considered that the people of Canada had a right to be consulted before the Bill became law. The Prime Minister did not carry out his promise in that respect, and appeal to the people.
With regard to the permanent policy, he has stated that that policy will be evolved later and the people consulted upon it at the next general election, and he has stated that he will keep this promise whatever happens. He laid emphasis upon that. He stated that the Liberal party and the Senate were willing to embark upon a permanent policy without consulting the peo-

pie of Canada and he considered that a remarkable and unjustifiable thing. Surely the right lion, gentleman will remember that he gave his consent to a policy of that kind in 1909 and 1910. He says now that it was remarkable and unjustifiable. It is more than that. When the resolution introduced by the then leader of the Government looking to the establishment of a naval organization in Canada was submitted to this House, 'the then leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, thought that no time should be lost in embarking upon that policy and suggested that the word ' immediate '-
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM: ' Speedy


James Joseph Hughes: No, he suggested that
the word ' immediate ' should be put before the word ' organization ' and they compromised upon the word ' speedy'; now he says there is no need of the word ' immediate ', that there is no need of being in any hurry. He says that it is not the part of a gentleman to hurry anyhow, but that before the next general election will be time enough to formulate a policy. The next general election may take place next year; it may take place next summer, or the summer following in 1915, or possibly in the summer of 1916 and that will be quite time enough. There is no emergency now, there is no thunder and lightning, there is no need of haste. The Nationalists of Quebec have to be consulted and Mr. Bourassa has to i>e consulted before any kind of a naval policy is adopted by the Conservative party.
What is the history of the naval question? We all know that the first time that it really took concrete form was when the present hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster), in the ablest speech that has ever been delivered upon this question, in the session of 1909, introduced a resolution. The then leader of the Government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) agreed with the proposition of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The then leader of the Opposition (Mr. Borden) stated that the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke for the Conservative party and both parties then agreed to a resolution which was finally submitted and unanimously passed by this House.
I think that the hon. member
4 p.m. for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was the only member who did not support the policy that was then adopted. Shortly after that certain
.
parties in the province of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, Mr. Lavergne, Mr. Pelletier, Mr. Nantel, Mr. Blondin and a number of other gentlemen thought that they could make political capital out of that question against the leader of the Liberal party and against the party itself. An election was held in Drummond and Arthabaska. The Conservatives put up no candidate, the Nationalists had'a candidate and the Liberals had a candidate and quietly the Conservatives gave their support to the Nationalist candidate. When the Montreal Herald telegraphed the Minister of Trade and Commerce and asked him how Conservatives should vote in this contest, the reply was: Beat Laurier by any means. What course would honourable and patriotic gentlemen pursue in a ease of that kind? When they had assisted the Liberal party in passing that resolution through this House and when they saw that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was unfairly attacked and misrepresented in Quebec, was it not 'their duty to stand by the policy that they had assisted in passing through the House? Would that not be the duty of honourable and patriotic men? But they threw their principles to one side for the purpose of trying to make political capital on that occasion. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has said that this is a Government of dissolving views. It is worse than that; it is a Government of dissolving principles. That election was held, the result was that the Nationalist candidate was elected and from that time forward the alliance with the Nationalist party of Quebec has been an accomplished fact, to the great, to the eternal discredit of the Conservative party, and from that time the naval question has been a political football in this country. Publicly the Prime Minister is endeavouring to blame the Senate for the 'course that he is now pursuing, but privately I believe that he is pleased with the course that the Senate took, that he is pleased that he has not been obliged to spend $35,000,000 to build ships that he now admits himself may never be needed.
There is another chapter to this question. Under the Naval Service Act, passed unanimously by Parliament, two training ships were purchased from the Admiralty and brought to this country, and provision was made for the training of young men who wished to enter the service of their own country. I noticed

the other day that Windermere, in telegraphing to the Montreal Star, quoted from a statement made by Lord Selborne, who was the first Lord of the Admiralty under a Conservative Administration, to the effect that the greatest need the British Admiralty has is men to man the ships, and not ships themselves. Without men ships are of little use for fighting purposes. That was the one feature of the Naval Service Act that the Nationalists of Quebec and the Conservatives denounced in the strongest possible terms. That was the one feature of the Naval Service" Act that the present Prime Minister promised to repeal, and did cancel, and that was the one feature of the Naval Service Act which enabled the Nationalists of Quebec to misrepresent Sir Wilfrid Laurier's attitude to the greatest possible extent. If these men did not wish to enter the naval service of their country, and there was nothing compulsory or obligatory about it, they had no right to deprive young men of British or French origin who had a vocation for a seafaring life from availing themselves of the opportunity of entering the naval service. Young men who wish to follow the sea, or who wish to enter the naval service, are now obliged to go to the United States to give their services to a foreign country and to serve under a foreign flag. That is the result of the unholy alliance which the Conservative party entered into with the Nationalists of Quebec.
The Prime Minister told us that the Senate of Canada, in refusing to pass the Highways Bill, had committed a very improper act. As was well pointed out by the hon. ii,ember for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), the Senate did not kill or mutilate that Bill in any way; the Senate amended it so that the Government would be compelled to do what they declared they intended to do anyhow, and the Government would not accept that amendment. The Prime Minister told us also that he and the Minister of Railways had given a very distinct promise that the money expended under that Act would be expended in the different provinces on the basis of population, but the Prime Minister would not consent to put that provision in the Bill. Suppose the right hon. the Prime Minister were drawing an agreement between two parties and that one of the parties said: I intend to do so and so, but I do not want it to be put in writing, would the Prime Minister, in his capacity as a lawyer, advise any man in his
senses to submit to an agreement of that kind? And yet, that sort of thing is what the Prime Minister says the Liberal party of Canada should agree to. We had good reasons for doubting the sincerity of the Prime Minister and the Conservative party in that respect. This Bill was not yet before Parliament, it had only been mentioned, when a by-election was held in South Renfrew, and five ministers of the Crown, including the Minister of Railways, went into that county and told the electors that if they voted for the Conservative candidate enormous sums of money would be expended in that county under the provisions of the Highways Bill; and, conversely, if they did not vote for the Conservative candidate, that very little money would be spent there. With that fact staring us in the face, we were asked to take the word of the Government that they did not intend to use the money under the Highways Bill for political or corrupt purposes. We were justified and amply justified in asking for guarantees. The hon. member for Red Deer asked the Prime Minister, while the Bill was under consideration, to state to what extent the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition could in any event prevent him from doing what he said he intended to do, and the Prime Minister did not and could not answer that question. The amendment offered by the Opposition in no way prevented the Government from doing what they said they intended to do under the Bill, and yet they refused to accept that amendment. Did they want the Bill to pass? I am doubtful about that. But there is more. There is nothing in my opinion that shows the insincerity and duplicity of this Government better than their action and attitude on that very Highways Bill. During the last days of the session we had in the Estimates an item of $1,500,000 to be expended under the provisions of the Highways Act among the different provinces, when the Government knew that there would be no Highways Act in existence under which to expend it, and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), wishing to have the use of that money during last summer, moved that the words ' under the provisions of the Highways Act,' be struck out and that the money should be given to the provinces to be expended by them on their highways. And, Sir, every Conservative member present in the committee on that occasion voted against that amendment, and I am sorry to say that my Conservative colleagues from the province of Prince Edward Island

voted witli tiie jority against the amendment, showing clearly that the Government had no intention of allowing that Bill to pass, or of voting that money unless they were in a position to use it for political and corrupt purposes.	\
I wish now to say a few words on the high cost of living. I listened attentively to the speech of the Minister of Finance in this debate, and I recall that he stated that a great many people in Canada were puzzled, I suppose he among the number, at the arguments advanced in favour of reciprocity, when that measure was under consideration. He said he could not understand how the farmers could get more for their products, while at the same time the consumers in the cities could get these products at a reduced price. I do not think the Minister of Finance is so obtuse as he sometimes wishes to appear; if he is, with all due respect, I do not think he is qualified for his position. This is a country of very great extent and transportation is difficult and expensive, and it should be plain to the Minister of Finance that it would be just possible for people living in the eastern part of Canada to be exporting products and produce to the United States, while those in another part of Canada might be importing similar products from the United States, and, to the great advantage of both countries. I will take the commodity of potatoes as an example. Potatoes are a valuable article of food, and Prince Edward Island produces them in great abundance. We send to Halifax, and Sydney, and Newfoundland, but not in great quantities; our natural market is in Boston, New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, the cities of the New England states, and chiefly because of the cheap water transportation and climatic conditions. At the same time that we would be exporting potatoes to the New England states, the inland cities of Canada, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and others, might be importing potatoes from the United States. Even if the price were the same in Montreal and Toronto, we could afford to sell our potatoes to the United States; and because of cheaper transportation, the producer would get more for them. Producers in New York and other border states might send their potatoes into the inland towns and cities of Canada and get more for them, and the consumers in those towns get their potatoes for less than we could sell them at. That is easily understood. In addition to that, we could ship to the .
eastern cities, to the cities in New England, much later in the season than we could to the inland cities of Canada, because the mercury does not fall nearly -eo low in the late autumn on the seaboard as it does in the interior part of Canada in the same latitude. We could not ship at all late in the season to the cities of Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa.
The same thing holds true of other products, but particularly of vegetables and fruit at other seasons of the year. In late spring and early summer, before the fruit and vegetables of Canada are fit for consumption, except when raised under hothouse conditions, the consumers in the cities and towns of Canada might be greatly benefited by having the privilege of importing fruit and vegetables from the United States. Later on in the season, when our fruit and vegetables would be at their very best, and the season for them in the United States had passed, it might be to the great advantage of the producers of these articles in Canada to have the privilege of sending them to the United States, in fact, to the great advantage of the consumers and producers in both countries. That is how and why the producers might get more for their products and the consumers might get them for less.
Another article of food that might be taken into consideration are eggs. At certain seasons of the year, we cannot produce eggs economically in this country because of weather conditions. The Canadian hen, for some months in the winter is not on the job. In the spring and early summer months the Canadian hen is right on the job, and at that season of the year we have more eggs than we can consume, and we are putting them into cold storage. Cold storage is an expensive way of preserving food, but it is better than letting the food spoil. It would be a great advantage to the Canadian farmer if, at that season of the year, he could ship his eggs to the United States. It is quite conceivable that he could get more for them; and that the consumer in the United States could get them for less. In the months of December, January and February, when the Canadian hen is not producing eggs, except under very difficult and very expensive conditions, it would be to the great advantage of the consumers in Canada to have the privilege of importing eggs from the southern states of the United States, where the Yankee hen is then on the job. This is not such an abstruse question that the hon. Minister

