Hon. 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.

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?

Mr. JAMESON:

Some reduction.

Mr. MACDONALD:

The great amount of ten.

Mr. 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?

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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

Mr. 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-

Hon. L. P. PELLETIER:

Never.