November 29, 1910

FIRST READINGS.


Bill (No. 17) respecting the British Columbia Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Taylor (New Westminster). Bill (No. 18) respecting the Kootenay and Arrowhead Railway Company.-Mr. Taylor (New Westminster). Bill (No. 19) respecting the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway Company of Canada. -Mr. Cash. Bill (No. 20) respecting the Mather Bridge and Power Company.-Mr. Germain; and Bill (No. 21) respecting the Vancouver and Lulu Island Railway Company.-Mr. Smith (Nanaimo).


DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT.


Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE (North Ontario) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 16) to amend the Dominion Elections Act. He said: In many constituencies the deputy returning officers have been in the habit, at the close of the poll, of allowing the public to be present while the ballots are being *counted. The object of this amendment is to compel the deputy returning officer to exclude the public while the ballots are being counted. It imposes a penalty upon him for his refusal to do so. It also imposes a penalty upon any person who refuses to retire from the polling booth at the request of the returning officer while the ballots are being counted. Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES.

LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved:

That the name of Mr. Gilbert be added to the following committees:-Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, Public Accounts and Agriculture.

Topic:   SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES.
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


INTERNAL ECONOMY COMMISSION.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER delivered a message from His Excellency the Governor General, which Mr. Speaker read, as follows : The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons an approved minute of council appointing the Honourable William Stevens Fielding, Minister of Finance, the Honourable Louis Phillipe Brodeur, Minister of Marine and Fisheries and Minister of Naval Service, the Honourable William Paterson, Minister of Customs, and the Honourable William Pugsley, Minister of Public Works, to act with the Speaker of the House of Commons as commissioners for the purposes and under the provisions of the 11th chapter of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, intituled, ' An Act respecting the House of Conn mons.'


ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.


House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. McGiverin: for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General, in reply to his speech at the opening of the session; the proposed amendment of Mr. Monk thereto, and Mr. Borden's proposed amendment to the amendment.


CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, about eighteen years ago, when I had the honour of moving the address in reply to the speech from the Throne, I took the liberty of suggesting that that was a proper time for parliament to pause for a moment and take stock nationally of our position. I think to-day it is exceedingly appropriate, in view of all that has taken place in the last few years, for parliament to pause and take stock again of our national position. I feel justified in saying that a wonderful change has come over the mode of government in this country in the last few years. If I might be allowed for a moment to refer to the circumstances under which the speech from the Throne was delivered, it would perhaps illustrate as well as anything else the marvellous change that has taken place in our system of procedure. Originally, as we all know when parliament was summoned the King addressed the representatives of the people in a speech supposed to be his, but written practically by one of his chief officers, generally his Lord Chancellor. Subsequently the procedure was changed, so that now it is, as laid down in Todd, ' according to modern constitutional practice, the first duty of ministers in relation to parliament to prepare the speech intended to be delivered by or on behalf of the sovereign at the commencement and at the close of every session.' The speech so to be prepared, it is laid down, ' should include a statement of the most material circumstances of public interest which have occurred since parliament separated, and should include in general terms the principal measures which it is the intention of the ministers to bring for the consideration of parliament. We thus see a great change in procedure, the speech from the Throne being now the utterances of the ministers, for which they are responsible. Perhaps the best illustration that can be given of this change occurred in 1830, when Daniel O'Connell described the speech from the Throne as ' a bloody and brutal one,' and yet it was held that in so describing it he had not exceeded his privileges as a member of parliament. I sincerely hope that nothing I say to-day shall in any way approach the line which was held proper in the case of Daniel O'Connell so long ago as 1830; but I do intend, Sir, to speak with perfect freedom of the speech which has been delivered from the Throne, inasmuch as constitutionally it is not the speech of His Excellency, but the speech of his ministers for which they are responsible.

Before taking up the speech itself, I would say that the change which has come about in the system of government in this country is so pronounced as to be beyond all possibility of question. There was a time when the people of the country looked to

parliament to preserve the liberties of the people and to protect them in the exercise of their just rights. We have illustrations in English history that when monarchs wished to pass most despotic measures, they were wise enough to pass them by means of their parliament so that the representatives of the people might be responsible, and not the monarch himself, and yet it was the monarch's will which was crystal-ized into legislation passed by an obedient parliament. In view of what has taken place within these walls in the last few years, there is no unprejudiced observer who would be prepared to doubt that to-day we have an uncrowned king in Canada who is as despotic and autocratic as any monarch that rules in any land to-day.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Who is it?

