Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (South Perth):

I wish to inquire of the Minister of Railways regarding the coal situation throughout Ontario. Speaking more particularly for the western portion of the province, the people there are face to face with the most serious coal famine they have ever experienced. Of the factories depending upon steam power, some are already closed, and many of them will be compelled to close within a very short time. Householders, too, in both town and country are very short of the necessary fuel, and in many homes the coal bin is empty. I know that the minister has had this matter before him, because through his exertions and the efforts of the Railway Commission some relief was afforded to certain sections, a few weeks ago. The situation, however, is becoming so serious again that I know the people of the provinces will be glad to be assured that every effort is being made to relieve what is a most distressing situation. I should like to inquire of the minister what prospects there are for relief in the near future.

Hon. Mr. COCHRANE (Minister of Railways) :

I will bring my hon. friend's remarks before the Railway Commission and ask them to proceed as they did before, and try and relieve the situation. I know from my experience with the Intercolonial that cars are exceedingly short on the American side, and the American railways are very loath to allow them to come off their lines into Canada; and of course we have no jurisdiction to compel them. If the roads can get the coal and bring it into Canada, we will see that it is delivered.

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton) (Resuming):

Mr. Speaker, before the debate was adjourned last night I was calling the attention of the House to a portion of the very important correspondence which had taken place between the Prime Minister and the ex-Minister of Militia, and in order that it may he plain to you, Sir, and to hon. gentlemen, I will take the liberty of again reading that short paragraph so as to connect up my remarks, with what I was saying at the hour of adjournment last night. This is a quotation from the letter of the exMinister of Militia to the right hon. the Prime Minister. As I stated last night, this quotation must be accepted as true because it has passed muster, in the sense of not having been replied to or contradicted by the Prime Minister during the course of the correspondence, and it has passed the further test of having been quoted by the right hon. leader of the Opposition in his speech on Monday last, which was delivered before the right hon. the Prime Minister spoke, and the Prime Minister in the course of his address did not think it proper to make any reference by way of contradiction to this paragraph from the letter of the ex-Minister of Militia. I think, therefore, I have a right to believe that this is a proper statement of the facts' as they existed between the Prime Minister and his late colleague. The paragraph I shall quote is but a mere scrap of the rather extended correspondence that took place between them. But it struck me at the time I read the correspondence, and I still so regard it, as a very serious matter, a matter that should receive careful consideration by the Canadian people, and a matter which I think should be brought clearly to their notice. The paragraph reads:

It is difficult for me to recall where you have actively supported me in the passage of any Order in Council concerning the up-building of the Militia when opposed by two members of the Cabinet usually antagonistic to anything proposed by me. As you are aware, it took up four months in the midst of this great war to fight through the principles of purchasing, for the Second Division, trucks at the lowest wholesale prices, instead of allowing large commissions to local agents who would have nothing whatever to do with securing the order.

That, Sir, is a situation which if stated by any ordinary man in this country would not be believed for a moment. If that statement appeared in any partisan news-

paper in the Dominion of Canada, I venture to say that, partisan as I am, I would not believe it at all; but coming as it does from the Minister of Militia, and having, as it has. the silent endorsement of the Prime Minister, there is nothing left for me but to believe that that was really the condition of affairs that existed at the time when the equipment for the Second Division was under consideration by the Cabinet. I submit that some satisfactory explanation should come from the Prime Minister as to why he should permit any such conditions as those here indicated to exist in his Cabinet. He may have unruly members in his Cabinet, members who will not always do as he would have them do; but as to their conduct, and the way in which they administer the departments over which they preside, the Canadian people hold the Prime Minister responsible, and will call him to account for the manner in which they respectively conduct the public affairs which are committed to them.

