Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:

That is a bad

state of affairs.

Mr. SINCLAIR:

The temptation came to the minister at the time of the Diummond-Arthabaska election in the shape of a revolt against the naval policy of the late Government, which was the naval policy of my hon. friend's own party and of which he himself was the foster-father. My hon. friend is a shrewd politician; he saw an opportunity to gain a political advantage and embraced it. He went back on his dream of a Canadian navy, built in Canada, manned by Canadians and controlled by the Canadian Parliament. He threw discretion to the winds and announced the slogan that was taken up later by his party all over Canada: ' Anything to beat

Laurier.' Mr. Speaker, after that date it was-anything.

The opposition to reciprocity itself was not sincere. Everybody knows that the watchword was: 'No truck or trade with

the Yankees.' What has happened since 1911? Have our friends opposite attempted to stop the trade with the United States? On the contrary, it never grew so rapidly as since this Government came to power in September, 1911. This expansion has continued until it now reaches the enormous volume of about $2,000,000 worth of trade a day. That is to say the transactions between the people of the United States and Canada since we met here yesterday at 3 o'clock in the afternoon have amounted by three o'clock this afternoon to the enormous sum of $2,000,000. I have no doubt the transactions ajre profitable to both parties, but the Government has not raised a finger to stop the enormous trade between Canada and the United States. They have the power to stop it if they wish to do so. The fact that they do not do so shows the hollowness of the campaign they conducted in 1911. If the enormous sale of Canadian cattle in the United States market since the adoption of the Underwood tariff is a bad thing, it could be stopped by the imposition of an export duty. If the sale by our western farmers of 20,000,000 bushels of oats in the American market at profitable prices is a bad thing, it could be stopped by the imposition of an export duty. If it is a bad thing to see the waters of the bay of Fundy and of the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia white with the sails of ships carrying lumber, laths and shingles to the markets of New York 1734

and Boston, why do they not stop it, why do they not act on the principle they laid down in 1911? If it is a bad thing to see Yarmouth spring to the front as a fish exporting port since the introduction of the Underwood Tariff, if it is a bad thing for the fishermen of that part of Nova Scotia to receive twice as much for their catch as they received a year ago, why do they not impose an export duty and stop it? The inference is that they were not sincere in their cry of no truck or trade with the Yankees.

But, in addition to the flag-waving and the cry of ' No truck or trade with the Yankees,' there were special bogus cries in every province of Canada in the election of 1911. On the Pacific coast the cry was: ' A white British Columbia '; but I am told that the labour people of British Columbia have never been so yellow as since 1911, especially the coal miners of Nanaimo. A white British Columbia was an admirable election cry among the labour population. But, Mr. Speaker, while bogus telegrams and bogus policies may be useful at election times, they are no good when the party is in power. In the western provinces the cry was: ''The restoration of the natural-resources to the provinces.' That has not been done, and I venture to say it will not be done. ' The almost insurmountable difficulties in the way of carrying out that pledge were well known to the Prime Minister and the leaders of the party at the time the pledge was given. In the province of Ontario the cry was: ' A uniform marriage law.' In the characteristic language of my hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) . the issue was: ' Are we married or are we

not.?' A number of hon. gentlemen from that province won their seats, I am told, on that cry. Pledges were given by candidates on the hustings; the Tory press took up the cry; the Orange lodges passed resolutions; the clergymen thundered from the pulpits of Ottawa and asked the people to return R. L. Borden as Prime Minister in order to get a uniform marriage law. The people acted on this advice and voted for Mr. Borden. But, after the ballots of these devout people were safely in the ballot boxes, what do we see? We see

the arms of the Postmaster General around the necks of these champions of religious liberty, and, under the influence of that embrace, my hon. friend from West Peterborough, the hon. member for Centre York.

(Mr. Wallace), and the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), and even the Minister of War himself, do not seem to care two cents whether they were married or not married. I am sorry my hon. friend from Centre York is not in his seat. Permit me to suggest to him that, instead of defying the Imperial Parliament and threatening to devastate Ireland with fire and sword, he turns his attention to this matter of a uniform marriage law. Let him pull off his coat and take a fall out of my hon. friend the Postmaster General, and if he throws him-as I believe he can -he will get more glory out of that than he will ever get by hanging on to the coat tails of Sir Edward Carson.

In the province of Quebec the issue was still more spectacular. There, the children were disembowelled in school houses and used for cannon balls. To quote the language of my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. O. Turgeon), it was a campaign of 'blood and bowels.' There was, however, one pledge common to all the Nationalists. Every one of them pledged themselves that if returned to power they would repeal the Naval Service Act. But the Naval Service Act stril stands. My hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Sevigny) endeavoured to keep faith with his electors in that respect, and, after six months' hard work, he extracted a promise from the Minister of Naval Affairs that the Government would repeal the Act. He has not done so, however, and I venture to say he never will. My hon. friend from Mont-magny (Mr. Lesperance), in the early days of the session started in to do the job himself. The Bill was introduced and got its first reading, but then it was carefully laid away in the graveyard where it now rests, and my hon. friend has gone on a pleasure trip to Europe. Whatever else we may say about the Nationalist party- and I do not wish to say anything unkind of them-they are nice fellows; at least, they must get credit for patience. They came to this House in 1911 some twenty alert and vigorous representatives-a score "of fighting men, men with ideals. We on this side of the House did not agree with their ideals, but nevertheless they were ideals. Where are those ideals to-day? So far as we can judge, this score of fighting men have become as tame as a score of pet lambs. They seem to be perfectly satisfied to eat out of the hand of the Minister of Public Works, and to pick up the crumbs

that fall from the table of the Postmaster General.

In the Maritime provinces we had a variety of issues in the election of 1911. One of them was the loss of the fishing bounty; second, a shipbuilding programme for Halifax; third, the dissolution of the British Empire; fourth, such a demand for pulpwood that there would be no spruce logs left to make apple barrels in the Annapolis valley; fifth, free medicine for the fishermen. These are only a few of them. The fishermen are now getting their medicine in the shape of a tax of 25 per cent on fishing twine. Some of them are finding it a little hard to swallow, and they are making faces over it. I do not sympathize much with the Tory fishermen who were foolish enough to vote against an open market for their fish. But is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is having its own difficulties with all these various and mongrel broods of chickens coming home to roost? Is it any wonder that the Minister of Finance looks anxious or that we see a few more wrinkles in the brow of the hon. Postmaster General? The Finance Minis ter admits that the country is passing through a period of more or less serious depression, but he offers no remedy. He goes on like Nero fiddling and borrowing more money, and trusting to luck to bring about better times.

In 1911 the CTy was: 'let well enough alone.' You do not hear that cry to-day. Is there anybody saying, let well enough alone, to-day? After three years of Conservative rule the Minister of Finance assures us that the worst is over. Well, we knew it would be bad, but if the worst is over, it is a comfort to know it, but there are men in this country who feel that if this Government is to remain in power the worst is yet to come. In the period between 1896 and 1911 we did not need to make long speeches to one another to satisfy ourselves as to whether the country was prosperous or not. We knew it by the jingle of the coin in our pockets. It is a remarkable historical fact that times were hard when the Liberal party came into power in 1896. It is also a well known historical fact that the tide soon changed after their advent to power and that during the whole fifteen years that the country enjoyed Liberal rule we had a period of unexampled prosperity.

Mr. BURNHAM:

What, in 1907?

Mr. SINCLAIR:

Yes, including 1907. But no sooner were the reins of power taken over by the Conservative party than the wolf

was again at the door. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) between 1896 and 1911, was constantly assuring us that the great prosperity that the country enjoyed was the work of Providence. We on this side of the House have never denied that fact. We have always been thankful for the assistance of a kind Providence, but the question remains why does not Providence help the Tory party. That is a practical question in theology that I would recommend the Minister of Trade and Commerce to tackle. What happened after the advent of the Liberal party to power in 1896? Did they attempt to do anything to bring about good times in the years that followed? You will not be surprised when I tell you, Mr. Speaker, because you know, that before twelve months had passed away after the Liberal party came into power in 1896, they had revised the tariff; they had introduced the British preference; they had reformed the western land laws and they had adopted a vigorous immigration policy. These were far-reaching reforms. In the revision of the tariff tsubstamtial reductions were made, raw material was made free, specific duties were abolished and the result was a much lower and a workable tariff that was 'beneficial both to the manufacturers and the consumers.

Hon. gentleman opposite have said during this debate that the Fielding tariff is the same as the old National Policy. All I have to say is that Sir Charles Tupper was one of the men who constructed the National Policy, and he did not think so, because he said on the floor of this House at the time that the Fielding tariff would ruin the industries of the country. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) did not think so when he moved his resolution in favour of adequate protection. By the British preference one-third was struck from the burdens of the people at one blow. A substantial and almost immediate extension of trade followed with the result that a profitable market for Canadian products was found in Great Britain, Australia and South Africa as well, for the policy of the preference soon spread to the British dominions throughout the world. The vigorous immigration policy introduced by the Hon. Mr. Sifton awakened the West, population poured in, branch railways were constructed, millions of acres of land were brought into cultivation, resulting in an era of prosperity both in the East and the West such as Canada never saw before. This splendid result was

achieved by reforms that were introduced during the first year of the Liberal rule.

What have the present Government done in their three years of power ? Admittedly, they have made a record in three particulars. First, they have attempted, I trust unsuccessfully, to ruin a great Canadian enterprise for party purposes; I refer, to the National Transcontinental Railway; second, they have spent vast sums of money, and, third, they have debauched the Civil Service. Anybody can hire an irresponsible busybody like Lynch-Staunton to spread false reports about a great enterprise. Anybody can spend money. You can go out on Bank street, and pick out the stupidest man you can find there, fill his pockets with money, and ten to one he will find some way to spend it. It does not take very much statesmanship to dismiss officials. Nobody knows that better than the Postmaster General. But the question arises: Could these hard times from which we are now suffering have been avoided, could this Government have done what the Liberal Government did in 1896, could they have brought about the good times if they had been capable statesmen ? I submit that, although hard times might not have been altogether avoided, our condition might have been greatly modified if we had had access for our natural products to the American markets three years ago. No one will deny that the profitable sale of $2,000,000 worth of cattle in the West during the past few months, or 20,000,000 bushels of oats, or the ready demand this spring for lumber, fish, and iron ore of the Maritime provinces in the United States have helped materially to tide us over the hard times of the past winter. But it is humiliating to remember that all these benefits that have come to us have come not from our own Government but from a foreign government.

We on 'this side of the House are very much struck with the spirit of despair that prevails on the Government side. Man after man arises in his seat and tells us that the Government is helpless to do anything to relieve the situation in which we are now placed. When the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Morris) got on his feet the other night our hopes went up on this side of the House. We said: Here is a man fresh from the people, he will not have lost faith in the Government already, but we soon discovered that he was more despondent and hopeless than the others. You will find, Sir, that the lamentations of Jeremiah are cheerful compared with that

hon. gentleman's speech. Let me give you only one quotation from it:

With regard to the high cost of living, I have only to say that I marvel at some of the arguments that have been adduced. I do not think that wo have yet had any arguments advanced that prove to us that this or any Other Government could solve that problem. In my opinion, they will simply have to do as the farmers did in my county; that is they wi". have to wait until the conditions change,-

Poor farmers!

for then only can a satisfactory solution be arrived at. It can not be done by this Government.