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NORTHRUP.

My right hon. friend modestly inquires who is it and he is perhaps justified in doing so since he is the one man in all Canada who is perfectly unaware to whom I refer. We had a striking illustration in the House a session or two ago of the fact I mention, when a motion was made for the production of some papers. That motion was greeted with shouts of derision and cries of ' lost' from the other side, but when one small voice was raised from the seat occupied bv the right hon. gentle man, uttering the word ' carried,' every hon. gentleman on that side became mute at once and the resolution was allowed to pass without further challenge. We have had instance after instance of that kind in the present parliament and the speech from the Throne before us carries out the line of policy I have indicated, introduced by the right hon. gentleman and apparently to be continued, namely that the people are not to be consulted about the matters in which they are interested and in respect of which they must foot the bill. The right hon. gentleman and his ministers decide during recess what is to be done and rely with absolute confidence on the majority behind them endorsing whatever their views may be, as illustrated in the case to which I referred a moment ago. When once the ruler has spoken, the measure, he calls on his followers to accept at once, automatically passes into legislation.

In this speech from the Throne, I notice that th" first clause has reference to His Excellency the Governor General. It may be somewhat presumptuous on my part to add a word to what has been so well said by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) regarding the present occupant of that high office, but lest perhaps some hypercritical mind might think that my hon. friend was speaking merely officially and not from the heart, Mr. NORTHRUP.

I venture to say that in what he said, he gave but expression to the public sentiment of the country. I believe that we all understand that whatever other factors there may be that justify the existence of that high office and call for its continuance there are two that overshadow all others. One is that there should be a reserve power somewhere, that if necessary could be called upon. The very existence of which is the best guarantee that it will not be called upon. We all know that it has been called upon and that it is capable of being called upon if necessary. Another overshadowing factor is that by his occupancy of that office he can do much to strengthen the ties strong as steel and light as air that bind us to the mother land. And I venture to say that when His Excellency leaves this country it will be said from one end of the country to the other that no previous occupant of the office has ever proved a more sincere, painstaking and successful administrator.

The next reference which I see in the speech from the Throne is to the lamented death of our late King. It would be presumptuous and superfluous on my part to attempt to add anything to the beautiful eulogy pronounced in this House a few days ago by the right hon. gentleman. I may only say that if during the life time of our late Sovereign, it had not fallen to the lot of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wil-fried Laurier) to deprive him of one of his prerogatives, the control of the navy in every portion of his Dominions, we might better appreciate the sincerity of his eulogy.

The next paragraph the speech refers to is trade and commerce, and I notice an extraordinary clause in it indeed. The government calls on the people of the country to notice and be grateful for an extraordinary phenomenon, namely, that the total volume of imports and exports far exceeds all previous records. Now it may seem a small matter to cavil at a statement such as that in the speech from the Throne, but I venture to submit that there is a vast deal implied in the fact that the government of the day should call upon the people of the country for congratulation on the ground simply and solely of the fact that our imports and exports have increased. If the right hon. gentleman is sincere, I should be only too happy to point out to him a way in which he can secure a still further increase in our imports. If he will strike off the duty on coal and the bounties and duties on iron, there will no doubt follow a tremendous increase in our imports.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Hear, hear.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NORTHRUP.

True, you would close down the Nova Scotia collieries; true, you would put an end to the operation of the

Nova Scotia iron mines; true, many Nova Scotians, now happy and contented, would be deprived of the means of existence and would be probably driven to another land, but there is not the slightest doubt that our imports would be increased, and that is a subject upon which we are called upon to congratulate the government. Let me point out an object lesson in this connection. In the year 1896, we had a woollen industry comparatively prosperous. The government interfered and lowered the duty on wool, and with what result? Whereas in 1896, we had imports of wool to the extent of $9,000,000, last year some $22,000,000 of wool and woollen manufactures were imported. Our exports of these goods, it is true, after 14 prosperous years, fell off from $900,000 to $600,000.' True a mill in Sherbrooke, another in Carleton Place, a mill in Montreal, and two mills in Almonte, and numerous others were obliged to close their doors; true many of the mills, which were able to continue running, have been running on shorter time and paying lower wages, but the imports of this country in wool have grown from $9,000,000 to $22,000,000. Therefore, I congratulate the right hon. gentleman, if it is his desire merely to have an increase of imports.