The Minister of Militia charges two members of the Cabinet in particular with having fought more vigorously than the others against him when he was trying to get this Order in Council through. It must be clear to this House and the country that those things could not be done behind the door, as far as the Prime Minister is concerned. The meetings of Council, of course, are always under his supervision, and he presides over them. I take it for granted that that is the case, particularly when he is here and able to preside over the meetings. It is not put forward as an excuse or in extenuation of the circumstances, that he did not preside over Cabinet meetings during the four months when this particular matter was under consideration. I have therefore a right to assume that he was aware who these two ministers were who were particularly fighting this vote, and who the gentlemen in the Cabinet were who were generally obstructing the progress of the country in connection with these very important matters. One would suppose that, instead of the Minister of Militia being driven out of the Council, those two ministers, whoever they were that were trying to obstruct him and to obstruct the business of the country, would be driven out of the Cabinet and other men brought into their places who would comply with the necessities of the country and see that proper speed was provided for the grave requirements of the VMr. McKenzie.]

war. Now that the Prime Minister has thought proper to put out of the Cabinet the man who was urging for speed and who stood firmly for the principle of business along business lines, and that he has kept in his Cabinet those two men, whoever they are, who were obstructing the business and who were wanting to do business, not along business lines, but along the line of improper methods-this correspondence

clearly shows that graft was intended, as the commissions, according to this letter, were to go to people who were not to raise a finger in procuring the trucks-the Prime Minister before the great jury of the people of Canada must be held responsible for the conduct of those who were opposing their colleague and obstructing the business and wanting to get this commission for men who had no right at all to receive it. It is, therefore, a matter of proper criticism, and one that should be brought to the attention of the Canadian people at a stage when we are all anxious that' the best should be done in connection with the war, and that every dollar of money and every moment of time should be properly utilized so that Canada may take her proper position in regard to the war. It is, therefore, important for us to know what position the Cabinet is taking, and if we find that the Prime Minister and the other members of the Cabinet are willing to stand pat for four months on a simple question of business, what can they expect of the large masses of the people who are not so directly responsible as themselves?

I am not so sure that the true reason has been given in regard to putting the exMinister of Militia out of office. We had from the beginning a most extraordinary kind of Cabinet: a Tory Cabinet, a Tory Government, a highly loyal Government and a highly loyal support, bearing with it at every stage the brand of loyalty and boasting of its great loyalty; but, after all, when one comes to examine into the personnel of that Government at its inception and throughout its progress from stage to stage; when one comes to its true inwardness, one finds that its personnel is not compatible with the great protestations of loyalty made in regard to it. There were two conflicting elements in the Cabinet from the beginning. There were the superloyalists, the extraordinarily loyal, represented by the former Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) and others on the one hand, and the extreme Nationalists on the other, who fought the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden and the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Lau-

rier to the death during the last campaign, and who would have nothing to do with either of them, but who, by some wonderful light which they saw on the way to Ottawa-instead of to Damascus-underwent a marvellous change, and we had this wonderful combination forming the highly loyal Cabinet presided over by my right hon. friend. I am sorry, however, to think that they were not long together in that happy combination when the Premier found it necessary to erect stalls in the council chamber and to put the members of his Cabinet into different compartments in the hope of keeping them apart, but the partition walls were evidently broken down and he could not have peace or contentment with them at all. It is no reflection upon the Prime Minister, nor upon the Government, that it was well understood in the country that a very important loyal body in Canada was recognised in the Cabinet by the selection of Sir Sam Hughes as Minister of Militia. I have reference to the great loyal Orange body in this country. In newspaper publications it has been reported that it was because he was recognized as one of the leading men of that body that he was taken into the Cabinet as representing their wishes and will, and that the distinguished gentleman who occupied the chair which you, Sir, now occupy was taken into office and given a place of promise and high positidn for the same reason. You can readily understand the incompatibility of the two elements, the great Nationalist crowd represented in the Cabinet by men who would have nothing to do with, and who owed nothing to, England, who had no use for the British flag except tc puncture it for the purpose of ventilation-you can readily understand what sort of a happy family they would be sitting down with my good friend the ex-Minister of Militia and incidentally with the gentleman who was at one time Speaker of this House, representing the high class of loyalty exhibited by the Orange body of this country. The Government can say what they like as to why Sir Sam Hughes was driven out of the Cabinet and why the Speaker at that time, the Hon. Mr. Sproule., now the Hon. Senator Sproule, was driven out of the Chair, but the real reason was because their views were absolutely incompatible with the contentions and spirit of the Nationalist wing, and the latter prevailed, and they ate up the others and put them out of sight. That is the true reason why Sir Sam Hughes went out of the Government and why the Hon.