of Finance (Mr. White) can not understand it. At first sight it might appear a paradox, but I think the paradox has vanished. If the hon. Minister of Finance cannot understand that, I repeat the statement that he is hardly qualified for the position which he now occupies.
Wheat is an article of food that the producers of Western Canada would certainly be benefited by being permitted to ship to the United States. I know that there is a millers' combine. I do not know whether it enhances the price of flour or not, but this I do know that you cannot buy a car of flour in Canada from any milling house in Canada for one cent less than the combination price. There is a combination in price, at all events, and I am quite satisfied that the miller's combination do not regulate the price of their flour according to the price of wheat. They regulate the price of their flour in accordance with what they think they can afford to sell it at, and with what they think the Canadian consumer is willing and able to pay, in fact, what he must pay.
The hon. Minister of Finance has stated that tariffs and trusts and combines have very little to do with the high cost of living, and he said that a commission, appointed by the state of Massachusetts some years ago, had brought in a report to that effect. That commission, I presume, acted under the instructions of the body that appointed it, and republicanism and high protectionism were then the policy of the United States. Somebody must pay the duty; and, if the duty does not enhance the price, then what in the name of common sense is the duty for? Of course, this is an old question. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) in this House some years ago stated that that was the very object for which a customs' tariff was imposed, namely to enhance the price. The present hon. Minister of Finance seems to have a different opinion. The Prime Minister, the other evening, stated that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce was returning to this country and he thought his return might cause dismay in the ranks of the Liberal party. I am not of that opinion. If his return causes dismay at all, I am afraid it will be in the ranks of the Conservative party and in the Cabinet itself, because, as is well known, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, before he left this country, stated that a commission to ascertain the cause of the high cost of living was absolutely useless; that there were more commissions in this country than we had any use for; that they were as thick as
blackberries, and that no commission for that purpose would be appointed. Yet he was hardly out of the country when the Government appointed a commission, against the advice of the man who, the Prime Minister stated, was the most capable man in this country to give advice on that subject.
This commission, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce says, will spoil a good deal of paper, use a good deal of ink, and make a report which will probably never be read, and certainly will not be acted upon. I think I can give hon. gentlemen opposite some information with regard to the high cost of living. One of the things which make it difficult to live in this country at the? present time and which is responsible for the increase in the cost of living is the reckless, wanton and unparalleled extravagance of this Government. The Minister of Finance the other day took exception to the word ' unparalleled ' as applied to the expenditure of this Administration, but I will use the word, and I think that before I sit down I shall justify its use. The government of this or any country are the trustees of the public funds, and they should guard the expenditure of public money just as carefully as trustees would guard the expenditure of trust funds. Has this Government done so? I think not. I will point out to hon. gentlemen opposite several considerations which have contributed to the high cost of living in this country. First, let me call attention to the fact that the Minister of Public Works sold to a political favourite for the sum of ten dollars a piece of public property worth at least $100,000, situated within the confines of the town of Prince Albert. Do not such transactions contribute to the high cost of living? The Postmaster General last year gave a contract for 350,000 padlocks for $350,000-


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Never.


James Joseph Hughes: Well, perhaps he did not give the contract for them, but he ordered padlocks for the mail bags sufficient to last forty or fifty years, I am told.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is not a fact.


James Joseph Hughes: More padlocks than have been used in this country since Confederation.	.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have told the hon. gentleman that that is not a fact.


James Joseph Hughes: What are the facts in connection with the matter?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend should know the facts himself, since he is speaking about the matter.


James Joseph Hughes: The Postmaster General will not tell me the facts; I know that statement was made repeatedly in this House.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It was denied repeatedly.


James Joseph Hughes: How many were ordered?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There were 10,000 ordered, and not ore delivered.


James Joseph Hughes: The Postmaster General evidently intended to order them, but someone interfered, and prevented that item from being added to the other transactions which have tended to increase the high cost of living. Then there is another item: the expenditure in the Militia Department. I dare say the Postmaster General knows something about that; at any rate the Minister of Finance is well informed. Armouries and drill halls are being erected all over the country at enormous expense, and in many instances there is no more use for them than there is for the fifth wheel to a coach. Do these things not add to the high cost of living? Then there is the fact that it cost $40,000 to carry the Minister of Militia and Defence, Sir Ian Hamilton and party, from Vancouver in the west to Sydney in ihe east; is not that a rec^iess and unparalled expenditure, and would that not add something to the high cost of living? I understand also that twenty or twenty-three militia officers, with their wives, families, and invited guests and twelve or fifteen lady secretaries travelled all over Europe at the public expense, which amounted, it is said, to at least $100,000-and this to gratify the curiosity and vanity of the Minister of Militia. Do not these things add to the high cost of living? I think they do. The Minister of Militia and Defence dined with marquises, earls, kings and emperors in full dress, and at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada. If the Minister of Finance was properly guarding the public funds of this country and doing his duty as a trustee of those funds, he would compel the Minister of Militia and Defence to pay these bills out of his own pocket. Then there is the $15,000,000 which Mackenzie & Mann got last year as a gift. I am sure the Finance Minister must agree that this would add something to the high cost of living. Then there are the ten or twelve millions paid on foodstuffs by the consumers of this country in customs duties. These
.
are the things which, in my humble judgment, add to the high cost of living, and these are the things which, I venture to say, the commission now investigating the matter will not mention. But the people of this country ought to be informed, and, having the information, they will draw their own conclusions.
I listened attentively to some figures given the other day by the Minister of Finance, and his statement that the cost of living had advanced more rapidly in Canada during the past few years than in any other country he mentioned, notwithstanding the fact that the countries of Europe are burdened by enormous expenditures for armaments and military equipment from which we are happily free, and notwithstanding the fact that a large proportion of the able-bodied men of those countries are taken away from the productive walk of life at an age when they are capable of doing their best work. That, I think, should give food for reflection, because something must be wrong with this country, with all its boundless resources and with the population that we have, when the cost of living is relatively so high. Considering these things, and in view of the fact that the present Government apparently are not willing to do anything reasonable to remedy these evils, considering their attitude with regard to the naval question from which they would now like to run away-considering the fact that the emergency has been exploded, that there is no such thing now, considering their record on all these points during the last three years, I do not wonder at their putting off an appeal to the Canadian people to the last possible day, and saying that, in the meantime, they will consider all these things that were quite emergent a few years ago. I am inclined to think that, under these circumstances, when this Government next appeals to the people of Canada they will go down, as has been stated by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), unwept, unhonoured and unsung..
Mr. FREDERICK L. SCHAFFNER (Souris) : Mr. Speaker, I assure you, I do not intend to delay you or the House for any very great length of time this afternoon, but I feel that every representative who has the honour to have a place in this House should feel that he has a duty to perform to those who have sent him here. So, this afternoon, I have a very pleasant service to perform to not only the Conservatives of my constituency, but to at least

85 per cent of all the people in that constituency, in extending to this Government the congratulations of my people for the splendid manner in which they have fulfilled the promises and the pledges they made previous to the last election in connection with my own constituency and the other great prairie provinces. We have in Canada what might perhaps be classified as three forms of government. We have our municipal government, which deals with the people at home. That is enlarged into what is called our provincial or local governments that deal with a wider sphere. Then we come to the great federal Parliament of this country, whose duty it is to legislate in the best manner possible for all the people. I refer to those three forms of government to show how different are the functions of these three legislative bodies. The municipal government has to do with local affairs all of a similar character. We might say that the provincial governments of this country, whether in British Columbia or in Nova Scotia, are concerned with the affairs of people who are engaged in about the same vocations of life. But how vastly different is the legislation required in this House of Commons! We have a great variety of creeds, a great variety of languages, a great variety of industries; what may be good for one province or locality may not be the best thing for the whole country. So I claim that whether a government be Liberal or Conservative, every member in this House should sympathize with them; they have to. direct the way, to formulate policies and to enact legislation which will make for the good of the people of the whole country.
Then, Sir, we must have in this country what is called party government. It is the form of government of the British Empire. It is the form of government so far as I know, of the whole civilized world. It may have its defects, it may not be perfect; for while I suppose there are still a few people who will tell us they are perfect, most of us, I presume, are willing to admit that we have not reached perfection, whether it be in our local or in our federal administration. Yet I hold that the aim of all governments is to legislate for the good of the people. Hence it is necessary for us to watch very closely the actions of any government. I am prepared to say that I have never been altogether satisfied with what any Conservative Government has done, and I do not suppose there is any one sitting on the other side of the House who has been entirely
satisfied with all their Liberal friends did. We are more or less independent, perhaps I should pay the hon. member for Red Deer the compliment of saying that his independence is perhaps as great as that of any of us. Yet, however much it is to be desired that we should be more independent so long as we have this form of government, we must endeavour to convince those who form a Cabinet and who practically rule, whether, it be on the other side of the House or on this side, of the wisdom of adopting measures of which we approve; conversely it is the duty of a government to seek interviews with the members of the House and to ascertain from them what is in the best interests of the individual provinces. A government which will assimilate the views so ascertained will probably do what is in the best interests of all concerned.
I listened very closely the other afternoon to my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). My hon. friend is a bold man, he is a brave man, and I thought he was a more accurate man than the last speech he delivered in this House proved him to be. He started his speech with that old story about the ostrich hiding its head in the sand and likened that quality to the humility shown by members of the Cabinet. Well, after all humility is not a thing to be entirely despised whether it be in the Cabinet or among any other set of men. He ended up by saying that these men had circled around like the ostrich and then stuck their heads in the sand. When I heard that I began to look around for the heads of the Cabinet. I have observed, as no doubt you have, Mr. Speaker, that some of them have pretty large heads, which would make quite a hole in the sand and it occurred to me that if ever our friends opposite came into power in this 20th century and tried to put their heads in the holes made in the sand by the members of this Government, I think the holes would be much too large for them and that their heads would be rattling around like peas in a dry pod.
I was bold enough to interrupt my hon. friend from Edmonton the other night when he was speaking of a delegation of farmers that came to Ottawa to interview the Government. A delegation came here a few weeks ago, with what success I do not know, but I know this, that when our friends opposite were in power a delegation of from 1,000 to 1,200 farmers came to Ottawa, I remember distinctly they came in at that door, and filled up this entire