But we have also had an increase of exports, and here too, I might suggest a simple mode by which they would be still further increased. Last year we witnessed the spectacle of a minister of the Crown- the Minister of Finance-who I regret, is not able to be with us-spending a nightly vigil in endeavouring to secure the passing of a Bill to enable a private company to dam the St. Lawrence. Let the government take up that Bill again, let them dam the St, Lawrence. True, they would hamper navigation; true, it would spoil its scenic charms; true, the people of this country might be losers in many ways, but the export of electrical energy would enable us to still further increase the vplume of our exports, of which - the government is so proud. Perhaps no better illustration can be found than the little country of Peru where the people at one time were contented, prosperous and happy, although they had no exports at all. But one day the Spaniards came and at once the exports began to, grow at a marvellous rate. True, the people ceased to be prosperous and contented; true, they were dying like flies, but the Exports of ihat country increased, and that apparently is the beau ideal of this government. That, according to their idea, is the only proper way of carrying on the financial affairs of this country. When I find a government entrusted with our fiscal poliey under such conditions as are alluded to in another part of the address- when I find they have such an extraordinary conception of the meaning of experts and

imports-and I grant that an increase in the volume of imports and exports may be a great boon to the country, but I think I have also shown it might not be-when

I find the government taking credit for this increase, I think we are entitled to ask to what is it due.

Perhaps it might not be out of place, since speaker after speaker has discussed the fiscal policy which has led to this marvellous growth of imports and exports, and since the Prime Minister himself has been good enough to refer to the national policy as being as dead as an Egyptian mummy, and to call on the people of this country to offer up a humble thanksgiving for the Fielding poliey-perhaps it would not be out of place to call the attention of the country to a few stubborn facts, and I would ask members on the other side of the House to frankly and fairly face the facts taken from the tariff of this country. We had a tariff in 1897 when this government came into power. That was _ the national policy which the Prime Minister tells us has been so deeply interred. A new tariff, they said, was introduced. The two tariffs are in the statute-books, and can be put side by side, and he who runs may read. Let me call attention to a few of the ' marvellous changes ' made by the present government in the old national policy which entitles them to claim so much credit for any increase of prosperity that the country now enjoys.

Under the old tariff the first group of items was ales, beers, wines and liquors-10 items. These were let severely alone, save that one was changed-and increased.

Agriculture, animals and dairy products; 93 items under the tariff of 1894. Of these, 93 items, 81 were left unchanged, 5 were decreased and 6 increased. One was changed from specific to ad valorem.

Fish and products of the fisheries, 19 items under the tariff of 1894. The duties on these 19 items were all heavy, and all were left unchanged under the tariff of 1897.

Books and papers; 18 items, 12 left unchanged.

Chemicals and drugs; 14 items; 9 unchanged, 4 increased, one lowered.

Opium; 3 items; all unchanged.

Colours, paints, oils-, varnishes; 21 items; 14 unchanged, 3 increased and 4 decreased.

Leather, rubber and manufactures thereof;

II items; 8 unchanged and 3 increased.

Jewellery and materials therefor; 8 items;

6 changed, one increased and one decreased.

Textiles, furs, etc.; 51 items; 22 unchanged, 17 increased, 6 decreased and 6 readjusted as between specific and ad valorem.

Sundries; 26 items; 21 unchanged, 3 decreased, one increased, one new.

Sugar, syrups and molasses; 7 items; one unchanged, 6 increased.

Excluding the items of iron and iron

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NORTHRUP.

Only by hon. gentlemen opposite was that suggestion made. Whether they approve or not of our attitude in being willing to assist the mother land in what we believed to be a time of crisis, why will they misrepresent that position which even if mistaken is not one to be ashamed of, and say because we are willing once, or again if necessary, if a similar crisis arise, to assist the mother land we therefore had so little regard for the autonomy of Canada that we were prepared to lay down the principle that year by year we must contribute to the support of a navy over which we have no control? We on this side can appeal to the people to-day, we can say that we had a certain policy last year and this government hud a certain policy. The Minister of Customs last night said tauntingly to this side of the House that we had not done anything and could not do anything and would not do anything, but if we had succeeded it would have cost more than the course the government has adopted. If the opposition had had its way last year, if we had given two Dreadnoughts to the assistance of the mother land, her navy would have been just so much stronger and we believe rightly or wrongly that if all the various parts of this glorious empire, Canada,' Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, would unite in laying down the principle that when a crisis comes we will all be prepared to assist the mother country to the full extent of our resources, we believe that the greatest guarantee of peace that could be imagined would be secured.