In other words, if you want cheaper food >or a revival of prosperity, you must wait until [DOT]it comes of its own accord, because it cannot be brought about by this Government. I decline to accept the doctrine that the Government can do nothing in a case of this kind. I have already pointed out what the late Government did in 1896, and I could give many examples. Let me tell you what the late Government did in the way of building up the fresh fish industry in the province of Nova Beotia. In 1896 we had practically no iresh fish industry in the Maritime provinces, the reason being that we did not have proper transportation facilities. There was a good market at Montreal, but it was supplied chiefly from Gloucester. It cost $2.50 a hundred pounds to send fresh fish from Nova Scotia to Montreal by express. It was impossible to send fresh fish by freight because that was too alow; youir car might be placed on a siding and left there for a fortnight and the fish would be worthless. That was the system during eighteen years of Conservatives rule. In 1896, when the Hon. A. G. Blair took charge of the Department of Railways and Canals, one of the first things he did was to extend the Intercolonial railway to Montreal. He then equipped it with refrigerator cars and put on daily a fast freight train, something that had never before been heard of in Canada. This train would leave Muilgrave and Halifax at a certain hour in the afternoon, and join at Truro, and run on schedule time to Montreal, so that if you loaded a refrigerator car with fish at Mulgrave or Halifax, you knew that it would reach Montreal safely about forty-eight hours afterwards. The rate on carload lots per hundred pounds was reduced to thirty-eight cents, an enormous cut. This forced down express rates from S2.50 to $1.50, and the Government came forward and said: In ordeT to promote

pir. Sinclair.]

the sale in small parcels by the small trader, we will give a rebate of one-third of these express rates. They did so, with the result that a new industry sprang into life that is putting millions into the pockets of the people of the Maritime provinces today.

What have the present Government done in regard to this fresh fish industry? No sooner were they safely in their seats than they began to exact a duty of 25 per cent on the fishing twine used by the fishermen. It would appear that they secured some expert tariff lawyer to go over the schedule in order to find what they could exact from the people. He discovered what they considered a blunder in the schedulue relating to rough lumber, and a tax was imposed, which, however, was escaped by an appeal to the court. The Government were more successful in the case of the fishermen; the 25 per cent duty on the fishing twine was levied and is still being exacted. They struck another blow at the fresh fish trade by increasing the freight rates on the Intercolonial, so that the merchant in New Glasgow, for example, has to pay $12 more per carload from Mulgrave than he paid during the Liberal regime. A few weeks ago I brought this matter to the attention of the House and .moved the following resolution:

That in the opinion of this House the question of improved means of transportation of fresh fish between the Maritime provinces and the United States receive the early attention of the Government.

I proposed the establishment of a line of fast boats that would carry our fish from the ports of eastern Nova Scotia to the American market. I pointed out that fish has been put on the free list in the United States, a boon for which we have been looking for forty years. If we had proper transportation facilities, we could take advantage of this and build up a splendid business. I pointed out that since the Underwood tariff has come into effect, we have the opportunity which we had not for forty years of exploiting the American market. I also pointed out that in the town of Yarmouth, which has transportation facilities, the price of fish has nearly doubled in the

course of six months. The average price paid for fresh haddock andfresh cod in Yarmouth during thethree months of November and Decern- ber of 1912 and J anuary of 1913 was

$2.06 per cwt. The average price after the Underwood tariff came into effect, for the

months of November and December of 1913 and January of 1914, was $3.86, or nearly double what it was in the former year, due to the new United States tariff and to the fact that the people of Yarmouth are in touch with the Boston market. In Canso, in eastern Nova Scotia, on the same dates, our fishermen are selling their fish at about $1.50 per cwt.; while, as I have pointed out, the fishermen of Yarmouth are receiving $3.86. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries replied on behalf of the Government that, during the election of 1911, the fishing counties of Lunenburg and Queen-Shelburne had voted against reciprocity and that was put forward as the reason why the Government refused to do anything now to improve transportation facilities between eastern Nova Scotia and the American market. In other words, the fishermen of the counties of Halifax, Guysborough, Richmond, Cape Breton, Victoria and Inverness must remain poor for five years longer because some other fishermen in western Nova Scotia in a fit of hysteria voted for the Tory party. That is curious logic, but that is the answer we got from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries when we brought this important matter to his attention.

But if the Government have done nothing for the fishermen but hamper their business, they claim they have done something for the farmers. They have reduced the duty on two implements by 5 per cent. Harvesters are not used very much in Nova Scotia, I question if there are any harvesters in use in the county I have the honour to represent. Nearly all our small farmers, however, use mowers, on which there is a reduction of 5 per cent, and we *must be thankful for small mercies. A mower is worth about $50, and 5 per cent of $50 is $2.50. As a careful farmer will use a mower for about ten years, if we spread that reduction of $2.50 over ten years, it will work out at 25 cents a year, or the price of about half a pound of the cheapest kind of tobacco. Although we get this concession, which is regarded by the Minister of Finance as a great concession, we must not forget that the farmers have still to pay a high duty on a large number of implements. Here is a list which I have taken from the present Canadian tariff:

Implements.

Ploughs.. ..

Tooth harrows Disc harrows. . Planters

Rate of duty.

Per cent.

.. .. 20 .. .. 20 .... 20 . .. 20

Horse rakes 20

Cultivators 20

Threshing machines 20

Hoes 221

Shovels 22J

Pitchforks 221

Hand rakes 221

Scythes 221

Axes 221

Field rollers 20

Harness 20

Farm wagons 25

Farm sleighs 25

My hon. friend from North Wellington (Mr. Clarke), who preceded me in this debate, made the statement that the reciprocity agreement did not go so far in reducing the tariff on agricultural implements as the minister had gone in the present Budget. I do not think my hon. friend intended to misrepresent the facts, but I do not agree with him in that statement. On the contrary, apart from the question of wider markets, really the great question in reciprocity, and confining ourselves wholly to the question of duty on agricultural implements, we find that reciprocity went much farther than the present reductions made by the Minister of Finance. I have pointed out that the reduction now made is a reduction on two implements only, harvesters and mowers, from 17J per cent to 12 per cent. Now, what reductions were made under reciprocity in regard to implements used by the Canadian farmers? Here is a list:

Proposed

Implements. Canadian Tariff. Tariff unde Reciprocity Agreement.

Farm wagons 25 22JPloughs 20 15Harrows 20 15Harvesters and reapers. llh 15Mowers IV 4 15Seed drills 20 15Horse rakes

Threshing machine sepa- 20 15rators 20 15Threshing machine parts. 20 15Hay loaders 25 20Potato diggers 25 20Fodder cutters 25 20Grain crushers 25 20Fanning mills 25 20Farm rollers 25 20Hay tedders 25 20

The hon. member for North Wellington will see that he was mistaken. While it is true that harvesters and mowers have the advantage of a reduction 2i per cent greater than that which was proposed under reciprocity, I have given a list of 13 very important implements, used practically on every farm, the duties on which were proposed to be reduced 5 per cent

tions of 1911 he placed the ordinary controllable expenditure for that year at $74,000,000, and he described this as 'extravagance beyond any possible defence.' Yet what is it to-day? The Minister of Finance has placed the ordinary controllable expenditure for this year, if I understand his figures, at $146,786,126, or about double what it was three years ago when the Prime Minister issued that manifesto. Now, if the right hon. Prime Minister was sincere -as I have no doubt he was-when he said that an expenditure of $74,000,000 was extravagant beyond all reasonable defence, what must he think of his own administration when they double that 4 p.m. expenditure in the short space of less than three years.

Among the greatest sinners in this respect is my hon. friend the Minister of Militia (Mr. Hughes), whose drill-sheds are as thick as blackberries in the province of Ontario, to borrow a phrase from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster). But the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) has outdone even the Minister of Militia in the increase of expenditure of his department. I must say that none of it has come to the constituency I have the honour to represent; so far as I know, he has not spent a single dollar there. But really the expenditures in the Public Works Department have become alarming. For the year 1911, the total Public Works expenditure was $10,818,834. But what do you think it is for the present current year? Without faking into account the Supplementary Estimates which are yet to come, the estimated Public Works expenditures this year amounts to $28,330,048.89, almost three times as much as when the present Government came into power about three years ago. Under the former Government the expenditure of three or four hundred thousand dollars on wharfs and breakwaters and other improvements in the Maritime provinces was the signal for a wild outcry from hon. gentlemen opposite. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce demanded a revision of the geography in order that he might be able to locate the harbours that were being improved in Nova Scotia and the other Maritime provinces, and the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) went around in a schooner with his little camera photographing these places to make a lantern show of them for his audiences in Quebec and Ontario. Why

does not he start out with his little lantern now to explain this $28,000,000 of expenditure? If he could show the workings of the mind of the Minister of Public Works, with regard to these expenditures when byelections are coming off, it would make a very interesting moving picture.

The Finance Minister does not pretend to justify this extraordinary expenditure. I submit that he did not do so in the very able speech he made to the House. He probably agrees with his leader that it is extravagant beyond all possible justification. I do not want to detract anything from the glory that is coming to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. He has received a great many bouquets from the members who have spoken on that side of the House, and I have no doubt that he deserves these compliments from their point of view. I have myself a great admiration for him in some ways, but I feel that he was started wrong; he fell heir to the splendid financial results that were brought about by the late Minister of Finance, Mr. Fielding. He started housekeeping less than three years ago with a surplus of $37,000,000 and he thought he would never reach the bottom of the chest; like the wild son of a reckless father he proceeded to dash away and spend the money, and now it is all gone and he has to borrow $20,000,000 to meet his liabilities for the current year. My hon. friend will he known in history as Canada's prodigal son. In some Tespeets he is worse than the prodigal son, because the prodigal spent his own money and he was sorry for it. My hon. friend is spending the money which he held in trust for the Canadian people; he is spending it in subventions to my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works to enable him to win by-elections and in gifts to big corporations and in the riotous building of drill-sheds, and he shows no signs of repentance. Mr. Speaker, there are a great many questions to be dealt with yet by the people of Canada. Permit me to enumerate a few of them:

(1) Is protection to be permanent in this country? Are we always to submit to the monopolies arising out of >a protective system or are we from time to time to take a step in the direction of freedom?

(2) Shall the first and most urgent step be to lessen the burden on the farmer and throw open a wider market for his products, with a view to settling our vast areas of

vacant land and developing our great national resources?

(3) Shall the National Transcontinental railway be completed according to the original plan or shall it be degraded into a second-class road and made an adjunct of the Canadian Pacific railway?

(4) Shall we solve the question of naval defence by contributing to the Imperial navy, or shall we undertake the task of gradually building up a navy of our own?

These are the questions that to-day divide the two great parties in this country; and we on this side have an abiding faith that we are on the right side of every one of them. There is only one way of settling these questions and that is by an appeal to the people of 'Canada. The next election will not be like the election of 1911. The methods used in that election can never be repeated. There will be no flag-waving next time, there will be no Ne Temere Decree next time, there will be no Farmers' bank next time, there will be no free medicine next time. The Government will have to face its record of bogus policies and of broken promises and justify its existence on the merits-and we on this side of the House will welcome the earliest opportunity to obtain a verdict of the electors on the record of the present Administration.

Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (South Perth):

Mr. Speaker, I feel very diffident indeed in rising to address the House after the speech of the hon. gentleman from Guys-borough. The hon. gentleman to-day appeared in rather a new role, that of a humourist; and when he started I began to wonder if at last we were going to have the policy of the Opposition and their amendment to the Budget. I almost convinced myself it was coming, because I could see on the face of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) a look of entire satisfaction. I could imagine that at last, after two or three weeks' delay, the hon. member for South Renfrew, representing an Ontario constituency, had convinced his followers to adopt the policy which he frequently gives this House. It would be: We have not any amendment, boys; we have not any policy to offer, but we will jolly them along a little longer.

Mr. GRAHAM:

It is coming all right.

Mr. STEELE:

The hon. member for Guys-borough, in very sad tones indeed, spoke of the wolf being at the door since the change of Government; another evidence

to my mind of the truth which at least some of the Canadian people believe, that our friends of the Opposition are always hungry when they are in opposition.

I am pleased to be able to say a word in this Budget debate, especially on account of the excellent Budget which the Minister of Finance was able to present to this House. It is not necessary to laud that, because the people of Canada from one end to the other recognize it as a wise and altogether satisfactory Budget. We had the remark, I think from the hon. member for Guysborough, that Canada has made a record in three particulars during the term of office of the present Government. I would like to remind him that the Government has made records in more particulars than that. I shall enumerate some points on which they have made records. During the last two years, while this Government has been in power, the total trade of Canada increased by $275,000,000, the largest increase on record. Our trade with Great Britain during that time has increased $80,000,000, another record. The consolidated revenue increased $27,000,000, the largest increase on record in any two years.

Mr. LEMIEUX:

What about the United

States ?

Mr. STEELE:

Oh, I am such a Canadian that I must talk about Canada, not about the United States. I do wish our friends on the other side of the House would get their eyes off the United States and just settle them on Canada. The surpluses during the two years amounted to $93,000,000, the largest on record. The post office revenue increased by $1,559,334 last year, the largest increase on record. The net debt decreased during the two years by $6,000,000, the largest decrease on record. So when the hon. member for Guysborough starts out to give records that this Government has made, I would ask him, in future, to include those which I have mentioned. We all acknowledge that Canada has been most prosperous for many years. We on this side of the House do not attempt to deny that Canada enjoyed great prosperity during the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite; but that prosperity did not terminate with the change of Government. Let me give a few figures to show how Canada's trade during the last year compares with the trade of other countries. In 1912-13 the trade of Germany increased by 8 per cent; Great Britain by 5 per cent; Australia by 1 per cent; Argentina by 4h

per cent; South Africa by 6 per cent; France by 2i per cent; the United States by 11 per cent-I am sure the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) will be pleased at that-and the trade of Canada by 12 per cent. Let us look at the trade for the last five years, as last year was an exceptional year. From 1908 to 1913 the total trade of Germany increased by 47! per cent; the United States by 40 per cent; France by 44 per cent; Australia by 39 per cent; Great Britain by 3} per cent; and the total trade of Canada by 98 per cent.

It is quite natural that we should inquire what is the cause of the prosperity which Canada is enjoying to-day. This marvellous, and, when comparisons are made with other countries, this exceptional prosperity, is in my opinion undoub-edly due to the fact that for the last thirty-five years we have been under the beneficent influence of the National Policy, the great fruits of which are more and more in evidence as the years go by. As the authors of that policy, the Conservative party retained office for eighteen years. The Liberal party succeeding them remained in office fifteen years-I do not hesitate to say this-because they adhered to that policy, and it was only in 1911, when they attempted to lay ruthless hands on the National Policy, that the people of Canada determined that they should no longer administer the affairs of this country. Under the National Policy factories have sprung up in great numbers, industry has been quickened, the natural resources ;of our land have been developed, and the labourer and artisan have been provided with abundant and constant employment at remunerative wages. In Canada to-day we have over 20,000 factories employing 500,000 hands, and paying in wages $250,000,000. These factories utilize $601,500,000 worth of raw material; the value added to this raw material in the process of manufacture is $564,500,000, thus producing a product of the value of $1,166,000,000. With 8,000,000 people, Canada is manufacturing more to-day than the United States did in 1850 with 23,000,000 people. From this general statement we see the great benefit the manufacturers of Canada have derived from the National Policy. How has it affected the farmers of this country? The farmers have prospered very greatly on account of the National Policy. We might inquire further what this Government has done for

the farmer. We all are quite ready to admit that sufficient attention has not been paid to the farming industry in the past. I do not wish too severely to criticise the previous Administration, but I think I am correct in saying that at no time in the past has Parliament devoted that attention to agriculture that its magnitude and importance warrants. Without saying that the present Government is doing all that should be done, it cannot be disputed that the present Administration is giving largely of its thought and energy to improving the ..conditions of our agricultural classes. The present minister has won the approval of every farmer in the country for the substantial financial assistance which he is giving them, and especially in connection with the Agricultural Instruction Act, and I doubt not that the benefits accomplished will generously compensate for the expenditure. The expenditure of the Agricultural Department in 1910-11 was $1,200,246, and in 1913-14, $3,358,728, practically three times as much.

We are sometimes told that the taxation of this country is very great, and the statement is made that Canadians are taxed more highly than any other people-in the world. Without entering into a discussion as to whether that is so or not, I wish to point out that the great bulk of Canadian taxes goes into the development of our own country. We are a young country of enormous resources and area. Our needs are great, and, like any large business or industry just starting out, we as a country find it necessary to make very large expenditures in order that we may be up with our neighbours and the great nations of the world. I wish to draw attention to one fact in connection with the taxation of this country which to me is very pleasing. In the United States 65 cents of every dollar of taxation is spent on the army, navy and pensions-on war, or that which pertains to w7ar. In Great Britain 34 cents of every dollar of taxation is spent for similar purposes; in Germany, 43 cents; in France, 31 cents; in Japan, 32 cents, but in Canada only 9 cents of every dollar of taxation is used for those purposes. We will not be able to thank our friends opposite for this condition in the future, because we know that by their naval policy, which they placed before the country last year, this young country vrould have been ' saddled with an immense naval expenditure, which would very largely increase the percentage

of our taxation spent for war purposes. With an expenditure under their naval policy of $140,000,000 to staTt with, and an additional expenditure of $15,000,000 per year up, we can readily see that it would have been only a few years before our naval expenditure would have added a very great burden to the people of this country.

Two or three questions of more or less interest to the country are being discussed in this debate. One of these is the duty on agricultural implements. I was rather interested in hearing the calculation of the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) as to how much his people would save under the present reduction in the duty on agricultural implements. By a reduction of five per cent he calculated that a farmer in his constituency would be saving twenty-five cents a year on a mower -^the price of a plug of tobacco. Somewhat quickly I followed his mathematical calculation a little farther with the result that I ascertained that if the duty had been wiped out altogether that man would have saved three and one-half plugs of tobacco. So that the argument of the hon. member for Guysborough, which is probably shared by some of his friends opposite, is that if a man can only save one plug of tobacco the policy is no good, but if he can save two and one-half plugs more it is an excellent policy.

We know the history of the reduction of duties on agricultural implements. We know that the Conservative party cut the duty from thirty-five per cent to twenty per cent, that the Liberal party cut it from twenty per cent to seventeen and one-half per cent during their term of office and that the Conservative party now propose cutting it from seventeen and one-half to twelve and one-half per cent. We, therefore, see that the chief reduction in the duty of agricultural implements has been made by the party at present in power. In fact, if we look into the matter we find that it is only when hon. gentlemen are in opposition that they are in favour of cutting the duty on agricultural implements. When they were in power no effort was made to reduce the duties;'in fact, when they were in power, the statement was made that they had no intention of reducing the duties on agricultural implements. To substantiate this I wish to quote from * Hansard ' of March 21, 1911, page 5742 where there is recorded the report of a speech delivered at Woodstock by my hon. friend and neighbour from North Oxford

(Mr. Nesbitt). This account is taken from the Toronto Globe, in which the hon. gentleman is reported as follows:

He could not see that the manufacturer would be touched very much, as few articles manufactured in Canada were affected. He was sure the Bain and Woodstock wagon companies would compete in the world's markets even with 2J per cent reduction in the tariff. He thought the manufacturers opposed reciprocity because of what might follow, the 'thin end of the wedge', hut he had been assured by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding that nothing of the sort would follow-. They had gone as far in the farmers' interests as they would.

This was the statement made by the hon. member for North Oxford in addressing a meeting at Woodstock during the discussion on reciprocity. In order that there might be no mistake made as to the authority with which he spoke, the matter was brought up in the House at that time and a question was asked the then leader of the Government as to whether the hon. member for North Oxford spoke authoritatively when he made that statement. Sir Wilfrid Laurier replied:

The statement made by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) was quite consistent with our policy, it was nothing new, and he had perfect authority, not only he, hut every member of the Liberal side, to make that statement.

Mr. Foster: Did the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance authorize the member in question to make that statement?

Sir Wilfrid Laurier: I have answered that already. It is perfectly true. The hon. member for North Oxford and every Liberal member had such authority, he was not kept in ignorance of our policy in this matter and knew it well. He only stated what is our general policy.

When our friends were in Opposition in 1911 they made the statement, and it was their avowed policy, that they would make no further reduction on agricultural implements except the 21 per cent and the percentages which were provided for under reciprocity. But when they got into opposition they clamour for the wiping out of the duties altogether, and they say: We

will not be satisfied with a reduction of 5 per cent, but we must wipe out the duties and have free trade in agricultural implements. It is always very easy indeed to advocate a policy when you are not responsible for carrying it out. That is the position in which hon. gentlemen opposite are placed to-day; they can advocate a policy that they are unable to put into force; but when the responsibility is placed upon them and they are in a position to give the country that policy which they have

advocated they are unwilling to do so. For that reason I think the farmers of this country who are in favour of a reduction or the wiping out of the tariff on agricultural implements would do well to keep the Liberal party in opposition continuously, because in that way they will always have one party in this House wrho will advocate the complete wiping out of the duty on agricultural implements.

We are told that this reduction of 5 per cent is of no value to the farmers. I would like to ask: If 5 per cent is of no value

to the farmer, what percentage will be of value? How much of a reduction must be made before the farmer will begin to profit. We are anxious to know what the position of the Ontario Liberal members is on this question. We know that the manufacture of agricultural implements is a very important industry in Ontario, and we would be very glad to know and to hear from the Ontario Liberal members just what their stand on this question is now.

We had some days ago a reference by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) to Sir Lyman Melvin-Jones, general manager of the Massey-Harris Manufacturing Company. I have no brief at all to defend Sir Lyman Melvin-Jones, and I have no intention of doing so, but I want to draw the attention of the House to the remark which the hon. member for Assiniboia then made regarding him. He said, ' Hansard,' page 2619:

It seems to me that if there was any man in Canada who had good reason to stand by his party it was Senator Jones, the president of the Massey-Harris Company. When, years ago, this party was on the other side of the House and made some reductions in the duties on agricultural implements, a drawback was given on the duty paid on the material that went into their manufacture, and I am told that, according to the Auditor General's Report, last year the Massey-Harris Company drew 5165,000 in drawbacks. But because the Liberal party came to the conclusion that the time had come when free implements should be given to the farmers, this man, who had got every consideration, who was made a senator and who was knighted, who had 'Sir' put before his name by the kindly offices of this party-I do not know whether the leader of the Opposition at that time put the hyphen in his name or whether that was put in by himself-at all events he is the last man who could say that he was not well treated by this party.

