January 27, 1914

?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
CON

Louis-Philippe Pelletier (Postmaster General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. PELLETIER:

man people of this country in a certain direction in order to win a by-election in this country of ours. Well, Sir, we have come to that. And we hear the hon. member complaining because we have told the *truth to the electors of Chateauguay about certain facts, and there he is, with his friends, convicted to-day of taking on the public platform a stand which I do not hesitate to say any true Canadian ought not to approve, and, if it was Parliamentary, I would say any true Canadian ought to be ashamed of.

But that is not all. We have heard a good deal about this victory in South Bruce, but let me tell you that in that fight our friends thought fit to appeal to the German voters. In presenting that Bill to the House this Government had absolutely no intention of hurting the feelings of the German people who live in Canada. We thought we had a duty to perform towards the mother country, and I do hope that the German people of this country, though they were led astray by this appeal in the last by-election, will understand that whilst in Canada we form part of the great British Empire, at the same time we have for the German people the respect which that great nation is entitled to, and that our action was not in the direction of offering any insult to them but was simply a manifestation of our desire to do our duty to the great empire of which we form a part. Germans have been coming into this country, and they are coming all the time. I know a part of our western country right now where over 12,000 acres are being colonized and broken by people coming from Germany. I say, as one of the members of this Government: Welcome to these good people; let them come here, make homes for themselves and become citizens. If the French-Canadian people in my province and other parts of Canada have played a not inconsiderable part in bringing about the entente cordiale, the understanding between England and France, I hope that the German people in this country may be numerous enough at a given moment to exert such an influence as not only to prevent strife, but to do their utmost in order to bring about lasting peace between England and Germany.

But that is not all. Appeals to prejudices were made in South Bruce. We know that there are a great number of Irish Roman Catholics in South Bruce. The hon. the member for Russell (Hon. Charles Murphy) went to South Bruce and told the Irish Catholics that there was no reciprocity in the last election, but that the election was

carried by the Conservative party on the Ne Temere question.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
LIB
CON

Louis-Philippe Pelletier (Postmaster General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. PELLETIER:

Ah, these gentlemen will never acknowledge their defeat. Then we had this good Irish Roman Catholic, the hon. member for Russell, going to his coreligionists in South Bruce and telling them that the Conservative party had promised to bring in a Bill to render the marriage law uniform in this country. Who has made that promise? He says these things for what purpose and with what object? These are the facts. They sent broadcast a certain newspaper published in the city of Toronto, in which there happened to be printed an attack on the Roman Catholics, and they said: This is a Conservative paper, look at the awful headlines which are here directed against the Roman Catholics ! That was sent not amongst the English Protestants, but it was sent amongst the Irish Catholics. I think this is striking below the belt. Both elections might well be compared, and if they are I think all the advantages of the comparison will be on one side.

Now, I would like to ask: What has become of free food ? This was a fine baby which was born in Hamilton and came into this world amidst a big blare of trumpets. The gentlemen who offered that baby to the public made me think of the great Napoleon when a son was born to him; he showed it to all Europe and said: This is my son. This thing took place at Hamilton. The next time we heard of the baby was in Montreal at the Fielding banquet. Half of the poor, little tiny thing had become impaired to such an extent that it was practically out of sight, and the hopes for its full recovery were not strong. As a matter of fact, Sir, the baby died during the trip from Montreal to Ottawa. The right hon. leader of the Opposition forgot to throw a few well-deserved flowers, when he spoke on the debate, on the premature little corpse. He did not even refer to it. That was most unkind. It might have been made the subject-matter of an amendment to the Address, after the great flourish of trumpets with which this free food baby was introduced to our notice. If it was not a catch-word, if it was a serious policy, we had a right to expect that it would be embodied in an amendment to the Address. But none of that; it was buried somewhere in a snowbank.

The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) who believes in miracles, tried

to galvanize the little corpse last night, but he said he was only speaking for himself and that he was not committing anybody else to his views. I am sure of that, but then he still believes in it. The hon. member for Rouville has an abundant faith. Even if the father of the newly-born policy has discarded it, the hon. member for Rouville, who was so enthusiastic when he saw the baby come into this world, still thought that there was something in it. But surely the hon. member for Rouville ought to have consulted his friends, because the people in the province of Quebec will now say: Look at the hon. member for Rouville; he believes in free food. I should think that it would be better for my hon. friend to put himself in accord with his leader in that respect, and if we do not hear of free food now from the right hon. leader of the Opposition perhaps the hon. member for Rouville may drop it also. At all events, that is only a suggestion, and I have no doubt it will be taken into my hon. friend's serious consideration.