chamber, and put us right out of the door opposite, and I could not help thinking how delighted I would be if I could get a seat in the House of Commons just as easy as those fellows. They were a splendid lot of men, good-looking, intelligent and well-dressed-yes, well-dressed. A man down town said to me the other day in reference to some well-dressed fellows who had just passed us: Those are not farmers from the West, they are bankers, Cabinet Ministers or something of that kind. The point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that, while it took 1,200 farmers to storm the late Government, their grievances have so disappeared under the present Government that it was required to send in 1913 less than a baker's	doeen of delegates.
I do not know why a farmer should not have the right to dress as well as anybody else.	I had the temerity
the other night to ask the member for Edmonton if any delegation that visited the late Government had had their requests granted, and he said-they came and asked for reciprocity and Sir Wilfrid Laurier tried to give it to them. I propose to show this afternoon that not one request that any delegation of western farmers ever made of the late Government was ever granted. My hon. friend from Edmonton is very often inaccurate. He is not very well fortified with facts and he fell down badly there. Let us see what the hon. the leader of the Opposition said in reply to that delegation. Referring to the tariff he said:
You have suggested to us that the first thing we should try to get is a treaty of reciprocity with our neighbours.
Mr. Drury: I think you are misinformed as to the contents of our recommendation.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that what is proposed is closer commercial relations with our neighbours-whether by treaty or concurrent legislation is another matter-I suppose you would rather have it in the form of a treaty than not have' it at all. If what you have in view is better commercial relations with the United States we are at one with you. I am happy to say that at this moment we are negotiating with the American authorities to do this very thing which you ask-to improve our commerical relations with our neighbours.
The point I wish to make is that Canada's representatives had already gone to Washington before this delegation had approached the Government and therefore my hon. friend from Edmonton was wrong when he said the late Government had tried to grant the request of that delegation of farmers. Now, Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand a play, real vaude-
,
ville. I do not intend to give it this afternoon, but it may be presented in this House before the session closes. It was acted in Winnipeg some time about the first of December last, when an election was held in the constitu-5 p.m. ency of Macdonald. I fully expected my hon. friend from Edmonton to refer to the Macdonald election. Anybody that sat in this House last year will remember that whenever my hon. friend spoke and he spoke often and long, he always dragged in the Macdonald election, but in his speech the other night I cannot find a word about it. But to continue. There was to be an election in Macdonald. My good friend, Mr. Norris, leader of the Opposition, a well-respected man in the province of Manitoba, did not want an election, neither did Mr. McPherson, a valuable Liberal member of the local House and this play was staged by the hon. member for Edmonton and had as its particular stars the hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr. Turriff) and Senator Watson. These gentlemen forced upon the citizens of Macdonald an election, and have they not been sick since? Talk about the ostrich! If these men could have buried their heads any deeper than an ostrich they would have been mighty glad to do it. The Minister of Finance the other night accused the right hon. the leader of the Opposition of being troubled with amnesia, which means loss of memory. That was not the trouble with my hon. friend. He had no amnesia; he had a good memory. That Macdonald election is written right on his heart and he remembers it well.


Michael Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Is it true that any one on this side of the House accused my hon. friend of suffering from amnesia?


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: I did not say that; my hon. friend has misunderstood me. I say that the Minister of Finance referred to amnesia, which means loss of memory. If I said that anybody on that side of the House accused him I take it back, because that was not my intention at all. What I want to assure you of, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. member for Edmonton was not suffering from amnesia, but that he was suffering from aphasia or aphemia; that is, impossible articulation-he could not say the word ' Macdonald.' He made some strange statements. I did not know that such a good-natured man could be so pessimistic

as that hon. gentleman was that afternoon. He said that Canada stands by herself today as a country of depression in the face of the most magnificent crop ever harvested.
I think that the hon. gentleman knows better than that. I think he knows very well that the	depression to-day is
world-wide. Were it not so the depression which we may have in Canada to-day would not be so severe and would not be felt to the extent that it is. But my hon. friend does not agree with other great men in his province. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister the other day referred to the remarks made by the premiers of the different provinces upon this subject. I am not going to refer to all that has been said by the different lieutenant governors of the provinces, but I would like to show what the Hon. Mr. Bulyea, Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Alberta, from which province my hon. friend comes, has to say on this matter. He said on December 16, 1913:-
Since the prorogation of the fourth session of the second legislature of your assembly, the people of the province of Alberta, in common with the whole civilized world-
The hon. member for Edmonton thinks it is confined to Canada, but Mr. Bulyea, with the responsibility of his high position, stated that the people of the Province of Alberta, in common with the whole civilized world-
-have felt the strain of a severe financial depression, which, I am pleased to say, is now lessening. .
He goes on to say:-
Notwithstanding the stringency, however, general business throughout the province has been good. The population has largely increased with the natural consequences, increase in buildings and improvements, and with the unmatched harvest with which it has pleased an all-wise Providence to reward the labour of our farmers. The prospects of all classes of people in the province are better than ever before.
That is not very pessimistic, yet that is what the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta thinks. I said that my constituents sent me down here to congratulate the Government upon the splendid manner in which they have fulfilled their promises. There are some things that the farmers who have been coming down from Western Canada in recent years have been asking for. To be provincial for a moment, we have been asking for years for the extension of our boundaries; that is No. 1. We have been asking for a reduction of freight and express rates, we have been asking for a government system of terminal elevators
and we have been asking for aid to agriculture, aid to roads and the Hudson's Bay railway. I think that hon. gentlemen on both sides will agree with me that these were the chief requisitions of the people who came down from Western Canada, and I say without fear of contradiction that not one of these requests was granted by our friends opposite. What about the extension of our boundaries ? We were the little province of Manitoba for years, termed the postage stamp province. I said in this House before, and I want to repeat it, that I am pot provincial. If we are to have a great country here we must get away from provincialism and must try to advocate what is in the best interests of the whole country no matter from whatever province we may come. But we did feel in Manitoba that we were not being treated with that fairness which we had a right to expect. We were the pioneer province out west and no one has a higher estimation of that western country than I have. I have lived in that country since 1882 and I have practically grown up with the people there, but yet I say that we are interdependent one upon the other in every part of this country. Manitoba, as I say, is the pioneer province. It is the province that taught the people that the western country was worth living in. It is the province that taught the people from Ontario and other parts of Canada who went into Saskatchewan and Alberta that what Manitoba had done could be done in these western provinces and it is being done to-day. We were kept down for many years to a province of 72,000 square miles, while Ontario on the east had 250,000 square miles, and Saskatchewan on the west had 250,000 square miles, the responsibility for which fact I lay at the door of hon. gentlemen opposite. The right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, for some reason or other-I am not going to say what-refused time and again to-give us our rights and to extend our boundaries. But the people of this country said that they would formulate a new government, the Borden Government came into power in 1911, in 1912 our boundaries were extended and instead of having
72,000	square miles we have now 250,000 square miles, or a territory about equal to that of the province of Saskatchewan, and equal to what the province of Ontario had. That is one of the things that the farmers of Manitoba were asking for, and it is one of the things that they got from the present Government.
What about transportation ? If you

could have heard the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) going through Souris, and no doubt other parts of the province, and talking about how terribly high freight rates are you might have thought that he really was in earnest in regard to the matter. The freight rates are too high yet. But let me ask him what his Government did to reduce the freight rates. They talked, and talked and talked, but so far as anything to the advantage of Western Canada is concerned they did nothing but talk. The Conservative Government attained power and in 1912 a delegation came from the West which presented a petition to the present Minister of Railways, who, in proper course, sent it to the late Chairman of the Rail-way Commission, Mr. Mabee, in the death of whom the country has sustained a great loss. There is on file a letter from Mr. Mabee stating that this petition was the first intimation he ever had received that the farmers of the West were asking for reduced freight rates. But the present Minister of Railways took further action. He referred the whole matter to the Railway Commission and the lawyers were appointed to represent the people before that commission and a remedy was demanded, and ever since the Railway Commission has been wrestling with the question. We have heard our friends opposite speaking a great deal about Mr. Cowan, who appeared before the commission on behalf of the provinces, and Mr. Cowan has proved himself a most efficient advocate of the rights of the people, and he has done good work for the Western provinces, but Mr. Cowan or no other man would ever have had opportunity to advocate reduced freight rates if the late Government had stayed in power. It was not until the Conservative Government took the helm of state that the Railway Commission was asked to take up seriously the disposal of this very important question. Then, with regard to express rates, Mr. Mabee stated in the communication to which I have referred that he had previously heard of the demand for the reduction of express rates, and although that matter came before the Railway Commission in 1904, it was not until 1910 that a decision was arrived at and then a report was made against the reduction of express rates in Canada. That was under the late Government; but, what did the present Government do? It has not been in power long, but it has had time to have the express rates dealt with and a reduction of twenty per cent made in these rates west of Sud-[Mr. SchaffnerJ.
bury. That is a very good beginning and no doubt other reductions will come in due course. But what will do more than anything else to reduce freight rates in Canada is the inauguration of the parcels post system by the present Government. So far as I know, we heard nothing of the parcels post system under the late Government, but we have heard considerable about it since the present Government came into power. I have no doubt that in inaugurating the parcels post system the Government is facing difficulties which the ordinary member of parliament and the people outside are unable to appreciate, but they have to encourage them the splendid success of the parcels post system in the United States. No doubt the Government of the United States instituted its parcels post system with many misgivings, but the results have been most satisfactory and no doubt far and away beyond the anticipation of the United States Government. I trust the parcels post system will be as successful in Canada as in the United States, and I believe more than anything else will its success enable us to get reduced express rates in Western Canada.
May I refer to the energetic action of this Government in prosecuting the Hudson Bay railway project? In every election from 1896 to 1911, while the Liberals were in power, they used it as a political football, and they were always promising to build the Hudson Bay railway, but that promise they never fulfilled. The position of the Hudson Bay railway, when the Liberals left power, was, that there were a few piers erected in the Saskatchewan river at The Pas, and that was all. But what is the position to-day? The Government now in power is rushing that railroad to completion with great energy; I believe the contracts have all been let, and that some 160 miles are graded. And not only that, but the Government is proceeding energetically with the construction of terminals at Hudson bay, so that everything may be ready when the railway comes to be operated. And, what are some of the Liberal papers (I hope not all of them) doing to-day? They are trying to prejudice what has been done by the Government to make possible the safe navigation of the Hudson bay, that body of water which I believe the good Lord put there for the benefit of the people of the prairie provinces, and especially the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta. The Liberal papers are complaining because out of ten or twelve ships sent to navigate these uncharted waters one or two have

