April 27, 1909

LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate I suppose it will be somewhat difficult to interest the House to any great degree in anything new that I may have to offer upon this subject. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wright) who has just taken his seat, has gone over the ground pretty well from the standpoint of his party, and criticised the policy of the present administration in a modest and moderate way. Speaking for myself, I have no great fault to find with the manner in which he has discharged his duty to himself, and, as I suppose, he feels he is called upon to discharge his duty to his constituents and to his party. The keynote of the hon. gentleman's speech was the reckless expenditure of public moneys in the Dominion of Canada. If there be a reckless expenditure of public moneys that is a matter of which the public, whose money is being expended should take note. It is a matter to which their attention should be called and it will certainly be the duty of the people to take such steps as are necessary to prevent any reckless expenditure of money, if reckless expenditure there be. But, we are pleased to note, notwithstanding the description that my hon. friend has given of the people of the city of Winnipeg, that we have in Canada a highly intelligent class of people. We have a class of people that, I venture to say, are as intelligent, taking them man for man, as any other number of people in any part of the known world, if not more intelligent. After the opposition, which, I presume, was doing its duty, had sifted out to the very foundation anything that could be said to be wrong about the administration, the case) has been once, twice, aye, three times submitted to that intelligent, well qualified jury, and every time they have brought in a verdict, that, as far as they could ascertain, and having had the evidence fully before them, they found no extravagance in the administration. They found that the government was capably and competently conducting the public affairs of the country, and that whatever money was expended was expended in the best interests of the people. That being the verdict of the people more than once, more than twice, I am not much disturbed by the speech made this afternoon by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. The conclusion that a large majority of the people have come to is that there are no wasteful expenditures and that if there are expenditures they are in the best interests of the country. As my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) said on a previous occasion, if we are today spending $100,000,000 in this country we are spending it on a hundred million dollar country. That is the difference between the expenditure that is being made to-day and the expenditure in the days when the friends of my hon. friend were in power. They were proportionately spending very much more money than we are spending to-day, spending it with very poor results and spending it in such a manner that when the administration of public affairs was submitted to that high and intelligent jury of whom I spoke a moment ago, the actions of the government were condemned and they lost the confidence of the people. There is a great difference between the two administrations. My hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson), the other night, said that the party to which he had the honour to belong never lost the confidence of the people by reason of their tariff or fiscal policy. I agree with the hon. gentleman that they did not, but he must not forget, while he and his friends are charging this administration with extravagance and mismanagement, the real reason why his party were turned out of power. While the hon. gentleman said they were never put out of power by reason of their financial policy he neglected to tell us why they were put out of power. It is no new story to this country that they came into power in the early days of confederation and that they went out of power in 1873 or 1874. Why did they go out of power then? It is well known that they went out of power, byreason, not only of reckless expenditure and mismanagement of public affairs, not only by reason of expenditures that were wasteful and could not be defended, but by reason of dishonest expenditures and by reason of shockingly scandalous expenditures that the people could not stand for and they were hurled from power. That is the reason why they went out of power on that occasion and not by reason of any defect in their financial policy. They got back to power and why

did they go out of power again? Ask them and ask the records of this country. It was because some of the canker, some of the microbe, which we heard so much about from the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) still remained. It seems that this microbe got into their constitution and the people's scourging in 1873 did not eliminate that microbe altogether. It broke forth again in 1894, 1895 and 1896, and the people were again obliged to scourge them from power. This time the people, having given them two opportunities of giving the country an honest administration of its affairs and having found that they were not capable of taking tne lesson, again turned them out of power. It seems to me that the great public have made up their minds that never again will they give them an opportunity

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Oh, oh.

Mr. McKENZIE

of managing the affairs of this country.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE.

Let us see how they are getting along and what gains they are making. My hon. friend from Leeds is very fond of figures, of calculations, and of discussing the question of the finery of women, blouses, gloves and all such things as that. My hon. friend dearly loves to peruse the Auditor General's Report. I fail to find it very interesting reading myself but it seems that my hon. friend, the whip, finds it so interesting that he sleeps with it under his head at night. He went into figures and he gave us a dissertation on the rule of three; but just as we have dispensed with allowing the Tory party to manage the affairs of the country so we have dispensed in mathematical circles with that ancient system, and we now deal with such problems under a more unique and mathematically correct unitary method. After hearing the hon. gentleman the other evening I tried to figure out how long it would take by the rule of three, and calculating the proportionate gain of the Tory party since 1896, for them to get back into power. I was rather sorry to discover that 60 or 70 years would roll by before, on the basis of that calculation, the Conservative whip and his friends would resume their seats on the government benches. And, that long cycle of years rendering it impossible for any one in this House to ever see the day, I passed over the question as not being within the range of practical politics. The present government is doing first-class work, the country is well governed, there is no reckless expenditure notwithstanding some irresponsible statements which have been made by members of the opposition, Canada is being developed along proper lines and so long as the government continues to do as they have done there will be no desire in the minds of the Mr. D. D. McKENZIE.