Now, I just want to say this one word further: Free food means a reduction in the price of produce paid to the farmer. If you want to have free food you may go and tell them that in the cities, but I * would invite you to say so before the producers, the farmers of this country. That is where the test comes; that is why the child did not live. My right hon. friend found that the baby had horns, a most unusual thing for a child. And then he dropped it like a hot potato. My hon. friend did well; he saw there was no use humbugging the people by telling the consumers in the cities that reciprocity would lessen the prices of the articles they consume, and at the same time telling the farmers in the country that they would get a higher price for their produce. That story lasted until the evening of the 21st of September at five o'clock and then it burst.

I wonder why hon. gentlemen opposite attempt to revive it now. I represent a farming community and on behalf of the farmers in my county who till the soil, I say that they have just as good right to be protected in their industry as have the manufacturer and the artisan. If gentlemen opposite are going to reduce the cost of living to the consumers in the cities, will they please tell me how they can do that without re-du ing the prices at which the farmer sells his products, leaving aside for the moment the question of the middleman. We were told last night by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), that our country was being drained by the people of the

United States who came here to buy all our farm products; but if the people of the United States come to Canada to buy farm products and pay the freight on them to get them to their country, is not that proof that the price of these articles is higher in the United States than it is in Canada. Who can gainsay that principle? In the back townships of the province of Quebec for the last 15 years the farmers have been told when they had a fine crop of potatoes or anything else, that it was all done by Laurier, and the right hon. gentleman did not deny it very much; he simply suggested he was in partnership with Providence. The great trouble in this country is that our farmers' sons are leaving the farms for the cities, and, are they now going to be told that they must sell their farm products at a lower price than hitherto, thus encouraging them further to leave their occupation as tillers of the soil. For my part, I do not believe that to be sound doctrine. Of course, we all understand that this idea was thrown out as a 'ballon d essai,' to see how it would catch on with the people, but our friends opposite realize now that it would not float, and so they are looking for some other cry. Just imagine the incongruity of what we recently saw when we had our hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), a good protectionist to a certain extent, making a joint tour in his county with my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), who is The apostle of free trade. That joint tour was a good sample of the contrast there is between the diverse policies enunciated by members of the Opposition in this House.

On the question of the navy, I shall not speak at great length, nor do I think it necessary to do so at the present time. I was much impressed by the statement made by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition in this House a short time ago, to the effect that what was going on now with regard to the navy was inspired in the interest of the armour plate makers of the world, meaning, of course, that the Conservative party was acting in the interest of the armour trust. But I would like to point out with some emphasis, that the right hon. gentleman, when he spoke in Chateauguay and elsewhere, and complained so much of our naval policy, forgot to repeat the speech he made in this House last year, setting forth his naval policy. I went to Ormstown in the county of Chateauguay and before I spoke I was told by some respectable electors that the Conservatives had a very bad naval policy and they de-

sired me to explain it. I asked them if Sir Wilfrid Laurier had told them about his policy and the answer was', as the fact is, that he did not speak very much about it. Well, perhaps that is one of the things, so far as the Liberal party is concerned, as to which the past should bury its dead. But I would point out to the people of Canada that if there are any in this country who can be accused of a desire to help the armour plate trast, it is surely the men who want to build two fleet units, and not the men who want to build simply three ships. I want my right hon. friend to think over that situation, and to tell the people of Canada, as the fact really is, that the men who would give most work to the armour platers are the men who want to build the biggest navy. With these few considerations as to the navy I shall pass on.

The hon. gentleman from Kouville (Mr. Lemieux) has ceased to be a protectionist, and he seems to be very much concerned about the duty on agricultural implements, but it comes with very bad grace from him and his friends to talk about what reciprocity would have done for the farmer in the matter of agricultural implements, when we all know, as a matter of fact, that reciprocity did not purport to do very much in that respect. The hon. gentleman from Kouville has a way of his own in grappling with the tariff question, and in order to explain his attitude I shall quote these words from his speech of last night:

But, Mr. Speaker, when protection is con-[DOT]cerned, you can always make an argument when you wish to fasten and tighten around ithe neck of the farmer the collar of serfdom.