met with misfortune and have not been able to entirely unload their cargoes. When we take into consideration the marvellous success the Government has had in .the difficult work they have undertaken in connection with the Hudson Bay Railway project, it is a matter in respect to which every Canadian should feel proud.
Amongst some of the things to the credit of this Government, I might mention the enlargement of the boundaries of Manitoba, the reduction of freight rates and express rates, and the aid given to agriculture. My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) spoke of the freight congestion in 1911, and the consequent loss sustained by the farmers of Manitoba through not being able to get their grain to the market. Of course, no fair-minded man should blame the present Government for the conditions which existed with respect to the crop of 1911, because the Government had only a short time before come to power and had not had the opportunity to provide facilities for the transportation of the crop of that year. But what about the con-ditioas in 1912? The hon. member (Mr. Oliver) says that while there was great congestion in 1911 there was partial congestion in 1912, and for that small concession on his part I suppose we must be thankful. But the fact is that never before were there such facilities for the transportation of the grain crop as in 1913. There may have been a few points in the West which did not get all the cars they needed, but I do not believe there is a single man on either side of the House who will say there has been any real shortage of cars in the three prairie provinces in 1913, or that the grain crop was not expeditiously taken to market. Under the progressive and businesslike Government now in power, transportation facilities were improved and the farmers of the West reaped enormous advantages thereby. The western farmers asked for Government owned terminal elevators and under the efficient supervision of our Grain Commission one is in operation at Fort William, and internal terminal elevators are being erected at various points in the West. My hon. friend spent some time discussing free wheat, and told us what we had lost by not being able to ship our wheat to the United States. When he went through Macdonald, he said that we had lost from $1,000,000 to $5,000,000 because of that. That figure has grown since, until the other night he said we had lost from $5,000,000 to $8,000,000. He argues on the basis that every bushel of wheat shipped from western Canada would go across the border, which is certainly ridiculous. The
farmers of Macdonald knew that it was ridiculous. My hon. friend went there in 1912. My friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) did not go then. There were reasons why he did not go-I mean no disparagement of him at all, but he did not go. This year he went, and my hon. friend from Edmonton went through that constituency talking about free food. In his speech on the 1st of December he sayr 'You must fight; when you see a head hit it.' Well, a head got hit, and it has not yet recovered. He went through the splendid constituency of Macdonald, and he said: We have got a new p'olicy-it was so well put the other day-momentarily, a new policy for the moment. But he explained that policy of free food, told all about it, told about the terrible things that the present Government had done, and what the Liberal party would do for the people. Now the constituents of Macdonald are nearly all farmers. What was the result? What could be the result of a speech like that, a speech similar to that which he delivered before the House the other night, and which I trust you will all read carefully? What did the constituents of Macdonald do? They raised the previous majority of 784 to about 1,000. That was the result of this splendid speech, and the splendid arguments that you listened to the other night.


William John Macdonald: Was there any talk about free wheat in Macdonald?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Yes, there was talk about free wheat in Macdonald, and there was talk about protection in Pictou, and my hon. friend talks protection when he is down in Pictou.


William John Macdonald: What did the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) say about free wheat?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Well, I have nothing to do with the Minister of Public Works. If you ask him, he will tell you. He can take care of himself. He has been able to do so so far.
I want to say something with respect to agricultural education. Education is a good thing, no matter in what department it is, whether in regard to agriculture or engineering. This Government promises to give $10,000,000, at the rate of $1,000,000 a year, in aid of agricultural education. This Government will be derelict to their duty if they do not increase that sum before the end

of ten years to $50,000,000, and I believe that will be done.
I used to have conversations, in the House and out of it, with the late Minister of Agriculture. I said to him: 'Mr. Fisher, your experimental farms are good things, but I know from experience, living not very far from the experimental farm at Brandon, that they are not doing the work.' He said:
' Why? ' * Well,' I said, ' Mr. Fisher, it is because they are not reaching the people.' That is my opinion, but the people are somewhat to blame. The people should take advantage of these experimental farms; they should visit them, but, as a matter of fact, very few do so. Now what is this aid to agricultural education doing towards taking the work of the experimental farms to the people? We got this year, I think, about $50,000, and that, with the additional sum granted by the Provincial Government, has enabled the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Manitoba, Hon. George Lawrence, to establish in every local constituency that asks for it, a forty acre plot right in the neighbourhood of the people, where all classes of people, coming to town or going out of town, would pass by and thus see the results. To me that is a splendid example of affording agricultural education. If we wanted an example, we could refer to Belgium and France. Belgium farms produce $50,000,000 more annually than they did twenty-five years ago, at a cost, for every kind of agricultural education, of not more than $200,000 a year.
These are the things that the farmers came down here asking for, enlargement of boundaries, reduction of freight rates, reduction of express rates, Government owned terminal elevators, parcel post, aid to agricultural education and aid to roads. If I have heard the late Government condemned for any one thing more than another, except the navy, it has been for throwing out the Bill for good roads. One way of helping to reduce the high cost of living is to keep the men on the farms, the boys and girls on the farms. Nothing will keep the girls and boys on the farms more than to give them good roads. In the constituency of Souris the people have felt very keenly the fact that the Senate saw fit, under the direction of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) to throw out the Highways Bill.


Mr. PROULX:: Would the hon. member have confidence in the Manitoba Government to spend the money properly?
,


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Why, certainly. Is there anybody on earth who has not confidence in the Manitoba Government?


Edmond Proulx: Why did not the hon. gentleman induce the (Government to accept the Senate amendment?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: fortune to have received the felicitations of the great statesman of Canada who leads this Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier).
I wish, as I come from one of the smaller provinces of this great Dominion, to call your attention and the attention of the House to, one of the first remarks of the mover of the Address, the hon. member for York (Mr. McLeod 1, in reference to redistribution, the subject which forms perhaps the most vital part of the speech from the Throne. The hon. member for York has expressed his views upon the principle of representation by population in this House of Commons. He has not altogether expressed the views which some from the Maritime provinces have urged in the past. Owing to unforeseen events since the Fathers of Confederation adopted the system of representation by population, we are to lose some of our representation. My hon. friend has admitted that we have no legal status, but he intimated that something might be done in sympathy with our position. I thought we might have learned that it was his intention or that the suggestion might have been made to him that in the Redistribution Bill some possible remedy might be introduced for the province of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, which has not yet been defined, but which might possibly again be found a just cause for the postponement of the Redistribution Bill for another session, if we are not to have an election this summer. I for one have always entertained the opinion that it is better for the Maritime provinces, for the smaller bodies of this Dominion, to be very careful before departing from any of the fundamental principles of the British North America Act. I know that these views are supported in the province of New Brunswick by men of the most intelligent class in that province. They feel that the future development of this country depends not on such questions as representation in Parliament, but upon the development of the resources of this great country, to which jjjiere is no limit, and I, standing in the province of New Brunswick, viewing our great harbours, through which will flow the products of the great West, feel just as much pride as does the farmer in the West who surveys every morning his endless wheat fields from which he will reap a crop which will be the astonishment of other countries. We should cease finding fault with the Fathers of Confederation, more especially as the Fathers of Confederation, in anticipation of the preponderance of the West in the future, did net. confine the
.
Maritime provinces or the smaller provinces to representation in this House alone, but provided that they should have a fixed representation - in the Upper Chamber, in the Senate, in compensation for the sacrifices which the Fathers of Confederation from the Maritime provinces had to make for their people, and that representation in the Upper Chamber is just as essential to us as our representatives in the House of Commons. Our representation in the Senate is to be equal to that of Ontario or that of Quebec, or of all the western provinces combined, and therefore I find reason to believe that the Fathers of Confederation had foreseen the marvellous future development of the West. Twenty-five or thirty years before Confederation, Joseph Howe, from the city of Halifax, foresaw a new British Empire in those prairies of the West, together with the great resources of British Columbia, and was predicting that, perhaps before the century waS over, the centre of the empire would be transferred to the very middle land of Canada between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock


Mr. TURGEON:: 

(Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when he was leading this Government. The provinces for some years had been clamouring for an increase in their subsidies, asking for more money to spend on their roads and upon education and this demand came more particularly from the Maritime provinces. Before changing the principle with regard to provincial subsidies the Prime Minister of that day (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) called an Interprovincial conference composed of the Premiers of all the provinces of the Dominion and he told them that if they agreed upon one principle the Government would ask the Imperial Parliament to make a change based upon such agreement. They came to an agreement and the policy laid down by the Prime Minister of that day was carried out. But the premiers of the provinces, during the conference last October, were not able to agree upon such a principle. We have had some reference during the present discussion to the question of subsidies. The premiers agreed upon the necessity of granting further subsidies to the Maritime provinces, but there is nothing in the speech from the Throne which mentions that part of the proceedings of the Interprovincial Conference. I would have been pleased to have seen something in the speech from the Throne giving some hope that that part of the proceedings of the Interprovincial Conference would be looked into. Such an announcement may, let us hope, come before the end of the session. I sincerely hope that it will, but so far we are at a loss to know whether the Government of the day is willing to entertain the unanimous recommendation of the premiers of the provinces for an increase of these subsidies.
Meanwhile, do not think that I am indifferent to the position which may be created for the provinces by this diminution of representation. Perhaps if I were to view this question from a party standpoint I might say-although I do not say it with the intention of blaming the Government in advance-that it is most likely that it will be the Liberal party that will be affected most seriously by the change of representa-[DOT] tion owing to the Act of Confederation. Meanwhile we are willing to submit to it. It is not with indifference that I take up that point and recommend it to my fellow countrymen and to the people of the Maritime provinces in whatever position they may be. In anticipation of the possibility that the representation might be decreased in certain portions of the Dominion, the fathers of Confederation inserted a provi-
[Mr. Turgeonl.
sion in the British North America Act guaranteeing as far as possible the representation which the provinces acquired at the time of their entrance into Confederation. It is provided by section 51 of the British North America Act that:
On any such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained, at the then last census, to be diminished by one-twentieth part or upwards.
This means that although the Maritime provinces might not perhaps possess the unit of representation made necessary by the unit of representation in the province of Quebec, there is still the safeguard that unless the population of the provinces is diminished by more than one-twentieth as compared with the figures of the preceding census-not with the first census taken after Confederation, or after two or three decades, but the last census-these provinces shall keep the representation which they possessed at the time. Therefore, I wish to call the attention of the Government to that point. It is more particularly in order to call the attention of the ministers and of the members of any committtee which may be formed to look into a redistribution of seats in this House that I have undertaken to speak on that question this evening.
I ask the Prime Minister, who represents Nova Beotia, and I ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Hazen), who represents New Brunswick, to take care that they safeguard the interests of their native provinces, and, if in the computation to be made there is any chance of one member holding his seat in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia by the operation of this saving clause in the British North America Act, then I ask that it be applied. I know that our population is very close to the necessary number and I trust that the computation may be carefully made so that we shall be justly dealt with. There can be no object in delaying further the introduction of the Redistribution Bill and pressing it to a conclusion at the present session. If only one-half of the people in the Maritime provinces, who are in the United States to-day, had stayed at home, we would have the necessary number of people to give us full representation in this Parliament. We have invited the citizens of the world to come to our shores and we have filled up the West, but in time to come that huge volume of