people for a change. If it were true that there had been reckless expenditure it would be a serious matter, but let me ask how it is, that the members of the opposition have challenged so very few, of the appropriations which have been passed by this House. Even if all the votes they contested were deserving of censure, it will be found that a very small percentage indeed of the vast amount of money expended during the past 12 years has met with opposition from the Conservative benches. I may say that I ran two elections for the Dominion House, in both of which I was keenly contested by a very competent gentleman, a Conservative of the old school well versed in the ways and means and the theories and practices of the Conservative party; a gentleman well capable of putting up a campaign against me or against any other Liberal who might cross swords with him. But that gentleman, capable as he was, and capable as were his supporters in these campaigns, they could not put their finger on one single dollar of misappropriated money. It is a fact that to-day there is a lawsuit pending in the province of Nova Scotia taken by Mr. Morrison against my opponent because he charged Mr. Morrison with the misappropriation of $59.37 of money belonging to the province which he alleged had been expended improperly in the painting of a bridge in the northern part of the county. This will serve to show how our opponents were driven to their wits end for scandals against this government when they had to rake up such a small matter. It is a fact proven by my experience in this House that there are more claims for the expenditure of public money coming from the Conservatives than from the Liberals. I do not think there is a solitary Conservative member who, in Committee of Supply, has not stood up manfully and pointed out where in his county or in some county adjacent there was necessity for a further expenditure of money. That being so, how is it that these gentlemen criticise the government for its expenditures. I cannot see the logic of their contention, and I am quite sure that the Conservative members themselves do not see any logic in it either.

A few days ago, at the opening of this debate, the financial critic of the opposition made some statements to which I would like to refer. I am rather disinclined to mention the name of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) because it seems to be insinuated that every new member wishes to climb to glory and fame by making some attack on that hon. gentleman. I disclaim any such intention at once. But. as the hon. gentleman is the chief financial critic of his party, and as-without disparity to any other hon. gentleman- he certainly made the ablest speech from

his side of the House, it is natural that those who follow him should be more apt to have something to say about him than about others of his friends. However, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) at the end of his very clever speech proceeded ironically to show the Prime Minister why he should be proud of his Minister of Finance. Let me say to the House that we in Nova Scotia are proud of the Minister of Finance, and we are prouder still when we know that Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific are also proud of that hon. gentleman. I venture to say,-without reflecting in the slightest degree on the popularity of any other hon. gentleman in Canada,-that with the exception of the brilliant leader of the government there is not a man to-day in Canada who is better beloved by the whole people regardless of party politics than is the Hon. W. S. Fielding. We had a trial of him in Nova Scotia for 14 years as premier of that province and his high character and reputation live to-day in the memory of our people. He has now for 12 years occupied the distinguished position of Minister of Finance of the Dominion and we have reason to be proud that although millions and millions of dollars have passed through his hands in the administration of his department, he stands to-day the same pure-minded, clean-handed, good-hearted, and upright W. S. Fielding who 12 years ago fresh from his laurels as premier of Nova Scotia, took charge of the finances of the Dominion of Canada. No man can truthfully say one word against the character of that gentleman, character or reputation, private or public life of that gentleman, and why should not the Prime Minister of this country, and why should not the people of Canada, and why should not the people of Nova Scotia especially be proud of the Minister of Finance? We are all well satisfied with his administration and with the way in which he is handling the finances of this country. The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) a few days ago delivered a very admirable address in this House, in which he discussed very ably the financial side of the budget. He pointed out that even if some of the loans were not exactly such as he would like them to be, if the very best terms that were possible under the circumstances were obtained, no fault could be found) with the Finance Minister. I approve entirely of the sensible and logical position of the hon. member. I do not profess to be a financier; I am a lawyer by profession, and I am willing to leave to other gentlemen who are experts in finance questions of this kind. Being satisfied of the honestv and ability of the Minister of Finance and of the honesty and ability of every minister who asks him for a vote of money, I discharge from my mind

at once every criticism of the finances of the government. I am satisfied that the moneys are required by every department that asks for them, and I am satisfied that the Finance Minister will find the moneys on the most reasonable terms possible. '

I have heard the criticism that this government has no policy. Indeed, the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Wright) referred to this government as a sort of Melchizedek without beginning of days or end of time, without father or mother, something that could not by any possibility be defined. I cannot understand what justification the hon. gentleman has for such a description. Perhaps we sometimes get a little off our feet or lose our head in the effort to say something clever. I do not think the hon. gentleman has improved his speech by applying such a description to this government.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Wright

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WRIGHT.

I made no description of this government. I described their policy.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE.

What is a government but its policy? If its policy is bad, it must be a poor government. We admit, of course, that taking them man for man the government are very excellent Canadians; but I take the responsibility of saying that not only is the personnel of this government all right, but its policy and its administration are equally so.

Four years ago the opposition had a policy, and, after all, as is said about questions of title to land, you have to succeed upon the strength of your own title, not upon the weakness of the other man's. So I say to my Conservative friends that if ever they expect to attain power, they must get there by the strength of their own policy, and not by displaying the weaknesses which they may discover on our side. In 1904 they had a fairly sensible policy, so far as I could understand it, and I was put pretty hard against it in my own county. They were in favour of the public ownership of railways. That is a strong policy. I do not know how wise or how workable it is in this country, particularly from the financial point of view, but it was a plank in their platform, and they stood to it.

