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

Mr. Speaker, although somewhat familiar with the House of Commons for the last almost twenty years, still, coming to this new Chamber, I must confess to you, Sir, that I do not feel just quite as much at home as I used to feel, and I must crave the indulgence of hon. members on both sides of the House and yourself, Mr. Speaker, while attempting to discharge the duty which now devolves upon me to continue the debate upon the motion before the Chair.

Let me at once, Sir, revert to the time honoured custom of congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address, and to assure you in doing so I am not indulging perfunctorily in any old-fashioned custom that one regards merely as a matter of duty. We are proud, Mr. Speaker, of our Parliamentary institutions, traditions, and customs, and we are always zealous that the duty of moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the Throne shall be discharged in a manner becoming the House of Commons of Canada. It is therefore a great pleasure to be able to congratulate the leader of the Government upon the manner in which the hon. gentlemen selected by him have discharged their duty.

From the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn) we expected the kind of address that he has given us, for we have heard him before, and know him to be of a literary turn of mind, and it is sufficient for me to say that he has done justice to his former reputation in this House.

My good friend who represents the grand old county of Pictou (Mr. McGregor) has not in the past troubled us very much with speeches, and being a very patriotic and zealous Nova Scotian, although differing from him in politics, I was very anxious indeed that he should do justice not only to the good old province of Nova Scotia but to the grand old county of Pictou. I am glad to be able to say to my friends in Nova Scotia that the traditions of our province have been well lived up to in the speech of my hon. friend.

My good friend from London (Mr. Ci-onyn) was during the study of his speech and in the delivery of it reminded of that good old phrase of Scotch thought, that it

required " A stoot heart to, stay brae. ' No doubt he realized that it required a particularly " stoot hairt " to face the " stey brae " of saying anything laudatory about the present Administration. But I must do him the justice of saying that he faced the brae very well;-whether or not he made the grade is another matter.

I shall not, Mr. Speaker, confine my congratulations entirely to these hon. gentlemen. I must congratulate the House, and particularly the Opposition, upon the very able and comprehensive speech of the leader of the Opposition '(Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King). Under our institutions the Opposition is recognized as a part of the machinery of Government, to the extent of its leader being paid, and properly so, out of the funds of the country. The whole House, therefore, must be pleased to know that we have in the person of the hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition one who is well qualified to discharge the duties pertaining to that offce and in the doing of it to follow along proper constitutional lines. I congratulate the hon. Leader of the Opposition, therefore, upon his very excellent speech of yesterday. It opens up a new vista for the Liberal party; it gives them confidence in their leader, in his capacity and in his ability to blaze the way to greater things for Canada than Canada has ever known.

It would be carrying coals to Newcastle if I were to congratulate the old veteran- old, I mean, in parliamentary practice- who so ably and so well leads the remnant of the Government in this House (Sir George Foster). I wish, Sir, that the reply to the able speech of that hon. gentleman had fallen into abler hands than mine.

I listened to the right hon. gentleman's speech with a great deal of interest. I have tried to analyze it and to pick out of it whatever meat might be found in it. After sleeping over it last night and thinking over it a little this morning I find that if you strip the speech of its clever " Fos-terisms " there is not enough left for a decent burial. I shall refer later to the observations of my right hon. friend. It would be folly for a youngster in politics like myself to say that the way in which the leader of the Government delivers his addresses in this House is not able, is not masterful. I shall not attempt to do so; I shall simply make this passing observation : The leader of the Government began wrong some eighteen years ago; he has kept wrong, and I fear that he will end wrong.

We cannot forget our surroundings, Mr. Speaker, on this occasion. We cannot forget the grandeur of the magnificent building in which we find ourselves. The builders of this splendid temple have provided not only for the present, but also for the futux-e greatness of this country. No matter how great Canada may become; no matter how splendid its proportions or its material development or how large its population, for all time to come we and our children after us will have in this building, if God spares it to us, a temple worthy of the great country of which we are so proud.

This is a fair and proper time for some stock-taking so far as our country is concerned. Let us observe, Sir, what has been done; let us observe what it is possible for us to do in the future. Let us hope that this country will live up to the great expectations which the fathers of Confederation had in their minds when they started out to lay broad and deep the foundations of this country. We have in Canada magnificent lands, great areas of country extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We have mineral wealth, forest wealth, agricultural wealth, and we have a great people. Let us hope that we shall continue to utilize and husband our lands and resources, our facilities for transportation, and all that goes to make for the building of a great nation. Let us hope that our statesmen and our people will set themselves to the task of building up a great country, of building up a citizenship worthy of the Mother Country and its institutions-institutions which have made for this country a home of safety, happiness, and prosperity for its citizens. The fathers of Confederation laid the foundations of our transportation system, of the settlement of our vast stretches of country and of the building up of a nation within the bounds of Canada. Let us hope that no divisions of any kind will tend in the slightest way to mar the growth of our country, it unity, its prosperity, its greatness, or to make them less than what the fathers of Confederation had in mind in the days when there was consummated that union of which we are so proud and which we hope will ever be kept intact. Some differences of opinion may prevail among the different parts of Canada; some policies may be regarded as not of application to the whole country. But if we hope to be a nation, Sir; if we hope to grow up as a country; if we hope to be united from the Atlantic to the Pacific, we should so devise our plans and policies of Government as to bring about a reason-

able degree of success and prosperity throughout the whole of our Dominion.

I should like now to devote some time to the speech that was made by the leader of the Government yesterday and to the remarks of the member for London (Mr. Cronyn). I have no criticism to make of the speech of my hon. friend from London. He said that the old methods of Government were breaking down; that those old methods had fallen short of meeting the necessities of the country and that something new had to be brought in.

My hon. friend has not told us what that new thing is going to be, and if he finds the machinery of Government and of the party to which he belongs breaking down, I would invite him to pay attention to the manner in which his Government and party are breaking down and to give up talking about principles in the operations of the old parties.

I am not admitting for one moment that the principles of Liberalism have fallen down or that anything in connection with the Liberal party in this country has fallen down. On the contrary, it is strong and vigorous and willing to carry forward the responsibilities of party in connection with the affairs of this country as it has done of yore. If my hon. friend finds that that party to which he belongs is falling down upon the job; that it is not equal to carrying on the government of this country; that there is not that cohesion or unity amongst the members of that party that is necessary in order to enable it to carry on a common policy and purpose, let him admit the corn and say that they must look around for something new in order to carry on the affairs of government along the lines of party. But I will not admit that there is any occasion to say that, so Jar as we on this side of the House are concerned, there are any signs of decay, of falling short, or of inability to carry on the business of the country in a party way and along party lines.