Mr- Sproule went out of the Chair, and it is only right that the great Orange body should understand why those plays are going on and that they should look behind the curtain and see the true reason and not be fooled by supposing that it was because the musical ear of the ex-Minister of Militia was not properly tuned and that he wrote a letter which did not quite please the highly technical ear of the Prime Minister. It was not, the Prime Minister says, because of anything that was in the letter; it was not because there was anything particularly offensive in it; but it was pitched in a tone-that grated so harshly on the highly sensitive nerves of the Prime Minister that the-tone could not be tolerated any longer because he had enough lack of harmony in the Cabinet without allowing a voice which grated so much upon his sensibilities to remain. The real cause was a sort of housecleaning for the purpose of pleasing the Nationalists and driving the Orange element out of the Cabinet, so far as they could be. driven out.

I hope, that having been done, there wilE be some harmony for a little while, and it; will remain to be seen whether the further expansion and extension of Nationalism in the Government or the new addition to it will receive the approval of the country. It is not for me to say, and I am not going to say anything about it. I will say this for the late Speaker, that, as the Prime Minister felt that he had to select from among the Nationalists, he made the best selection possible.

Before leaving this correspondence and dropping the subject, I wish to point out to the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) who, I am sorry, is not in his place, that he should have had some supervision over the financing of this second contingent when they were being held here. I am not sure of the number of men in that contingent. Let us take it at 50,000. With wages and expenses, it is not at all unreasonable to say that the expense of keeping this contingent would be $3 per day per man, and it would probably be more. At that rate, this country has had to pay out $18,000,000 to keep this contingent at a standstill for four months. And for what purpose? We would like to be able to give a reason for our doings at every turn in this crisis, andi the people naturally want to know why this-sum of $18,000,000 was expended. The reason is that a fight was going on in the-Cabinet over commissions on trucks, andi until that was decided the second contim-

gent of this magnificent army had to be held up. The Canadian people are expected to say to those who are responsible: Well done, good and faithful servants, continue to waste the money of the country as you have wasted it in holding over this contingent. It is well that the people should know the facts of the case, and it will be for them to pass judgment.

General Hughes was got out of the Cabinet. He was made the scapegoat. We are famiMar with the ritual of the scapegoat. The sins of the people were loaded upon the goat and the goat was sent out into the wilderness. The poor goat in this case was to bear the sins of the Cabinet, so you can understand how great was his burden. No doubt he was led out by two ministers. I do not know which ministers they were, but I can imagine they may have been the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), and the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). They went into the wilderness with the goat, but apparently they did not go far enough; no doubt they had to hurry back for fear someone would get an advantage in the Cabinet while they were away. The result is that the goat is back; he appears at times in this House. One can almost hear the horrified murmurs of the Minister of Finance on seeing that goat here, "Angels and ministers of grace -defend us!" They did not take the goat far enough, and so the old time ritual is "busted." Moses' goats did not come back; but the Borden goat has come back, and some other scheme will have to be found to get clear of it, for it is a menace to the progress of the Government. The more they beat the goat the bigger it gets. The Prime Minister seems to realise this, for in his speech the other day he indicated a desire to gently pat the goat's head and to avoid doing anything that would stir it to anger.

Throughout the whole country-or at least, certainly, in the province of Nova Scotia-matters of recruiting, encamping, training and transportation in connection with the military are run strictly on lines of political patronage. There is only one patronage committee; the 'Same committee which deals with railway matters, public works, and marine and fisheries, deals also with everything pertaining to the military. What, think you, Sir, of such a case as this? There is a rule, I understand, that when a man is discharged from the force for isome good reason, and is called upon to hand in his uniform, he is

given a suit of clothes. An officer went into a certain store with a number of men so discharged, for the purpose of getting them the clothing called for under this -rule. The goods were there and were found to fit the boys. A election was made, the goods were packed, and nothing remained but to sign the bill. The officer asked the merchant, " By the way, what are your politics"?, The merchant said, " It is well known what my politics are, I am a Liberal and always have been a Liberal." Whereupon the officer remarked, " I regret it very -much, but I have no authority to buy anything except in a (Tory store." That actually took place in one of our leading towns of Nova Scotia, and it is only a sample of how everything else is done, which shows how far this Government -and its officials will go in trying to make political capital in the province of Nova Scotia and no doubt throughout the whole country. The marvel is that the Liberal boys are going to the front in the service of their country but they do go in spite of the slaps in the face they have received from officers appointed and maintained by this Tory Government.