These are big words. Later he said:

It is useless to mince matters. It is just as well to speak plainly and honestly to the privileged classes who since 1879 have been enjoying their privileges.

Now, what does that language mean? Here we have the hon, member for Kouville stating ^hat since 1879 the collar of serfdom has been around the necks of the farmers, and that privileged classes have been protected during these many years. But the hon. gentleman was 15 years in power, and he is to-day the self-confessed perpetrator for 15 years of this crime, if crime there is. That is the sort of argument we have from hon. gentlemen opposite about protection. They pretend to say now that protection is a bad thing, but they know right well that they would not have attained power in 1896, and they would not have retained power for a year,

if they had touched the principle of protection, which is a sacred principle in this country. And how did they get to power? As was pointed out by the right hon. Prime Minister the other day, the right hon. the leader of the Opposition was denouncing protection as bondage and slavery in Winnipeg, when at the same time he was writing a letter to Mr. Bertram, a manufacturer, in which he pronounced himself a protectionist. Is that the way to deal with a great question in a country such as Canada? I do not think it is. I do not think so. When the hon. members of the late Government adopted protection, they continued the system of protection, not because they liked it, but because, that great broad-minded man who inaugurated protection in this country in 1879 forced them, even from his grave, to follow that policy themselves.

After the elections of 1908, I heard a remark made which I thought was a very apt one. A good old Conservative was putting the question: 'Well, we have

been defeated again; do you expect that we shall ever get back into power? ' A man who heard him ask this question said:

' Now, boy, you wait and you will see this Government fall to pieces when Canada is in danger.' That man was a prophet. When the right hon. gentleman (>Sir Wilfrid Laurier) departed from protectionist principles, which had been adopted in this country, and tried to fasten on this country the reciprocity pact, Canada was in danger, and then occurred the predicted fall.

If we are to j'udge by the hon. member for Kouville, our good friends have now evidently become free traders-free traders in opposition, protectionists in power! They dance the tango free trade when in opposition and the turkey-trot protection [DOT]when in power. We do not believe in doing that. We have been protectionists in opposition and we are protectionists in power, because we want this country to have a stable fiscal and financial policy, so that the people may know where they are and where they stand with the Government of their own country.

5 p.m. We have been asked what we intend to do in order to solve the temporary difficulties which exist in this country. I have taken up too much of the time of the House already, but I will discuss the matter very briefly. We have appointed a commission which is looking into the matter. In this respect we are not very far from one of the propositions laid down by the right hon. gentleman him-

self when he said in Montreal that his free food policy, which was born in Hamilton, had to be taken care of in some other way, and that if he had been in power he would have appointed three of his ministers to traverse the country as a commission to look into the matter. Well, we have appointed a commission. So far it is not so bad; but while the commissioners are working on this, we believe that the great evil in this country is that, in the past, agriculture has not been taken care of as it ought to have been. The other day I heard one of the members of this House make a very apt remark. He said that before this Government was in power, the people of this country were not very sure whether they had a Minister of Agriculture or not. Our friend and colleague (Mr. Burrell), with the consent of the Government, has started a new policy of educational instruction for the farmers, and this will go far towards relieving present conditions.

There is another thing that this Government has done. Our policy as to highways would also have been of great service to the farmers of this country. Of course, we know what has happened. I shall not discuss that at any length. Another thing we have done, is to give a post office to every farmer at his door; that is, to make rural mail delivery which was only under contemplation when we took office, an accomplished fact.

There is one thing more which, if it is properly understood, will accomplish a great deal towards bringing the consumer and the farmer together; that is, parcel post. I am glad to say that parcel post will be an accomplished fact in 'Canada on the 10th of February next. We have been working at it in the department for months. We have the problem pretty well in hand now, and whilst we are working so hard in order to give to the public this boon which I think will bring- together the consumer and the farmer. I hope in a couple of days, if not to-morrow, to lay before this House the regulations which have been adopted, and which will be distributed in order to inaugurate that policy. I think this is one -of the things which should have been acknowledged on the other side of the House as one of the means which this Government is taking to meet present conditions. This Government has been thinking of the people, of doing something for the people. This is one of the things to which we have devoted a great deal of

time and attention, and I think we owe it to our people as a mark of gratitude for the token of confidence which they gave to us on the 21st of September, 1911.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the House has listened with a great deal of attention to the address of the hon. the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier). The conditions of the country to-day from the Atlantic to the Pacific are such that the people, not only in this House but outside of it, will listen with interest to any speeches made by any members of the Government. I am sorry to say that, so far as any remedy or any hope of a remedy for the distressing conditions which exist in the country to-day is concerned, we have listened in vain to the hon. member of the Government who has addressed this House this afternoon.