They also had a policy of high protection -adequate protection, as they called it, which no man living or dead could describe. No man on earth could tell you what adequate protection might mean. My hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Mad-din) came pretty near to attempting a definition of it last night. I do not like to ask questions of a member who is speaking, or I would have asked him to define it, as I have been very anxious for four years to find some man who can do so. My hon. friend, with that jaunty way of his, referred to it as if it was very easy to define it. I was reminded of the attempt of Mr. Dooley to give a definition of Kruger's fran-

chise, of which he failed to give any intelligent definition. If my hon. friend from South Cape Breton had attempted to wade in the deep waters of adequate protection, I am sure that he would have found himself in the same boat as Mr. Dooley. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition is a clever lawyer, and definitions are not out of the line of lawyers. They are trained to understand language; but though he rather prides himself on the fatherhood of this phrase, when it comes to being its godfather and giving it a definition, like the old story of the man who could not read the letter he had writiten and sent it off saying there were better scholars in Ireland, the hon. gentleman left it to the world at large to provide the definition.

Besides adequate protection, the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite m 1904 included opposition to the Grand Trunk Pacific. They advocated opposition to the Grand Trunk Pacific. That was a stand to take worthy of a great party. They were wrong of course but they had the courage to put forward those three issues; Higher tariff, public ownership of railways and absolute and strenuous opposition to the policy of building the Grand Trunk Pacific. On those three issues they went to the country and were routed horse, toot and artillery. Hardly a man of them was left to tell the tale. But if high protection were a sound policy, if the public ownership of railways were a good policy, if opposition to the Grand Trunk Pacific were a wise policy, why did they abandon them? No political party has the right to abandon its policy simply because the people have turned it down. They should stand by their policy unitl they succeed in winning for it the approval and confidence of the people. The policy of high protection has been that of the Conservative party for a long time. Although they might abandon their theories regarding railway ownership and their opposition to the Grand Trunk Pacific, they could not very well abandon their policy of high protection. Why then did they do so? We find not a vestige of it to-day. I did not find a shadow of it in the last campaign in the province from which I come. When, shortly after the election of 1904, a commission was appointed to inquire into our trade relations with other countries, there was ample opportunity given to every man, who had views on the subject, to express them. What did we find? We found that after evidence was taken all over the country, and the tariff of 1907 was brought down, our hon. friends opposite took no action. If they were earnest in their policy of a high tariff, the time to bring forward a resolution to that effect was when the tariff of 1907 was being discussed. That was the time for them to put themselves on record..

At six o'clock House took recess.

Mr. d. d. McKenzie.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink

PRIVATE BILLS.


House in committee on Bill (No. 132) respecting certain letters patent of Franklin Montgomery Gray.-Mr. Rankin. On section 1,


LIB

Sydney Arthur Fisher (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. FISHER.

This is a Bill which we were asked to let stand last night, in consequence of some words at the end of the second clause. I have made inquiry, and find that this Bill is quite in accord with some other Bills which have been passed, and that these words which were objected to last night are in three other Bills which have already been passed by the House this session. The delay between the time when the patent lapsed and the request for legislation, was only a few weeks, and it was due to the fact of the owner being away from the country.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   PATENT OF F. M. GRAY.
Permalink
CON

Angus Claude Macdonell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MACDONELL.

I quite concur in the remarks of the hon. minister. I think, if we are going at all to reinstate lost rights on the part of owners of patents because of oversights in paying the fees, this is certainly a case in which we may well do so.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   PATENT OF F. M. GRAY.
Permalink
LIB

Sydney Arthur Fisher (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. FISHER.

If we do it for any body we ought to do it here.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   PATENT OF F. M. GRAY.
Permalink
CON

Angus Claude Macdonell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MACDONELL.

This is a case in which the committee may properly exercise its discretion in passing the Bill.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   PATENT OF F. M. GRAY.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

The information that the minister gives us now is in line with the information that I thought we ought to have on all occasions, when I spoke on this case yesterday. I quite appreciate that the minister is necessarily a busy man, at the same time I feel we should have some information from the minister on every occasion when a Bill of this kind is before us.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   PATENT OF F. M. GRAY.
Permalink
LIB

Sydney Arthur Fisher (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. FISHER.

The words which were taken objection to last night seem to be entirely unnecessary; but they are in the Bill, and I do not think they can do any harm.

Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   PATENT OF F. M. GRAY.
Permalink

WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE.

Mr. Speaker, when you left the Chair at six o'clock I was going over the different stages of the abandonment of the various planks of the Conservative party in the year 1904. I had stated what those planks were, and had stated that they comprised fairly respectable issues to be presented to the people of Canada. The three principle planks or issues which we had to deal with, and upon which the ver-

diet of the people was sought in 1904 were: First, the public ownership of public utilities, particularly of railways; second, a decision upon the tariff of the present administration, contending that it was away too low, and that a mandate should be given to the Conservative party to make it higher; third, their declared policy of opposition to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Those three planks, as I say, made respectable issues, worthy of consideration by the people of this country.