There was a time in this country-and l suppose the time is not yet gone-when the Tory party stood for something in Canada. iSueh men as Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Charles Tupper, and Sir John Thompson, stood for something in this country. They were great men in their day and generation, and there are in Canada to-day men who are proud of their history and of their doings. Is the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn), with one stroke of the pen, going to wipe off the map the existence and history of such men

as leaders of a party and to build up something of some fanciful character, the character of which nobody knows, which has no beginnings of days or end of time so far as we can tell what he has in his mind? That is about all I have to say as regards the speech of my hon. friend, so well delivered, so worthy of him, so worthy of the institutions of this country, and so worthy of the excellent manner in which he discharged his duty.

Let me say a few words about the speech which was delivered in this House so ably and well by the acting leader of the Government yesterday evening. It has been said by the leader of the Opposition that we have not in this country to-day that strength of government that we should have in order to deal with the various important questions that loom up in Canada and with which we have to deal. My right hon. friend answered in his usual easy fashion, pointing out that the Government were all right; that they were perfectly sound, and that no man should pay any attention to rumours in his country; that he and the chosen few who are treading the narrow way with him alone knew what was going on in this country, and the the people of Canada would have to wait until the good time came when he thought proper to tell them something about the Government. He tells the leader of the Opposition that the door of the sick chamber (because I would call it the sick chamber) is well barred; that nobody can get in; and he told us that the bulletins that the newspapers were putting out were unreliable and not the truth, and that we knew nothing about the real condition of the sick person in the sick chamber. Doctors are very zealous about the atmosphere in a sick chamber, and very often they turn people out of a sick chamber. Apparently, whoever is in sick chamber now must be showing some of the symptoms which a person shows when the doctor turns the visitors out, because one after another of those who occupied that chamber are being turned out and we see them wandering at large, and we must come to the conclusion that they are turned out because the nervous condition of the patient will not tolerate any longer their presence in the sick room.

It is well known to doctors and to us all that when a person is sick he becomes nervous, and some things that used to be quite tolerable to him would not be permitted at all within reach of his touch or vision. When conditions grew unhealthy in the sick chamber, there were some

people sitting around whom the patient did not like, and when you see such men as Mr. Calder, Mr. Sifton-

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order.

Mr. McKENZIE:

-Mr. Crerar and other men sitting around, the sick man would say: "What do these Hebrews here anyhow; what brings them into this place?" And' the situation is that they are turned out. You will pardon me, Mr. Speaker, mentioning these hon. gentlemen by name, because I have no reference to them as members; I was referring to them in an imaginative way as men being turned out of a sick room, and I ask your pardon if I have transgressed the rules of the House. That is the condition in which we find the Government; but the leader of the Government is becoming so easily satisfied now that he says: They are perfectly all right, and they could always get along in that way; it was only following an old custom that there should be a full Cabinet and that every department should be manned. The right hon. gentleman has discovered that they can get along without them and that it is a saving of money and time and many other things that we should get along in this country without the whole Government. He pointed out yesterday that it does not matter so much about the body if we have plenty of heads. Would it not be well to ask some of the friends of the Government what they think of the present Administration? It would not do for myself to give any opinion of my own, because I am honest enough to say to you, Sir, that my opinion might be, to some extent, prejudiced. But the Administration has a few friends in the country; they have people who always thought well of them and we want to know what they say about the present Government of Canada. The leader of the Government would be quite willing to put the editor of the Montreal Gazette on the stand and ask him questions about the administration of affairs and the kind Government that we have in this country. He would say that it is quite fair to call as a witness the editor of that paper, because it is an old responsible newspaper in Canada; it is a paper that is familiar with the affairs of this country, and that has always been more than fair to the Tory party. He would admit that it is quite proper to call that editor and ask him a few questions in respect of this Government.

Let us put the Gazette on the witness stand, but before doing so, I want to read to this

witness something that appeared in the editorial columns of his paper not long ago. The Gazette said that the Union Party was not united, that it had outlived its usefulness, and that having accomplished its purpose it was reverting electorally into its original elements. Here are the exact words:

The art of government is most difficult under the best auspices, but a leaderless ministry, destitute of policy, must be the despair of its friends. The public memory is short and public gratitude an unknown quantity. The electorate requires a guide, a policy, an association with those who invite its confidence; and the Government offers neither guidance, nor principles, nor familiarity with the people. The situation is not suddenly precipitated. It began with the conclusion of the war, since when futile efforts at permanent coalition have more than once been made, and minister after minister has dropped out until the situation has become difficult for the Government and despondent for' its supporters.

iThat is the statement made by that tried and true friend of the Government. Now let me ask the witness some questions.

What about the leader of the Tory party in the House of iCommons? The reply is " It has no leader; it is leaderless."

What about the policy of the Tory Party? "It has no policy."

What about the opinion in which it is held by its friends? " It is the despair of its friends."

How is it as a guide for public business "nd public policy in this country? " It offers no guidance."

What about the principles of the Government? " It has no principles."

How does it stand with the people? " It has no familiarity with the people at all; the people never knew it."

What about the present general standing of the Government? "'The Government is in a difficult position and its supporters are despondent." *

That concludes the direct examination of this witness, and I would invite my right hon. friend at some future time to put this witness, his friend, under cross-examination and see if he has anything to take back of what he said in such plain words.

I am going to call one more witness, and it is no less a personage than the Hon. Robert Rogers, who at one time adorned the benches of this House and stood high in the counsels of the Tory Party, and stands high to-day, I have no doubt, in the counsels of that party under certain of its colours and flags and phases. Before calling this witness let me read what he said the other day when he was talking about this Government openly and plainly in the

great city of Winnipeg, before a gathering of his Tory friends, no doubt. He is reported as follows:

The Hon. Robert Rogers, a former colleague of Sir Robert Borden, who claims that he was the first to propose Union Government, says that the Union Government is "a Government of tinkers and jobbers, a Government of secondhand dealers, their energies almost entirely devoted to second-hand theories that are the product of the diseased brain of some poor unfortunate uplifter."

Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:

Who is the uplifter?

Mr. MeKENZIE: There are so few up-lifters in the Government that it is not hard to place him. I will leave it to the jury to put their finger on the uplifter. I do not agree, however, with Mr. Rogers that the uplifter has any diseased brain. I think his brain is very active. It is not so much the brain that is at fault, as the channels in which that brain is directed. We might ask Mr. Rogers a few questions: What position, for instance, he held in the Tory Party. He would answer that he was Minister of the Interior, and later, Minister of Public Works, and that he stood high in the counsels of that party.

Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:

Also minister of elections.

Mr. MeKENZIE: If we ask him why he left the party he would refer us to his letter of resignation which we all remember very well, and which appears on Hansard, in which he said that he was leaving because he wanted to get from under the crash that was coming in this country, due to the inaction and lack of ability in the Government of which he was a member. That was the reason he gave for leaving. In the face of that evidence I would ask my right hon. friend who leads the Government if it is not time he took serious thought as to whether this Government is such a substantial structure as he would seem to think it. If it is my privilege and my duty to address this House, it is also my duty and my privilege to warn my right hon. friend that this structure with which he is so satisfied is but a house built upon the sand which, when the storm comes and the rains descend and strike upon it will fall, and great will be the fall thereof. If he chooses to stay in that house after I have warned him, and prefers not to dig around a little and put stones under the corner to prop it up a little, when the crash comes and he loses his political life he will not be able to blame me.

Referring a little further to the speech of my right hon. friend, he was very sore,

4i

very sorrowful, and in great pain apparently, about the lack of sympathy in this country with public men, and particularly with prime ministers. As he was speaking I could not help asking myself, Is this a real Damascene conversion or is it a mere moment of weakness? I remembered, as we all remember, that there were times when he was not so sympathetic with prime ministers as he is now. Be that as it may, it was somewhat peculiar that from speaking of the lack of sympathy with prime ministers he immediately turned to birds and eggs in a nest. I presume, however, he will sometime explain how these thoughts were conceived. Now, there were some remarks in the Rt. hon. gentleman's speech with reference to ministers, and it is only well that his observations should be fai"ly and properly answered. He brought the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) severely to task for suggesting that ministers of the Crown should be in their seats. There may be, and I am sure there are, occasions when the business of the country demands that ministers shall not be in their seats but shall be attending to matters of importance elsewhere. I cannot conceive, however, of any circumstances that can render it impossible for a minister of the crown at some part of the day during the session of parliament to give some time, half an hour or an hour, to the proceedings of the House, particularly in the early stages of the sittings, so that any hon. member who was desirous to ask questions of the minister might have an opportunity to do so, in order that all necessary information might be vouchsafed the public. That is all that the leader of the Opposition meant, and I think it is only fair, if we are to have responsible government at all and if the operations of government departments are to be known to the public through the proper channel, that at some time during the day-not every day perhaps, although that would be highly desirable if it were possible-ministers of the crown should be in their places to answer such questions as might be properly put to them in regard to the administration of the affairs of their departments. Now, in regard to the position of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) possibly my right honourable friend (Sir George Foster) did not quite clearly apprehend the observations of the leader of the Opposition, and I feel that some explanation is necessary concerning his remarks anent the absence of the Prime Minister. I am sure that I myself, as a Nova Scotian,

5?

have always had the greatest possible admiration for the Prime Minister and I sincerely regret his enforced absence from the House. The same regard, I have not the slightest doubt, is held for him by eveiy hon. member on this side of the House; and I think that nothing could be more unjust to the leader of the Opposition than to imply for a moment that he was finding fault with the Prime Minister because of his absence in the exigencies of the occasion. What the leader of the opposition suggested was that the leader of the Government should, if possible, be in the House, he being the man who is responsible to the people and on whose shoulders the people have placed the burden of conducting the Government. Under the present circumstances it seems that this is not possible. But there are various rumours in regard to the Prime Minister's desire to be relieved of his office. 'We have no other means of obtaining information in this country-on our side, at all events-than through the medium of the newspapers and reports which go abroad in the press of the party to which the right honourable gentleman belongs; and when those reports, purporting to come with authority from headquarters, stand uncontradicted, we have the right to believe the statements they contain. From these reports we learn that the Prime Minister was willing and, indeed, anxious to throw off the responsibility of leading the government, by reason of the state of his health, and that pressure was brought to bear upon him to renounce this privilege. He was cruelly prevailed upon by his friends to remain in his position regardless of the effect his enforced stay in office might have upon his health, and this, in order to prolong for a few years the life of a decayed, a decrepit, and a marked-for-death administration. These are the observations which the leader of the Opposition expressed, and I cannot entertain the idea that the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government would purposely put a false construction upon this his words. He may possibly have misunderstood what was said, but I want to make it perfectly clear to him and to the country at large that the Prime Minister has the deepest possible sympathy of his friends on this side, and that whatever time may be necessary for him to spend away from the House in the interests of his health, no matter what inconvenience it may involve, we shall concede him ungrudgingly; for it is our common desire on this side to see the Prime Minister re-

stored to his former vigour. I hope that this will satisfy every one within the sound of my voice that the leader of the Opposition had nothing in mind but the opinion to which I have just given expression.

We trust that we shall hear from the hon. gentlemen who have gone as plenipotentiaries from the Government to meet the Prime Minister in that most holy city of New York, where, it seems, every great thing appertaining to this country of ours must now transpire. Halifax is the capital of Nova Scotia and has for a long time been regarded as a highly loyal city. The Prime Minister was there. Why did not the representatives of the Government choose that city as the place in which to interview the Prime Minister? No. They had to ignore Halifax and bestow on the city of New York the honour which belonged to the capital of Nova Scotia. However, we hope that they have good news to bring us, and that the Prime Minister will come back and some day before long resume his position at the head of the Government.