immigration must lessen or cease altogether, and then, when in the future we have to depend upon the natural increase of population, I believe the Maritime provinces will be able to maintain the standard of representation which was allotted to them at Confederation. We have been in a rather unfortunate position in the Maritime provinces, because in the early days of Confederation when wooden ships were superseded by steel ships, thousands of our people were thrown out of employment at home and they had to seek their means of livelihood in the United States.
Let me say, Sir, that I look with hope to the day when the island of Newfoundland will be included in the Dominion of Canada and when will be consummated that grand idea of rounding out the union of all the British people in North America. I urge upon every member of the House the importance of securing by all proper means the inclusion of Newfoundland in Confederation, for our benefit as well as for the benefit of Canada, and especially of the Maritime provinces. The interests of the Maritime provinces and the interests of Newfoundland are cognate in many respects, and should the ancient colony come into Confederation with a representation of ten or twelve members in this House, and her share of representation in the Senate, then, Sir, tire Maritime provinces would become a powerful entity in this Parliament. I quite understand that to induce Newfoundland to enter Confederation is not an easy task now, but I do regret that the efforts in the past which at one time seemed near to being crowned with success proved futile, and especially do I regret it because of the fact that on one occasion only a sum of half a million dollars stood in the way, a sum which to the Dominion of Canada at the present day is of comparatively small account. Now that we are thinking of establishing a navy, the inclusion of Newfoundland with its hardy maritime population becomes a matter of prime importance. I know of my own personal knowledge that the best people in Newfoundland, the professional men, the clergy of all denominations, are educating the people of that island to appreciate that the destiny of their colony is to become one of the provinces of this prosperous Dominion. For my part I would rather see New Brunswick or Nova Scotia represented here by ten or eleven members, holding their seats by the strength of the constitution, than by thirteen members holding their seats by the 81
charity of the West or the sympathy of Canada. We want to be here by the right of the people and the right of the constitution. We do not want to be here otherwise. We do not want to encroach upon any principle of the constitution, nor do we want to encroach upon the rights of any other province of the Dominion of Canada. I hope that after this debate is concluded the Government will bring down the Redistribution Bill. I expect that the redistribution will be made in all fairness to every party and every province. The Government, in bringing down this measure, will at least be acting according to the constitution, as it should have been done last year, if not two years ago. According to the constitution it should have been done immediately after the figures of the census were obtained, so that the country might be ready for an election.
After speaking in regard to immigration, my hon. friend the mover of the Address (Mr. McLeod) spoke of the Transcontinental railway as it affects New Brunswick. He spoke of the Transcontinental railway having been brought down through the middle of the province of New Brunswick as a great mistake. While I am on this question of redistribution, I must say that this railway is of advantage for this very reason alone, the increase of our population, the opening of our territory to the people in order to bring more population to the centre of the province. New Brunswick has its population to-day merely scattered along the boundaries of the province between Nova Scotia round the north shore, and between the province of Quebec and the state of Maine. We have immense areas of virgin forest lands which have seen no homes yet. By introducing the railway to the centre of the province we are opening up that portion of the province to the lumbering interests and the farming interests, and are thus bringing in many people. We have increased our population already by bringing the Transcontinental railway to the centre of the province. That was one of the considerations which, I remember, the right hon. the leader of the Government of that day (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) took into account, namely, that it would bring more population to New Brunswick, which we desired so much, and which we needed to retain our representation.
I shall not speak of the other advantages, which would accrue to the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island as well, by the building of a branch line from either one point or another to St. John, New Brunswick. It would connect St. John

by the centre as well as by the other route. It seems strange to me that the hon. member for York (Mr. McLeod) blames the Government of that day so much, because the railway has gone through the centre of the province of New Brunswick, a province the interest of which I am sure he has as much at heart as myself. He ought to see that the representation, the very principle upon which he is working to-day, would be greatly benefited by the increase of population in that district.
He has spoken of the forests which were destroyed by fire owing to the railroad going through. Railroads go through other forests in the Maritime provinces and through other forest areas in Canada. At the same time, I would sooner see the immense forest area of New Brunswick in danger of fire caused by railroads than see it without any railroad at all, because, if the railroad was to set fire to the forest traversed by it, you would be sure to have quick communication and speedy assistance, and you would be able to control the fire; whereas you have not been able to do that in large forests where there is no communication of any kind. In northern New Brunswick, before the building of the Intercolonial,	you
had the Miramichi fire, which destroyed millions and millions of feet of lumber of the best quality. There was no railroad, no communication, and you had to wait until the elements were able to subdue the activity of the fire. Since the Intercolonial has been built fires have done some small damage, but they have been stopped at once, and the same would happen in the centre of the province.
My hon. friend from York (Mr. McLeod), who moved the Address, is a man of many virtues and good qualities. He is a man who recognizes no limitations; and as the speech from the Throne was not big enough for his ambition, he would not be bound by its subjects, but went further afield. He discussed the Highways Bill of last session and the session before. Following what we have heard from the other side of the House during last session, he has blamed the Senate for having killed the Highways Bill, which was to be so beneficial to the province of New Brunswick, from which he comes, as well as to the other provinces. As I said a short time ago, it was merely in the exercise of one of their protective functions, the protection of provincial rights, the protection of the Constitution, that the Senate made an amendment which would have rendered the Bill constitutional, which would have made it fair to every province in the Dominion, and which would have preserved the rights of provincial governments, whether Conservative or Liberal. The Senate has the custody of the rights of the provinces under the Constitution, and the Constitution states positively that road-building and road-structure belong to the provinces. We only asked that they be left to the provinces, and an amendment to that effect was moved on this side cf the House. The right hon. the leader of the Government replied that it was his intention to do so. We asked him to put his intentions in black and white in the Bill. The Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals refused to do that. The Bill went to the Senate, and a majority of the Senate took the same ground as we did and added the same amendment. It is said that the majority was a servile majority. If there was any servility, it was servility to the Constitution.
No senator would be true to his mission unless he intelligently and conscientiously exercised that function when he felt it his duty to do so. The Senate put the matter down in black and white; the Bill was referred back to this House, and the amendment was rejected by the Government. It would be better for the provinces to wait a year or two than that the money should be given them against the provisions of the constitution. The hon. member for York (Mr. McLeod) said that it would have been a great benefit to the farmers of his province to have obtained that money for the improvement of their roads. The matter was debated in this House, and I do not wish to go over it again, but I would call the attention of hon. gentlemen to the fact that while the Minister of Railways and Canals and the right hon. the Prime Minister said that the money would be distributed to the provinces according to their population and under their own supervision, when the Bill went to the Senate the representative of the Government in that body put upon the Bill an interpretation different from that of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Railways and Canals. Mr. Senator Lougheed, who addressed the Senate on behalf of the Government side on May 22, 1913, as reported in the Senate Debates, page 661, had this to say:
It seems to me that hon. gentlemen who have been performing the role of critics of this Bill have a very great misconception of the policy, the nature and the origin of the Bill.
,

Hon. gentlemen seem to be obsessed, if I may use that term in its more courteous sense, with the idea that a great constitutional wrong has been done not only to the province but to the Senate of Canada by the Government in the introduction of this Bill. Hon. gentlemen seem to be equally obsessed by the idea that a very great discourtesy has been extended by the Government of Canada to the Senate on account of their failure to attach that importance which certain gentlemen think should be attached to this amendment which the Senate made to the Bill last year. If hon. gentlemen will look at the preamble of the Bill they should come to a different conclusion than that which they apparently have arrived at as the object of this Bill. If they will observe the language in the preamble of the Bill they will find that this is not a local undertaking. This has not for its object the improvement of roads in a particular municipality, or group of municipalities. It is not intended for a moment that this assistance should be given to the ordinary highway in a local sense.
	Then I direct the attention of hon.
gentlemen to the first clause of the Bill in which this is entitled the Canadian Highways Improvement Act. A proper distinction should be drawn between the BUI and the meaning which hon. gentlemen are disposed^ to attach to it. Hon. gentlemen seem to think that the Government of the day in its generosity has suddenly come to the conclusion that municipalities should be helped and that the provinces should be helped only so far as the development of local highways is concerned. But there is a larger object than that in view. The Government has the object in view set out in the preamble of the Bill. I maintain that while highways in their local sense are peculiarly provincial undertakings, that this is more than a provincial undertaking. This is an interprovincial and national undertaking and does not come within that class of cases referred to by my hon. friends, and particularly the hon. gentleman from He Lorimer, who cited to us last night section 92 of the British North America Act, in which he sought to bring this undertaking under subsection 10 of section 92, and within the language local works and undertakings.'
Another interpretation, therefore, was placed upon the Bill by a member of the Government in the Senate: an interpretation which had not been given in this House, and which would seem to make it impossible for the farmers living along the byways and byroads of any of the provinces to have obtained the benefit of a single dollar of that money if the Bill had passed and the money had been appropriated according to the views of the hon. gentleman of the Senate from whose remarks I have quoted. I ask the hon. member for York, who pitied the farmers of his constituency because they have not been given that money, would that money have been of any benefit to his friends the farmers of York, or to the farmers of Gloucester, Queens and Sunbury, or any of the other portions of the province? It is not the farmer who lives
within a few miles of a town or city who need this money the most; it is those who have to go from ten to twelve miles over roads that are sometimes impassable, who should obtain the benefit of any money to be appropriated for the improvement of roads. If the recommendation of the Interprovincial Conference is put into effect by this Government, the money given to the provincial governments will be used on behalf of the farmers who particularly want it, and therefore it will pay the-farmers to have waited a year or two to get the money in the way they want it.
There are other considerations which demand the attention of the people of this country. We have heard a great deal during the last few years about reciprocity with the United States. We know that the arrangement which was made by the late Government did not meet with the sanction of the people on September 21, 1911. Although the majority of the people, for many causes and because of many influences, did not appear to approve that policy at that time, I still maintain with all respect that the verdict of the people was a popular error-an error for which the people of Canada have already repented, and which they are ready to repair at the earliest opportunity. I am convinced, although the verdict of the people was against reciprocity, that if the question had been given a fair trial; if the reciprocity pact alone had been 'onsidered; if the question had not been diverted by other considerations, the result would have been different. In the meantime, things have changed. The United States has taken action, and in this country we are confronted with conditions which have changed considerably during the last few years. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has made an offer, as leader of the Liberal party-a leader who has always stood by the principles of true Liberalism-he has told the people of Canada in a speech at Hamilton that he would advocate, free food for Canada-that is food free from customs duties.
The Minister of Finance, the day before yesterday, did not consider very favourably the proposition; he did not, in 9 p.m. my estimation, treat it with the seriousness and the consideration with which he should have treated it as coming from the greatest Canadian statesman of the day. Meanwhile, under the circumstances in which we are situated, with an increasing cost of living and with a great number of our working men out of employment, my right hon. friend, in his