His manner of dealing with big questions reminds me of the story of a doctor who was called in to treat a man who had pneumonia. The extraordinary course was taken by the doctor of throwing this man into a tub of freezing water, and when friends of the patient asked him in alarm: 'What do you mean by throwing that man into a tub of cold water?' the doctor said: 'Well, I understand it is pneumonia that he has got; I do not know how to treat pneumonia, but after he is thrown into the tub he will take fits, and I am a devil on fits.' It seems that the only position in which the hon. Postmaster General excels is in dismissals, and he will get away as quickly as possible from discussing public questions in order to get back to his den and his dismissals. The hon. Minister touched lightly on the question of dismissals. No doubt he had a right to touch lightly on that subject, and to pass away from it as quickly as possible. I understand that a return was brought down yesterday, which has not yet reached the members, in which the department of the hon. Minister is given credit for having, within the last two years, aye, in less than two years, dismissed 650 postmasters and 450 other employees of his department. That, Sir, is the record of the department which is presided over by the hon. gentleman who just addressed you. And, while he has no money for the payment of postmasters, while he has no money to increase the salaries of postmasters, as he has been promising for the last two years, it appears from this return, or from one that is closely

connected with it, that between the 10th of October, 1911, and the 26th day of May, 1913, he found money enough to spend on his beheadings, $18,268.46. That, Sir, is the laudable course taken by this exponent of Government policy who addressed us this afternoon. And, so far as actualities are concerned, nothing else has been done in that department that tends in the slightest degree to the advancement of the general condition of the people of this country. We are told that the course taken by the late Government led to the course taken by the Government of which the hon. Postmaster General is a distinguished member. I submit that the resolution which he quoted this afternoon is no basis at all for that course, and, properly construed, never was intended to cover the dismissal of such officials as have been dismissed since this Government came into power. I submit that that resolution, the Lake resolution, so called, properly construed, could not justify one-tenth of the eleven hundred dismissals which have been made by the Postmaster General. That resolution, moved by Mr. Lake, who was then a member of the House, was explained in a speech made by the mover at the time. He complained of the fact that officers of the Government in the northwest who were paid high salaries and who ought to give all their time and attention to Government business, were giving their time and attention in fact to political matters, and this, he said, ought to be stopped. To that line of action the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier gave consent, they agreed that men of this class, men paid high salaries, should devote their whole time to the business for which they were paid and not to politics. But does the Postmaster General say that he has confined himself to the class of people referred to in that resolution? He has gone further with his axeman business and his beheadings than any other minister in this country has ever gone before. It has never been known before in this country that mail contractors, poor, honest men, who have put in tenders for carrying the mail and have honestly obtained their contracts, and, obtaining their contracts, have spent their money to provide vehicles and other equipment for the purpose of carrying those contracts into effect, have been beheaded, their contracts cancelled and given to others. That is a line of action for which the Postmaster General can find no precedent in this country, or any other country in the world. That is the charge I lay at his door a charge which he cannot and will not answer, so far as I

can see, and which, certainly, he cannot deny.