Now, there are several points in the speech of the leader of the Government to which I might refer, but I do not think that it is necessary that I should deal with them at all. There is one point, however, upon which I must touch. The leader of the Opposition charged the Government and its supporters with not having been elected to the House on a proper franchise, on the ground that the War-time Election Act was not the proper, democratic and free kind of franchise that we should have in this country, it having deprived a great many citizens of the right of passing judgment upon the Government. We are told that if Parliament being allowed to exist for another year through extending its constitutional limit it could do just as it pleased. I join issue sharply with the leader of the Government on that point, and say that when the end of the five years came for which we were elected, those who were in a position to elect members to this House should not, by reason of an extension of the life of Parliament for another year, have been deprived of that right. If one year was added to the life of Parliament for war purposes that did not authorize the Government to change the jury that would pass upon it and impanel a new one. It is as if, during a criminal trial, the jury should be changed when things began to look bad for the accused. On the charge and on the evidence, the jury in the box would have to find him guilty but they turn him out, let him

loose in the town and give him the privilege of finding a jury that will bring in a verdict in his favour. That is what was done in this case. The Government took to themselves the right of cutting off the vote of every man that they thought would be opposed to them, finding a panel that they were perfectly sure would vote for them and bringing in a verdict in their favour. After having found that panel they wrote out a verdict in their own favour and got the foreman of the jury to sign it while, in regard to the distribution of the votes, as was told yesterday, bundles were put here and batches there, designed, placed and arranged all in accordance with the wish of the Government and where it was thought they would do the most good. That was not democratic or fair, nor did it secure a proper expression of the will of the people of this country. That is the position we take and that is a position which has not been answered by the right hon. the leader of the Government who says that although there was a year added, that year was to be made use of in the same way as the rest of the parliamentary term for which members were elected.

The leader of the Government claims great credit for what has been done in. regard to technical education. The right hon. gentleman knows very well that the technical education policy of this country did not have its origin in anything that was done by this Government or by the old Tory Government. He knows that it is the product of the policy of the Liberal party, that we pressed this policy upon them day in and day out and that they made no move until at last they had to do something to meet the demands that were continually being pressed upon them. I must submit that so far they have not done much to carry out the ideas which were formulated by the Liberal party in connection with this matter.

The same thing is true of shipbuilding. Every member of this House knows that during the Liberal administration, under the premiership of the late right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, we had a shipping and naval policy in this country. It is well known that during the first four or five years of this present Administration, and up to the time they started shipbuilding, *we were pressing upon them, day in and day out, the necessity of carrying out such a policy. They left it until the very last days of the war and until the cost of shipbuilding had gone up to a point four times

what it was when they came into power. Ships are costing this country at the present time four times what they would have cost if the policy of the Liberal party had been carried out and if this shipbuilding programme had been carried forward at the time when it would have done the most good and entailed the least possible cost to the country. These are things for which the hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to get glory to-day.

The Union Government is trying to get glory for having encouraged agricultural production. If there is any credit due to anybody for the policy of the present Administration in connection with agriculture, that credit is due to the present Minister of Customs because in 1912 he brought in a vote of .$ 10,000,000 which passed this House and received the support of Liberals and Conservatives. The right hon. gentleman has such hard scratching to find some reason for his existence to-day that he has to go back to 1912 and patch up a claim that this Government has had something to do with an agricultural policy with which the present Administration has had nothing whatever to do.

He says that they have done great things for the returned soldier and that the returned soldier is satisfied. I want to join issue with my right hon. friend there and to put in the witness box the returned soldier himself. If my right hon. friend reads the literature that is published in this country from day to day and month to month of the leaders of the great body of returned soldiers, he will see what they think of the Administration. The leader of the Government has been deluged with requisitions, petitions and demands asking him to dismiss the minister who had charge of this work. That is the way in which the returned soldiers are satisfied with the conduct of the Government. The Government, if they are doing good things, are most unfortunate in the way in which their acts and favours are received by those upon whom they are professing to bestow them. They have not one friend among the returned soldiers and if to-morrow 4 p.m. they sought their opinion by means of a plebiscite, they would be wiped out of existence, horse, foot and artillery. That is where they stand with the returned soldier.

Then, they claim that they are entitled to credit for the great things that they have done for the Civil Service. There has never been such a muddle in this country, or in the whole world, as there is in con-

nection with the Civil Service to-day. Let toy right hon. friend ask those who sit around him from Ontario and from Nova Scotia, but particularly from the great province of Ontario. We have heard members from Ontario expressing themselves here as to what they thought of the Civil Service and its administration. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), the editor of the newspaper called the Sentinel, has expressed himself in this House time and again and he has said that the legislation in regard to the Civil Service is the most stupid that was ever put upon the statute books of this country. That is the opinion which prevailed to a very material extent among hon. gentlemen supporting this Government in so far as they have support from anybody except by force of circumstances. These are matters, Mr. Speaker, for which this Government claim great praise and credit and I think 1 have stated clearly that they are not such as to satisfy the requirements of any well balanced or sound thinking administration or that there is anything in the reasons put forward by the right hon. the leader of the Government which would justify him in thinking that all is well with the Administration that he for the present leads.

I wish to say a few words about the general policy of the Government as well as the general policy, on trade and other matters, of the Liberal party. We are questioned as to what our policy is. We are told that we disagree amongst ourselves. All we have to do is to recall the history of that great party from 1896 down to 1911 when it had charge of the affairs of this country in every phase, every line, of Government and to ask the people of Canada to put the confidence in the Liberal party that they reposed in it in those days. As we made a success of the Government during those days and built up the country in a way in which it had not been built up before, we ask the people to place the same confidence in the same men, with the same policy, the same principles and the same desire to honestly and well serve their country.

That is what we say about our policies to the people of this country. When we met in convention in this city last August we confirmed those policies, and they are today the policies of the Liberal Party from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We have not one policy for the Maritime provinces, another policy for Quebec and Ontario, and still another policy for the West. Our policies -are intended for one united people,

*and we refer t-o our -past record a-s an *earnest of how we propose to carry out those policies in the future.

The right hon, gentleman who leads the Government tells us that what we read in *the newspapers is idle gossip which we cannot believe. I do not go that far with him, because the newspapers containing those reports stand very faithfully behind him *and his Government and give the very best possible account of whatever redounds to his -credit, and therefore he has no reason to give ia black eye to the press by calling their reports idle twaddle or gossip which nobody can believe.