policy of free food or food free from duty for the masses of the people of Canada, has a determined follower in the person of the member from Gloucester. They say: but you have been promising the farmers of Canada a larger market. Yes, we have been promising the farmers a large market and we would have given them the greatest market that any country can look for, a market of ninety five millions of people, which was refused to them by the erroneous policy of the Government supporters in defeating the reciprocity agreement. To-day the right hon. leader of the Opposition appealed for free food for the people and the Minister of Finance says: What effect would it have on conditions? He says that the tariff is not the cause of the increased cost of living. It is not the only cause but it is certainly one of the causes and one of those causes which can be removed at any moment by the action, not of this Parliament, but of the Cabinet itself by the removal of the prevailing duty on wheat and flour. It will not remedy everything but it will remedy one great burden which weighs on the shoulders of the people, more particularly on the working classes who, like the farmers, earn their bread and the bread of their families by the sweat of their brows, the workingmen in the factories, the men on the railroads, the men in the merchant marine of Canada, the men working at days wages. During the last fiscal year the workingmen have paid into the treasury of Canada an amount of over $10,000,000 of duty upon food introduced into Canada for the sustenance of the Canadian people. You must add to that $10,000,000, as was well illustrated by the scientific member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), the other day, a profit of 25 per cent or 33 per cent which the importer will add to the cost of the food he imports and then you have another $2,000,000 or $3,000,000 to add to that $10,000,000. There is, therefore, in the customs duty upon food for the masses of the people of Canada during a portion of the year, the winter season, when the supply of food from Canada is bound to get short, $13,000,000 that, by the removal of the duty, you can spare to the people and more particularly to the class of wage earners. That class compose the largest portion of the population and they also consume the largest quantity of food products. The poor man has at his table a larger number to feed than the rich man and, therefore, though his table may be more modestly .
served, it is as expensively served as the table of the rich man with two or three children, and while you save. $15,000,000 or $16,000,000 for the people you have done something towards reducing the high cost of living. This is particularly necessary in a period of depression in business and in trade, when you have a lack of work in Toronto, Montreal, Eegina and every other city in the Dominion. Under these circumstances, certainly one of the best remedies that can be employed and one which can be applied at once is the removal of the duties on food stuffs, and then we can look for other remedies.
The Minister of Finance talks of education and he says his Government did a great deal last year because it voted $1,000,000 for the education of the farmers of Canada. I submit that the farmers of Canada need, in many respects, more education, but that cannot be done in six months, in three months or in three years. It is a matter of time to give education to the the farmers, and it will have to be made permanent and to be made effectual. The hon. member told the House that his Government had been ahead of the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in this respect. He ignores the fact that four years ago the Liberal party and Liberal Government created that Commission on Technical Education which has gone around the world and is preparing a report which I am sure, when it is published, will command the admiration of the people of Canada and will result in the establishment of a real system of technical education for farmers as well as for mechanics. But all of that will take time, that is, for the generation that is growing. It is not a remedy for the conditions of to-day. However, I claim that the Liberal Government must be given the credit of having appointed that Commission in consideration of the conditions existing in Canada. They say that production is not sufficient to meet consumption. I admit it, but the best way to increase production would be to give a market, and, four years ago, the Liberal party, under the supervision of its devoted and admired chief, asked the country to accept an agreement with the greatest market in the world, the United States, by which our people would have all the market that would be required at any moment, and that market would have benefited the people of the West as well as those of the East.
But they say that by that agreement Canada would have lost its fiscal independence. Are we British subjects? If we are British

subjects, if there is any British spirit in any Canadian, he will never lose his fiscal independence any more than he will lose his loyalty to the flag we all revere. Lose our fiscal independence! Look to-day and compare the agreement of 1911 between Mr. Fielding and ex-President Taft with the tariff that the United States, looking only to their own interest, have adopted for themselves. It is in their own interest that they have made a new tariff, they have not looked to Canada but to themselves, and we find that the pact agreed upon by both the Canadian Government and the United States Government would have given Canada a great many more advantages than Canada secures by the tariff framed by the United States looking solely to their own interests. Therefore I claim that conditions have changed in Canada to-day owing to the enlightenment of the new President of the United States. I claim that the people of the West would have saved over $20,000,000 if the reciprocity treaty had gone through. To my mind its defeat has contributed very largely to the condition prevailing to-day.
I heard with interest the hon. member for Edmonton say the other night that but for the reduced duty on oats going into the United States the- people of the western provinces where the crop of oats this year has been immense, would have made a dead loss. It was the reduction of duty that saved the farmers of Alberta and Saskatchewan. But supposing the six cents duty were taken off altogether, what a difference that would make.
The revision of the American tariff has been an immense relief to the people of this country; but there is one thing the farmers of the West want, and that is the removal of the duty on wheat going into the United States. It is up to the Government to open that market to the farmers of the West. They can do it at any moment by simply removing the duty on American wheat. If that had been done this year the people of the West would have shipped their immense crop of wheat across the border and made bigger profits. The Argentine Republic was quick to remove its duty on wheat *in order to get the benefit of the American market and are we behind the Argentine? I do not wish to be severe in my remarks but I must say I cannot understand the attitude of the Government in maintaining the duty on American wheat. If it were removed now it would at once let free the immense amount of wheat in the elevators and granaries of the West. The Minister of Public Works told the electors in the
*constituency of Macdonald last December that the Government would consider the advisability of removing the duty on wheat. Is it possible that the 13 or 14 wise men of Canada have taken that matter into consideration and have not been led to the conclusion that it was to the advantage of the West that that duty should be removed? They will not take advice from their best friends, not even from Premier Roblin of Manitoba. They would not take advice from the Conservative members from Alberta who came here a few days ago with a resolution from their friends in that province. It would seem however, that they must have left the resolution in the train, because, as -soon as they get here they vote a motion of confidence in their present leader. I addressed several meetings in my constituency before coming up here-I do so every year-and let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of my country in expressing their desire for free food were voicing the opinions of all the farmers of Canada. What we want is large markets which would benefit both the working classes and the farmers. When we claim larger markets for the farmers we claim also the reduction or elimination of the duties on farm implements. The farmers to-day are expecting that more particularly since they became rich had the advantage of that great market which should have been placed at their disposal a few years ago. When you tax the farmer for his implements, for any article of necessity he has to purchase for the maintenance of his family-boots and clothing for himself, his wife and his children-you increase the cost of living, whereas, if you free these articles from taxes you decrease the cost of living and it is by this policy that we can ensure greater happiness to all classes of the community. I repeat that I stand here to-day a determined supporter of my right hon. leader, that the population of Gloucester county sent me here at the last election by a thousand majority and that they are prepared to send me here again with 2,000 majority. We are advocating to-day as strongly as ever, and more strongly than ever, that change of which I speak. It is not because we have been defeated once that we are going to abandon our principles and change our views. We were for larger markets before, we are still for larger markets and we will be in opposition as we were in the Government for larger markets and not till the Government of the day sanctions our policy or gives free food to the people of Canada and opens

the markets of the United States for the wheat and oats of the people of the West will we cease to proclaim the necessity of removing these burdens from the shoulders of the people. They say that the people of the West should go into mixed farming but I believe that the people of the West have gone very largely into the mixed farming of late. We saw published the other day a statement of the immense crop of the West. It is composed not only of the wheat that they have been growing in Saskatchewan and Alberta but also of millions of bushels of oats, barley and flax. Considering that they have been settled only for thirty or thirty-five years, which is a short period in the life of a country, they have made remarkably good progress in mixed farming. While I am a free trader in principle and theory I know that you cannot bring in absolute free trade all at once, but when our friends opposite, because they were accidentally transferred to the other side of the House by the vote of September, 1911, say, that the Liberal party has done nothing towards free trade, I say that under the tariff revision of 1897 there were changes which were notable not so much for the volume of the decrease in the tariff as for the decreases which were made in the rates upon articles required by the mass of the people.
The introduction of the British preference was a great step towards free trade, it was a great step in favour of the farmers of Canada who have to buy a number of articles imported from Great Britain or else from the United States, and if a farmer buys an article from Great Britain in consequence of the lowering of the tariff against that article, which he would otherwise have purchased in the United States, it is an advantage to the country, and it is also an advantage to those poor workers in the British Isles, who are receiving so much sympathy at the hands of the Conservative party to-day in connection with this talk about a contribution, but who never get much sympathy from them when we are talking of purchasing articles from them at a lower rate of tariff. If in this country it is desired to decrease the cost of living without at the same time hurting the manufacturer, let the manufacturer be inspired by the sentiments which inspire the manufacturers of France and Germany; let them so improve the processes of manufactures that they will be able to produce at a cheaper rate than they have ever ,
been able to do before. If we lower the cost of production we lower the price at which the article can be sold in the country, and if an article is sold at a reasonably low price, or as low as it can be sold, the better it is for the home manufacturer, because the manufacturers of other countries are not so interested in trying to fill the markets here with their own goods, and therefore look for markets elsewhere.
There is another subject which was discussed by my hon. friend the mover of the Address; I refer to that great question of a contribution. He also joined the concert on the other side in stating that Canada had been humiliated by the position of the Liberal majority in the Senate, which had in a sense objected to the passing of the Naval Contribution Bill granting $35,000,000 with which to build three dreadnoughts as our contribution to the British navy. I do not wish to speak at length on that question, as I had occasion to give my views to this Parliament and to Canada with regard to it last session, but let me tell you again that I see no humiliation for Canada in the position taken by tlie Senate in asking the Government not to pass that Bill before an appeal is taken to the people, and to put into execution the promise which was given by the right hon. leader of the Government himself when he introduced his measure, and also before he introduced it. He stated publicly upon his return from England that he would introduce the Bill, and that if Parliament did not grant the money he would appeal to the people. The Senate said: Appeal to the people first, and if you are	sustained by	the
people we will vote your Bill. We are told we have brought about national humiliation because the members on this side of the House did not agree to endorse the changed views of the ministers and their supporters with regard to the navy, but when we remember that in 1909 they were in harmony with us in suggesting a Canadian navy and protesting against the contribution, it is not to be wondered at that we were not able to swallow the altered views of the Government. And if these gentlemen opposite thought our action led to humiliation of the empire, why have they not brought on an election to test the feelings of the people of Canada. Where is there an emergency to-day; why have they not sought the opinion of the electorate? Let