He passed on from talking about dismissals and talked very glibly and very fluently indeed about these wonderful election scandals that he seeks to bring before this country. He passed very lightly over Chateauguay and came to the county of Bruce. He read some nice descriptions of certain convivial meetings which, he said, the hon. member who represents South Bruce (Mr. Truax) had attended in certain parts of that county. We are not aware whether the Postmaster General has any tendency or any regard for these convivialities with the fair sex-we have no evidence of it so far as the census of this country is concerned. But, Mr. Speaker, we, in this country, are now confronted with great questions, with questions involving the interests of the hundreds and thousands of men out of employment, as admitted by the hon. gentleman himself. I submit that that all-important matter was treated altogether too lightly by the hon. gentleman who has just addressed us, and from whom we had a right to expect a statement of some line of policy to be inaugurated by the Government of which he is a member. He spoke flippantly, as I said before, of the free food question. Will the hon. gentleman say that the farmers of this country are down to the point where 60 cents a dozen is the best they can do in eggs, 40 cents a lb. the best that they can do in butter, 25 cents or 30 cents a lb. the best that they can do in beef? Does the hon. gentleman say, or does this Government say, that we must not touch this holy structure which he calls Protection, and that no remedy whatever is to be afforded for the people? The theory of protection has always been that local competition would prevent high prices. I ask the Government if they stand now by that theory and determine to afford the people no remedy notwithstanding such prices as those I have just quoted. I submit that when it comes to prices of that kind the evidence is overwhelming that competition is not there; and I submit that if we can bring in supplies from outside it is the duty of this Government, it is the duty of whatever party is in power, to apply that remedy. I feel sure that those people in this country who are not able to furnish sufficient food for their children and for the proper maintenance Of their families are looking for a remedy, and it is not encouraging for them to listen to the speech of the Postmaster General who, we have a right to believe,

represents the Government, and who tells us that this sacred structure of Protection must not be touched, that wherever the remedy may come from, it is not to come through any change of this structure. We listened a few days ago to a speech from the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen). He rather hinted that the revision of the tariff would come, that something would be done in the interests of the people who to-day are paying too high prices by reason of protection, and that he would be a party to doing something for the alleviation of the condition of the people. But if the speech of the Postmaster General is to be taken as an indication of what hon. gentlemen opposite propose to do, the Solicitor General has not very much to hope for, so far as any action on the part of the Government is concerned.

Passing on from the food question, the Postmaster General told us that he would not dwell at any length upon the matter of the navy. He was pleased to talk about dead bodies and dead babies, and probably thought that he was painting a very clever picture for the members of this House; but let me remind him that if he wants to engage in body-snatching or grave digging, he will find a very suitable corpse, so far as this Government is concerned, in the naval question. I would remind him of an incident of ancient or sacred history, wherein a certain great and noble personage suggested that he should go to a certain grave, whereupon he was told not ta go, because * by this time what is in the grave stink-eth.' I wish to remind the Postmaster General not only that the naval question is dead, but that it is in its grave, and has been there so long that it stinketh. I am not at all surprised that he wishes to get away from it as quickly as possible.

The Postmaster General grew eloquent in telling the members of this House and the people of this country how much we should admire the actions of the Prime Minister of Canada. Let me ask him, or any member of the Government to show me any act of constructive legislation brought forward by the Prime Minister from the time that he took office down to the present, except the Naval Bill? Has he as Prime Minister produced anything else since he took office? I advise the Postmaster General, and every other member of the Government, to look upon the only fruit of his labour, this dead body to which I have alluded, and which will never again be resurrected to appear in

the political life of flat Dominion of Canada.

It is not necessary for me to deal at any greater length with the speech of the Postmaster General, who has simply reiterated an old, old story. He has simply gone over the same old ground; he has told us nothing new. Of course it is delightful to an old Scotchman like myself to observe the striking and radical changes Which appear to have come over the hon. gentleman, and to witness his advocacy of true patriotism and of true loyalty to the King, the old flag, and the old land. I deem it no credit to myself to be loyal; I have no reason to be anything else. I am willing to concede to any man whose parents were born in another country the right to love 'his native land, but in his doing so there is no reason why he should be less patriotic to the flag under which he lives. There are conditions which make it ridiculous for a man to put forward his great pride and patriotism. It is only a few years since the Postmaster General took upon himself the duties of the position which he now occupies. This he did not because he was an out and out patriot; not because he was an advocate of a British navy, British protection and British advancement throughout the world, but because he had the negative qualifications; because he advocated ' not a man, not a dollar, nothing for the British flag; we are tired of it; it is not the symbol of liberty in this country-we had to put holes through it a few years ago to breathe the air of liberty.' That, Sir, is an indication of the company in which the hon. gentleman was found when the present Government came into office, and that is the company in which he may be found to-day. He came into this House under the leadership of a gentleman who made no bones of what his position was; a gentleman who occupied a leading position in the Cabinet.