The newspapers tell us that the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Meighen), recently .made -a speech in Quebec in which he said the -country would have to be protected to the hilt; then he moved towards the West, and at Winnipeg found be had to change his tune, -as we in coming from the Maritime provinces to Montreal have to change our watches to have the correct time. When the hon. gentleman reached Winnipeg he found he had to put a new record in his gramophone, -and the burden of his address was no longer protection to the hilt, but only moderate protection. I suppose had he continued further West by the time he got to Saskatchewan -and Alberta there would have been no trace of protection at all in his speeches. I would warn my hon. friend to be careful lest some day he puts on a Quebec record at Calgary or Edmonton and finds himself in a bad mess indeed, because the Quebec record which he played to the shoe manufacturers will noit do for the Free Traders of the West, So far as the Liberal party is concerned, we have no occasion to change our tune, for the simple reason- that from the West to the East we have only one sound policy to commend to -the attention of -the people, and we believe that when they -see fit to -restore us to power that policy will bring back to this country the same prosperity that it enjoyed during the fifteen years the Liberal -party wa-s in control, and w-ill revive in the people that faith in- the Government which was once so -strongly entertained by them.

It is true, Sir, (that we have not the great leader of the past years. Men die, but principles never, -and we hop-e on this side o-f the House -that, as we have been faithful in the past to the leadership of the great man who has left us -and to the principles which he espoused, there is enough Liberalism in the -country to give effective support -to t-ho-se -same principles

and to compel the same success which we had while proudly marching forward under the leadership of the great man who has left us. We have to-day as our leader a man chosen in ia democratic way by >t)he whole country, a man who- is in touch with the people, and who is willing and capable to carry forward those policies that will meet lyith the approval of our great democracy.

Before closing, Sir, Where is one matter I wish to point out to the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government. He found great amusement yesterday that any one could suggest for a moment that anything about tariffs should he mentioned in a speech from the Throne. A great many of our people, much to their sorrow, will remember that- in the years gone by the right hon. gentleman himself bad something to do with the finances of this 'country, 'he having been Minister of Finance in the year 1894. In the speech from the Throne at the opening of Parliament in that year, prepared under the eye of the right hon. gentleman Who now leads the Government and who ia.t that time was an important member of the Government, we find the following passage:

At an early date a measure will be laid before you having for its object the revision of the duties of customs,-[DOT]

It is a most extraordinary thing that the leader of the Government found such a fund of merriment yesterday in the suggestion that anything iabout customs should be mentioned in the speech from the Throne.

-with a view to meet the changes which time has effected in the business operations throughout the Dominion. While my ministers do not propose to change the principles on which the enactments on this subject are based, the amendments which will be offered for your consideration are designed to simplify the operation of the Tariff and to lessen as fa.r as can be done, consistently with those principles and with the requirements of the Treasury, the imposts which are now in force.

That, Sir, was prepared and put in the speech from the Throne in that year by the right hon. gentleman who made such fun yesterday of the suggestion tbait the people who aTe groaning under the present heavy taxation and the high cast of living, and who are looking earnestly and anxiously for some relief from the Government and Parliament, could expect any expression of opinion of that kind in the speech from the Throne. We had a right to expect it, we bad a right to believe that an effort would be made to better the condition of the people and to make Canada a country easy to live in and attractive to the proper kind of immigration from all parts of the

world. Do not let ug forget, Mr. Speaker, that while we have a population of only some 8,500,000, we have a country extensive enough to support over 100,000,000 or the same population as that of the United States. Therefore it is the duty of whatever Government is in power to make conditions such as to invite the right class of people to come here.

Talking about trade questions, I am willing, Sir, that we should have the freest possible intercourse with every country in the world.

Let me say this to the Government and to the country

and I am not particular in what way it will be understood; in fact, it can only be understood in one way-that while I am anxious for the widest possible trade with foreign countries, I would not trade to the extent of one five-ceDt piece with any country which will not recognize my Canadian dollar to the full face value of that dollar. If this country is loyal to itself, loyal to its principles, loyal to its institutions, it will stand by Canadianism in the matter of having any trade with any country that will not recognize the Canadian dollar at its full face value as international currency. I am not in favour of any restriction of trade, but I am in favour of Canada's trading where there is fair trade where she is properly treated. If there is any reason why any country is willing to sell goods to us and yet will not recognize the face value of the dollars with which we pay for them, that reason should be clearly stated. Although this condition of things has existed for some time and has caused the loss of millions to the people of Canada, not a word has come from the Government with regard to the making of any effort to bring about better conditions or to relieve the people of Canada of this great drain upon their resources. I am not saying whether or not the Government could do anything, but surely they could make an effort; surely they could satisfy the people, if it is possible to satisfy them in that regard, of what should or could be done concerning the adverse exchange conditions which have prevailed during the last few months.

I again thank you, Sir, and the members of the House for the patient attention with which my remarks have been received. I hope I have made it clear to everybody in Canada that the Liberal party has only one standard, only one principle as applied to all of Canada. That principle, which admits of no place for sectionalism or anything of that kind, is Canada first, Canada last and Canada always.

Mr. HERBERT M. MOW AT (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker, in interjecting a few remarks at this stage into an interesting and vivacious debate. I take the place of other hon. gentlemen who were to have spoken at this time, and my remarks will have the virtue of brevity.

As the extending of congratulation to the mover (Mr. Cronyn) and -the seconder (Mr. McGregor) of the Address (has not become trite at this early stage in the debate, it is not out of the way for me to say that we have in the mover of -the Address (Mr. Hume Cronyn) an example to most of us in this House. The hon. member for London is a reader of books and a thinker along the lines of that which he reads, and although he has not troubled the House-or, (rather favoured the House-with many remarks during past years, he is able, when called upon, to bring the mind of a cultured student to bear upon the subjects dealt with, and to deliver a speech which is an occasion of pleasure to all who hear it and which will go down in the records of the House as one of the best that at all events the younger members have heard.

In the member for Pictou (Mr. McGregor) we have another kind of speaker, namely, the business man who deals in a concise way with the questions that he is so well capable of dealing with and with which he is perfectly familiar. The hon. member for Pictou, when he tackles a business question, is like the description of his celebrated forbear spoken of by Sir Walter Scott, Rob Roy, when he said: "My foot is on my native heath; my name, McGregor."