There was a time when the great Conservative party of Canada claimed that they alone had the genius to rule, that they alone were anointed to rule this country, and they alone were inspired to give it a proper administration. But I am afraid, when they consider what has happened to these three planks, when the great Liberal-Conservative party of former days sit down calmly and quietly to consider the present prospects, and the evil times that have fallen upon them during the last twelve or fourteen years, they must come to the conclusion that the glory has departed from Israel, and that they are no longer the chosen race destined to administer this country. Especially I think must they conclude that they were hardly inspired when they adopted the policy of opposition to the Grand Trunk Pacific, because there is not a man in this House, so far as I can find who is willing to take the responsibility of standing up and declaring himself against the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Naturally they want to criticise and find fault with the government in connection with that work, but that is all done on side issues, because there is no one among them who will take the responsibility of standing up in his seat to oppose the policy of building that road. The other night I heard the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) speaking in this House. Now there is no person who will accuse the hon. member for Souris of being partial towards this administration, I rather think that he is a strong opposition man. I sit as his neighbour in this House, and I have opportunities of knowing the pulsation of his heart sometimes, and I think he is as good an opposition man as there is on the left of the Speaker. But he was obliged to come down the other evening and say that he could not too strongly support the proposition of building, and rapidly building, this road; that the people of the west were longing to have it built, and that everybody so far as he knew was in favour of it. He scouted the idea of any one, any one at least possessing influence, having anything to say against the proposition of building that road, and building it as rapidly as possible. I think that the hon. member for Souris is a fair sample of the western men upon the question of the building of

the Grand Trunk Pacific. But, I have further evidence in support of this contention. The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin) put this question very straight to the western men a few evenings ago and issued a challenge to any hon. members supporting the opposition, coming from the western country, who would dare to stand up in this House and oppose the building of this road and the giving of assistance to it as is now proposed. That being the case, I believe it will be impossible for the hon. leader of the opposition to obtain the support of the members of his party from the west unless he abandons that plank of his platform and withdraws all opposition to the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific. We must come to the conclusion that there was no particular inspiration or wisdom guiding the leader of the opposition when he made opposition to that road a plank in his plat-formand one of the great issues upon which he thought it was proper to go to the country in 1904. We must, therefore, conclude with hon. members from the west, that they are wrong in that question and that they should never have taken that course but that they should have known beforehand that the policy of building the road was one that the people approved of.

The next plank in the hon. gentleman's platform is the public ownership of railways. I cannot understand, in view of the history of this subject in this country, how the leader of the opposition came to make that a plank in his platform in 1904. He could not hope, so early in his history as the leader of the Conservative party to have gained greater confidence in the minds of his own supporters at that stage than the people had in such men as Sir John Macdonald, Sir Charles Tupper and other leaders of the once great Conservative party who had put themselves on record as being unreservedly opposed to the doctrine of the public ownership of utilities such as railways, canals and telegraph lines, but particularly railways. That was the policy of Sir John Macdonald and he was backed up by the people upon it. That was the policy of Sir Charles Tupper and he had the confidence of the people in holding to that policy. I think it was ill-advised on the part of the leader of the opposition today to have made that a plank in his platform. Having discovered that he had made a mistake, I suppose that it was the part of wisdom to recede from that position as rapidly as possible and therefore the second plank in the platform has been hurled down the stream with ^ the others. There is a question in connection with public ownership that perhaps did not receive the attention that it should have at the time. If our friends of the opposition wish to be economists, if they say that too much money is

being expended and too much money being borrowed I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the country to consider for a moment where would our financing be if the country had adopted this government-owned railway policy that the opposition presented to it in 1904. We would have to buy the property of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I want any sane man in this House to consider for a moment what the proposition would mean of providing enough money to purchase the Canadian Pacific Railway. They would not sell their railway without selling everything else they owned incidental to the railway. I want some more capable financier than I am to contemplate for a moment the task of providing the money that we would have _ to borrow in order to meet that obligation. That is only a small part of the money we would have to borrow before we could own all the railways. Our experience with government owned and operated railways is not of a character that would justify any wise leader in plunging this country into the policy of buying, owning and operating railways. I think it was a very unwise plank to put into'the platform and that the leader of the opposition and his friends acted wisely and well in dropping it as fast as they could get away from it.

But, Sir, we are told by hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House that we must be candid, honest and straightforward. These are good lessons indeed and this is advice that we should be willing to follow. If these hon. gentlemen were practising their preaching in 1904 when they were telling the people of this country that 1hey were looking for an opportunity of raising the tariff why did not they follow it up? As you left the Chair, Mr. Speaker, 1 was coming to this point. _ If high tariff is the remedy for all the ills that flesh is heir to, our friends of the opposition should insist upon that policy being adopted. They say that we are at sixes and sevens amongst ourselves upon the question of the tariff. I do not suppose that a large body of men who are supporting a government can be atone on any given question-I do not care what it is. I think it is a sign of intelligence that one hundred, or one hundred and fifty, or one hundred and seventy men, cannot agree exactly upon every given point. It would only show that we were not thinking at all, but we simply were machines who were doing as we were told because you cannot get intelligent men to agree exactly in all particulars of any given policy. It is not a sign of weakness that while upon the government side we stand firmly and strongly behind our leader, in cases where a man has a right to exercise his own judgment we are beyond and above any party. I Mr. D. D. McKENZIE.

think it is a healthy sign to show that we are capable of having differences of opinion and, if occasion requires, of expressing them. But what I wish to say to our hon. friends upon this point is that when the Fielding tariff of 1907 came before this House they had a most excellent opportunity for testing this question. That was a most excellent opportunity for them to move an amendment to the Bill for the raising of the tariff if it was too low and for the lowering of the tariff if it was too high. I was not here but the opportunity was open to our hon. friends, and I am told that when it came down to the crucial point of dividing the House upon this very important matter no division took place. What then are we to conclude? What is the country to conclude? We must conclude one of two things, either that the tariff is all right or that the opposition is all wrong. If the tariff was wrong then was the time to have put it right when it was going through the process of being made and when it was in the institution which was making it and in the only institution that had the power to make it. That was the time when the people of this country would say to the opposition: Put yourself on record as being in favour of a tariff which you eonsider to be proper for this country. But, they did not move; they did not do anything. I am not going to say that the opposition is no good. There are bright men among them and they would have discerned the weak points, if weak points there were and would have moved against them. Not having done so there is only one conclusion, and I think that the conclusion the country has reached is that the tariff as brought down by the Minister of Finance was as perfect, in view of the large scope that it had to cover and the many articles with which it had to deal, as any human institution could possibly be, and that it was the part of wisdom for our friends of the opposition not to touch it at all but to leave it as it was.