That hon. gentleman, who represents the county of Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in the province of Quebec, was brought in here as one who was qualified for the position of Nationalist leader in this House. But when hon. gentlemen opposite did not get everything they expected, that leader left the Cabinet, and his going was an evidence of the fact that his policy was not a man, not a dollar, no navy-nothing whatever for the advancement of British institutions in this country. The hon. Postmaster General should have submissively and quietly walked out after the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, because if he had not walked ahead of him coming in, he would

never have occupied the position he holds to-day. We are told that the lion. Postmaster General is a great loyalist and patriot, and that we have but to inquire into his past history to find out how much justification there is for his holding his present position. The hon. gentleman spoke about how [DOT] much he forgot; it is perhaps pleasing for him to realize that people will forget, for if his political record is not forgotten it is doubtful if he will ever again grace the benches of this House. At the last local election in the province of Quebec he pledged his political life to the people there, and asked them to support a candidate of his choice. But he was practically drowned out of existence; there was a ten to one vote-against his man-and then he was going to resign. But of course he did not do so. As long as there is any salary attached to his position, there is no danger of the Postmaster General resigning. The hon. gentleman was pleased to give us a dissertation upon good manners and parli-mentary etiquette, but I think that his reply to the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) was not what 1 would regard as a proper answer for a big man, occupying such a responsible position, to make a respectable member of this House. The hon. member for Prescott simply said:

' You have forgotten a certain condition of affairs;' whereupon the bar-room answer was given; the police court cleverness was employed, and the Postmaster General said: ' I have forgotten more than the

hon. gentleman ever knew.' That, Sir, is an example of the good manners of a Minister of the Government. I submit that it is anything but good manners, and it shows the peanut-political methods of the hon. Postmaster General. I had no intention of devoting so much attention to the speech delivered by the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier), as I had a few observations of my own to make on these *questions.

Speaking in this House a few years ago, since this Government came into power,

I znade the remark that I had hoped and believed that notwithstanding the fact that we had bad times and bad conditions when the Conservative Government was in power before, conditions had risen to such a high state during the fifteen years of the Laurier Government that the new Government could not, by any mismanagement on their part, bring the country back to the old conditions. I am sorry to say that I gave them more credit than they were entitled

to in one way, or perhaps I did not give them credit enough. I did not give them sufficient credit for their ability to wreck the ship of state and bring it to the disastrous condition in which it is to-day, as compared with the happy conditions in which matters were found in 1911 when the Administration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier handed over the reins of power. We handed over the reins of power after fifteen years of the most magnificent development that has ever taken place in any country. We found this country, Sir, when the right hon. gentleman who to-day leads the Opposition assumed office, in financial distress and storm. We found the same stagnation and standstill in financial and commercial matters extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific that we have to-day. We found that the Minister of Finance at that day was struggling to make one hand wash the other, struggling and in distress, getting every dollar he could from every source, legitimate and otherwise-I suppose legitimate-that could be gathered into the treasury; and with all that, and with the public service of the country depleted and starved, the only condition he could present, even in an election year, was a deficit approaching one million dollars. That was the condition that existed in 1896 when the Laurier Administration took charge. What has followed, Sir? The sun that set in adversity rose in prosperity. The moment the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier took charge of the affairs of this country and his Government assumed office-and that must be admitted to have been one of the ablest, if not the ablest, Administration that was ever constituted or formed in this country-everything budded forth and everything went forward with a bound to the prosperity which has continued for the fifteen years we were in power. We were told that although we had been saying we had surpluses, we had not had any; we were told that the moneys which appeared upon our books from year to year as a magnificent surplus were simply a paper surplus and that we did not have the money. We were told we were preventing proper investigation into the affairs of the country and that we were concealing something and that things were far from what they ought to be, that we had a dark lantern brigade and other institutions preventing inquiry. But the time came when, according to the rules of government we have in this country, a change took place. It is well, perhaps even if disaster should follow, that the people