It gave pleasure on this side of the House to see the unmistakable warmth of the reception accorded to the Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King) by his own friends. He contributed a speech which was able from a debating standpoint; perhaps in only one respect did he transgress the amenities of debate. The fact that he was warmly applauded by his supporters is readily accounted for, because this is the first time that he has taken his position in the House as Leader of the Opposition. It is natural that when he took his first flight his supporters should be there heartily to applaud him.

But I must say that in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition there are some things to which I cannot give support. During -the last few years we have learned a great deal in this country about the principles of "safety first." These words have been placed before the people on bill boards and in any place where there is a possi-

i

bility of danger, with the result that the people have become more cautious and accidents have become less frequent. If ever a safe motion was introduced to this House, a motion which was absolutely innocuous to my hon. friend and his supporters, it is the amendment which he has offered to the motion for an Address in reply to the speech from the Throne. Of course, every one who is beaten wants to have a new election. That is a well recognized principle of human nature; the man who loses the race always wants to have it run over again. In a certain game on which I am not at all an authority I have been told that the man who has been losing all the evening is the man who wants still another round of jackpots when everybody else wants to go home. My hon. friend and his supporters know very well that there is no possible chance of such an amendment carrying.

But I want to go further with my hon. friend. I want to point out to him that he is not prepared for an election. If he will go to the province from which he comes and will consult the party leaders there, he will be told straight that he is not prepared for an election. When my hon. friend says that he wants an election, does he mean that he is prepared for an election in the constituency of North York, where he has been invited to become a candidate instead of in his temporary sanctuary in Prince Edward Island? If that is what he means, then I tell him that if he expects to be elected there he never was more mistaken in his life.

My hon. friend has not been here regularly. Where has he been during the war? For he seems not to have learned the great lesson of the war that no campaign, no sortie, can be successfully carried out unless ample preparation is made. The most successful leaders in the war were those who knew their details; those who had for weeks and months made their preparations so thorough that nothing was left undone to ensure success. That is the great lesson of the war. That being so, I ask my hon. friend to inquire into what took place not very long before he came into this House. Has he heard at all of an election in a celebrated constituency in Saskatchewan, known as Assiniboia? If he has, he will know the danger of being unprepared. His friends sent to that constituency two of his present supporters who have attained a respectable position in their party.

But of these two one was the father, if I may so state the position of a motion in re-

gard to absolute free trade, a motion which, from what I can hear, from his previous remarks and from his proclivities in his province, I imagine, was not concurred in by the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) who has preceded me in this debate, not concurred in by the hon. member from Sherbrooke (Mr. MeCrea), and' not concurred in by some others whom I see sitting opposite to me and who are smiling as I now speak. But he was the person sent to Assiniboia to support the Liberal candidate there against the farmers' candidate. He was so unprepared and these gentlemen who went out as his emissaries were also so unprepared that they were like the "Babes in the Wood;" they were apparently absolutely without any protection and comfort, and the result was the election of a man against the candidate of my hon. friends opposite to the tune of a majority of about four thousand.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Great victory for the

Government.

Mr. MOWAT:

If that is the sort of an

election which my hon. friend is in such a hurry to bring on, the sooner he brings it on the better. I shall not support the amendment because, much as I regret to say it, I do not believe in its sincerity. But I should like to support any motion which would bring on an election now, because at the present time my fortunes are linked up on this side of the House, and if there were an election now I have not the slightest doubt that there would be a repetition of the result of the election of 1917. I see humour and risibility depicted in the faces of my hon. friends from Quebec. I am not at all sure that the result in Quebec would be the same as before.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Will the Government

have candidates in the three bye-elections which are about to take place?

Mr. MOWAT:

The hon. member for

North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) deems it proper at times to throw the charge, if it be a charge, or sneer, if it be a sneer, across the floor of this House at members on this side as being the Tory party. It may please him to do so, but I can assure the House and the country that such is at present not the ease. So when my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) from Quebec East, who seems to have arisen to a high place, although I do not know what it is, in the councils of his party,asks me questions about what the Government are going to do, I may say that I

am not in the confidence of the Government, but no doubt they will answer for themselves.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

You will see what will happen.

Mr. MOWAT:

My point is that the position of my hon. friend who moved this amendment is such that we on this side cannot believe that he really wants that we should support it and bring on an election two years after the last one.

My hon. friend made some remarks which were not at all generous toward the member of the Government (Mr. Blondin) who comes from the province of Quebec. I am surprised at that, because if there is one thing more than another to which we should now direct our attention, our hearts and our heads, it is to bring about a better understanding and rapprochement between the English and the French-speaking peoples. I have no hesitation in saying that because I have always believed it. But I was amazed, and I think we on this side were all very much surprised, to find the ungenerous allusions to the defeat of the Postmaster General in the last election treated with more applause than any other remarks made by the leader of my hon. friends opposite.

Mr. GAUVREAU:

We know him all

right.

Mr. MOWAT:

I ask what my hon.

friends mean by that. Do they mean that because they know that Mr. Blondin was defeated by those majorities, the allusion to which defeat .caused so much cheering, of 6,000 in Chambly and Vercheres and 1,200 in Laurier Outremont-

You have the wrong county.

Mr. MOWAT:

Did they mean that, knowing that the reason that Mr. Blondin was defeated was because he held the very opinions as to the prosecution of the war that the majority of the people of this country support? That was the reason he was defeated. In holding that view, do they mean, because elections on those opinions are profitable in their province, forever to continue this dissension between the peoples of this country? I can attribute no other reason for their action. They must know and I assure them sincerely that we on this side think it is a great calamity that we have not French-Canadian members in the Government of Canada to-day. The reason is that there are no French-Canadian supporters of the Government elected to the

House of Commons, from Quebec, so how can there be French-Canadian members of the Government? But it is not too late and I have no doubt that there are members of this Government who would freely anti willingly retire to-day if they could rest assured that members of the French-Canadian race would be elected and would so act in harmony with the present Government Brat they would take their accustomed places in the Cabinet Council. So I am surprised that applause should be given to such a statement. It is true that political feeling runs high, hut my hon. friends opposite must, remember that while majorities were large in the province of Quebec in favour of a man holding certain principles, there were large majorities in the other provinces just because other men held diffeient principles. There were Unionist majorities of 20,000, 16,000, 14,000, I think more than that in the city of Winnipeg, overwhelming majorities. General public sentiment demands that racial dissensions between the two peoples shall stop and that large majorities because of the holding of these strong opinions shall cease, and that all the people in this country will get together to do what we know is our duty, which is the dearest hope of most of us, namely, to first uphold the honour of all Canada.