But the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his government took their course, they spent: we do not know how much, but certainly some millions of money on ships which are either good or bad, good warships or old junk fit to be sent to the scrap heap. If they are good ships the mother land has been weakened by their loss; if they are old junk, they should be sent to the scrap heap, Canada has not been consulted in their purchase and millions of money have been spent on them. If the views of the opposition had prevailed, if Canada had given two Dreadnoughts, or $25,000,000, what would that have cost us? At 3 per cent it would be $750,000; at 4 per cent, $1,000,000 a year. That would be all we would ever have had to pay for an assistance that would have been assistance to the mother land, whereas to-day we, by the policy of this government, unless the

right hon. gentleman will leave it to the people, are committed to an initial expenditure of millions of dollars in constructing and purchasing ships and millions afterwards to keep the navy in commission. If we would only stop for a moment and lay aside the high-falluting ideas that sometimes take so well with an audience of the character described by the hon. gentleman from Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in Drummond and Arthabaska, where he said he could account for the verdict only by their lack of knowledge which is a synonym for ignorance, something which we would not say of the electors in any county in Canada-and study the real position, I venture to say that the people of Canada would oppose absolutely the policy inaugurated by this government. We are told that this navy is for the defence of Canada and Canadian commerce. Against whom? It must be defence against somebody. It cannot be against Germany, or the United States, or Japan, it could not be a defence against any people under heaven except the Esquimaux, and I venture to think we could meet them in a cheaper and more effective way if they came to our shores.

But the Minister of Marine with his usual versatility proceeded to show the necessity of a navy. One does not like to say anything disrespectful of an hon. gentleman, particularly in his absence, but when the Minister of Marine, the gentleman selected by the government as the one to manage and control this navy, speaks on the floor of this Chamber as the official head of the navy, he must have been prepared to enlighten his less informed colleagues on the subject. He had been chosen as the naval officer who would make the navy a success. He explained that the reason we required a navy was on account of the pirates in the Gulf of Mexico, and in order to prove to this House-and I am bound to say he apparently proved it to the entire satisfaction of hon. gentlemen opposite, judging from their applause-in order to prove the terrific risks this country runs from the pirates in the Gulf of Mexico, he read the following dispatch:

Pirates Murder Crew of 17 Men.

Manila, September 25.

There may be some gentlemen on this side of the House who through lack of knowledge may not be aware that Manila is in the Gulf of Mexico, but evidently it is, because the Minister of Marine has said so in justifying an expenditure of millions of dollars to protect the people of Canada, the poor shivering people of Regina, and Calgary and Winnipeg, from these pirates in the Gulf of Mexico, concerning whom this despatch is sent from Manila.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NORTHRUP.

Official despatches from southern ports say it is rumoured that the revenue cutter ' Sora ' has been captured by Moro pirates

Moro is another place in the Gulf of Mexico.

-and the crew murdered. The authorities have been unable to secure confirmation of the rumour, although despatches have been sent to all adjacent points.

The ' Sora ' was used as a patrol boat against the Moro pirates of the southern archipelago in the general campaign against smuggling inaugurated by the insurgents a short time ago.

It was commanded by Captain P. A. Mc-Gorty, and carried a crew of It, all Philippines.

-gathered from the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, of course.

The cutter left Salabo, 20 miles south of Palana, carrying J. L. Peary, collector of the port, who was bound to Sandakan in British North Borneo, to purchase supplies. Nothing has been heard of the vessel since.

It is only fair to the Minister of Marine to say that the argument he advanced to this House to justify the expenditure of millions of dollars on a Canadian navy in order to protect the trembling, shivering, cowardly Canadians and their commerce, against the Philippino pirates in the Gulf of Mexico is as sound logical reasoning as any argument presented by hon. gentlemen opposite, to this House.

Now, hon. gentlemen opposite sometimes blame us because we have not that confidence in them and their administration that they think intelligent people should have. What are the people of this country to think, Sir, when before this august body, supposed to be composed of representatives of the people, supposed to come here and to acquire the best information that will guide us and enable us to legislate honestly, intelligently and in the best interests of those who sent us here-what, I say, are they to think, when the best information we can get to justify this enormous expenditure and this departure from all constitutional usage is such language-I will not use the word that I intended to use, even although I think that under the circumstances of the case I would be justified-as was used in this House by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries? In a subsequent part of his speech he returned to the discussion of these piracies in the Gulf of Mexico, thereby showing that the description of the Gulf of Mexico was not merely a slip of the tongue.