should have a right to rule. I am not complaining about the change of government, but I am submitting that when the change did come, when the Government of the day had power to inquire into every condition which prevailed during the fifteen years we were in power, they had the opportunity of making good the statements which they had made that our surpluses were simply paper surpluses, they had a right to make good the statement that we were hiding behind dark lantern brigades the doings and actions of the Government. What did they do ? They had the right to inquire. They never did inquire, or if they did they found nothing. When it came to delivering over a statement of the surplus, we handed them over $39,000,000 of clean cash; everything was squared up and a clean Administration gave up its books in a most magnificent manner. The Finance Minister himself after making the most thorough search- and we may be sure he would have been glad to find any fault-had- to come down and say that the conditions of the country were splendid and that the book-keeping, as handed over to him, was most magnificent and that he had nothing to say, that the money was there, he had counted it and found some $39,000,000 was there. That, Sir, is the condition in which we handed over the finances of this country to the incoming Government and that is the condition which, after two years, they have been able to bring to the state of financial crisis through which we are going to-day. I submit that when I made the statement that I thought they could not bring the country to this condition in such a short time, I am sorry that I miscalculated the capacity of the present Administration in bringing these matters to the very state .and conditions in which they are to-day.

I wish to call the attention of the House for a moment to the speech of the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen). I have had the honour of sitting in this House with the Solicitor General for some years. I have always watched his career with considerable interest and have looked upon him as a clever young lawyer; I have certainly no fault to find with his promotion to the position which he occupies to-day. I have just one fault to find; I think that we in the great province of Nova Scotia should have got this position, we in that province have always been accustomed to be represented in the Cabinet by at least two ministers. I submit that today we are not, as a province, represented in the Cabinet at all. The Prime Minister

is representing every province; not this Prime Minister but every Prime Minister is supposed to be the representative of each province in the Cabinet, regardless of the province from which he may come or for which he is elected. For that reason I submit that the great province of Nova Scotia is not, as such, represented in the Cabinet. We have about the same population as the province of Manitoba and I think we have reason to complain when they have practically three ministers from the province of Manitoba and we should at least have one from the great province of Nova Scotia. It is not because we did not use to have talented men from that province. We have given this country three premiers and two distinguished ministers of justice. We have given this country in the early days as a minister of justice, the late Hon. James Macdonald, a man of great fame as a lawyer and as a jurist in his own country. We have given you as minister of justice the late revered Hon. Sir John Thompson. As prime ministers we have given you Sir Charles Tupper, Sir John Thompson, and the present distinguished head of the Government (Mr. Borden). Therefore it cannot be said that we were used to be without talent in the province of Nova Scotia. But I am sorry that we have fallen on evil days and on evil times, that to-day while it is true that we have nine members representing the province of Nova Scotia supporting the Government, it is reported, whether it is true or not I do not know, that the Prime Minister stated to his friends that he would like to give the position of Solicitor General to somebody from that province of Nova Scotia, we were entitled to it, but he was sorry to say that, while we sent here considerable raw material, there was nothing really from which he could venture to make a solicitor general.

If we go over the list we find that we have from Cumberland a lawyer, from Hants a lawyer and from Annapolis a lawyer. We have this semi-ready from Kings. Out of this outfit it appears that the Prime Minister found it impossible to make a selection, and he decided not to give us a Nova Scotian for a solicitor general. Mr. Speaker, upon that ground I am sorry that I must give way and say that after all it was well that the boss of the Administration should have his way, and that the third man should come from Manitoba and no one at all from the great province of Nova Scotia, except the Prime Minister, who is participated in by the other nine

provinces just as well as by the province of Nova Scotia.

I pass on to say something on the speech of my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) in connection with the Roads Bill. There is such a thing as a man getting too big, there is such a thing as a man thinking beyond his powers. The legerdemain artist, the juggler is too big and too strong. I use the word 'juggler' without any disrespect for the capacity and power of the Solicitor General. There are men who go on the stage and make their living as jugglers. They throw their hat on the table and take rabbits, cats, rats and all sorts of things out of the hat. They are not in the hat, but it appears to the onlookers that they are. The Solicitor General has developed great strength along these lines of jugglery, but he went a little too far the other night. He went on to say that this is a Bill that anybody could deal with, having nothing to do with money at all. That was one of the rabbits he took out of his own hat. Then he gave it a twist, and it became the liveliest kind of a money Bill you ever saw, and nobody could dare touch it. It was too sacred, just like the policy of protection in the opinion of my hon. friend the Postmaster General. Nobody can put unconsecrated hands upon it because it is a money Bill. But I think that the Solicitor General has gone a little too far. He has tried to convince honest men and men of some experience of things which are really not true. He has attempted something which is really far beyond his powers. This Bill, which he wants the Senate to steer clear of, not to touch and to leave alone for the reason that it is a money Bill, is not a money Bill, and when the question was put to him he had to acknowledge that it was not. I can remember distinctly when the discussion was on that the right hon. Prime Minister stood up in his place and advised the members of this House, on the authority of the Prime Minister, that a resolution was not necessary. The Bill passed this House on the distinct understanding that it was not a money Bill. Therefore, if that was the case, and I believe it was, what right had the Solicitor General to say that when it got to the other branch of Parliament it was a money Bill or a Bill which required to receive the attention of this House only and could not be qualified or touched in any way by the hon. gentlemen in the other Chamber?