Further evidence that the tariff policy of the government is all right, lies in the fact that at the last general election no issue was raised against it, and the people of Canada endorsed that policy and returned to power the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister, and the other members of the government. It comes with poor grace from the members of the opposition to now raise the question in this House; when it was staring them in the face during the elections they failed to say a word about it. We hear our friends in the opposition repeat to-day the same old story: It is our tariff, you have made no changes ^ in it, it is the old national policy. Well, if I were called upon to prove what was or what was not the national policy, I would be dis-I posed to call the parent as the best evi-

dence of the identity of the child, and if I can, cite Sir Charles Tupper as my witness that the fiscal policy of the Liberal party is not the old national policy, I think even our Conservative friends will admit that that is pretty good evidence. At all events, Sir Charles Tupper himself claims that he was the chief author of the national policy, and now that many of the older men who were associated with him in launching that policy have gone to their reward, the testimony of Sir Charles Tupper ought to be convincing. We know that he told us, that he was in it, he was under it, he was around it, he was about it, that in fact he was the whole push, but however we may doubt that no one will question but that he was amongst the chief authors of the national policy. Now, in 1897 Sir Charles Tupper was leading the opposition in this House, and I cannot conceive that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) with all his astuteness and all his cleverness could successfully run the blockade right in front of Sir Charles Tupper and pass a tariff Bill which was in reality the national policy without Sir Charles Tupper discovered it. At all events, when the Liberal fiscal policy was launched by the Hon. Mr. Fielding in 1897 Sir Charles Tupper had an opportunity of dissecting it, and here are his words:

The result is that this tariff goes into operation and the hon. gentleman knows that the industries of this country are already paralysed in consequence, while honourable members gloat over the destruction of Canadian industries. 1 was reading the wail, the sorrowful wail, of these industries in the Montreal ' Gazette,' where one manufacturer after another declared that those industries were ruined, that their mills must close, and that they saw staring them in the face a return to the deplorable state of things that existed when the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House was in charge of the fiscal policy of this country. I say that a deeper wrong was never inflicted upon Canada.

I feel that so far from rejoicing at it Timm a party standpoint, I deplore from the bottom of my heart the ruin that is going to be inflicted upon the best interests of Canada, and upon its great industries. Still, I unhesitatingly say that, from a party point of view, the hon. gentlemen are doing our work; they are showing the people of this country that no reliance can be placed upon the most solemn declarations that they make either in the House or out of it; they are showing the people of this country that, having obtained power, which was all they wished for, they are now prepared to abuse that power at the cost of sacrificing the industries of Canada.

With all due respect to the calibre of the men who to-day sit on the opposition benches, I do not believe there is a man amongst them so capable of pronouncing an opinion on what is or what is not the national policy as is Sir Charles Tupper, and we have his own declaration here that 159

it is not the national policy that has been in force in Canada since the Fielding tariff was promulgated in 1897. Therefore, whatever success the country has achieved on account of the fiscal policy of the government is not due to the national policy but to the Fielding tariff. I leave it to my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) and his friends to reconcile their declarations in this respect with the strong pronouncement of Sir Charles Tupper which I have quoted to the House. They have abandoned this high tariff policy be cause they could not agree upon it. It is a great thing for them to get men from such a prosperous province as Manitoba or from the great west to support the opposition. They felt that with a high tariff policy they could not expect to get support from that country, and the leader of the opposition simply looked over these three planks of his policy and called his friends together, and said to them: ' We must dissolve partnership and leave every man to do for himself.' That was the position of the party when they faced the electors in the last general election. Is it necessary to refer to the kind of issues that were presented to the people on that occasion? I am not going to go over them. I will simply ask my hon. friends to look at what so strong a Conservative paper as the Montreal 'Star' said about the 28th or 30th of October last:

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE.

The paper I refer to is the * Montreal Herald and Weekly Star,' which is certainly an old-time Conservative paper, whose support in many respects has been of great help to the Conservative party. No doubt as an intellectual force it was a great stand-by. Its circulation is very large, and the views of the Conservative party found their way to many households through that medium. There were other ways in which that paper and its products, in the way of gifts of cash, were of material assistance to the Conservative party. There was another piece of machinery created for the purpose of circulating the moral influence of that paper, well known to the people of this country. These formed the machinery by which the honest cash of that paper, as no other would of course be received by it, was circulated throughout this country for the benefit of the Conservative party. But that paper, with all its love for that party, said on the 28th or 29th of October last, that there were no issues before the people to-day, that it was simply a campaign of slander. I am not going to go over the various scandals that were raised. I will merely say that the Conservative party abandoned every respectable issue that they had in 1904, and went to the country in this campaign of slander, and got licked out of

their boots. I want to know where they stand to-day. All their former policy is gone, their campaign of slander was no good, and they must have some new creation on which to go to the country again. I can imagine the hon. member for North Toronto making the same statement about it that he made about the Remedial Bill. He found that that was a poor vote-catcher, and I remember well his speech in the House: ' I have given it a trial, but while water runs and grass grows, I will never again put myself in the hands of any man as I have done with this thing.' I can imagine that after the severe castigation our friends received from the people of this country for dragging these scandals before them, they are saying, ' While water runs and grass grows, never again will we besmirch ourselves by going to the country in such filthy rags.' I hope that when they again face the people, they will face them with honest, straight business propositions.

