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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) who had to leave the House, I beg to read a telegram which he has just received from Sherbrooke. It is as follows:

Sherbrooke, P.Q., May 3.

F. N. McCrea, M.P.,

House of Commons. Ottawa.

The provision merchants of the City of Sherbrooke, at a public meeting held on the third day of May, 1917, unanimously adopted1 the following resolution: "Whereas, according to the

Gazette, in reply to a question, the Hon. Mr. Burrell has informed the House that there is at this date a million bushels of potatoes in Canada, generally held by the farmers^ of Alberta, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Whereas, by messages and letters addressed to dealers of potatoes in the Maritime Provinces, the reply is that there is no stock to offer, and in most cases there is no reply at all; furthermore, that the ruling price in Montreal being prohibitive, there are no potatoes obtainable in our section; we therefore respectfully ask our deputy, Mr. F. N. McCrea, to inquire again from the hon. minister if he maintains his figures as being correct at this moment, and, if so, to give sufficient information so that a part of that surplus may be imported to this section without further delay.

This is signed by Mr. N. Lacroix and about twenty others, grocers, I presume, of Sherbrooke. I am requested to ascertain from the Minister of Agriculture if there is any information which he can give m connection with this matter.

Hon. MARTIN BURRELL (Minister of Agriculture):

Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I have very much to add to the statement I made the other afternoon, namely that on the date mentioned, the end of February, we did ascertain not only from the various ministers of agriculture but also from such trade sources and official sources as were available, the situation throughout Canada. As I mentioned the other day, the surpluses in the Maritime Provinces were as follows: In New Brunswick, 750,000 bushels was the lowest estimate and 1,250,000 the highest; in Prince Edward Island, the lowest estimate was

500,000 bushels; and in Alberta the lowest estimate of surplus was 800,000 bushels. So we estimated that there was about one and one-half million bushels of surplus, and up to the middle of April, watching the exports, there would be left probably about one million bushels surplus. We made use of every possible source of information.

In regard to the telegram which my hon. friend has read, I may repeat the action that we took: we communicated all these facts to the ministers of agriculture for the respective provinces. We also- suggested that as in some of their districts there appeared to be a surplus and in others a shortage, if the provincial minister of agriculture thought there was a shortage in the

whole province it would be desirable, having placed all this information at his disposal, for him and for other ministers, as far as possible, to look after the shortages and requirements in their own provinces. That, it seems to me, was the proper action to take, and short of taking very drastic action, indeed, that is of embargoing or fixing a price, which would carry a great many complications with it and would raise a great many protests, I do not know that we could go any further. I will look into the matter again and corroborate the statement to date, and shall again find out what the exports have been; and if I can give further information to the House within the next day or so, I shall be glad to give it.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the House certain information which I think will be of interest in view of the discussion yesterday with reference to the recent sensational rise in the price of wheat on the Winnipeg Exchange. In confirmation of the statement which I made yesterday in my speech upon the subject, I have learned this morning, from what I regard as dependable financial and commercial sources, that the corner which has occurred on the Winnipeg wheat market has been brought about by the unusually large buying of the British Wheat Commission. That commission has been purchasing contract grades of wheat, and I understand that elevators and other vendors in the ordinary and, I believe, legitimate course of business, have been selling for May delivery, and that many of them have found themselves unable to fill their contracts with the contract grades of wheat. The result has been that the price of wheat has been driven up by the endeavours of those vendors to obtain wheat of contract grades for May delivery. It has been suggested that the British Wheat Commission should accept from these vendors, to the extent that they are unable to deliver contract grades of wheat, wheat of a lower grade to an equivalent amount, having regard to its proportionate value for milling purposes. The information which I desire to give to the House is that, understanding that that was the situation, I yesterday morning cabled Sir George Perley to take up the question with the British Wheat Commission, and I have

to-day cabled him further in the matter; and if, as a result of those cables, relief is not afforded to the situation, the Government will have to consider such further action as we may deem expedient in the public interest.

Mr. MACDONALD:

Is there any restriction against the mixing of wheat for the making of flour in Canada?

Sir THOMAS WHITE:

Not that I am aware of.

Mr. MARCLL:

Has there been any large increase in the sale of wheat in the United States since the Order in Council concerning free wheat was passed?