I did not notice in the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition and his follower who so chivalrously made way for him, an invitation which was given out last year or perhaps the year before, and which had for its figurative expression " a light in the window." That was a genial invitation to return, to Liberals who had formerly been with the party which now calls itself Liberal. He said that there was a light in the window and that the latch string was on the outside of the door. It is perfectly obvious that that invitation has not had any great effect. It has brought only two of that class of members from this side of the House and they had made up their minds fairly definitely before the invitation was given. The trouble with the Liberals who were thus invited was that they were not sure of the treatment they would receive after they went back in response to the light in the window. The house was all right. We helped to build the house, but the point is that you cannot live in a house unless the coal bin is pretty full and there is enough in the larder, and we did not see any particular reasons for having a good social time in the house in which the light was put in the window. The consequence was that

there were not many defections from this side, and perhaps it is because the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) has seen the futility of repeating the invitation, or because my hon. friend who is now his leader is not of the same hospitable character as his predecessor that that invitation has not been mentioned again. It is important to refer to some extent to that, because I think that it is a proper time now after two years, that I should make some observations regarding the first of the cleavages which we saw two years ago.

Political cleavages in parties are not unknown in Canada. They have generally occurred owing to a large mass of the people of one party hoping for commercial advantages, or on the other hand, because of some religious question which has stirred the hearts of the people. The Liberal Party and the Liberal Government of 1878 lost thousands and thousands of supporters who thought that their commercial welfare would be better served by more Protection, and the great majority of those supporters never came back to the party. The Conservative party in 1896 lost a very considerable number of its supporters, who objected that the Dominion Government was interfering with the rights of a province in the matter of separate school education. There we have an example, in the first place, of commercial advantage, and in the second place, of religious fervour, which are the two chief causes of cleavages in parties. Then we come to 1917, when for the first time we had a great world war, which was more potent than any other factor in creating cleavages in parties. It is true that some of us had to separate from our old friends, and we have been referred to as " The prodigal son," as the boy who has strayed away, or, setting the theme to music, " Oh, Where is My Wandering Boy To-night?" But it must be remembered that it wTas not only one boy who left the old home, but most of the boys. Anyway, "the" boys, the best boys, left the party because of its policy in connection with the carrying on of the war. If you will look at the election results you will see that the vast majority of the Liberals who could not follow their old party on this issue were elected without the help of the military vote. If you look at the other side of the House you will find that only two Liberals were elected in Ontario, the greatest and most populous province in Canada, on what might be called old party lines, and the others come from constituencies in which, for racial reasons,

feeling was aroused to a very great extent against Great Britain. I am not competent to speak of other provinces, but as a general result the vast majority of the Liberal-Unionists candidates were elected. We on this side of the House cannot object to those who are left calling themselves the Liberal Party if they like, because everybody has the right to call himself whatever he chooses, but it does seem absurd that those who are in the minority should attempt to make out that we have not been treated properly on this side of the House, and that we have been absorbed into a party by another name. As a matter of fact, while we have been over here we have been well received. We have found no attempt at proselytizing. Our opinions have been received with civility, and furthermore, we have found something that has amazed us, and which would have amazed some of my hon. friends opposite had they come over here, and that is that there are more real Liberals on this side of the House than there are on the other. I will go further. I have found men on this side of the House who call themselves Conservative for party reasons, who are more radical than any I have ever found among my old friends the Liberals. I have been astounded to learn of the uprooting that some alleged Tories on this side of the House were willing to do in one way or another, so one is naturally bound to come to the conclusion that these old party names stand for nothing when a great cataclysm comes and a man takes the course he thinks is right. I am quite aware that the so-called Liberals, if they will not mind my using that term,-anyway, the Liberals,- have been saying disagreeable things, as they have a right to do, about defections and turn-overs, but I can assure them that there is nothing on this side of the House that has given offence to those Liberals who went out for the principles of which I have spoken. Not only have we been well received, but we have heard nothing of the extreme views which my hon. friend from Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) attributes to our colleagues on this side of the House. They have not tried to rub in, so to speak, their own particular opinions. I have heard that there are some strong party men on this side, just as there are strong party men on the other side of the House, who would prefer to be alone, but, of course, they have been civil enough not to let us find that out, except that we have heard some reference here to-day to certain efforts of a former Cabinet minister hailing from Winnipeg. So far as our colleagues on this side of the House, are concerned, we have had very pleasant relations with those with whom we formerly disagreed.

The war changed things in many ways, and with the exception of those who had the most tense political feelings and political inclinations, the war made men think as they wanted to think without regard to political party trammels.

It is proper for me now, I think, after two years, and as the subject has never been discussed in Parliament before, to give a short history of the rise of the cleavage in the Liberal party, and I can do it best, and it seems to me it would be the most convincing to those who are listening to me, by giving my own personal experience. In September, 1917, returning from my usual summer vacation, when one does not read many newspapers, I was surprised to find that there were some people in the country who were opposed to Canada taking further part in the great war. I discussed this matter with three men of political prominence, candidates under the leadership of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and I expressed my views, because I held them definitely and strongly. I said " We cannot let Canada down now that we have sent her in; we cannot let our boys at the Front get discouraged and weaken; we have-to send more men." The first man replied, " Of course we should, but what has that to do with politics?" Then he told me he had been going around among the people and had found that conscription was unpopular, and that Conservatives who did not want their sons to go to the Front were going to vote for the Liberal party if the Conservative party stood for conscription. The next man, who was also a candidate, agreed that many Conservatives who did not want their sons to go to the Front would vote for the Liberal party to avoid conscription, and he gave instances to show that conscription was not going to win. These men were of that type. I shall not mention their names, but I am not abusing any confidence because anything which they said to me they will say at any time. They thought that while it was proper for Canada to continue her effort in the war, as was done afterwards by the Union Government, the more important thing was that the Liberals should get into power. That disposes of two from whom I got opinions. The third to whom I spoke-a candidate afterwards-rather shocked me when he said: "Well, I think we have done enough; let Uncle Sam do the rest." Well, I do not care to express