The next clause I see in the address is one referring to the Hague tribunal. I am sure that every hon. member of this House must rejoice at the success of the proceedings of the Hague tribunal, and must congratulate the government, the people of this country, the United States and the empire

that it is possible that international difficulties can be settled in such a way as they were there settled. But, does it not strike the right hon. gentleman that when two great nations of the world, such as Great Britain and the United States, who, perhaps, have had about as much difficulty in avoiding complications politically as any other two nations, are beginning by international arbitration to settle Questions which otherwise might lead to war is an inopportune time to commit Canada to a navy? I do not think that any member of this House would be justified from this time forward in treating any utterance of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries seriously, but, surely, the right hon. leader of the government and some of his colleagues must appreciate the fact that there never was a time in the history of naval construction when so many changes were being made in the vessels as those which are going on today. There never was a time before when aerialists were seeking to conquer the air, and no one can tell what improvements in aerial navigation and naval construction may be brought about in the course of a few years. Is it possible that prudent statesmen, men legislating only for their country, without collateral considerations, would select this of all times to plunge this country into a burden of that extent?

From the information I have from various parts of the country, I have no hesitation in telling the right hon. gentleman that if he would appeal to each of the provinces of Canada and if, in constituency after constituency, the simple question were put to the people: Are you in favour of a Canadian navy or not?-the people would almost unanimously vote that they are not in favour of a Canadian navy. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that I am opposed to a Canadian navy, first, because I think the time is inopportune; secondly, because I think we owe a duty to the British Empire which we are not discharging in the way the government has attempted to do it, and which we might discharge in another way. Therefore, I am opposed to a Canadian navy at the present time, but I decline to be put on record as saying that for all time to come, under all circumstances and under all conditions I would always oppose a Canadian navy. I can understand that the conditions might be such that it might be necessary, but before I would agree that it was necessary to have a Canadian navy I would insist on having a friendly conference with the various nations or colonies, call them what you like, which make up this empire. Let them sit down together and calmly deliberate as to what are the responsibilities and needs of this great empire and then, after sitting down together and elaborating some plan by which the end desired may be best accomplished, I am 13*

prepared that Canada shall do its duty, whatever the cost may be.

The next clause in the address is one referring to the National Transcontinental railway. With great joy and satisfaction and much in the way of congratulation the government informs the country that this railway has so far progressed that grain is this season finding an outlet from the west to the Great Lakes over that new highway. I have under my hand, but I shall not occupy the time in reading it unless the right hon. the leader of the government wishes me to do it, the speech made by the right hon. gentleman seven years ago, in 1903, when he trembled with anxiety lest it was then too late. Heaven forbid that it is not too late! Not an hour, not a minute, not a second is to be wasted; this road must ibe constructed from ocean to ocean ! Now, after seven years the government comes before this House and calls on the people of the country to fall down on their knees and thank heaven that this year a little grain has been delivered at the Great Lakes. It would seem, unless I have entirely forgotten what took place in 1903, that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway company wanted to build a railway from North Bay or somewhere along their own line west to the Pacific ocean and every hon. member on this side of the House wished to assist in building that road for the people of the Northwest. They desired at the earliest possible moment to have two lines bringing the products of the west down to the sea, and yet, when the Grand Trunk wished to build one line of road and when the members on this side of the House believed in assisting them to build this line of road the right hon. leader of the government decided that it should be a different line of road running through a different part of the country. The result is that to-day, after seven long years, the best news that the government can -bring down to the people of this country is that a little grain has been carried to the Great Lakes.

Surely, when the government make predictions, such as they made in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, such as they made in connection with the navy and such as they make from day to day on every subject, every one of which has failed of verification, it' might be expected that the government would be a little more careful to bring the people into their confidence, to bring the representatives of the people into their confidence and not come down in an autocratic way with a scheme cut and dried and declare that it must be passed by this House because one or two gentlemen sitting on the treasury benches have decided that it should be passed. Surely it is time that we should calmly deliberate upon and

discuss these questions in the good old-fashioned way when the representatives of the people are legislating for the people and do not let us have an uncrowned ruler legislating for us according to his own sweet will.