These were the remarks made by the hon. member for Assiniboia regarding Sir Lyman Melvin Jones and it occurred to me as he made them: why should he show such temper over' the fact that Sir Lyman

Melvin-Jones has left their party? Evidently Sir Lyman Melvin-Jones received a great many favours from that party when in. power. Why did he receive them? Evidently because he belonged to the party because as soon as he left the party he was criticised adversely. Is it the policy of the Opposition to grant favours to those who support them, but to have nothing to offer but adverse criticism of those who oppose them? Does that account, to some extent, for their favouring a duty on agricultural implements as long as they were in power and as long as Sir Lyman Melvin-Jones was supporting them? The hon. member would almost lead us to believe that Sir Lyman Melvin-Jones had been bought. Instead of being bought, he was very badly sold by his friends of the Opposition.

We come to another question of interest, that of free wheat. It is unnecessary for me, as a representative of an Ontario constituency, to say that we are very proud indeed of our western wheat fields. So far as the people of Ontario are concerned, there may be some envy but there is no jealousy nor hard feelings against the western farmers. We are proud of what they have accomplished in developing the great resources of the West. We feel, however, that this question of free wheat affects not only the western people but all the people of Canada. The world's crop of wheat is gradually increasing. Between 1880 and 1910 the increase in acreage planted in wheat amounted to 68 per cent, while f'9 yield increased by 67 per cent. The population of the wheat growing countries in that time increased by only 29 per cent, so that the quantity of wheat available, per capita increased between 1880 and 1910 from 170 pounds to 223 pounds, thus showing that the production of wheat is increasing more rapidly than the population of consumers is increasing. This does not prove that we are producing more wheat than the world requires; but it shows that the production of ivheat 13 becoming more and more a question involving difficulties for the producer and this is a situation which must be taken into consideration. The total production of wheat in the world in 1913 was 3,603,360,000 bushels, or 250,000,000 bushels more than in 1912, which up to that time was the record crop. Fortunately, however, all countries are not producing more wheat than they require, and there are countries which import large quantities of

wheat. We have European countries importing in all 533,000,000 bushels, and other countries importing 92,000,000 bushels a year, or a total of 625,000,000 bushels of wheat a year. These are the countries to which the Canadian wheat-grower should look for his market. The United States have a market in some of these importing countries, because during the last year they exported 143,000,000 bushels of wheat and flour. Therefore, if the Canadian wheat-grower had access to the United States market it would simply be by using the United States as a middleman, who would receive that wheat and forward it on to the ultimate market in Europe. As has been stated by some hon. gentlemen opposite, the United States miller now imports Canadian wheat, grinds it into flour and exports the product without paying very much duty, only one-tenth of one per cent, on the wheat, so that for all practical purposes the Canadian wheat has now free access to the United States market.

Some further statements were made the other evening by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), to which I wish to refer. In discribing the different grades of wheat, he made the following statement:

It will also be seen that there is a difference of 3 lbs. to the bushel between No. 1 Manitoba Northern and No. 1 Minneapolis Northern.

I d not doubt at all that the hon. member was quite sincere when he made that statement. But there is one very important fact which he ignored in making it: he forgot or ignored the fact that in the two countries different measures are used; that in the United States they use the Winchester measure, while in Canada we use the Imperial measure; and an Imperial bushel of wheat weighs li lbs. more than a bushel of the Winchester measure. So, instead of there being a difference of 3 lbs. between the two grades there is only a difference of li lbs. I think it well to draw the attention of the House to that fact, because, in discussing that question, which after all is a serious question and not a light matter which can be dealt with offhand, it is well to have the facts placed correctly before the people.

We are told that the Canadian farmer will receive more for his wheat in the United States; and that, perhaps, is the important phase of the whole question. Is that a fact? I argue that after removal of the United States duty the price will not be higher to the Canadian farmer. If the

American Government had been satisfied that the Canadian farmer would receive more for his wheat, why did they

insist on retaining that 10 cents per bushel of duty? If they were not afraid of the Caradian wheat coming in at the same price or lower than the American farmer was receiving, I judge they would not be so insistent on retaining the duty. I am free to admit that prices as between the two countries will vary from time to time; we have had evidence of that in the last few years. In the fall of 1911, with a small estimated crop of 621,000,000 bushels the American market was amply sufficient to meet the domestic needs, and the price prevailing ruled higher than the Canadian price. But when the reciprocity campaign came on with some prospect of being carried, and with the fear of the admission of Canadian wheat free of duty, the price on the Minneapolis market dropped almost to the Winnipeg price. As soon, however, as reciprocity was defeated the price revived. Then came the large crop of 1912, with the fall in price, and in the fall of that year Ontario millers could buy American wheat in Duluth, pay twelve cents per bushel duty and lay it dow'n in the lake ports of Ontario cheaper than they could buy western wheat. In fact they did so, and large quantities of American wheat were imported at that time after paying the duty. In 1913, although the spring wheat crop was 90,000,000 bushels larger than that of 1912, the Canadian prices were very little higher. But let us look forward. Suppose the United States were to have a very large crop, what would happen ? And that is just the condition we are up against to-day, for the prospect is that the United States wheat crop of the present year will be by far the largest on record. The estimate made of the crop of winter wheat is 671,000,000 bushels. Allow for some deterioration of the crop between now and the time it is reaped and assume that they have only 600,000,000 bushels. Assume that they gather also the avierage crop of spring wdieat, viz., 300,000,000 bushels. This wall make a crop of wheat in the United States of 900,000,000 bushels, by far the largest crop that country has ever produced. That country consumes only 504,000,000 bushels, so this will leave a surplus of 400,000,000 bushels in the fall of 1914. What do our farmers think of the prospect of throwing open our markets to the admission of the American wheat free of duty when that country has so large a surplus? It seems to me this is a ques

Let us look for a moment at the high cost of living. It is against the rules of Parliament, I understand, for any woman to raise her voice in this House, and although we do not give the women votes and a voice in Parliament, there can be no objection to my reading to the House the views of a woman expressed in a letter dated February 20, 1914, and published in the Toronto Globe of February 24. This letter was written by the wife of a farmer of the county of Oxford. I regret that the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) is not in his seat to hear what this sensible and intelligent farmer's wife in his constituency wrote to the Globe on the high cost of living. The letter, which is headed ' The Farmer Catches On,' is as follows:

To the editor of the Globe: I was interested

in the article in Wednesday's Globe entitled, 'Blame3 the consumer-defends the middleman', to which might have been added : 'Blames the farmer'.

The fundamental cause of the high cost of living, the article stated, was an underproduction of the primary farm products. That's right, but why should the farmer overproduce, greatly adding to his labour and at the same time reducing the price of what he has to sell?

The farmer was regarded, the article goes on to say, as a hard, narrow, mean, prejudiced man, or as a hard working man who was oppressed by privileged classes and who was deprived of a fair return for his toil. Right you are! He was. But that time is passing. Our farmer is going to change all that. How? Well, by, as the article advises, but not because of that advice, he is getting out and striving to improve his position in response to the pressure from without.

A few of the ways in which he is improving his position, having an easier time and adding to his balance at the bank, which balance by the way, he reserves the right of spending later on in the way which best suits himself and family, and not according to the notions of prejudiced and interested parties, a few of the ways are as follows:

He makes fifty pounds of butter where fifteen years ago lie made one hundred. It was more than twice as much work to make the one hundred pounds and twice the expense. If he was lucky and the butter first-class he got fifteen cents per pound. Now he gets thirty or thirty-five cents. Fifteen years ago, if he took the trouble to fat up his chickens, say for a flock of one hundred, he would average perhaps twenty cents each or a total of twenty dollars. Now a flock of half that number costing half the food, housing and care, would bring thirty dollars or upwards. Fresh eggs the same, the fewer he produces the less work and expense, and the more money. In short, the farmer is 'on'. Fifteen years ago he gave away what buttermilk he did not need for home consumption. Anybody was welcome to a quart of buttermilk. Now he sells it for five cents a quart, and cannot supply the demand. The little Dutch cheese made from sour milk many farmers' wives were ashamed to let company

see on the table. Now this cheese is a luxury which the city people buy at five and ten cent's each and which are almost wholly profit to the farmer. The farmer has quit giving something for nothing, just as the merchants and the middlemen have long since done. The farmer has been the last to 'catch on', but he is in a position to apply the whip, and I am thinking some one will feel the lash pretty sharply in the near future.

Don't worry about the comforts in his home. They are increasing every year. If he prefers to settle in the nearest village, town or city, whose business is it, and if he is considered a nuisance by those who no longer have a chance to ' do ' him, he is not * a nuisance to himself '. Oh,no, not at all. No indeed.

Tired and Retired Farmer's wife. Woodstock, February, 20.

If the member for North Oxford were in his seat, I would like to warn him that when the farmers' wives of any man's riding begin to take an interest in politics, it is time for the representative to look out: something unexpected is liable to happen.

What are the causes of the high cost of living? There is no need of discussing that question. To put it shortly, it is because people wish to live high. The standard of living of twenty years ago is not good enough for the people of today. The waste from an ordinary man's table to-day would supply an excellent-meal to the same family twenty-five years ago. But it is not sufficient that Parliament should pass by this question with that simple consideration. It is necessary that Parliament should consider the question, and if there is a remedy apply it. The Liberal party has thought of a remedy. That remedy is free food. I consider this a quack remedy because it do-e-s not meet the needs of the case. It is a momentary remedy, and as a physician I should say we have no confidence in a remedy which is applied only for the moment. It is necessary for a remedy to be applied long enough to take effect, and it cannot take effect unless it is applied persistently and used continually. In considering this question of free food, I think we can make the statement that the farmer is either getting too much for his produce or he is not. If he is getting too much for his produce, the remedy of free food is not the remedy to apply. This remedy of free food is one for too high prices for the farmers. It opens competition from the United States and all the favoured nations; and we remember that during the reciprocity campaign the right hon. leader of the Opposition stated that it was not his desire or hi intention that the Canadian

farmer should have to compete with the farmers of the many favoured nations. Evidently he thought at that time that it would not be in the interest of the Canadian farmer that he should have that competition; but to-day he throws aside that consideration and says to the Canadian farmer: You will have to compete not

only with the food-stuffs of the United States, but also with the food-stuffs of all the favoured nations.