me point out that the people of England, as represented by the First Lord of the Admiralty, have not looked upon the action of this Parliament as a humiliation. The Hon. Winston Churchill, speaking in the English House of Commons on the 16th of July last, after the prorogation of this Parliament, said:
Although the Naval Aid Bill was rejected, the question of Canada participating in her own defence and in that of the empire is by no means dead. Whether we read the speeches of members of the Government or of the Opposition we see that although there are differences of opinion and method, and although the matter is one of party disputation, there is an overwhelming consensus of opinion that action should be taken and that soon.
Mr. Churchill knows that there was an overwhelming expression of opinion that action should be taken by Canada, and that it was only a difference of method between the Liberals and Conservatives, which difference of method was because of the withdrawal of the Conservative party from the Naval Service Act, to which they had given their adherence two years previously. Mr. Churchill went on to say:
The position is not yet clear, and I am very much inclined to think that harm rather than good may result from our attempt to debate it much in public. Canada is absolute mistress of her own destiny. Although I cannot attempt to forecast the course to be finally decided by Canada, I think that these speeches taken by themselves, apart from all other public and private information plainly show that the question of Canada taking effective part In the general naval defence of the empire is by no means closed, and we have no right to assume at present that we are to he left to face the emergencies of the future unaided and left to bear the whole burden alone.
Later on, Mr. Churchill said:
By next year, however, it is probable that the Canadian situation will have defined itself and we shall be in a better position to judge whether further acceleration of next year's ships or atlernatively, direct addition to our programme will be forced upon us. That is the policy which we recommended to the committee and which we regard as a wise, sober and adequate provision. We shall not be drawn from it by any agitation.
In view of the statement of Mr. Churchill, that the action of Canada would be known this present year, it is inexplicable to me why the Government have not introduced their naval policy. The Prime Minister knows that the question of contribution is awaiting the determination of the people of Canada; he knows that his promised permanent policy will have to be submitted to the people, and why then does he not introduce a fair redistribution Bill, pass it this session, and submit the question to the
people. I challenge the right hon. gentleman to take this course. I thank the members of the House for the kind attention they have given me.


Mr. DONALD NICHOLSON (Queens, P.E.I.):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. gentleman who moved the Address (Mr. H. F. McLeod), on the able manner in which he presented his views, and I specially thank him for the kind references he made to my province. Judging by the applause which the seconder of the Address received from his own side of the House,
I have no doubt that he acquitted himself creditably in presenting the views of his party on the different questions at issue. Reference has been made by several speakers to the non-introduction of the Naval Bill this session, and without going into the details of the question at any great length,
I want to say that I voted for the Naval Bill last year, and I voted for it because I am a true Canadian, because I am a Briton, and because I believe that anything which strengthens the British navy strengthens the position of Canada and of the British Empire. References have also been made to the omission of the Highways Bill from the Speech from the Throne, but I commend the policy of the Government for not introducing that Bill and sending it from this House up to the Senate to be slaughtered there. I believe the people of Canada are heartily in favour of the Highways Bill as introduced by the Government last year, and I believe that the farmers are specially interested and favourable to it. I know that in my part of the country there was much disappointment when the Senate rejected the Bill. As to the question of the higli cost of living, it is needless for me to say that I would be in favour of any policy which would reduce the cost of living to the consumers of this country, but certainly gentlemen on the other side have not shown in their speeches how that may be done. We all know that there are many articles consumed in the household which cost no more now than they did some years ago, and that remark applies particularly to groceries. Sugar costs no more and tea costs no more, and I can give a number of other instances in the grocery line to show that the prices of such articles are certainly not higher, and in some cases they are lower than they were four years ago, or ten years ago, or even twenty years ago. It is true that, with the exception of wheat and vegetables and flour, there are few articles which the farmers produce that are costing more now than they did some years ago. It would require a long

time to enumerate the reasons why the cost of living is more now than it was some years ago, but it is not in the articles that we consume in our homes that the increased cost lies.
In 1911, the United States proposed to let our farm products and manufactured goods in free. The late Government adopted a reciprocal policy. That was the late Government's proposal to the people of this country, but in my opinion the people of Canada refused to adopt that policy for the following reason: I represent a constituency with as large a farming population as any in Canada. Formerly the people down there were free traders, but they saw the benefits of the protection they enjoyed under the tariff. Everybody knows that under our fiscal policy a certain amount of protection is enjoyed by the farmers in lieu of the protection that the manufacturers have. Suppose a farmer in Canada raises a horse worth $200; if he goes over to the United States and buys a similar horse for $200, when he comes back to Canada he has to pay $50 duty. That protects the Canadian farmer to the amount of $50 in lieu of the protection that he allows the manufacturer. On oats there is a protection of ten cents a bushel. On cheese, a farmer is protected to the amount of four cents a pound and on eggs three cents a dozen. To-day eggs are worth about fifty cents a dozen, and a matter of three cents a dozen duty paid on eggs coming into Canada surely would not reduce the cost of living very much. On all these articles, farmers are enjoying a certain amount of protection under our fiscal policy. A man who produces or raises 2,000 pounds of pork-and lots of farmers do that-is protected in his own market that protection and let the country be flooded with the products of other countries? That is the reason why progressive farmers of this country turned down the reciprocity pact of 1911.
I was surprised to learn from my hon. friend the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) the other night that 20,000,000 bushels of oats had been shipped from Alberta this year. He appeared to be pleased. I think it is a great mistake. It is simply removing the rich loam of that province to the run-out farms of Dakota and Illinois. I have met farmers out in the West where the hon. gentleman lives. They occupied their farms in the United States for about thirty years. They run-out the farms and then they came out to the virgin soil of Canada, and they are attempting to do the-
,
same thing on this side of the line. This kind, of farming is ruinous, because if you keep on cropping oats or wheat year in and year out, finally fertilizers will have to be used and you will not get as much as if you had mixed farming. That is the experience of the older provinces of Canada. That is the experience that the farmers of Dakota have had, because they persisted in the raising of wheat continuously.
I would suggest that our wheat be milled in Canada so that our farmers, both in the East and in the West, may be able to procure the by-products, bran and shorts, for feeding purposes. In addition to that we would produce a high grade of flour for export and home use. I believe we ought to do everything in our power to encourage the milling of wheat in this country, as the by-products would be very much appreciated by the stock raisers of this country.
I remember the time in this country when our young men and women had to go to the cities of the United States for employment. In fact, in New England there were large colonies of French Canadians manufacturing boots, shoes, hats, stoves and cooking utensils, besides tools for artisans and also farm machinery, for shipment to Canada. We had reciprocity at that time, and the prices that we obtained were not half as good when we bought our goods in the United States as they are now in our home market. These young men visiting their homes on their summer vacations some years ago, were missionaries in favour of the National Policy that was adopted in the year 1878. They said: Why, we have to leave our Canadian homes and go to the United States in order to manufacture goods for you there. Hardly anything at all was manufactured in Canada, in the lower provinces and especially in the province of Quebec. The city of Lowell, Massaehussets, is almost a French city, populated by French Canadians. The rush of young Canadians to tne United States factories and cities was enormous thirty years ago.
I believe one of the great troubles in Canada is that the farmers do not produce enough to supply the wants of the home market. I need not weary the House with illustrations that go to show that although ours is a farming country, yet we have to import large quantities of produce, including beef and eggs, from other countries. The fact of the matter is that there is not enough stuff produced to feed our own people. That, however, will, I believe, be finally adjusted. Hon. gentlemen opposite speak about the great market we should

have in the United States. Only three or four years ago the cities of St. John and Halifax, and other centres throughout New Brunswick, including Chatham and Newcastle, were importing pork and beef from Chicago at a lower price than that at which it could be procured in Ontario or any of the other provinces, notwithstanding the fact that they had to pay a duty of $4 a barrel. Our great competitors were the United States, with their cheap production of pork and beef. As hon. gentlemen all know, Prince Edward Island, the province from which I come, is adjacent to Newfoundland, which has an independent fiscal policy. The duties on goods going intp Newfoundland from the United States are the same as the duties on goods coming into Canada; therefore they have been our competitors, and, with regard to the articles I have mentioned, and others, they undersell us.
I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that after the election of 1911 the very best farming districts in the lower provinces returned members opposed to the right hon. leader of the Opposition. In the lower provinces the right hon. gentleman has been very highly thought of, hut on account of the arrangement which was entered into with the United States by his government, his candidates in those counties were defeated. I do not think I should have entered politics at all if I had not really believed it to be in the best interests of the country, and I know that many Liberals turned against him on that very issue. The farmers of Canada fully appreciate the policy of the present Minister of Agriculture, for they recognize that his is a live, wide-awake department. I am informed also that the western farmers appreciate the work of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the matter of the improvement of transportation facilities.
I would like to ask the hon. members of the Opposition why they did not stand up in the House and insist on the late Government accepting the offer of President Taft instead of a partial or jug-handled agreement, but were content to allow the manufacturers to enjoy protection, whom they always alleged were bleeding the farmers to create bloated monopolists? It appears, to me, Sir, very inconsistent that hon. gentlemen while in opposition should be conducting a campaign in favour of free manufactured goods when they let the opportunity slip in 1911. Although I make
this assertion, I desire to say that I am a protectionist; I stand pat for the protection of every industry in Canada, farming and manufacturing alike.
There is another clause in the Address upon which I wish to say a few words, namely redistribution. The people [DOT]
of my province know that in you, Sir, they have a sympathetic friend, and I ask the indulgence of the House while I state the case of Prince Edward Island. I do hope I shall not weary the House, but this is a matter in which I as well as the people I have the honour to represent, feel very much interested.
I offer no apology for referring 10 p.m. to a subject which has already been so frequently and so ably threshed out upon the floor of this House and in the press of Canada. To .some, the question of representation in the Maritime provinces, and particularly in the province of Prince Edward Island, may not seem to be of that vital importance that it is to the people there; but Mr. Speaker, I hold that no subject that can be discussed here has 'greater bearing upon' the loyalty, the welfare and the solidarity of the Dominion of Canada.
Next September it is proposed to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary, or the golden jubilee of the first conference held in regard to the formation or federation of the then provinces of Canada. If is significant, Sir, that Prince Edward Island, the smallest, but by no means the least important of all the provinces, should be selected as the cradle of Confederation, for it was there that the first conference, which resulted ultimately in the confederation of all the provinces, was held. Now, Sir, under the circumstances, it would be a great deed, a deed of justice, a deed I might say, of righteousness, on the part of the Canadian Parliament, recognizing this great historical fact and the rights guaranteed to Prince Edward Island at the time the contract was entered into between Canada and Prince Edward Island, if the number of her representatives, as named in that contract, was restored. It is well known, Sir, that at the time of that union, the province of Prince Edward Island was given six representatives, although upon the basis of representation set forth in the Quebec terms, its population was not sufficient to entitle it to six members. As a matter of fact, taken on a population basis, the island at that time was only entitled to five. This, Sir, ought to prove clearly that representation of the island was at first not fixed exclusively in proportion of population.	-