The next clause in the address has reference to the railway to Hudson hay. Here again I have exactly the same criticism to make because the government has proceeded with the construction of that road. Parliament has never been asked a word about it. No representative of this side of the House had a word to say as to whether this road is to be built or not. No one on this side of the House has the faintest idea how it is to be built, who is to build it, or, when built, who is to oper-. ate it. Yet, the government tell us that they have already built a bridge on the line of that road and that we are to have a Bill submitted to parliament this session to provide for the building of the road. There is no man in Canada, outside of the government, that will stand up and say boldly : I am in favour of the building of the Hudson Bay railway. Not even the people of the west will say that. They are all in favour of the building of the Hudson Bay railway provided it is so constructed and operated as to be in the interest of the country. But, if any Hudson Bay railway is to be built like the National Transcontinental railway, sinking hundreds and thousands and millions of dollars, the interest on which the freight carried must pay, and if the operation of that road, when built, is to be like the operation of the Intercolonial railway, a road costing this country $70,000,000 and yet run at a loss, then the people of the Northwest do not want the Hudson Bay railway. Let the right hon. gentleman bring down a scheme for a road properly, economically, reasonably and intelligently built and with proper provision for its operation and I venture to say that hon. members on this side of the House will be ready, as they are always ready to support any honest, intelligent scheme for the betterment of the conditions of the Canadian people. Then, Sir, I come to an interesting clause which I shall read :

The construction of the bridge across the St. Lawrence river at Quebec, the largest work of its kind ever undertaken, has been receiving the careful attention of my government, and the utmost care is being observed so that success may he assured. The substructure is now under contract. Tenders for the erection of the superstructure have been received from four responsible companies, and are now being considered.

It is expected that the contract will shortly be awarded and the work pushed forward to completion.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NOKTHKUP.

Seven years ago the government could not wait long enough to discuss the question; time would not wait; the exigencies of the case were such that all haste must be made before the people had time to consider the matter ; but to-day we have nothing to represent the bridge in which so many millions of dollars have been sunk, except a few half constructed piers in the St. Lawrence river, a deficit of millions' of dollars gone where the woodbine twineth, and a loss of some 70 or 80 Canadian lives. Then, the right hon. gentleman comes to the trade question and he speaks about recognizing the importance of foreign markets and he says that arrangements are to be made so that our surplus products may be admitted into the markets of these countries on the most favourable terms. Well, if the right hon. gentleman, had added just two words to that sentence, I would agree with him that it might express his views; had he added the words ' to them ' so as to make it read: ' So that our surplus products may be admitted into the markets of those countries on the most favourable terms to them,' it would more nearly represent the fact. We had a treaty with France last year; it did not amount to much but the right hon. gentleman rushed it through the House. It is true that this treaty let in about a dozen other countries which gave us nothing whatever in return, and therefore I am absolutely literally correct in saying that we arranged to let our surplus products into these countries on the most satisfactory terms to them. Then we have a clause in the address which I frankly admit I do not know the meaning of. I have seen a great deal of discussion in the press, in the reform newspapers especially on the subject of reciprocity and I have heard a great deal said about it in this House. I naturally looked to the speech from the Throne expecting that there would be in it some reference to the subject of reciprocity, but from the first word to the last I challenge my right hon. friend to find one sentence, one word, or one syllable that refers to reciprocity. The nearest approach to it is this long clause winding up with the statement:

While no conclusions have been reached, and no formal proposals made, the free discussion of the subject that has taken place encourages my government to hope that at an early day, without any sacrifice of Canada's interests,

And now, what are we going to get:

-an arrangement may be made which ^ will admit many of the products of the Dominion into the United States on satisfactory terms.

Why, of course we would all hold up both hands for that. But does any one suppose for a moment that our American