I say that I believe that the same thing is carried on in other provinces besides Nova Sooti-a. I have here -a clipping taken from the Toronto Globe of a few days ago. I have not heard of any contradiction or denial of the statements it makes. I have no means of knowing whether it is true or not, but quote it for what it is worth. There are hon. gentlemen here from Toronto and its neighbourhood who will know whether it is true or not; and if true, it is a fine commentary upon the conduct of the men who are entrusted with office and responsible for the state of affairs here shown:

Soldiers, Get in Line!

Is it necessary for a returned soldier in Toronto to join a Conservative ward association before he has any chance of securing a government position? Is the spoils system still in operation? Can no Liberal who has fought for his country hope to serve it in time of peace without renouncing his political creed? These questions are forced to the front by the uncontradicted statement that Sergeant Soloman, a returned soldier wounded in France, was told by Sergeant-Major Creighton at the city hall, when he applied for a position, to "go and join the Second Ward Conservative Association and get in line for a government job." The sergeant-major says he told the returned soldier to see the Conservative Patronage Committee, not to join the association, hut that is a very lame excuse.

The statement made by Soloman is all the more significant when it is remembered that the Second Ward is a part of the constituency of Hon. A. E. Kemp, Minister of Militia. Does Mr. Kemp take the view of the Government's

obligations to returned soldiers taken by Sergeant-Major Creighton of the city hall staff? Does he propose to confine openings in the service of the people of Canada to soldiers who can show cards of membership in Conservative associations? Having stood in line in the trenches against the enemies of the Empire, must Liberals who desire places in the public service now stand in line behind some stay-at-home ward heeler? Mr. Kemp cannot afford to ignore the issue raised by Sergeant-Major Creighton's remark to Sergeant Soloman.

I have stated what has been and is being done in Nova Scotia before the soldiers go away, but if this clipping be true-and it bears some evidence of trutli-it would appear that in Ontario the patronage system in operation is such that not only before the soldiers go, but after they have placed their lives in jeopardy for their country and have come back wounded, bruised or crippled, they must bear the badge of their only saviour and salvation, showing that they are Tories, or they cannot be recognized at all. This is a sad condition of things, and I really hope that the Prime Minister and those who have to do with matters of this kind will see that such things shall not any longer be perpetrated in this great country of ours. I said last night that I was not fond of making criticisms.

Hear, hear.

Mr. McKENZIE:

I am pleased, Sir, that I receive sanction and approval of this not only from my own side of the House, but clearly from the other side as well. We appeal to hon. gentlemen on the other side in respect to these matters, because the Government will not listen to us. Hon. gentlemen, will, I suppose, listen to their own friends, and so we bring these matters to their notice. I see sitting opposite me honest business men who in every walk of life outside of politics would scorn to do anything but that which was clean cut, honest and straightforward. I am sorry, however, that the bane of politics blindfolds them; they follow their leaders recklessly and carelessly, which they will do until there comes a tumbledown and they all disappear forever from view. I see opposite me to-day a gentleman for whom this country has the greatest regard and in whom it has the greatest confidence, a gentleman who has shown some independence in public life. I refer to the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle). I was thinking about him yesterday and last night when I was reading about the holdup for four months which cost $18,000,000 of the people's money, the reason being

that some Tories were fighting and strangling each other to get pelf and graft out of the blood of the people of this country.

I was thinking how he would stand before the highly-cultured people of Kingston and defend the lenten season of four months which was kept for the purpose of allowing friends of his to get a slice from these truck wagons that were being slowly produced for the purposes of the war. I remind my hon. friend of these things, so that when he has not much else to do he may carefully think over the explanation that he wlil make to his people regarding them. He has taken a firm stand on other things where the evidence was not half so clear; the evidence here is unquestioned, coming from the Cabinet itself, and I am sure that whether or not he tells us anything about it, it will not receive his sanction or approval. On one occasion the hon. gentleman did take his life in his hand; he did break away, though only for a season, I am sorry to say, from the rank and file, and kicked over the traces for a little while. He found the chafing of the traces, however, so hurtful that he was glad to get back. Having had the experience of getting his legs curled up and scratched by these traces, I am afraid that it will not be so easy to get him to kick over again. However, I remind him of this as he is a,sample of the many excellent gentlemen whom I see before me who would like to cut down business of this kind, but who may be afraid to do it. I warn hon. gentlemen that the great province of Ontario is an honest province-

Hear, hear.