What effect on the prices of food would free food have? What are the facts? What foods are too high to-day? For what foods are we paying much higher prices than we did fifteen or twenty years ago? Is it not a fact that practically the only foods on which we are paying more are animal foods-meat, poultry, eggs, butter, cheese, etc. These are the products of the livestock industry of Canada; and therefore if these prices are too high, the policy of free food would be a blow at the live-stock industry of Canada. We sometimes say that there is no cheap food to-day. That is true, and it is not true. It is true in one sense and not in another sense. We know that for many years Canada and the United States both were exporting large quantities of meat and cattle to Great Britain. Of recent years that trade has almost vanished. In 1913 the United States exported of cattle only 10,093 and Canada 1,755. From where are the British people receiving their meat if not from Canada and' the United States? Here are some figures which will indicate where Great Britain obtains her meat. Of chilled beef, Great Britain imported last year 5,256,021 cwt. Of that quantity the Argentine Republic supplied 5,248,000 cwt. Five years previous to that Argentina supplied only 1,267,400 cwt. There is the secret of whence Great Britain is receiving her food; she is receiving it from Argentina and allowing it to supplant the meat she formerly received from the United States and Canada. If Argentina can send her chilled beef to the English market to displace Canadian meats in the free trade British market, what is to prevent her sending her meat to the free Canadian market to displace some of the Canadian meat in this country? If Argentina does that, it does not necessarily mean that our people will secure cheaper meat, because the middleman will probably take advantage of that cheaper market to procure his meat and bring it in here and then retail it to the consumer at the same prices 174 J

at which Canadian meat is now being sold. But it will be a competitor for the Canadian farmer's meat, and wil' supplant that meat to some extent in the home market. Canadian food has to-day practically free access to the United States market. If our Canadian farmer can have access for his food products to the United States market, at the same time excluding United States and other foods from the Canadian market, is it not a wise policy for the Canadian farmer to adhere to and support?

I do not acknowledge that the difficulties of the Canadian farmer to-day are due to the lack of markets. The farmer has difficulties; he has problems of his own, very serious problems. The chief ones are -what? The lack of help on his farm, the extreme cost of the distribution of his products. On this question of help, I might say that in western Ontario we are doing something to aid the farmer in supplying that need. By the hydro-electric policy of our good Ontario Government the western Ontario farmer is being taught to do without the hired help which he has been compelled to employ in the past. Speaking generally, that policy has been very successful on the farms throughout western Ontario. Many farmers are using hydro-electric power. They find it very satisfactory and are most enthusiastic in its praise. In the matter of distribution of food supplies two things are lacking: first of all, local markets. We (know that a vast quantity of food on Ontario farms is spoiled simply because it cannot be marketed at low cost. I think the citizens of our towns and cities are somewhat to blame for that because they provide little or no convenience for the farmer who comes to market his goods in their town. How do the citizens encourage the farmer? In the great majority of towns, there is no established market at all and in those towns where a market is established the farmer has to pay a market fee of ten cents before he can sell any of his butter or eggs. It seems to me that if the townspeople want the farmers to come to their town to trade, they should offer them every advantage possible. They should remove the market fees, and provide comfortable buildings wherein the farmers' wives can dispose of their produce, protected from cold in winter and from dust and flies in summer. Another great help would be a system of good Toads. We know the stand our friends

opposite have taken on that question in the last two sessions. The Goveamment, anxious to aid the farmer by improving his highways were unable to do so on account of the action of gentlemen opposite supported by their friends in the Senate. A system of electric railways in Ontario would also be of great benefit to the farmers. Whether it is possible to secure that at the present day I am not going to discuss, but I am sure that in the thickly populated portions of Ontario it would be of great advantage to the farmer providing him with cheap and quick transportation to his local market.

I want to devote a little time to the milling industry. We all know that it is one of the great industries of Canada. I believe it is in the interests of the western farmer to adopt that policy which will eneourage the establishment of mills in the western provinces. The mills would provide the farmers with the offal and the food for their cattle, which if they do not require now they will in the near future and be glad to get it. And it is only by giving encouragement to the milling industry that they can hope to have mills established there. Under free wheat that encouragement cannot be given and the western farmer will look in vain for the establishment of mills in the West if the policy of free wheat is adopted. I think there is a misapprehension on the part of some people in this country as to what constitutes the Dominion Millers' Association. That association receives a good deal of harsh criticism and is usually spoken of as an association of all the millers of Canada. That is not the case. The Dominion Millers' Association embraces merely the millers of Ontario, and not all of them. It does not take in the large millers of the West. The milling industry, as we know, is very well adapted to Canada. Western Canada particularly is one of the countries where that industry should be encouraged. The milling industry is looked uppn by other countries as of sufficient importance to receive very generous encouragement. In European countries very substantial protection is given to the milling industry. In Austria-Hungary, for instance, there is a duty of $2.66 a barrel on flour; in France, $2.72; in Germany, $2.17; in Italy, $1.89; in Portugal the importation is prohibited; in Russia a duty of 72 cents; in Spain, $2.38; in Sweden, $1.51; and in Norway, 47f cents. These duties show that European

countries, at least, consider the milling industry of very great importance and desire to have established as many mills of as large a milling capacity as possible. The hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) stated the other day that Great Britain was not a flour-producing country. I would like to remind him that Great Britain produces 50,000,000 barrels of flour every year. She produces 92 per cent of all the flour consumed in that country. Her yearly consumption is over 60,000,000 barrels, of which Canada supplies only 4 per cent. The milling industry in Great Britain has therefore reached very large proportions. But it was not always so. We sometimes talk of Great Britain as a free trade country and imagine the flour industry flourishing there on that account. The milling industry in Great Britain previous to 1901 was in a very depressed condition. After the cessation of the Boer war the British Government was compelled for revenue purposes to impose import duties on certain goods. They imposed a duty on flour and from that /dates the general revival of milling in Great Britain. The millers became encouraged and began to pay attention to their own industry with the result that to-day they are able to mill 92 per cent of all the flour consumed in that country. There was read to the House the other night a statement regarding the prices at which the Canadian miller disposes of his flour in the old land and in some portions of this country. I would like to point out to the hon. member for South Cape Breton who made the statement that he is entirely in error, as he would have seen if he had examined his own figures. For instance, he said that flour in Montreal sold at $5.10 a barrel while at Halifax it sold at $6.50 a barrel. Now the freight on flour between Montreal and Halifax is simply 25 cents a barrel, and it would be an imaginative man who could think that flour would be sold in Halifax at $1.40 more than in Montreal when the freight between the two places is only 25 cents a barrel. The fact is the hon. member was quoting the statement of an anonymous writer in the Montreal Standard as he acknowledged at the time-a man whom he did not know probably, who may be a competent critic or incompetent, and I prefer to think him incompetent because his statements were entirely at variance with the facts. I am surprised that any member of this House should rise in his place and endeavour to support an argument- in favour of free wheat

by quoting prices so erroneous as those prices were, and prices which if correct would greatly injure the millers of this country.

In comparing prices of flour too often the error is made of comparing the price of one grade with that of a loweT grade, and also of making a comparison of flour in barrels with flour in sacks. The cost of sacks is 30 cents less for 196 lb. of flour than the price of a barrel which contains the same quantity. This error may unwittingly be made by a critic, but when any newspaper correspondent such as the aforementioned writer in the Montreal Standard makes the statement that the Canadian people are penalized by -the milling interests to the extent of $1.71 per barrel upon every barrel of flour they purchase in each year, he displays utter ignorance of his subject. If this were the case, surely the American miller would soon be in the Canadian market with his flour, for the duty coming into Canada is only 60 cents per barrel. The fact is that the Canadian miller is selling his high grades of flour in Great Britain at a loss, and Mr. Lincoln Goldie of Guelph makes the statement that he has lost at least 20 cents on every barrel he exported on this crop. But his export trade enabled him to sell the same grades at a less price in Canada, and at the same time gave an increased quantity of mill offal to sell to' the farmers. This is one reason why we should encourage the millers of Ontario to grind as much wheat as possible; the more they grind the more bran and shorts they will have to supply to the farmers foT their cattle and hogs. The people of Canada buy the best grades, and if it were not that our millers can export some of their product our consumers would have to pay about one dollar a barrel more for their flour than they do now.

If the Opposition desire to build up a policy which the people can adopt, they must build it on something more substantial than newspaper articles. They must have facts on which to found it. The very fact that these anonymous articles, articles without foundation and without truth, are being used by members of the Opposition on which to base their arguments, shows that they have no facts upon which they can found a policy of free wheat and flour.

The hon. member further made the statement, quoting from this writer in the Montreal Standard, that the Ogilvie, the Lake of the Woods and the International Milling Company, according to the published records, made a profit of from 30

to 60 per cent upon their capital. I am prepared to say that if these companies made that profit on their capital it was not made in the milling business. The fact is that these companies do a large general grain business, and handle elevators, and I have no doubt at all that if profits were made they were made chiefly out of the grain and elevator business. Why do I say that? I have not the figures of these companies, but I have the figures of another company which substantiate what I say.

I want to quote some figures from the Grain Growers' Grain Company's report. The Grain Growers' Grain Company is in the grain business in the West. According to their report last year they made a loss of $200,000 on their export business. The wheat that they had exported to Europe and other countries entailed a loss to the company of $200,000. This they paid out of the reserve which they had accumulated. They made a further loss of $30,000 in the operation of grain elevators, but they made a net profit on their whole business of $170,000. On what was that profit made? That profit was made on their sales chiefly to Ontario millers. They lost on their export trade, they lost on the operation of their elevators, but when they came to do business with the Ontario millers, and to sell him wheat, they made a profit of $170,000. Therefore, I think that this substantiates my statement that the money is not made on the export business of our millers but is made on the business that is done in this country. Lest these figures should be disputed, they will be found in the annual report of the Grain Growers' Grain Company, in which they say:

A loss of $200,000 occurred on the export end of the company's business for the last year.

Then, further on they give their profits as I have quoted them. They made a profit of $170,000, which enabled them to pay a dividend of 25 per cent on their capital. The report is published in the Grain Growers' Guide. Coming back again to the hon. member for South Cape Breton, he states that Canadian flour is being sold in the old country at a lower rate than it is being sold for in this country, but in making this statement he is under an entire misapprehension. He quoted prices of grades altogether different. He stated that the export of Canadian flour to the old land is chiefly in the higher grades. The very opposite is the ease. I have had access to the

figures of one of the large mills, and I have seen a statement of their business. The fact is that during the term for -which I examined their statement they had not exported one barrel of top patent, and 90 per cent of their export was in the lower grades. The truth is that Europe and Great Britain desire the low grades of flour, because there is a demand for them among a certain class of the people, and large quantities of those grades are consumed.