Sir THOMAS WHITE:

I have not looked up the statistics.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

Has it occurred to my hon. friend that so long as it is known that the British Wheat Commission is buying there may always be expected to be a corner to hold them up, and that occasion may be taken to advise against that?

Sir THOMAS WHITE:

In answer to my right hon. friend, I may say that it has long been known that the British Commission are the principal buyers for export.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of attention to the speech delivered last night by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Boulay). As the hon. gentleman took advantage of the ease and facility with which he can change from one language to another, his speech was of a somewhat broken character, and while I could follow him fairly well when he spoke in English, I am sorry to say that he can very effectively draw a cloud between myself and his speech when he plunges into French. I have learned, however, from that speech, to know that he loves the Government in spots. A few evenings ago he took the Minister of Railways and Canals by the back of the neck, threw him out of the window and tore to tatters everything pertaining to his department. But last night 69

I noticed that the Minister of Finance was the chiefest among ten thousand, and altogether lovely. It was further observable from his speech that while he is no doubt a very patriotic son of the province of Quebec, his Toryism is nevertheless stronger than his patriotism. He was quite willing to treat very; tenderly, indeed, what was regarded as a strong affront offered to his province by the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best), whom he let down very easily, with the touch of a velvet glove, saying, like one. of old: Lord, forgive him, for he knew not what he did. With these observations it is not my purpose to follow any further the speech of the hon. member for Rimou-ski. I do congratulate him, however, upon his excellent command of the English language. We shall no longer pardon him when he insists upon putting him, self forward as a man who does not understand English, because he disclosed to us yesterday the fact that he is well equipped m that respect, and that the needs of his constituency can well be set forth by him m the House through the medium of that very excellent vehicle of thought.

There are two occasions in particular upon which the representatives of the people in any House of Commons under the British flag have a wide sway in dealing with matters of a general character. One of these is m the debate on the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne, and the other ^ when the King comes before the Commons and asks for money to run the business of the country, as that is what the Budget is for. On these occasions it is particularly fitting that the voice of the people as represented in this House, should be presented to the Government, and particularly to the minister in charge of the country's finances.

Last night the hon. member for Rimouski rather chastised gentlemen on this side, because, forsdoth, we sometimes criticise the Government. In all British countries in which government of the people and for the people prevails and in which a system of government by majority is carried out, it is the function of the Opposition to criticise and to give their judgment squarely and honestly upon any question that comes up in the House. If the Opposition did not squarely and honestly voice its opinions, party government would necessarily become a failure. I submit, Sir, that it is our duty to follow that course, and, availing myself of that constitutional right, I purpose, in my own humble way, presenting some criticisms of this Government.

As has already been brought to the notice ol the House, the regime of the present Administration can.be divided into two parts. One of these dates from the inception of the Government in October, 1911, and continues to August 4, 1914. The other runs a somewhat double course, between the war obligations and duties of the Government, and such time as the Government have been able to devote to ordinary business. I submit that this Government have not lived up to the high standard set for them by the outgoing Government of my right hon. friend who now leads the Opposition, either in the matter of progressive measures in the interest of the people or in the matter of handling the finances which were left in their charge. They have fallen into errors which could have been avoided, and these errors, which have been going on from day to day, are going on now. The Government have not handled the war well and the finances of the country have not been husbanded in the best interests of that great undertaking upon which our country so loyally and patriotically launched. It was a grave mistake on the part of the Government, on the part of the ex-Minister of Militia and of the present Minister of Militia, to handle the money used in connection with the war on strictly party lines. The cause of the Government being everybody's cause, and the energy of everybody in the land being devoted to one great purpose, any moneys to be expended should be expended equally among all the people, and party lines should have entirely vanished. Such was not the case at any time since the war began, and such is not the case to-day. I arraign the Government before the bar of public opinion in that they have fallen short of the broad and big duty that devolved upon them in that connection. I point them to the Mother Country, from which we are proud to take our pattern in many matters, and direct the attention of hon. gentlemen to the fact that in that country party differences, party patronage and party advantage have been entirely dispelled; the great statesmen have joined hands in doing what was considered to be in the best interests of their great united effort. Here we do no such thing, and we have in Canada by reason of that fact great drawbacks, great heart-burnings and much dissatisfaction.