Mr. McKENZIE:

-and that the Ontario farmer will not stand for this thing. It would be better for them to cast out an eye or cut off a right hand before the day of reckoning than to stay by the crowd and suffer the fate of the man who does not cast out the eye or cut off the hand. Possibly that is enough said about this correspondence; I assume that it will be dealt with by other gentlemen who know more about it than I do.

Another matter to which I wish to refer will show how the friends of the Government and the Government itself expected to use the soldiers, not only in the way of patronage, but in the elections. It was refreshing to me to hear the Prime Minister speaking in the House on the opening day of this debate with regard to the soldiers' vote. He has made a roundabout face on

that question; but as he has made certain other evolutions of that kind, I assume that it is an exercise which he does not find #ery difficult. I shall quote what I said about this Act when it was passed in 1915 and what the Prime Minister said the other day. I am sure that if hon. gentlemen did not know the contrary they would think that the remarks were those of two men speaking on the same subject and in entire accord. What I said when this Enfranchising Bill was under discussion, as it appears on page 2273 of Hansard of 1915, volume 3, was as follows:

I do not hesitate to put myself on record here-I did not spealr on the second reading of the Bill-as being opposed to the measure. I believe that it is not workable and that it will only add to the difficulties already existing at the front.

The soldiers when they go to the front take upon themselves certain responsibilities, and we repose certain trusts in them. They are to do the fighting for us, and we are to provide for them in every way that we can. Their minds are not to be bothered about political or municipal affairs; they must have a free hand to deal with the very arduous and important matters they have before them. On the other hand, the soldier has to trust to the friends whom he leaves behind and to the people of the country that in his absence political matters shall be kept on an even keel. As we trust them at the front, they have to trust us here.

Then a little further on I said:-

We are called upon to give the right to vote to men who are far away from home, who are out of touch with the issues that will be threshed out in an election, and who have no knowledge of the qualifications of the candidates. Without taking shelter behind the assertion that I am not opposed to voting by soldiers, or behind any other shelter, I say that I am absolutely opposed to this Bill.

That, Sir, was the position I took upon that Bill when it was before the House. At that time the right hon. Prime Minister took a directly contrary view, and he was backed up by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), and particularly backed up by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett). We were told, myself and others on this side of the House, particularly the right hop. leader of the Opposition, that we were, of course, disloyal because we ventured to say that this Act was not workable. Here, now, after thinking over this matter for two years or more, the Prime Minister himself comes back to this House and says, on page 41 of Hansard of the 22nd ' of this month:-

I know something of the conditions at the front, and I venture to put this thought before the House and the country: the men at the front will be not only practically, but actually,

disfranchised if an election does take place In this country while they are in the trenches. That is my conviction. I say they would be actually disfranchised because, although I render every tribute to my hon. friend the Minister of Tustice (Mr. Doherty) and the committee which had in hand the preparation of the Soldiers Voting Act of 1915, I am not disposed to think that the arrangements made in that Act or in any other Act that could be devised are such as to enable those men to vote, or at least any considerable number of them. You cannot predict what conditions may exist. _ Supposing an election came on in this country when the fiercest drive of the war was taking place. Do you Imagine that the paymasters of those regiments and their commanding officers could busy themselves with handing out ballots to men whose souls were engrossed and whose lives were at stake in the enterprise in which they were engaged? There is something more than that. These men at the front have it not in their disposition, have it not in their heart or their soul to consider matters of party controversy under the conditions with which they are there confronted.