friends, the shrewdest, keenest, business men in the world, came to Canada merely to discuss measures by which the products of Canada would be admitted into the United States on satisfactory terms to Canada? Did it ever enter the minds of the right hon. gentleman or his colleagues that perhaps the Americans might like some of their goods to enter Canada on satisfactory terms to them? And, when we are called on to discuss such a question as this surely we have the right to ask that when the question is reciprocity, if it is reciprocity, we should be told so. Everybody will hold up both hands for any arrangement to enable us to send our goods on satisfactory terms to us in the United States, but whether or not we shall agree to let their goods in here is another story. Perhaps I am not altogether in accord with some of my friends on my own side with regard to these reciprocity negotiations, but I quite agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Me-Giverin) who moved the address in reply to the speech, that if the Americans wish to make us propositions it would be the height of folly on our part not to consider any propositions they may make. I think it would be foolish, I think it would be discourteous, I think the government would deserve to be reprimanded by the people of Canada, if propositions having been made by the United States for improved trade relations, the Canadian government should decline to consider them. But, admitting all that, I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman if he does not think it fair that when the representatives of the people meet here in parliament we should be informed of what is the basis on which these negotiations shall be carried on. If the right hon. gentleman were a free trader and every one knew it we would know what to expect; if the right hon. gentleman were a protectionist and everybody knew it we would know what to expect; but if the right hon. gentleman takes the Fielding tariff (which as I have shown is practically a copy of the National Policy) and tells the people throughout the length and breadth of the land in triumph that that tariff is the fulfilment of his promise to give the people of this country free trade, is it any wonder that we on this side of the House are a little anxious as to the attitude in which he and his colleagues shall approach the American representatives when they come to treat with the people of Canada? We can remember in 1891 when the right hon. gentleman and his friends pronounced themselves in favour of a policy of unrestricted reciprocity a policy of continental free trade, a policy of commercial union. And the right hon. gentleman never having repented or recanted so far as we know, it may be that he is prepared to sit down to-day and enter into negotiations with the Americans in regard to improve trade arrangements (as they would call them) the basis being commercial union, unrestricted reciprocity or free trade. Well, I venture to tell the hon. gentleman that even very few of those men now supporting him would be prepared in this year of grace of 1910 to go as far as many members of his party went in 1891.

Then, we come to the reference to copyright, and I must confess that I am rather pleased personally at the statement that some arrangement is being made with the imperial authorities looking towards certain legislation touching copyright. I remember last year that when we were discussing the Navy Bill, the Minister of Justice-and I am very far from attempting to cast the least discredit on him as a lawyer, because he is an excellent and an admirable lawyer -but, the Minister of Justice last year when pointing out the right we had to legislate in regard to a Canadian navy, referred us to the British North America Act to show that the Dominion is given the exclusive right to legislate on that subject. I then called his attention to the fact that the word ' exclusive,' was also before the word ' copyright,' and that if his argument were sound we had the exclusive right to legislate touching copyright. And yet, the courts have held again and again, that we have not that right and that the meaning of the word ' exclusive ' was ' exclusive ' as between the Dominion and the provinces and had no reference whatever as between the Dominion and the mother land which of course had paramount power. Therefore, I feel some satisfaction when I find that the speech from the Throne intimates that by virtue of imperial legislation we are to be allowed to legislate on the subject of copyright. Then we come to the measures to be introduced and we are told that a Bill will be placed before us regarding banks and banking. Well, no thanks to the government for the Bank Act because that has to come before us this year anyway. We are also told that a Bill will be submitted respecting terminal elevators at the head of Lake Superior. Again, we would like to know what the nature of that legislation will be. It may be good or it may be bad legislation, but I venture to think that every member of this House would be in favour of certain proper legislation with regard to the terminal elevators at the head of Lake Superior. But the most remarkable part of the whole address is the promise that a Bill will be introduced with regard to the investigation and betterment of industrial and labour conditions. We have been told by the government often and often that the last word has been said in legislation on these subjects. We have had strikes it is true. We had a strike a year ago in the province of Nova Soctia and I believe there is another strike there which has been pending for a considerable time. We did not

hear of the Minister of Labour doing anything towards the settlement of these strikes, but from time to time the people of Canada were duly informed that all the nations of the world were standing fairly agape with admiration^ at the marvellous labour legislation passed by the Dominion of Canada which had for all time to come precluded the possibility of strikes. We had a strike a short time ago on the Grand Trunk railway. I do not know that the Minister of Labour was able to prevent that strike and we know that the strike went on for quite a length of time. I shall not enter into that subject just now but I may tell the Minister of Labour that later on in the session he will be given an opportunity of explaining who is wrong with regard to some of the charges made in connection with that Grand Trunk strike. This, I think Mr. Speaker, is all the information vouchsafed us in the speech from the Throne. Now, before I resume my seat I would like to refer to one or two other matters. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) spoke of the way in which the Conservative government had treated the province of Manitoba in regard to her land as being a justification for the way the present Liberal government has treated the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta with regard to their lands.