When our hon. friends accuse us of having no policy, we reply that we have the same consistent policy that we had when the people entrusted us with the administration of this country some thirteen years ago. When they charge us with being a broken-up party and with having no policy, I ask them to take their own distances and courses and tell us exactly where they are. Are they back to the policy of 1904, or are they going to stand by the policy of slander on which they went to the country in the last election? I think it best always to go before the intelligent people of this country on good, square issues, on which the people are willing to judge the conduct of the two parties.

Hon. gentlemen opposite say that we are taking too much money from the people, taxing them too heavily. If we are, that is a serious matter. The statement which we put forth in the last campaign, and which I have heard nobody contradict, was that the average tariff of the Conservative party, while they were in power, was 18 per cent, while the average of the present tariff is 15 per cent. Now, if with a tariff of 15 per cent we get more money into the coffers of this country than the Conservative government got with a tariff of 18 per cent, I cannot understand how it can be truthfully said that we are taxing the people more than they did. A man who imports $100 worth of goods, would pay under the Conservative tariff $18 before he could take them out of the customs house, while under the Liberal tariff he would pay $15. The difference is, as has been explained many times, that more of those $100 came into the country under the Liberal tariff, that trade increased, and that out of the enormous volume of trade we got more money than they did. But it was entirely voluntary to the people. If they did not want to import the goods, there was no compulsion upon them. There-Mr. d. d. McKenzie.

fore, this argument that we are taxing the people unduly is without the slightest foundation. If hon. gentlemen opposite find it difficult to understand the operation of the tariff, let them take the administration of the Post Office Department. We have lowered the postage on one class of letters from three cents to two cents, and on another class from five cents to two cents, and yet despite these reductions in taxation, nearly double the money is going into the treasury from the postal service than did when our hon. friends were in charge, and before the rates of postage were reduced. How do they account for that? Is it possible for them to make out the argument that because we reduced the postal rates more than 75 per cent in some cases and have collected a larger amount of revenue, we are taking more taxation out of the people than we did before? I shall now leave this question of more taxation and higher taxation, because the people had the opportunity to pass upon it and they came to the conclusion that the opposition were not justified in their criticism and re-elected the government of the day.

Before closing, I wish to deal with some questions which my hon. friend from south Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) brought before the House last evening. He endeavoured to show that the Conservative party was the great party in favour of the labouring people, particularly in the province of Nova Scotia. Let me ask him what that party ever did for the labouring classes during the 18 years they were in office. Where is the Act on our statutes or where is the effort to better the conditions of the labour element during those 18 years, bv legislation or otherwise, by the political friends of the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin)? They were asked to do something for the labouring classes and positively refused. My hon. friend further went on to claim great credit for what his party had done in the local legislature. Well, I do not see how it could have been possible for them to do less than they did. Whatver position the miners in Nova Scotia hold to-day, they owe to the legislation introduced in the local House by the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding), who was then leading that House, and which was continued by his successor, the Hon. Mr. G. H. Murray. My hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) undertook a few days ago to make the prediction that a certain railway, to be built in Nova Scotia, would be held in abeyance until there was an election on. I wish I never had a harder task to perform than to defend the reputation and standing in Nova Scotia of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and his successor Mr. G. H. Murray. We have had Mr. Murray leading the Liberal party in Nova Scotia during the last 12 years. Previous to the last election there were only four

men in opposition to him in that House and now there are but five. The leader of the opposition in Nova Scotia thought he was strong enough to measure swords with the bon. member foT Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) but the people of that constituency turned him down. Then he had to come back to lead his party in the local House. But after he did go back, the people of Pictou county turned him down again under an avalanche of ballots and sent a young untried man to represent them in the local legislature. My hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) claims that Mr. Murray is afraid of the people and is holding back a certain railway until the next election so that he may make use of that railway to carry him to power again. The idea is ridiculous. Why should the intelligent people of Nova Scotia turn down Mr. Murray? Everything we have in Nova Scotia, from a political standpoint, we owe to the Liberal party, because we have had nothing but that party in power in the local House since confederation, with the exception of a short period from 1878 to 1882- a period entirely forgotten. And to-day there are but four men in opposition in the local legislature. That being the case my hon. friend from South Cape Breton was hard up for material when he tried to make a case against Premier Murray by talking about his administration with regard to our coal industry. Whatever we have in Nova Scotia in the way of coal development we owe entirely to the Fielding legislation, carried forward by Mr. Fielding's successor, Mr. Murray. During the 18 years the Conservatives were in power in this Dominion, we had but a poor development of ccal industry. Whatever we have in Nova 600,000 to 800,000 tons during the whole course of the 18 years. But when Mr. Fielding and Mr. Murray put their shoulders to the wheel and introduced what is known as the Fielding legislation, when we got capital into the country and put our coal mining industry on the footing it enjoys to-day, that brought about the establishment of the-steel works. There can be no question that the steel works in Cape Breton owes its establishment to the greater development of coal mining which was brought about by reason of the Fielding legislation. That legislation was bitterly fought by my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) and his friends. The history in connection with that legislation is one they have no reason to be proud of. They fought it in the local House, and some Tory members from Nova Scotia forgot their responsibility, as members of this House, and broke away from every rule by going to the Governor General over the heads of the then Tory government sitting in this country and endeavouring to defeat this legislation for what purpose I do not know. But His Excellency had bet-159}