That, Sir, is the position taken by the Prime Minister to-day. It is the position that was particularly taken by myself two years ago, and I feel very proud to find that the Prime Minister has come to my way of thinking in this matter, and that we are not to have the spectacle of an endeavour to have the soldiers cast their votes in the trenches, if an election should come on. I fear, Sir, that the change of view of the Prime Minister is not altogether attributable to his mature consideration of the views which I then advanced; I believe that his statement the other day was the expression of a conviction not of the soul and of the mind arrived at by logical sequence; that is not the reason for this change of heart. The Conservative party had an experience in the taking of soldiers' votes in the province of British Columbia last summer, and the plan did not pan out as splendidly as they expected it would. The cancer of votelosing started in the British Columbia election and seemed likely to develop more and more, and so they feared that if they afforded an opportunity to those men in the trenches to vote the same thing that happened in British Columbia would be repeated in an even greater degree, and that the end would be worse than the beginning.

I am afraid that that is the reason of the change of heart of the Prime Minister, and that is why we are not to be troubled with the vote of the soldier if an election takes place now, as was intended at the time the Act was passed.

I shall be told, I suppose, that I should not criticise this Government, and that they are doing the best they can. Well, I

will admit they are doing the best they can with their present personnel. But if they are doing the best they can, I do not want any better reason for turning them out, for the best they can, is not good enough for the people ,of this country; and we must have men whose best is equal to the occasion, and will give this country such a government as we had under the regime of my right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) during the long period when the duties of government devolved upon him.

As I have stated, their best is n.ot good enough, and we must, therefore, hope that the day is not far distant when they will realize that themselves, and do something like their brethren did in Manitoba, when they themselves discovered that the judgment of God was upon them and they moved out, bag and baggage, without waiting for any mandate from the people. We d.o not expect that here, but that will be the result, and that is what is going to happen as soon as the Canadian people have an opportunity of passing judgment upon these honourable gentlemen.

I was going to say that, after all, the only thing to the credit of this Government has been the war operations. They have not shown one iota of practical or constructive statesmanship from the time they took office down to the present moment. There are many able men on the other side of the House, and if any acts of constructive statesmanship have been performed by the Government, these able men will be able to tell us what they were. We are told that the Minister of Finance is entitled to great credit because of the manner in which he financed the affairs of the country. I do not think, Sir, that anybody would have given a great deal of credit to a man who would have come after Joseph in the old days. If after Joseph had filled the barns and the treasuries with gold and silver and grain and everything that was necessary, he had gone out of business and somebody had come along who had nothing to do but to measure out lavishly what was in the treasury, in the stores, in the barns, I do not think we would give such a man a great deal of credit. That was the position of the Minister of Finance. He came in here and found that he had come after seven fat years, fifteen fat years indeed, and he found the treasury full, he found the credit ,of the country at the highest possible pitch. In fact he found everything at his hand, in as great abundance as the heart of man could wish for or conceive. He started out to squander at a great rate, as fast as

possible, and when all of the stored treasure was gone, when he had scraped the bottom of the flour barrel, he started after the people to take from them what they had gathered up during the fifteen years of plenty whilst Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in power. Does anybody say that that was a great act of statesmanship, because after squandering $40,000,000 which we left to the credit of the country he now goes after the people to take from them what they had gathered up with frugality and care under the prosperous regime of Sir Wilfrid Laurier? That, Sir, is the only thing that stands to the credit of the Minister of Finance so far as constructive statesmanship or financing is concerned.

I submit that in the section of the country from which I come we have reason to complain of the conduct and management of this Government. I submit, Sir, that if proper care had been taken, if proper economy had been practised, if the moneys that we left had not been squandered as they were, public works and development in this country would not have been abandoned to the extent that they were. I submit that the programme laid down at that time in regard to railways and other matters in the province of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec, should have been carried out, but I regret to say that everything has been dropped, and nothing has been done in that part of the country. We have not had the opportunities of developing that we should have had to put us in proper touch with the commercial growth of this country. For these opportunities we must look forward to the time when the same right hon. gentleman who was ready to give us them will again be in charge of affairs in this country. I am sorry to say that we have nothing to hope for from the present Administration along these lines, and we have reason to fear that unless there is a change soon, and a stop is put to their mal-administration, it will be many years before we get back to that equilibrium between receipts and expenditures in this country that is necessary to carry on the business of the country as it ought to be carried on.