I do not wish to go into a debate on this subject. I merely want to call attention to three or four facts which I do not think any hon. gentleman will gainsay. In 1870, when the Manitoba Act was introduced, the government had just purchased a vast area, extending from the province of Ontario to British Columbia. There had been a rebellion in the eastern part of that territory, and in the year 1870, with the embers of the rebellion still smouldering, parliament was called upon to form that part of that great territory into a province. There were a number of clauses in the Bill, which were discussed most exhaustively by the predecessors of hon. gentlemen opposite, and yet, though I have read the debate most carefully, I have been unable to find one word in it finding fault with the reservation of those lands in those days. No better reason could be given for that reservation than was given by the Hon. David Mills when he justified the establishment of a second chamber in Manitoba on the'ground that, owing to the peculiar conditions there prevailing, it must be a long time before there would be a competent legislature in Manitoba. With a province which had not a competent legislature, the people being mainly half-breeds, with the government of the day saying that they were retaining the lands to build the national railway which the country desired so much, and with hon. gentlemen opposite, or their predecessors in those days, finding no fault with them for Mr. NORTHRTJP.

doing so, it comes with bad grace from hon. gentlemen opposite to-day to say that because the government of that day felt justified under those circumstances in keeping control of those lands, we should, in the year 1905, say that two provinces, occupied by as worthy, as loyal and as intelligent Canadians as are to be found in the Dominion of Canada, should be deprived of their soil, their minerals and their timber; and, not only so, but as if to add insult to injury, we undertake to pay them an equivalent for them. If they are entitled to their lands, minerals and timber, they should be given to them; if they are not entitled to them, they should not be paid a sum of money in lieu of what they are not entitled to. Therefore, I venture to say that there is no analogy in the two- cases. An hon. gentleman the other day spoke of the American rule, saying that the federal government controlled all the lands in the United States. That is partly true and partly untrue. What are the facts? Immediately after the revolution, when the various states were working in a disjointed way, agitators founding different governments in different states, the original states claimed that they were entitled to portions of the public lands, even away west of the Mississippi, by right of discovery or otherwise. As there threatened to be trouble between the various states over these lands, it was agreed that Congress should hold the lands for the common good of the states entering the Union. But between that time and 1830, millions of acres of these lands were made over to the_ various states for school purposes, just as we think the public lands should be handed over to the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta, to be used by the people of those states for their own benefit.

One other subject to which I desire to refer to-day is the subject of deficits, which an hon. gentleman brought up the other afternoon. We have heard a great deal about the deficits under the Conservative government and the surpluses under the government which followed. I am inclined to think that a careful study of the question would lead one to a very different conclusion. Probably the right hon. the Prime Minister and some other hon. gentlemen opposite will differ with me, but my serious conclusion, after a somewhat careful study of the figures, is that it is very doubtful if the present government have not had a very large deficit practically every year since they came into power. Let me give the figures to justify that statement. When hon. gentlemen opposite came into power there was a debt of $325,000,000. To-day the debt is $470,000,000. I quite understand that that of itself is merely a fact; it is not conclusive evidence. It is fair for the government to say: We have assets to show

for the increased debt. But we start with the one fact, which there is no gainsaying, that the debt of Canada to-day is $145,000,000 more than it was when hon. gentlemen opposite came into power. For 13 years prior to that time, under the Conservative government, there was an average income of $36,000,000 a year. For 13 years of the present government, the average income has been $66,000,000. If you multiply these figures you will find that the Conservative government took out of the pockets of the people $468,000,000 during 13 years that they were in power, whereas this government, in the last 13 years, has collected from the people $856,000,000, a difference of $388,000,000. Now, that is a pretty large item. The government which had built the Canadian Pacific railway had built the Intercolonial railway, had studded our shores with lighthouses, had enlarged and improved our canals, had built the Sault canal, left power with a debt of $325,000,000, whereas hon. gentlemen opposite, at the end of thirteen years of power, have a debt of $470,000,000, an increase of $145,000,000, and despite that have taken $388,000,000 more out of the pockets of the people than their predecessors. I admit that hon. gentlemen opposite have spent some money properly. I do not for a moment pretend to say that all the money they have spent has been spent dishonestly or foolishly. But I would like to ask, what is there to-day to represent this $388,000,000, plus. $145,000,000, a total of $533,000,000, that hon. gentlemen opposite have taken out of the pockets of the people since they came into power, over and above what was collected by their predecessors?

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
CON

November 29, 1910