In the Journals of the Legislative Assembly of 1872, in regard to the resolution by which this province was admitted into the Dominion, I find the following set forth in the addresses at that time presented:
* That the population of Prince Edward Island having been increased by fifteen thousand or upwards since the year 1861, the Island shall be represented in the House of Commons of Canada by six members; the representation to be re-adjusted from time to time under the provisions of ' The British North America Act, 1867.'
It was further contended and insisted upon, that if the province were to enter the union,. a representation of six members at least, would be one of the chief conditions.
I could quote extracts from the speeches of the island delegates at the Quebec conference, which showed definitely their reasons for standing out for the six representatives. I could give you the speeches of Messrs. Haviland, Palmer, Grey, Hensley, Howlan and others, but these have all been set forth, together with a splendid representation of four special claims in this matter, by the. memoranda submitted by the provincial government. Why Sir, I could go on and quote from the transactions of that period in the provincial House of Assembly and in the Legislative Council, and show, beyond successful contradiction, that the union would never have been consummated, had it not been thoroughly understood that the island was to have six members, and that there was never to be any reduction of that number.
No man who reads the reported speeches of the Island delegates, can have the remotest shadow of doubt. We insisted on six representatives, two for each county, because nothing else would suit our conditions. The rest of the provinces insisted on our having only five, and that based on the population of Quebec. Not being able to agree, we stayed out of the Union. The same problem presented itself in 1873. Our delegates continued to fight then and on the same grounds. Less than six of a representation would give us no proper status or influence at Ottawa. At last the federal government gave way, we were to have six, the question of confederation or no confederation was submitted to the people. We voted for the Union on these terms and no other. Surely it would be a fraud on the electorate of this province for the federal Government to go back on the promise held out to us, forming as it did the main inducement moving us into the Confederation with Canada. The people believed we were to have a minimum representation of six, and that .
for all time, and voted accordingly. Is there any doubt on this point ? Has it ever been questioned ? And where is the suggestion anywhere that our representation was to be dependent on the population of Quebec or the rest of the Dominion ? We knew that the Dominion would soon fill up with inhabitants. We knew that our population was comparatively stationary. Were we fools enough, were our delegates dishonest enough to lead us into a trap, whereby our members would go on diminishing, till in fifty years, perhaps, we would have none at all ? The proposition is too absurd for belief. Then look at our representation in the Senate. Would any sane man believe that we stipulated for four in the Senate and in the same breath stipulated for a membership in the Commons that would soon be less than our representation in the Senate ? We respect our senators, but God forbid that we should ever be deemed so disloyal to popular government as to make our voice and influence at Ottawa dependent on our senators !
Then, look at the treatment accorded to Manitoba and British Columbia when they entered Confederation. The latter was granted six members when only entitled to one, and that concession was never revoked. When such concessions were made to these larger provinces, it seems only reasonable that like, or even more generous concessions should be made to the smallest member of the Confederation, without which, despite its smallness, the Confederation would be very incomplete. Why not extend the same treatment to all? That is what is meant by the history and surrounding circumstances.
Again, Sir, it is quite clear from this determined insistence upon six representatives that the Island was not asking for this for a limited time, but as a permanent concession. Had they understood that this representation of six was likely to be reduced, possibly after the very next census taken in Canada, our delegates would not have contended so persistently for it. On the other hand, they evidently regarded six representatives as the smallest number at all consistent with the dignity and importance of a province of Canada. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is manifest that that view of the matter was apparently at first accepted by this Dominion Parliament, for at the redistribution following the census of 1881 no change was made in the Island's representation, although on a strictly proportional basis it would then be entitled to only five members. But later this course was changed, and after the census of 1891

we were shorn of one of our representatives, and after 1901 of another; and so we have already lost two of the six, and by the Redistribution Bill of this session we stand to lose a third, leaving the representation of Prince Edward Island exactly half of whiat it was at the time of its entrance into Confederation.
It naturally must follow, as the years pass and the population of Quebec increases at a far greater ratio than that of the Island, that before long there will not be a solitary representative from the province of Prince Edward Island to the Dominion House of Commons, if representation by population be then severely insisted upon. This would create a unique situation because, as far as I can see, it will nullify the contract of union between Prince Edward Island and the rest of the Dominion. Now, Sir, this would be an intolerable situation. Taxation without representation is, under constitutional government, impossible, and into this condition Prince Edward Island is steadily drifting.
Imagine, if you can, Mr. Speaker, the lapsing or the rendering void of the terms of Confederation between the smallest province and this great Dominion. It would be but a beginning of a most dangerous course. It would establish a precedent fraught with danger, danger not only to the little island, but danger to the great nation of Canada and danger to the British Empire, of which we form so important a part. It is not the area; it is not the number of people; it is not the extent of the trade; it is, Mr. Speaker, the part we are of the nation, which is as important, small though we may be, as any of the greater provinces forming the Confederation, which is termed the Dominion of Canada. Is it the intention because the Island is small and its population only about one hundred thousand, is it the intention of the bigger brothers between the Atlantic and the Pacific, to ignore the smaller brother and cast him adrift without a compass, without an anchor, like a derelict of the waves? Canada has already in other ways failed to fulfil itd contract. Prior to Confederation, the island had a well established commerce with Great Britain and the West Indies, as well as other lands. The colonies now comprising Canada had only a very small proportion of its commerce. By entering the union, the direction and control of its commerce and industrial development were delivered over to Canada. The independent lines of trade which this island had established, were diverted to Canadian channels, and continuous communication
with the mainland followed as a consequence. Before Confederation this island was doubling its population every thirty years. Its revenues doubled every twelve years. If the pre-confederation ratio of increase had been maintained, the population would now be 219,000. It is only right to assume that the unfavourable conditions brought about in the province, were the result largely of the non-fulfilment of the terms of Confederation regarding the maintenance of an efficient steam communication both summer and winter between the Island and the mainland.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the report of the delegation from the Island to Ottawa for better terms in the year 1873. It would appear that their demand foT six representatives was granted without any reference whatever to further reduction, and they fully believed that they were receiving six representatives as a minimum number.
I have endeavoured to show to this House that one of the chief terms of Confederation between the Island and Canada was the concession of six representatives. I have proved that prior to Confederation our population was steadily and rapidly increasing. I have shown that afterwards our trade and population steadily declined because the terms were not carried out in their entirety. I maintain that Canada is responsible for this condition of affairs and that it is the duty of the Dominion Parliament not to rob or deprive the Island of the representatives justly accorded to it. Otherwise a grave injustice will have been perpetrated, and ere long Prince Edward Island will be altogether cut adrift from the Confederation.
I do not ask for generous treatment from this House. I do not ask favours at the hands of greater powers. I do not present the humiliating spectacle of Prince Edward Island crawling to the Parliament of the Dominion and begging for the restoration of its six representatives, no, Mr. Speaker; on the contrary, I stand upon the floor of this House in the interests of justice, on the firm foundation of right. I stand here as a representative of a people who ask for nothing but their rights, and their rights they must have, if the solidarity of Canada 'is to be maintained.
There are those who scoff and sneer and scorn to treat with others who may be smaller in circumference, smaller in trade and smaller in population; but let me tell those people that it is from the foundations, the walls and the roof that

the fabric of a nation is constructed. Destroy one part of these and the whole thing falls in ruins to the ground. The people of Prince Edward Island were not anxious to enter Confederation. I believe such has been in the order of things to the greater advantage of this wide and glorious country; but I am also firmly convinced that this representation question, which some seem to think of so lightly, may yet prove that power within the nation which, working outward, will shake the very foundations of Canada, and set back our country for years to come.
There are many other phases of this question that I might present to the House; but I do not care to occupy your time further. It is monstrous to suppose that the province is to continue losing its representatives until none are left, because the draughtsman, in drawing up the terms of the union, overlooked the conclusion that would be arrived at as to representation, and neglected to use words necessary to provide for a minimum representation.
I want to call attention to another point. On the Atlantic there is the independent colony of Newfoundland and this great country will never be complete until Newfoundland joins the Confederation and I want to point out this:	Prince Edward
Island deals very largely with Newfoundland and if our representation is reduced, it will furnish an argument to the anticonfederates in Newfoundland. They will be able to say, look at Prince Edward Island; forty years ago she joined Confederation with six representatives but the Canadian Government has broken its agreement with the Island and now they have only two or three representatives as the case may be. That will be one of the strongest "'*"urnents they could use against Newfoundland becoming a part of this Dominion and it is well that the leaders of both parties in this House should take this matter into consideration. I say that it is not too late now to hand back to Prince Edward Island the number of representatives that it had at the time of Confederation.
I am and have always been an ardent supporter of protection for Canadian industries, and I would like to see a resolution brought down granting subsidies to shipbuilding firms in this country. I can-% not understand why this Government that appealed to the country with the cry Canada for the Canadians does not at once take hold of this matter. I understand the late Government were prepared to grant such subsidies, and I urge upon thi= Gov-
.
ernment to do the same thing. There is another article which is largely produced in this country and which ought to be protected-copper. Our annual output of copper for 1912 amounting to about 80,000,000 pounds. All that was taken away in its raw shape to be refined in other countries. The United States got 75,000,000 pounds and Great Britain' the other 5,000,000 pounds. If our Government would subsidize this industry we should see refineries started in Canada giving employment to thousands of our people. What is the use of saying we are in favour of protection if we do not carry it out. We cannot afford to wait and the Government should take hold of these two matters immediately. Let us not worry about the criticism of outsiders, we have the credit and let us go on, or we shall see a young Canadian Government rise up and do this in our stead.
On motion of Mr. E. W. Nesbitt, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of ]\J r. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.2<^pdn.
Friday, January 23, 1914.