If the policy of free wheat were established, how would the Ontario miller compare with the United States miller? We know that in the United States they have early harvests. In June the Kansas crop, amounting to 86,000,000 bushels of hard wheat, is reaped; in July, in Nebraska,

58.000. 000 bushels; in early August, in South Dakota, 23,000,000 bushels of hard spring wheat, and in late August, in North Dakota and Minnesota, 79,000,000 and

67.000. 000 bushels respectively, giving a

total crop of hard wheat which would be available for marketing before the Canadian wheat was reaped of about 330,000,000 bushels. The American millers can buy this grain, grind it, and ship it into Canada and glut the market here before the Ontario miller has an opportunity of grinding the new crop. But you may say: Why does not the Ontario miller import this wheat? He cannot do so for the simple reason that freight rates prevent him doing so at a profit. But the American miller can buy this wheat, grind it, and ship it to Boston at a cost of about 30.7 cents per hundredweight. If the

Ontario miller wishes to buy it, he will have to pay freight to Detroit, then from Detroit to an Ontario point, and then from the Ontario point, say, to Boston, at a cost of about 50 cents per hundredweight. The American miller has an advantage over the Canadian miller of about 20 cents per cwt. on freight rateB on the same wheat shipped from the same point. Then the American miller has another advantage. He gets his offal, bran 'and shorts shipped at 20 cents per ton less than the flour, while the Ontario miller has to pay the same freight rates on both offal and flour. This gives the American miller an advantage of about f cents per bushel on his wheat. The Ontario miller must look for his market to Great Brtiain, the great consuming country of the surplus flour pro-

duced by the United States and Canada. The Ontario miller would be in a position to ship much more flour to the British market were it not for the fact that the ocean freight rates are so exorbitant. This is due to the fact that we have in the North Atlantic a shipping combine which during recent years has raised the rates enormously. It would be well for this Government and this House to consider whether or not 'Something can be done for the benefit of the Canadian milling industry and indirectly for the benefit of the Canadian farmer by endeavouring to reduce the freight rates on the wheat and flour produced in thi-s country and exported to Europe. To show that these rates are high, I might say that the Glasgow miller has on iris wheat a rate which is 8| cents lower than the Canadian miller's rate on flour. Not only have the shipping combine greatly increased the freight rates on both grain and flour during recent years, but they have increased the rate on flour to such an extent that they are discriminating against the shipments of flour. The Canadian miller has to pay so much more for the shipment of his flour across the Atlantic than the British miller can secure his wheat on -such a freight rate that it is making it perfectly impossible for the Canadian miller to compete with the British miller. The excess rates paid on the export of flour to Great Britain during last year amounted to about $500,000 and on the total export of flour to $835,000. This handicap is placed on the Canadian miller; but it affepts not only the Canadian miller but the farmer behind him, because all these costs come eventually out of the producer of wheat. The Canadian' farmer and the Canadian taxpayer is to-day, on account of these freight rates, bonusing the British miller to this extent, and that high freight rate is acting in the same way as a tariff would affect the import of flour into Great Britain. Therefore the British miller, instead of having free trade, is practically protected in his business as against the Canadian miller, and the imposition of these freight rates is consequently contrary to the interest of the Canadian farmer. If a remedy can be found for this condition, it will help not only the western farmer, but the Canadian miller. I wish to Tead an extract from the Canadian Grain Growers' Guide of December 10, 1913, which makes this matter clearer than I can make

it. After giving the increased rates on Atlantic freight, it goes on to say:

It will be seen that in 1912 freight rates on both wheat and flour certainly jumped to more than double the average rate that had been prevailing for the previous five years. In 1910 the average rate on wheat from New York to Liverpool was 5.06 cents per cwt., or 3.03 cents per bushel, but in 1912 this rate had jumped to 12.75 cents per cwt., or 7.65 cents per bushel. That is, in two years the freight on wheat from New York to Liverpool was raised from 3 cents per bushel to 1i cents per bushel, the increase being 41 cents per bushel, making $45 on a

60.000 pound car of wheat, or $60 on an

80.000 pound car. Figures are quoted from American ports, because they are not easily secured from Canadian ports, but the Canadian rates are much the same. If it now requires $45 to $60 more to have a carload of wheat carried across the Atlantic than it did two 5-ears ago, it must be apparent to every one that the farmers in western Canada are receiving $45 to $60 per car less than they would be receiving, because of these high freight rates. . . . The rates on flour have also been enormously increased and the Millers* Association protested vigorously, as it greatly handicapped their business and has already greatly reduced their export trade. This is one place where the millers and the farmers can well afford to work together for mutual protection.

Again, in its issue of December 3, 1913, the Grain Growers' Guide concludes an article on the ocean combine with these remarks:

The probability is that if the full facts are trevealed by the promised investigation it will be found that the best method of regulating rates will be by the establishment of competition by a line of public-owned steamers.

I heartily concur in this view. I believe that the Grain Growers' Guide in this statement has given us a policy which will do more for the western wheat grower than the admission of his wheat free of duty into the United States can possibly do for him. The Grain Growers' Guide estimates th,,t on last year's crop the farmers would have saved $9,000,000 had the rates not been increased over what they had been a year or two before. That is a large sum of money, and the matter is well worthy of the attention of this Government and this House; and if any policy can be adopted *which will reduce these excessive freight rates, it will be in the interest, not only of the western farmer but of the eastern farmer, because what benefits the eastern miller benefits the eastern farmer. I believe that the establishment of a line of freight boats, to carry agricultural produce from Canada to Europe and to bring back freight from Europe to Canada will be of very great advantage to the farmers of this country.

In conclusion, I wish to say that we in the East are heartily in sympathy with our western fellow-citizens. Anything that can be done by the Ontario representatives to assist the western farmers I am sure will be done heartily; but we ask simply that the western farmers do not forget that the interests of Ontario farmers have to be considered as well. Whatever policy is adopted must be beneficial not only to the West but to the East, and we hope that the prosperity which the western farmer has had in days gone by will continue, and that the prosperity of the Ontario farmer will not be injured in any way by the adoption of the policy which the Minister of Finance has laid before the country.

Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):

Mr. Speaker, I have followed the remarks of the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) and I must congratulate him on having been so moderate and so orthodox in his views, and in not breaking away from the line laid down by the Government. At the time of the last general election there was some doubt, after the result was announced, as to what the policy of the new Administration would be. It was announced at the time that thousands of Liberals throughout Canada had joined the Conservative paTty with the sole purpose of preventing reciprocity with the United States, and that the new policy of the new Government would be a broad one, one under which all who had voted under the banner of ' no truck or trade with the Yankees ' could come. I am glad to know that the Minister of Finance, in his Budget speech, in the very few words which I shall quote to the House, has laid down the policy of the present Administration; so that any Liberals who were misled into voting for that party on the 21st of September, 1911, may know what is to be the policy of this Government. These words are to be found in the opening remarks of the hon. minister:

I desire to affirm the adherence of the Government to a fiscal policy of reasonable protection to Canadian industries including of course the great basic industrj- of agriculture. That policy is the historic National Policy of Sir John Macdonald, inaugurated by him and continued by his successors in office down to the present time. We believe it is the best, indeed the only and in a sense the inevitable policy for Canada, situated as it is geographically and in the existing fiscal conditions of the world today. Under that policy Canada has prospered in the past and will continue to prosper in the future. We believe it to be the true policy for Canada and for every part of it if we are to

regard as desirable stable business conditions and a diversified national life throughout the Dominion. It means the development of our natural resources, the maintenance and extension of our industries a fair wage standard for our artisans and a stable and profitable home-market for our farmers thus justifying its name as a national policy-a policy in the interests of the nation as a whole.

We have therefore the statement of the Minister of Finance, speaking for the Administration, that the Government intend keeping np the old National Policy. Of course, no reference is made here to what has happened since 1896. There has been fiscal legislation on several occasions which was approved by the country. Parliament in 1897 declared in favour of a British preference. Later, that preference was increased. And in the fourteen years during which I have had the honour of a seat in this House I have heard many complaints from the other side against the British preference. I have heard the woollen industry, for instance, protest against a further increase in that preference, though their sentiments never got into the shape of a motion. But the Minister of Finance makes no allusion to the introduction of the British preference. There certainly was no British preference in the National Policy of 1879 as laid down by Sir John Macdonald. Nor was there a successful attempt at the introduction of reciprocity. No allusion was made by the Minister of Finance to the charges made in the tariff after the Fielding-Bro-deur-Paterson Commission, and its tour of investigation. If the National Policy is to be maintained regardless of changes which have been brought about since then, the speech of the Minister of Finance amounts to a declaration of the Bourbon idea. When Louis XVIII came back to France after the Napoleonic wars and the Napoleonic regime, he went on as if nothing had happened, ignoring the fifteen years of glory that the First Napoleon had shed upon Europe and especially upon France. The same will happen here if you are to eliminate the fifteen years of the Liberal regime and declare that we are still to have the old National Policy. My hon. friend from South Perth (Mr. Steele), who is very moderate in his views, claims that Canada's prosperity is due to the National Policy. He made no reference to the British preference, nor to any changes in the tariff. But he could not give credit to these things, seeing that he has declared himself an out-and-out supporter of the Government.

[Mr. C. Marcil. 1

In his declaration of policy the Minister of Finance has given no consideration to the condition of affairs at present existing. For example, we know that there has been a check to progress-the Minister of Finance has admitted this; that money has been very tight, that there is an increase in the cost of living, that there is a loss of employment, that wages are lower, and that there has been an increase in the urban population and an undesirable decrease in the rural population. We have learned in this House also that there has been a falling off in revenue. And, while we are informed that there has been an increase in our foreign trade, there is a decrease in our imports, possibly owing to the tightness of money, and the increase in our exports is attributable wholly to the change made in the Underwood tariff last October, and is confined to the ten articles of cattle, horses, oats, beef, cream, print paper and fertilizers. The export of these articles, with one or two exceptions, has had the effect of still more increasing the cost of living in Canada. And we know-and both political parties may as well admit it-that the main reason for the increase in the cost of living is that people have been flocking to the cities and leaving the farms; the country has been deserted and the cities overcrowded. Mayor Martin, of Montreal, our colleague in this House, had an experience yesterday. He had invited the unemployed to call on him at the city hall, and 5,000 of them turned up at forty-eight hours' notice. No cards were sent out, but merely an informal notice was given in the papers that the mayor would be prepared to meet the unemployed who called upon him and wanted work. Five thousand of them turned up. That will give an idea of the employment problem in the city of Montreal.

Mr. PELLETIER:

Did not he say he had employment for them all ?

Mr. MARCIL:

I do not know how far he went. We know that the condition is that the country has been relatively deserted and the cities overcrowded. The Government has appointed a commission to inquire into the cost of living. The exact purpose of this commission was seated by the Prime Minister in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) to be:

To make an inquiry into the increase in the cost of living in Canada and into the causes which occasion or contribute to such result.

I am sorry to say that the members of this commission, are all three of them civil servants-of course, highly respecable men and competent for their ordinary work, but not at all the personnel of a commission required to inquire into the high cost of living under present conditions. One is the Commissioner of Customs, .a very busy man, another the Commissioner of Agriculture, and the third the chief statistician of the Department of Labour. These men will probably be able to ascertain that there has been an increase in the cost of living, but whether the cause will be known is another matter-and we are told that it is certainly not to be known this session.

I believe that the appointment of that commission is very unsatisfactory.