I purpose submitting to this House evidence which goes , to show that there did not exist amongst the Government them- -

selves that harmony and that unity of effort that should exist under such conditions as we have been up against since the declaration of war on the 4th day of August, 1914, and I purpose giving a few pieces of testimony from one who at least was in a position to know what was going on in the sanctum sanctoium of the Government. Whether that person whom I am going to .quote-is giving the facts or not it is for the Government to judge; but we on the outside have a right to suppose that when a man has been elevated to the high position of an adviser to His Majesty, a Minister of the Crown, then, and while he is dealing with matters appertaining to his high office and after he leaves that office, he is gentleman enough to tell the truth and that he would scorn to lie about anything that pertains, to the discharge of his duties or to what (belongs to his expression of them after he leaves office. The speech which, was. made on the 26th day of April last at Lindsay in this province by the exMinister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) discloses a condition of things which, at least to me, appears to be deplorable, and which goes to. show that the united effort of this country could not possibly be put forward undeT the machinery afforded to us by the Government of the day. I am not vouching for the truth of the report of that speech; it is reported in the Toronto Globe of the 30th. of April, and that report is available to the whole world, and I have not had brought to my attention any contradiction of the speech, made by the ex-minister on that occasion or of the charges that were laid at the door of the present Administration. I have read over that speech with care and have picked out of it the various charges that were made against the Government, and I purpose submitting them to the House in their order. They are grave, and serious; and if they are not truthful, the ex-Minister of Militia should be called to account for publishing them to this country and giving them the authority of his prestige as a Knight, as a member of this House and as ex-Minister of Militia and Defence. I have tabulated those charges running in order from (a) to (m). They are:

(a) That more than a year ago the Government interfered to stop recruiting, particularly the Prime Minister.

(b) That there was Governmental interference in the sending of the First Contingent, the interference being by the now overseas Minister of Militia, Sir George

Perley, and Sir Thomas White, Minister of Finance.

(c) That there was useless arid wasteful expenditure of .publio moneys, because the advice of the then Minister of Militia was overruled by the Government.

, (d) That the High Commissioner and the Minister of Finance have tried to create trouble for the Minister of Militia in England, and as he puts it himself, to create 'an unwholesome atmosphere for him in that country, and that this was going on from the very commencement of the war.

(e) That those gentlemen bribed or attempted to bribe and purchase the influence of the Canadian press, both in Canada and Great Britain, for the purpose of thwarting and defeating the plans of the Minister of Militia.

(f) That newspapers, friendly to Sir Thomas White, Minister of Finance, made vicious attacks on the Minister of Militia of that day.

fe) That an envenomed poisonous conspiracy was entered into by the members of the Government to assassinate the Prime Minister that is, of course, politically- and as a preliminary to slay the Minister of Miliita.

Sir THOMAS WTHITE:

I presume you

*still mean politically.

Mr. McKENZIE:

Further:

(h) That the Prime Minister was informed that his colleagues and subordinates in the Cabinet were conspiring and thirsting for his political life.

(i) That the branch of the Finance Department which had to do with the paying of troops and other expenses in England had been rotten, that is plain Anglo-Saxon.

(j) That the medical service and organization in. connection .therewith was no better.

(k) That attempts were made by enemies of the minister in the Cabinet to "sweeten the press "-" Sweeten the press " are the exact words of the minister-and to influence bankers and brokers of Canada, all of which was done at the cost of the poor people of this country-meaning, of course, that the moneys of the Finance Department were used for bribery and corruption in order to render abortive the efforts of the Minister of Militia to place an efficient and effective Canadian army in the field. ~

, (1) That the then Minister of Militia adyised in 1914 that there should be a general election and was over-ruled. And this 691

last charge is possibly the most serious of all.

(m) That the Ross Rifle was discarded by the Government and its agencies, not because there was anything wrong with the rifle but because of the malign influences of " German gold,"-thus insinuating that his colleagues and others in authority accepted bribes from the enemy.

Mr. BURNHAM:

Would not that mean that the objectors to the Ross rifle had been influenced by German gold? They would be the Opposition.