ter sense than to listen to their argument. That legislation was allowed to pass^ and we have to-day, by reason of it, this great ie velopment in Nova Scotia in the coal and iron industries and the many other industries which have sprung up in that province.

The hon. member for South Cape Breton thought proper to criticise the railway policy of the government. He has thought it proper to quote at great length from a speech I made in the House some eight years ago. I am pleased that there was nothing in that speech from which an opponent of mine to-day could get any comfort. I was a supporter at that time of any policy that would better the position of the working classes in the county of Cape Breton, and I so expressed myself. Since I came to this House, I have followed the same policy and expressed the same view. My utterances of that time were read by the hon. member last night, and I have no reason to feel ashamed of anything I then said, nor do I find that I have departed in the slightest degree from the opinions which I then expressed. I ask permission to put on record the position I took in regard to the railways in Cape Breton. Though against my wishes, I shall be obliged to read to you the views I expressed upon the railway policy of tne Tory party in the House of Assembly on February 22, 1904.

In view of these declarations by the leader of that party

Declarations made by the leader of the opposition, then in the Assembly.

-it was amusing to listen to his hon. friend Mr. Tanner, in solemn tones and feigned honesty, asking the people of North Sydney and Sydney Mines to vote both governments out of power at once, because forsooth they were not proceeding sufficiently rapidly with the building of railways. Before his hon. friend who led the opposition in the House undertook to criticise the conduct of the Liberal party in respect to the procuring of railway facilities to Sydney Mines and North Sydney he should find out if his party during the eighteen years that they were in power at Ottawa did anything in the line of extending railway construction at Sydney Mines. The proper and natural time to look after the railway comforts of North Sydney and Sydney Mines was when the Cape Breton Railway was being located and built. But, the Tory government of that day and the Tory representatives entirely neglected the interests of those towns, and established a condition of affairs that was not easily remedied. It was perfectly clear that the Cape Breton section of the Intercolonial Railway below Georges river should have been built along the shore through the Little Bras d'Or district touching the towns of Sydney Mines and North Sydney and putting them on the main line, this would have settled the railway question in these towns and in the large and populous districts of Bras d'Or and Boular-

darie. But this grand opportunity was lost through Tory neglect, shortsightness and indifference. But to-day the leaders and candidates of that party had the effrontery to hold Liberal governments and Liberal members responsible for their own criminal political incapacity. There was no doubt Sydney Mines should and must be connected with the Intercolonial Railway at the earliest possible moment. A town of the size and importance of Sydney Mines within less than two miles of the Intercolonial Railway of Canada and not connected will it was ridiculous and absurd. He had no doubt one of the first acts of the present popular and public spirited Minister of Railways would be to right this Tory wrong and give the important and rapidly growing town of Sydney Mines the privileges which were her rights.

Now, I thought it my duty to put on record the views I expressed more than four years ago, so that my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin), if he wishes to get comfort from the position I took at that time, will have an opportunity of seeing my words and presenting them to his friends as well as to hon. members of this House.

I do not think I need follow that position. I think that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) has so fully answered the arguments put forward by the hon. member for South Cape Breton that it is quite unnecessary for me to follow them further. But, before I sit down, there are one or two things I wish to refer to, matters which I would rather not be obliged to refer to. A few evenings ago, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) whatever his purpose may have been, undertook to represent in this House the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) as having made certain statements reflecting upon the standing and credibility of the Conservative party. At that time, although I very much dislike interrupting hon. members who are addressing the House. I took the responsibility of saying that the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) never used the language ascribed to him. I am not attributing motives to the hon. member for Dauphin, but I cannot understand why he should undertake to misrepresent the Prime Minister unless ' it should be for some political purpose, making it appear that the Prime Minister had referred slightingly to the great Con- 1 servative party and those who compose that party. The hon. member represented the Prime Minister as having said:

I am sorry to say that it is another evi- 1 c'ence that we are not to trust Conservatives 1 vhen they pledge themselves to us as mem- i bers of this House or as a delegation.