There is one fact that this Parliament cannot overlook: in what condition would this country be in to-day if it had not been for the opening of western Canada-if it had not been for the settlement of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba? In British Columbia during the past ten years there has been an increase in population of 119 per cent; in Alberta 413 per cent; in Saskatchewan, 439 per cent -and in Manitoba 78 per cent. Is it not a pitiful and a discouraging sight to see this Parliament called upon in' the year of grace 1914 to pass a measure to reduce the representation of the four original provinces of Confederation? We may have to legislate to take away one representative from Prince Edward Island; we are going to take away two from Nova Scotia; we are going to take away two from New Brunswick. Quebec, by the fecundity of its people and on account of the large number of persons who have come into the city and island of Montreal, has held its own as far as population is concerned, but the population of Ontario is decreasing. Is there not something radically wrong with a system which presents this spectacle to Canada and to the world at large? Is it because the natural resources of eastern Canada are wanting? Is it because the blood and sinew of our people is not what it should be? Is it because the statesmen of both political parties have not had the foresight to solve the problems which have come before them? What has happened to bring about the depopulation of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick? Is there not there a magnificent climate? Are there not in Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick and in Prince Edward Island almost all the resources which can be found in the northern part

of this continent? There you have the forest; you have the mines; you have agriculture and fisheries. The farmer on the seashore has a double crop, one from the land and another from the sea. In these provinces you have everything under the sun that tends to make a country rich, prosperous and happy; everything that tends to develop and increase population. Why is it, then, that the population of those provinces has gone down and is steadily decreasing? Why should Ontario, situated as it is, almost in the middle of the continent, with magnificent railway facilities; with lake navigation; with easy access to the United States and to the seaboard; with the St. Lawrence water route; with electric power developed from Niagara and, soon to extend to all portions of the province-why should Ontario lose so many of her people? With its magnificent school system; with its system of agricultural education so well developed; with its farmers' institutes of all kinds; with its newspapers, telephones on the farms, highways, and adequate telegraph communication ; with all the facilities known to modern life, and peopled, as it is, with persons of the best races, why should Ontario lose a portion of its representation in this House? How is it that we have again to submit to the humiliating spectacle of voting to cut down the representation of Ontario and the eastern provinces, as we did in the last Parliament and as we may do in the next Parliament, if things continue as they have up to the present time?

At six o'clock, the House took recess.

The House resumed at Eight o'clock.

When the House took recess at six o'clock, I was calling attention to the extraordinary fact that, while marvellous progress in population has been made toy western Canada in the last fifteen years, the older provinces of Canada had remained about stationary and in some cases their population had actually gone down; so much so that this present Parliament will be called upon to Teduce the representation from out of five of these provinces. I notice that at the last census the increase in the rural population of Canada was only 574,787, or 17-6 per cent, whereas the urban population had increased by 1,258,645, or an increase of 62-25 per cent. In Prince Edward Island we find a decrease of 9,531, or 9-23 per cent. In Nova Scotia there was an increase of only 32,764, or 7 13 per cent. In New Brunswick

there was an increase of only 20,769, or 6 27 per cent. In the case of Quebec, owing, as I have said, to the peculiar advantage of the French race and a large increase in the island of Montreal, the population increased by 353,814, or 21 -46 per cent. Ontario increased only 343,327, or 15 58 per cent. These conditions point in my mind to the absolute necessity that exists for Parliament to take some thorough measure to solve the greatest problem that now confronts the Canadian people, that is to send the overflowing numbers from the cities back to the farm, to the country. We find that in Montreal probably there is a more pressing necessity for this than in other cities of Canada, because Montreal has a larger population. To illustrate the conditions there I would point to what occurred yesterday; when the -mayor casually called upon the unemployed to turn out at the city hall several thousands turned [DOT]out at a season of the year when there should be employment for all.

My reason for speaking on the Budget is that I wish to call the attention of the Government, because I think it is part of their programme, to some of the requirements of the district 1 have the honour to represent in this House. These requirements apply to the eastern part of the province of Quebec and the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. We have as the first article of the policy of the present Government reasonable protection, including protection to the great basic industry of agriculture. I contend that the protection meant here, that has been meant by -most Governments up to to-day, is the protection of industrial establishments in Canada. Very, very few instances can be found of direct protection to the Canadian basic industry of agriculture. In the estimates now before the House, the Minister of Agriculture claims he has about doubled the amount we are voting to agriculture. We are called upon to vote this year, I think, $3,150,000, whereas some three or four years ago the amount was barely -half of that, -while we are called upon to vote this direct encouragement -and help to the agricultural classes, we are called upon at the same time to vote over $10,845,000 for militia purposes. -Canada i-s a peaceful and peaceable country.

The hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele), who spoke before me this afternoon, gave a very moderate address. He is to my mind one of the ideal representatives of a rural community in Ontario. He represents one of the leading rural com-

munities of that province. He did very quick work with the naval proposal. I understand that he is not at all favourable to the creation of a Canadian navy nor to the expenditure of any very large amount for warlike purposes. He devoted most of his address to the question of helping agriculture in various ways and Increasing the assistance now given to it. I am altogether in favour of that idea, and hope that the Government will -see its way to extend the work that it has commenced; and for that purpose I intend this evening, as briefly as possible, to call attention to what I consider should be done in the district I have-the honour to represent. Down in the eastern part of Canada, in New Brunswick and eastern Quebec, outside of the main lines of railway communication we are very backward in railway communication, that is, in the matter of branches. The communications are very defective, and without transportation it is useless to expect a farming community to be prosperous. We have a number of branch lines along th6 line of the Intercolonial railway which should have been incorporated years ago into the Intercolonial system. It is useless to ask farmers to go into a district of country and cultivate land unless there are proper and cheap transportation facilities. These transportation facilities exist to a much larger degree in the old province of Ontario, where the railway map is almost a checker board. Notwithstanding that, the province of Ontario has not made much progress in population. Quebec is still worse. In Quebec, now geographically the 'largest province in the Dominion of Canada, we have more- especially in the district of Gaspe, which I have the honour to -represent, an enormous area of about

7,000,000 acres of land with very little railway communication. It is true, we -have a branch line from the Intercolonial running 200 miles down the coast of Gaspe. That railway is at present being operated for the benefit of shareholders. In the winter time the service is inadequate. There is little rolling stock or material of any kind except the rolling stock of the Intercolonial. The result is that farming has been discouraged. The thr-ee great industries of that district are lumbering, fishing an-d farming. The lumbering industry -is largely carried on by water. A large part of the lumber goes to the United States, to which it now has free entry; some goes to England, and the remainder to South America and the West Indies. As far -as fishing is concerned, there is no

way of exporting the fish except by salting it down, which reduces its value. The fish mostly goes to the West Indies and South America. We have no cheap communication with the great centres of population, no refrigerator car system such as they have in the Maritime provinces. Our friends from Nova Scotia often complain that the transportation system of the Maritime provinces is not what it ought to be. In the maritime portion of Quebec no such system exists at all. The Baie des Chaleur-s is the finest sheet of water on the American continent, but we are absolutely without facilities for sending away fish.

As far as agriculture is concerned, it is practically confined to local purposes. Little encouragement is given to agriculture. We have asked in this House the late Government and this Government to put an experimental farm in the Gaspe district. The nearest one is at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, 300 miles from the centre of the Gaspe district. Farming conditions in that district are altogether peculiar, and there should be an experimental farm of some proportions put in that district. I read in this House last year an important communication from Mr. Riop-el, a man conversant with farming conditions in that vicinity, and for many years the Conservative representative of Bonaventure in this House. He advocated the creation of an experimental farm at the county seat of Bonaventure. If that could not be done, small experimental farms might be located in various parishes in Bonaventure county and Gaspe. We have a splendid farming stock down there. We have some fine French and Scotch farmers, and in other parts of the county of Gaspe a mixed community. We have an intelligent and hardy population, but facilities are altogether lacking. When we remember that Jacques Cartier sailed into the bay of Ga-spe and took possession of it before coming up to Quebec, it seems strange that Gaspe -should have been the only county without a single mile of railway up to a few years ago, when, thanks to the initiative of the -late Postmaster General, the present member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), who worked incessantly for ten years, we got our first railway. It has been built down to Gaspe basin and runs for 200 miles along the coast. It has been -subsidized to the extent of nearly $1,500,000 in cold cash by the Dominion. Probably half a million more has

been spent by the province of Quebec and $3,000,000 has been invested by the English shareholders of the Atlantic, Quebec and Western railway from Carlisle to Gaspe. The result is we have a branch line 200 miles long built at the cost of four or five million dollars through very difficult country. It should form part of the Intercolonial. The railway skirts the shore of the Baie des Chaleurs and passes through the most picturesque part of eastern Canada where pulpwood can be found in great abundance, where fisheries are of the first order, and land is of the most fertile character, and from which for generations we have seen our young men and girls leave by the hundreds every year for the United States and all parts of Canada because they have not the facilities which they should have in their own country. We have spent a great many millions of dollar to people the Canadian Northwest. I myself have voted for a great many dollars for that purpose during-the last fourteen years, and I do not regret it because I have done so with the full consent and -acquiescence of -my electors. We consider that the opening of the Northwest meant prosperity to Canada as a whole but I think the time has come when this Parliament -should give some attention to the conditions which prevail in eastern Canada. The -province of Ontario has many spokesmen in this Parliament who can well look after their province, but the time has come when the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edwaird Island should receive particular attention from this Government.

We have recently had a long discussion about the construction of the Transcontinental railway. I shall only refer to that en passant, for the purpose of -showing what we are undertaking to do in that portion of Quebec traversed by the Transcontinental railway. In the Gaspe peninsula we have a region resembling the region from the city of Quebec up to lake Abitibi. We have now the Transcontinental there, and the people of the province of Quebec will undertake to people that section, as they undertook to fill the Nipissing section, the lake St. John section and the Gaspesian district in the old days. The province of Quebec has undertaken its share of work, and it may be interesting for the members of this House to see from the plan that I now produce, prepared by the provincial Government, the opening up

of fifty townships in that portion of Quebec traversed by the Transcontinental railway. These fifty townships bear, I am glad to say, historic names. We Canadians are proud of our past, proud of our heritage and of our heirlooms. Our children and others who come after us, when traversing this country, will be interested in knowing that the first township which adjoins the province of Ontario to the east bears the historic name of La Reine, the name of one of the regiments that took part in the fight on the Plains of Abraham under Montcalm. The next one is La Sarre, the name of another historic regiment that took part in that fight. The next one is Royal Roussillon, and the others are all named after officers in these regiments. The House will be glad to know that the movement of colonization has already commenced. The first train over the Transcontinental will soon leave Harvey Junction for Amos with a whole trainload of settlers who are going to repeat in the Abitibi district, what French settlers have done all over the North American continent. The party is led by a French Canadian priest, Rev. Ivanhoe Caron, the agricultural missionary for the province of Quebec. In opening up new country in the Province of Quebec and all over the continent the Church and State have always worked hand in hand. An arrangement has been made by which this contingent will be able to take possession of this land before that section of the road is actually operated. A party even went up there in 1913 around by Cochrane, and Mr. Caron has been kind enough to send me a list of the first settlers that went and took up these lands along the line of the Transcontinental railway. There are on this list the names of 329 people, settlers, including forty families, who have taken possession of the land in that district. They are in communication on the south with the Timiskaming district, and there will be a line of railway running some day from the Timiskaming district up to the Transcontinental railway; so that I hope there are many members of this House listening to me now who will see that region of the Abitibi opened up and peopled with happy and prosperous settlers. We have other territories opened up in the province of Quebec with promising settlements, the result of the explorations that have been made in those northern districts. We have been informed by those who conducted these explorations that the forest growth is suffi-

cient for local purposes and that the land is magnificent. Mr. Henry O'Sullivan, who [DOT] was sent into that country in 1906 and 1907, reports that in the Abitibi district the most fertile land is to be found. They have a climate there that will be similar to that of the province of Quebec, because lake Abitibi is several miles south of a portion of the province of Manitoba. When the country opens up we will have there a longer summer season, as has been the case in the province of Quebec where, as the country opens up, the season becomes longer and the growth of crops more satisfactory.