Before sitting down, Sir, I wish to refer to a matter which particularly affects the Prime Minister himself, and which, perhaps, is not of general interest to the House. I am sorry that my county of Cape Breton has not been treated so well in connection with its representation in another place in this building as it ought to have been. I wish to point out that at Confederation the great

county of Cape Breton which I in part represent, had two senators. Ever since that time it has been represented

by two and sometimes three senators. I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister and the Government have thought it proper to disregard the old time practice, and to-day the island of Cape Breton is not represented in the Senate at all. The only senator for Cape Breton is not a native of the county, and is not even a native of the province of Nova Scotia. He has no interest in

the province of Nova Scotia, so

far as I know, except a palatial

residence which he occupies once in a while in the summer time. He has no interest, so far as I know, in the development of the island of Cape Breton where you get your coal, and your steel, and where everything is big and broad and prosperous in the sphere of commercial and industrial development. I submit, Sir, that if representation in the Senate means anything at all, and it certainly means something, the great island of Cape Breton, with all its industries, should have a representative who has an interest in the county and is in direct touch with the people. I wish to protest against the course taken by the Prime Minister in connection with the recent appointments, in ignoring entirely gentlemen of ability who had claims upon the Government, and in ignoring the people of that island who have a claim to be properly represented in the Senate. We have some excellent men who have sacrificed time, money, and energy, in support of the Conservative party in the county of Cape Breton; and I am sorry that the Prime Minister and the Government have seen fit to ignore them in appointing represen-tives of that part of the country to the great body which forms a branch of the Parliament of this country. I am deeply obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, and to honour-able gentlemen, for the quiet and respectful hearing which I have received in presenting my views to the House. I have presented these views in the hope that there shall be reforms in the Government, that they will cut out patronage in handling war matters for the few short months that they may have to handle them, and that they will devote their energies to one purpose and regard us as one people, so far as these questions are concerned, so that better things may prevail during the short time that they will have anything to do with the affairs of this country.

Mr. WILLIAM ALVES BOYS (South Sim-coe):

About the only matter that I particularly desire to discuss at the moment is in connection with the existing campaign ,in Dorchester, Quebec. It does not seem to me, Sir, that this is a time when we should waste the time of the House in labouring matters which have already been mentioned or which will be discussed later on. Speaking in the House a year ago, I expressed the view, and it is still my sincere opinion, that every member of this House could do more effective work in his own home town in connection with recruiting and patriotic and Red Cross work, than he could in prolonging these endless discussions, which I do not think are contributing very much to the cause of the Allies. I had the pleasure a few days ago of reading a despatch which appeared in the Toronto Globe in its issue of January 19, under date January 18. I think it was taken from a letter written by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, as a sort of message to the Canadian people, and I want to contrast some of the statements therein made with what is being said by his apostle in Dorchester county. In that despatch Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:

The determination was general that Canada must stand behind Britain, and assist with all the strength at her command. Nor is this all. We have heard it alleged that Canada should have remained outside a conflict in which she was not immediately interested, since her territory was not actually invaded. This is the meanest and most selfish view to take of the question. . . . Yet there is every probability that we are still far from the end, and so long as more has to be done they have not done enough. Only the all-possible will suffice.

I want to give the- right hon. gentleman credit for sincerity when he wrote those words. But what have we to say about Mr. Lucien Cannon, who is endorsed by the right hon. leader of the Opposition? On the very same day this despatch appeared in the Globe, under date January 18, the right hon. gentleman wrote his apostle as follows:

My dear Lucien:-

How sweetly euphonious "dear Lucien" sounds. No wonder Lucien lost his head. It does not fall to many of us to receive such an endearing epistle from one occupying so high a position in the country as that of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition.

My dear Lucien:

You have done a good act in renouncing your provincial mandate to revindicate and affirm in Dorchester the lights of outraged conscience. 1 trust the

electors will respond to your noble appeal. X wish you all success.

Your devoted friend, ,

Mr. GAUVREAU:

He never said it.

Mr. BOYS:

He did say it.

Mr. GAUVREAU:

You have no proof of it at all.

Mr. BOYS:

Yes, I have.

Mr. GAUVREAU:

You cannot give any.