Mr. SHEARD:

But members opposite are contending that their isolation is due to some iniquity on the part of the Government. They are oblivious to everything else but their own lack of force and power. Well, since then they have a new leader and they claim that we ought to get out because we were elected simply and solely to win the war. As I have often heard it repeated that we were elected as a war government and for no other purpose than to win the war, I have often wondered what was the function of the Opposition? Were they here in the Dominion of Canada's Parliament to oppose winning the war? I cannot understand the consistency of their attitude at all.

Mr. BUREAU:

Oh, that joke is exploded.

Mr. SHEARD:

Yes, and there will be something else exploded in the province of Quebec before long, and the autocrats who are at the head and throttle of every effort to strangle free speech and other expressions of independence of character the very moment they are manifest will perhaps realize that even in Quebec the people rule.

Mr. BUREAU:

In Toronto too.

Mr. SHEARD:

Yes, there is free speech in Toronto, and we shall be glad to have an address from the hon. 'member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau). Any time he wants to come we will give him a hall.

Mr. DUFF:

Admission by ticket?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order.

Mr. SHEARD:

No, sir; we will have the doors wide open and will let the hon. gentleman hear, for once before he dies, the true echo of the voice of Canada; and there will be no free trade in it and no material reduction in the tariff.

Now, a good deal has been said of what the Union Government projected in the year 1917. I was one of thdse who had the privilege and pleasure of hearing the then Prime Minister's speech in that campaign; and I remember quite clearly certain points which he put forward as embodying the policy of the Government. The main one was the pledging of the country to conscription. The next was the abolition of patronage, and there was considerable talk in the city of Toronto regarding that issue, and some discontent, I will admit, was manifest. It required considerable explanation and it was made a very prominent feature in the speech delivered there by the Prime Minister. The right hon. gentleman then took up somewhat in detail the conditions that would arise out of the war, and we are still dealing with them now.

It has been stated in this debate that there is general discontent in the country; that the soldiers are ,discontented; that the labour unions are discontented; that the aliens are discontented; that the province of Quebec is discontented. Well, I come from one of the largest manufacturing centres in this Dominion and I have heard no disconterit expressed regarding this Government. I have heard, however, decided and emphatic expressions from the organized labour parties of the city of Toronto that they want proper representation by population, and they have instructed me, as one of their representatives, to see that this Government gives it to them and sits in office till the lawful time arrives when we can have a new census and can have all votes equal. Now we have in Toronto about one vote to three votes in the rural districts. We have a population of about 550,000, and, I think, some six representatives. We want that changed, and we are going to sit here if we can until it is changed. We are going to give to those centres the representation

to which they are entitled; and if the cities and towns in the West, which our Agrarian friends represent, have the increased representation which they ought to have, are they not entitled to it? Is not that the spirit and idea of representation by population? After all, I take it that there is some force in the justice of the demand.

But we know perfectly well under the present conditions that the tariff policy is going to be a very important one. It is going to be the issue, whether hon. gentlemen wish it or not, and they know it. They are fully aware of that, and they think they will have a better chance, if there is not* the full representation given to the mercantile and the manufacturing and industrial centres, which they will get under the redistribution, and where there has been shown the geratest increase in population.

The leader of the Opposition made a great flowery and educational speech in which he seemed to have adopted as his policy, so far as I could discern any policy -and I read his speech over a couple of times-a new slogan: "Quo warranto."

There is one matter, he says, which transcends all others in importance, and that is the present position of the Government and of this Parliament in relation to the will of the people. The Government has no right to office because such is not the will of the people; it is the Government that is defective. Well, I entered this Parliament a comparatively new member to learn parliamentary procedure. I found members who were definitely pledged, and elected on their pledge, to support this Government and to assist them in all measures which they considered necessary and essential to succour and support our troops at the front, and I was somewhat surprised to find that before six weeks had elapsed they were crawling to the cross benches to fight hammer and tongs to beat the Government.

Some of these gentlemen sit on the opposite benches now. The hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) is one. He is one of those who are now fighting strenuously against the present Government, and I ask what, in his case, became of the will of the people? Did he go back to get the opinion of his constituents on his attitude? Not a bit of it. He took the matter into his own hands. He said, "I am not going to sit there and support the Government although I was elected to do so.

I am going to cross the floor of the House

and sit with the Opposition and I am going to hammer the Government;" and he and others have been hammering the Government ever since. Do my hon. friends imagine that the public are going to take any great stock or pay much attention to the cry that this Government does not represent the people in the face of such actions on the part of hon. gentlemen sitting in opposition? I fancy these questions will be raised when we do have a general election.

Then the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres discussed the railway policy and the nationalization of railways. I well remember when the legislation for that purpose was introduced and the debate which took place upon it. I well recall the Minister of Railways asking the leader of the Opposition what his policy was on the nationalization of railways, and if I remember correctly the latter replied that he was quite prepared to announce a policy when he should be called upon to assume the responsibility of framing it. Well, that is on all fours with his attitude on the tariff. He does not want to announce his policy on the tariff. He has not got any policy. He has an association with the Agrarian members of this House who are sincere in wanting free-trade.