contempt for any man, but if ever I felt like doing so in my life it was on the occasion of this assertion. If these be candidates of the Liberal party, 1 felt, how is it possible for us, who think differently from them, to march in double harness with them again unless they change their minds? We could not endorse any policy of nonsupport of our men who were in the war and so there was an election. Now, mark this: The Liberals who left their party were as convinced as those who remained in it that conscription was an unpopular issue. They thought that they would be defeated, but apprehension of defeat did not alter their intention and determination that the war should be fought to a successful issue. Fo it came about, in an imposing outburst of public enthusiasm, that the Union Government, which was pledged to continue the war, was sustained except in one province. None were more surprised than the Liberals who had run as candidates in support of the Union Government, and I must say that the result was gratifying to them. When a prominent member on the other side made a remark in Ottawa last winter that the Liberals who left their party had done so for their personal aggrandisement I assured him he was wrong. We were elected through the patriotism of the people, in Ontario at any rate; but at the time we ran there was no idea of personal gain -at all. We had played the political game before, but on that occasion we claim that we played the game of what was right for Canada without regard to the political party to which we belonged. I therefore give no credit to men like the three of whom I have spoken; they were wrong in their heads as well as in their hearts. They made a bad guess politically. They thought they were going to win and they lost, and I give them no credit for possessing any right principle or anything else to boast of. It was a pure political game with them. As I say, they were of opinion that they would win, but they lost; and it now ill becomes them to throw slurs at those who thought or acted differently from them.

I shall now conclude by saying that while this is not a political party on this side of the House-most of us have voted against the Government repeatedly, although the Government has not been sensitive on that point, knowing that our hearts and our allegiance were generally in the right place -while we are not a party, 1 do not see why we should not become one. Men of like opinions, men with the same ideals in re-

gard to the future of Canada, men who do not wish to see racial dissension or cleavage in the country, if they can meet on this side for two years and have no serious disagreement as to what is needed for good government, regardless of former party shibboleths, may very well compose a party. While therefore we are not yet a party, if there is any proposal that we should become a party and the leaders can devise a policy consistent with the ideals I ha\ e seen on this side, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal-Unionists are going to join that party. We are assured there will be nothing new which will be inconsistent with anything we were ever told in political meetings on the liberal si te. I ask my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King; now seriously-nay, humourously-did he ever hear political principles of a liberal kind discussed in a Liberal political meeting? No, he did not. Well, neither did I. We always played the party game. We were party men; and what a lot of rot it is to talk about Liberal principles or Conservative principles all the time! We were party men. But sometimes in a crisis we cannot be party men, and if we can find something better to substitute for what exists there is no reason why we should not take it. And we will take it. I, in common with the Liberals on this side, have had pleasure in supporting this Government, and supporting it enthusiastically, even though it be unpopular. During war I do not want to support a Government merely because it is popular. I want to support a Government that does the right thing even if it is going to be unpopular. And what a number of unpopular things this Government has had to do! One thing after another, which would almost strain to breaking point the ordinary man, these men in the Government benches, heedless of party politics, caring not whether their actions might incur the disapproval of their supporters or constituencies, or what effect those actions might have in the event of an election, have day in and day out framed policies and passed measures-Orders in Council, if you will- that were bound to be unpopular, but which were in their belief for the ultimate good of the country. The only thing that saved Canada during the war was the fact that there was a Government that was not afraid to do things that would be unpopular. And I mistake very much the temper and the generous spirit of my fellow-countrymen if they will not ultimately support a body of men such as compose the present

Government. It is true that at the present juncture criticism is freely indulged in. Attacks are made in every quarter; everyone is abusing everyone else-the Bolshevists condemn the Government. The returned soldiers abuse the pacifists. But when this state of feeling subsides, I have enough faith in my fellow-countrymen and enough confidence in their gratitude to know that they will support the party that did the right thing whether it was popular or not. I admit there is some talk of the unpopularity of the Government at the present moment, but that does not bother me a bit, because we know that it is merely a passing cloud. While it is fostered by my friends on the other side-sometimes, I regret to say, not altogether fairly-I know it is but transient. And when the next election comes, whether at the time demanded in my friend's motion, or a little later-probably a little later-the present Government, comprising men who formerly held different political views, is going to be swept ultimately into power again. The history of Canada shows that the people have favoured keeping governments a long time in power during the last forty years, and history will repeat itself at the next election. Then, my hon. friends, I think, will be somewhat ashamed of themselves when they go down to defeat-except in one province-because they did not try to unite with us to put an end to dissension, to throttle the racial feeling the moment it appeared, and to lend their support to a government working for the advantage of the whole country and of the whole Empire, and for the well-being of mankind at large.

Mr. LOUIS JOSEPH GAUTHIER (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville):

Mr. Speaker, it is

my intention to speak in my own language on this occasion but before entering upon any remarks I wish to answer very briefly the speaker'who has just preceded me (Mr. Mowat). The hon. gentleman says that we are not ready for an election and he concluded his remarks by stating that whenever there should be an appeal to the people the Government he is supporting would come back triumphantly to power. If it is true that we are not ready for an election, and if the Government is sure to come back triumphantly to power, why do they refuse the amendment of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition 5 p.m. (Mr. King)? We do not ask a dissolution because we hope to come back to power; we ask a dissolution in order that the people shall have an opportunity to say whether or not they have

any confidence in this Government. We do not care to come back to power but we want to fulfil our duty. That is the difference between us and the hon. gentleman. He says also that now is the time to try and get nearer to the province of Quebec. Speaking in my own name, and for my province, I will quote the words of one of our public men who says that the province of Quebec is not in a state of mind to enter into any conference; it has been misjudged; it has been badly treated; it has been slandered; it is waiting for its hour and after that it will confer but not before.

The hon. gentleman says that whenever the Government shall be ready to propound a policy, that policy will appeal to the people of Canada. Yesterday the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government (Sir George Foster) told us that they liad a policy but the hon. member for Parkdale who supports this Government is not aware that there is a policy. He tells us that there is going to be a policy propounded and in advance he tells the country that he is going to support it. I believe he is a bad supporter of the present Administration as he was a bad supporter of the Liberal party. If he desires to come back to the Liberal fold we will receive him because the door is open, but if he should be only as good a supporter of the Liberal party as he is of this Government we will not rely very much upon him. I will now proceed with my remarks in my own language.