We have therefore the first results of the efforts which have been made to open up that district. In the Abitibi country we have an example of a province seconding the efforts of the Dominion Government to colonize the unoccupied districts. The Dominion Government has built a railway and now the province of Quebec is undertaking to do its share. If other provinces follow the example of Quebec in this matter we may have similar movements along the whole of the Transcontinental line. The province of Ontario, I have m>

doubt, will do her part, as the province of Quebec has done.

We have, in the Gaspe district, a railway that has been constructed jointly by the Dominion and Provincial Governments, outside of the line which runs from New Carlisle to Gaspe, in which some unfortunate investors have placed considerable money. I consider that a parallel can be established between these two cases. If the Dominion Government have spent a large amount of money to open up the Abitibi region and to give more depth to that part of the province of Quebec, and if it is the part of wisdom to open up the newer districts throughout the country, there is no more fertile or interesting district than the Gaspe district, watered by the Baie des Chaleurs, which we call down there the Canadian Mediterranean. You have magnificent fisheries, large and productive timber areas, fertile land, but no transportation facilities. The duty of the Government of the day is imperative in that case. I think they should go beyond the action of the Senate. The Government do not need the Branch Lines Bill which was held up in the Senate. The Government could pass a measure to take over this railway, bring it in touch with the Intercolonial railway and work it as a branch of the Government road. I am sure that this House would approve of the undertaking without waiting until the

majority in the Senate dies out or until the party in power secures a majority in the Senate otherwise. The people at large are not all partisans.

The farmer, the lumberman, the fisherman, who has a long day of hard work before him for the purpose of getting a livelihood for himself and his family, does not know all these fine distinctions between one House and another. It does not make any difference to him what is done in the House or in the Senate. He looks to the results. All he knows is that he has been in that country for a long time, that his father was there before him, that the people have toiled for generations, that they have r.ot had the railway connections which they should have had, that they are still occupying small farms, small holdings, that they have great difficulty in obtaining access to markets with poor roads, that if they produce agricultural commodities they have no way of reaching a market, that if they catch fish, unless the American market is open to them, they are at the mercy of the great fishing companies, and that if they get out logs and timber they are at the mercy of large lumber firms. They have none of the facilities they should have, and it is the duty of the Government, if it intends to carry out its so-called National Policy, as defined by the Minister of Finance, to go in and develop these older parts of eastern Canada.

The natural ressources of eastern Canada have not been developed as they should have been. During the present session we are asked to give some assistance to the coke, iron, and steel industries. We have in the past paid over large amounts of money for the purpose of helping various industries, but the real industry of the country is the farming industry, and we have done very little for that. The present lion. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) may boast that he is getting three millions for the encour-ragement of agriculture. Although that is double what was given some years ago, it is insignificant as compared with the $10,800,000 that we are asked to vote for militia purposes. Canada is a peaceable country, and the time has arrived when there should be a reduction put to this expenditure. Instead of putting up drill-sheds, we should establish experimental farms and schools of agriculture. We should teach our people to stay on the farms. We should adopt the policy in the future of doing every thing possible to encourage men and women to

go back to the farm. It was a pitiable sight that was presented in Montreal yesterday, when thousands and thousands of men were seeking occupations who had left their country homes, lured away by the city and many of them not possessing the means of going out West. Could not these people be sent back to the farms where it is so difficult for the farmer to obtain assistance, where the farmer has no help?

The first thing necessary is to open up transportation facilities by rail and water. This railway that I referred to a moment ago could be linked up immediately with the Intercolonial railway at the town of Campbellton. Campbellton is the first important station on the Intercolonial railway in the province of New Brunswick after we leave Quebec. It is the first divisional point in New Brunswick, and it is separated from the province of Quebec and the county of Bonaventure by the Resti-gouche river. We have in Campbellton the most important and progressive town in northern New Brunswick. It has a population of between 4,000 and 5,000. But, unfortunately, communication is cut off from the country to the north. The people of Bonaventure and the Gaspe coast are cut off from Campbellton, where they might have communication not only with that thriving town but with all points east and west on the line of the Intercolonial railway. The Intercolonial runs from Campbellton to Halifax and Sydney, on the east, and Montreal and Quebec, on the west. There is running south from Campbellton the International railway, which goes to the boundary of the state of Maine at St. Leonards, and connects with the Transcontinental, the Canadian Pacific railway, the Boston and Maine and the Boston and Aroostook railways. All these connections would give a great many advantages to the Gaspe peninsula if it were only linked up with the Intercolonial railway, but they are all intercepted by one river. There is one more river to cross, and that is the Restigouche river. These people have been asking for years, for generations, for a bridge over the Restigouche river, which is an interprovincial river. The provincial governments (Quebec and New Brunswick) have no exclusive jurisdiction over this river, and the Dominion Government should take a hand in providing a solution for this difficulty. This request was made last year, after the advent of the new Government to office, by the town of Campbellton, by the board of trade of

Mr. BURNHAM:

Does my hon. friend include Great Britain in that statement?

Mr. MARCIL:

Great Britain is not an agricultural country.

Mr. BURNHAM:

No, that is what I thought.

Mr. MARCH.: I am speaking now of an agricultural country. I am told that in Great Britain is the finest farming land in the world, but that the area is limited. We have in the Gasp6 peninsula an area equal to two or three of the small kingdoms in Europe, and yet it has practically no communication with the outside world. You have a Government system of railways leaving the city of Montreal and going to Halifax costing this country nearly $100,000,000. This railway system has been described as a tree without branches. How can this tree live without these branch lines? The Intercolonial railway should have twenty to twenty-five branch lines, and not one of them is operated as it should be by the parent system. The Canadian Pacific railway has over 9,000 miles of branch lines, the Grand Trunk railway some 7,000 miles, the Canadian Northern railway over 3,000 miles, and the Grand Trunk Pacific railway opened up this year 1,000 miles of branch lines. Confederation was brought about by the Intercolonial railway and the concessions made by the province of Quebec at the time for the purpose of unity and goodwill in Canada. Without the acquiescence of Quebec, Confederation was out of the question, and without the acquiescence of Quebec, with its lasting loyalty to British institutions, the Confederation of Canada would cease to exist. Quebec is the keystone of the arch. We have here a government system of railways that has been in operation for about forty years, but that gives no benefit whatever to the district through which it passes except a few miles on each side of the road. Why should not the north shore of the Baie des Chaleurs, which is peopled by nearly 50,000 inhabitants, have the benefit of this railway system, as the south shore has? If we had taken over the Temiscouata railway, which joins the Intercolonial railway at Riviere du Loup, the Megantic system, the Quebec Central railway and the Artha-baska system, the International system, instead of being a single track road for 858 miles down to Halifax the I.C.R, would have gone into all the different parts of Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia; and, with the help of the Prince Edward Island railway, would have brought facilities to all parts of that country. We wonder why the population of eastern Canada has been stationery. In my opinion, the first explanation is that you have not given the people of

eastern Canada the facilities that they should have. What is the use of farming in Gaspe peninsula or in Bonaventure county, if you have not a market for the crop? It costs less money to send freight 300 miles over the Intercolonial railway than to send it 100 miles over a branch line railway. The railway board, I understand, is quite agreeable to this, holding that branch line railways, owing to their short haul, are entitled to three times the amount of the rate charged on the long haul on a main line of railway. How can you expect these people to live satisfied and contented in these agricultural districts? They leave the country and flock into the cities. What is the situation today, for example, in the city of Montreal? I mention Montreal because I am more familiar with conditions in that city than in any other city in Canada. In Montreal the house of refuge, the brewery mission, the municipal refuge, all the charitable societies, will tell you that last winter was the hardest winter in Montreal for the last twenty years. At the present time there are thousands of men out of employment. I do not say that this is all the fault of the present Government, but it is the fault of the system by which we do not give the rural parts of Canada the facilities to which they are entitled. It is all right to Ibuild up big cotton mills and factories throughout the country, but the biggest factory of all is the farm, and, unless the farm is prosperous, nothing can be prosperous in this country. I appeal to the Government to consider seriously the construction of this bridge, so as to bring that line of railway into communication with the Intercolonial system. My arguments in this particular case will apply, I am sure, to a good many other parts of the country. I would like to read the resolution passed by the Board of Trade of the town of Campbellton, which is equally divided between English speaking and French speaking people and is very closely divided politically, the hon. member for Restigouohe (Mr. Reid) having a small majority; so that this is the expression of what we may consider a fair specimen of the Canadian people on a small scale. This resolution, which was sent to the Minister of Public Works, in support of the proposition to link the Gaspe peninsula with the Intercolonial railway, is m the following language:

The Board of Trade of the town of Campbellton in the county of Restigouche province of New Brunswick, most respectfully beg to memorialize your department regarding the importance and necessity of a bridge to be

constructed across the Restigouche river at Campbellton aforesaid, connecting the town of Campbellton, on the one side, with the county of Bonaventure, in the province of Quebec, at or near Cross Point, on the other side, such bridge to be a combined railway and highway bridge, the highway part to be free of tolls, and in that connection your memorialists would urge:

1. That said Campbellton is a divisional point on the Intercolonial railway of Canada, where extensive railway works have been built and are in operation.

2. That said Campbellton is the eastern terminus of the International railway, which at its western terminus connects with the Canadian Pacific railway system at St, Leonard, near the state of Maine boundary, and in close touch with other railway systems at that end of its line, both Canadian and American.

3. That said highway bridge would be of great convenience and benefit locally, both to the inhabitants of the county of Restigouche and of the county-of Bonaventure, at all times of the year, and particularly during certain seasons when the Restigouche river is closed for traffic on account of running ice and shore ice, the said town of Campbellton being the natural market for farmers and others residing on the opposite side of said river in said county of Bonaventure and the most convenient and advantageous point for the shipment of the surplus farm products, and other products, to the markets of the world.

4. That your memorialists believe and urge that the construction of such bridge would have the effect of stimulating trade in the said counties, and traffic upon the said railways, as well as upon the Quebec Oriental railway in the county of Bonaventure, which latter railway would, in all probability, connect with the two other railways above mentioned at Campbellton if said bridge became an accomplished fact, and it is submitted that the enormous traffic which would pass over said bridge would amply justify the construction of the bridge as a public work by the Dominion of Canada, and not only that, but as a project which must, in the nature of things, be of such an immense benefit, and be so great a convenience to such a large community on both sides of the river, should, your memorialists believe, commend the project to the serious and favourable consideration of your department.

5. Your memorialists would also call to your attention the fact that the Government and Parliament of Canada have already endorsed the project as evidenced by the fact that a subsidy of some one hundred and sixty thousand dollars has been voted for this purpose.

6. That this board of trade joins with the town council of the town of Campbellton, the county council of the municipality of Restigouche, and the numerous petitioners in the counties of Restigouche and Bonaventure, in urging upon your department the great and numerous advantages which would result from the construction of the bridge in question, and the necessity which exists for the same, and beg most respectfully that the project may receive, as we have no doubt it will, your most careful serious and favourable consideration.

By order of the Campbellton Board of Trade.

(Sgd) J. Harquail,

President.

John T. Reid,

Secretary.

Campbellton, N.B., Dec., 1912.

[DOT]2761

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:

How much would that bridge cost?

Mr. MARCIL:

According to the last estimate, $640,000.