I acquit our Agrarian friends of any insincerity. They are demanding free-trade and they are going to work to get it, and they are going to have a large section of the West behind them in trying to get it if I understand the situation. But do not imagine for one moment that they are going to compromise themselves by taking any office under, or associating with, the befogged leader of the Opposition. They are going to frame the fiscal policy of the country if they have the power to do it and have the necessary number of votes behind them, and they are going to make the Government in office dance to the tune which they will play. Then my hon. friends opposite will have to declare what their fiscal policy is under their present leader.

Will the leader of the Opposition, or any living man, be able to frame or carry out a policy which will suit the province of Quebec and also suit our Agrarian friends who are demanding with all sincerity the adoption of free-trade in Canada? The people of Quebec know, just as well as I do, that their interests are the same as those of many of the other provinces. What they w'ant is a policy of reasonable protection to

maintain the industries and maintain the use of the native products of Canada to be worked by our own workmen into finished articles; and no Government that adopts any other policy can long endure in the province of Quebec.

The leader of the Opposition does not know what his policy is on the nationalization of railways, and cannot declare it today. We know that the province of Quebec is in favour of the private ownership of railways. We know that the province of Ontario is crying out for the nationalization of railways. There you have the two sets of conditions, and we have to harmonize them and bring them into accord so as to secure the greatest good for the greatest number. As for us in the large centres of Ontario, we stand for nationalization of railways and we are going to work out the experiment as we now have it, although it is not of our seeking. It originated from a number of blunders and from mal-admin-istration of railway problems in the whole Dominion on the part of a previous government. Still we are going to try and work the problem out to its ultimate end for the good of the great majority of the people. No doubt the province of Quebec will watch with interest the working out of the experiment.

We have been told a great deal about the influence of the by-elections, and the result in West Peterborough, Peterborough has been brought up as an example to terrify the Government. Well, the only one who carried out the idea announced by the leader of the Opposition was the former member for West Peterborough who sat in the House last year. Apparently the Opposition converted him into thinking that the best thing he could do was to have an election in his constituency. He tried the experiment on himself, he had an election, and where is he to-day? He is at home, and it will be a long time before we will follow any such leader as that.

Oh, oh.

You will take no chance.

Mr. SHEARD:

As to what has been said about the ostracism of Quebec I regret it because I am earnestly desirous of seeing a united Canada.

Mr. BUREAU:

Do not brag; we are all right.

Mr. SHEARD:

I return the compliment. I have great admiration for many of the representatives of the province of Quebec. I think they are very fine Canadians, so much so that in my opinion Canada would lose by not having them. With their polish, their graciousness of manner, their cordiality, and a great many more fine attributes-inherent to the race from which they spring1-which have descended to them, we want them in the national life of Canada. We want union and harmony. We want the development of a large, free and progressive nation. We want a united people, we want to have Canadians united and animated by a lov6 for Canada, and we do not want these petty differences that we have seen manifested so pointedly here this afternoon, and which we on this side regret.

We extend to hon. gentlemen opposite our commiseration on the quarrels in their ranks. We do not like the leadership which hon. gentlemen opposite appear to have. We take issue with hon. gentlemen opposite on their policy. Nay, we deplore their lack of policy. We deplore the condition that was so well illustrated last night by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) when he showed us that hon. gentlemen opposite have one policy apparently in Peterborough, Ontario and another policy in Kamloops, British Columbia. They have a policy for every day in the year and a policy to suit the weather, whether the sun shines or whether there is a down-pour of rain.

Listening to the efforts of the leader of the Opposition I was reminded of what occurred to me once when I was a boy. I was out with others working on a farm. It was in the spring of the year and the wheat was just sprouting in the field. In Ontario, you know, the farmers are very careful about their wheat, because a great deal of labour is required to produce it and to get it to grow, and the farmers have to fallow their ground. Well a number of us boys were going out one day and we were crossing a wheat field. "Hey" shouted the farmer who owned the field, "Get out of that wheat field, that is not the road." One of our numbers said "Mister, do you know where we are going?" "No," said the farmer, "I do not." "How then do you know," asked our companion "That this is not the road?" It appears to me that this story illustrates the position of hon. gentlemen opposite. We ask them "Where are you going?" But they do not know the road, and the leader at their head does not know either. How can a man lead when he does

not know where he is going. For my part I like to follow a leader who knows the road. We know that disasters often befall men who do not know where they are going

do not know whether they are going north or going south, and I honestly gather from the speeches of the hon. leader of the Opposition that that is about his position on this question.

I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and discuss some points about the tariff, but as I may possibly have a word or two to say when the Budget is uppermost, and as I want to make my points as clearly applicable as I can to the debate as it has occurred from day to day, I will leave it at that now. I hope the gentlemen opposite will consider earefully their ultimate decision regarding the disposal of John the Baptist, that they will read anew the parable in the Scriptures and give it careful consideration, and that they will remember that history may draw its own interpretation as to the character of the men who took part in the debate and action upon that issue.

On motion of Hon. Mr. Crerar the debate was adjourned.

At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule*

Thursday, February 24, 1921