It was thus held forth as an absolute ' truth that the right hon. Prime Minister s of this country made that statement with 1 reference to the Conservatives of the Dominion of Canada. Sir, if the Prime Min- i ister had made a statement of that kind, < Mr. d d. McKenzie.

it would be, coming from him, a very extraordinary statement. What he said is to " be found at page 3258 of 'Hansard.' I ' should not feel that I was doing justice ' to the right hon. Prime Minister if I did not bring this matter to the notice of the House and the country, if I did not set side by side with the language used by the hon. member for Dauphin that actually used by the Prime Minister, so that the people will have an opportunity of judging for themselves how correctly the language of the Prime Minister was construed, by the hon. member. What the Prime Minister said was as follows:

Why, Sir, if there is any wasted money in this instance, it was at the instance of the taxpayers of this country. We had a delegation here of the Sound electors, the best men in the riding of North York. We had the mayor of the town of Newmarket, and the leading citizens of that town and its vicinity. They were not party men, not political friends of Sir William Mulock coming here to boost his election, but men who came in their capacity as citizens, laying aside all party differences, and asking us, in the interest of the town of Newmarket and the riding of North York, to undertake this work. I remember that delegation very well; it was one cf nearly one hundred, certainly more than fifty. So large was it, at all events, that there was not room in the ordinary rooms of ministers to receive it. We had to get the use of the Railway Committee room for the purpose, and there man after man rose up ard told us that this was not a party question, but that they asked us, in the name of the town of Newmarket and the riding of North York, to give them that improvement.

Now, is the Holland river to be improved? If a boat is to be taken from Lake Simooe to Newmarket it cannot be taken any other way than the way contemplated Vy the present work. My hon. friend tells us now that all these representations made to us by men of his own political persuasion were ridiculous, and if I am now to take the word of Conservatives in the House of Commons, the Conservatives in the town of Newmarket and the riding of North York are not trustworthy and their representations are to ibe treated with contempt.

Now that is the speech made by the Prime [DOT] Minister at the time. He simply said, as I have read, that if the Conservatives treated with contempt a statement made by their own friends, he could not so treat it. But that was turned around into a representation that the Prime Minister was speaking of the Conservatives of Newmarket, and that they and Conservatives generally were not to be treated with respect. I could not for a moment, feeling as I do towards the Prime Minister, and feeling further a sense of fairness to every man, allow such an insinuation to pass without putting the facts before the House.

Now the other day the hon. member for North Toronto asked if we were proud of our Minister of Finance. In the earlier por-

tion of my remarks I said that we certainly were, and I, gave my reasons, and I intend to repeat them. We are proud of him, and we are prouder still of the great chieftain under whom he serves and whom we are all proud to follow. The hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) said last night a great deal about personal leadership at the next election, and he suggested that the present Prime Minister would not be leading the Liberal forces in the next election. Of course we cannot tell what will happen under Providence, we cannot tell what may happen from one day to another; but we of the Liberal party are full of confidence and trust, in view of the stalwart strength of our great leader, that he will again lead us to victory in the next election, as he has done during the past twelve years. When I heard the hon. member for South Cape Breton speaking, I could not help but think of what happened to his own party some years ago; I remembered that there are various means taken of getting rid of a leader who is not satisfactory, there is a way by which the Conservatives got clear of a man that they didn't think was just the man they wanted, but I do not think we will follow their example, I do not think we will build any such nest, nor have any such animals in it as they had in a certain institution that they called a nest of traitors. We are not going to deal that way with our leader, we will stand with him, and every Liberal from Scaterie to Vancouver will be proud to stand by him when the next election comes around.

Now a great deal has been said by our hon. friends from British Columbia about the policy of excluding Asiatics. I hear them rending the air in this House, telling how determinedly they are in favour of the total exclusion of Asiatics, they want to control absolutely the immigration policy of this country. That is all very well. But in the next breath they say we must stand true to British institutions, we must remain a part and parcel of the British empire. Let me ask hon. gentlemen how, if they are going to stand true to British institutions, they can fulfil their obligations to the mother country by opposing the immigration of Asiatics. It is well known that the total exclusion of Asiatics means nonintercourse with Japan; total exclusion means refusing to have any further dealing with that country. Some of my hon. friends from British Columbia are laughing at this. I ask them, as constitutional lawyers, as great authorities on international law, whether they think we have power to pass a law excluding people of another nation entirely from putting their feet on Canadian soil. We have no such power. There is no such power in a colony. The passing of such a law, whether in regard to Japanese, or Chinese, or Americans, would be equivalent to a declaration of war against such country. Do we possess the power to declare war-for that is what it means? When my hon. friends talk so flippantly about passing a law absolutely excluding Japanese, they are talking about declaring war upon Japan-for that is what it means. Now I would advise my hon. friends who talk that way to consult their leader and get hig opinion. He is a capable constitutional lawyer; let them ask him if it is within the prerogatives of this parliament to pass an act absolutely prohibiting an American from putting his foot on Canadian soil. I venture to think that the leader of the opposition will tell them that we can do nothing of the kind; we cannot do it in the case of America, we cannot do it in the case of Japan. Not having that power, the proper thing for us to do is to respect British Institutions, to respect the relations between Japan and Great Britain, and to be content with the restriction we have already placed upon what we consider undesirable immigration, and in this way we may obtain peace with honour with the great nations of the world. Let us continue in the paths of peaceful diplomacy, and not stir up a war, which would be the result of that unmentionable telegram if it was carried into effect.

Speaking of the leader of this government, I want to put on record testimony of a gentleman who is not a partisan of this government. I want to show what this gentleman thinks of the great leader whom we follow. The testimony is that of a man who is high in the councils of the Conservative party, a man who is at the head of a great newspaper, the Toronto News. I think it right to make this quotation for the benefit of my hon. friend from South Cape Breton, when he speaks of the possibility of a change in the leadership of our party.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

April 27, 1909