Another strong reason given by the hon. Solicitor General why they should not touch this Bill was that legislation would have to be passed by this House following every step of the money from the time the expenditure was suggested until it got to its ultimate destination, and that the power of this House had to be exercised over it until that was done. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very sound principle, but I might remind the Government and the hon. Solicitor General that we have had, within the last two years, several large votes of money made by this House and not for public works as the term is understood. No legislation passed this House enabling the Government to follow these moneys to their final destin ation. I want to ask the Government and my hon. friend the Solicitor General what about the $15,000,000 that passed this House last year to be paid over as a bonus and a gratuity to a certain corporation'in this country known as Mackenzie and Mann? They paid that $15,000,000 out of the moneys of this country. We voted against this, we wanted to have it done in a business way and as a business transaction, but we were outvoted by the majority on the other side of the House, that money passed out of sight, and we know not where it went, we know not what was done with it, and there is nobody under the sun that can be called to account to tell this House where the money has gone. Where is the high-sounding principle laid down by the hon. Solicitor General that we must follow this money to its destination? The Ontario Government came to us with a proposition which was the most absurd that I ever heard of, asking for a subsidy for a railway that had been built for years, that was making money, that was putting $500,000 or $600,000 a year into the treasury of the province of Ontario. They asked for $2,000,000 of money to be paid over to that Government. That $2,000,000 of money was paid to the Ontario Government and it went out of sight. We do not know where it went. Where is the principle of the Solicitor General that we must have legislation to follow these moneys to their destination and know what becomes of them? There is nothing of the kind. The same thing happened in the case of the province of Manitoba. Four million dollars was voted by this House and passed over to the treasury of the province of Manitoba in 1912, and there is not a line of legislation to enable us to follow that money and see what has become of it. What becomes of the idea that the Senate should

not touch this Bill, because, forsooth, this provision was not in it and it was necessary to follow this money that was to go on the roads of this country if it ever went. According to the Solicitor General, because this legislation was necessary, this Bill was not to be touched by the Senate except by the consent and goodwill of hon. members of this House. I submit that that is not the reason, that it cannot be the reason, for, if that were the reason the same principle would have been applied in the cases that I have mentioned in which $2,000,000 was paid to the Ontario Government, $15,000,000 to Mackenzie and Mann, and $4,000,000 to the province of Manitoba. That principle would have applied if the statement of the hon. Solicitor General represented the true reason. The reason was, of course, that the Government wanted to have a string on this money, wanted to control it, for the very good reason that has been made plain by my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair). My hon. friend from Guysborough, speaking in this House the other night, made reference to one of the reasons which has been controlling or moving the Government in placing this money within their own reach. The hon. member said on that occasion that he was not in South Renfrew at the time of the election, being the first by-election after this Government came into power, but he quoted from a Conservative newspaper, published in the riding and called the Renfrew Journal, the report of a speech made by the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid), on the occasion of that by-election. The report of that speech is as follows:

Dr. Reid turned his attention to the good roads movement advocated by the Conservative Government at Ottawa, and the bald way in which he handled his topic disgusted all decent men who looked for something higher than this kind of talk from a Cabinet minister. The burden of this part of Dr. Reid's speech was that South Renfrew should vote for Dr. Maloney and the Borden Government would then spend money in this district for good roads.

I submit that when we come to the last analysis of the purpose of this Roads Bill, we have to take the view of it, given by this spokesman of the Government, a few days after the Bill was introduced. I remember well when the Minister of Railways brought in the Bill it was in the midst of the South Renfrew election. It would be unkind to say the measure was launched for the purpose of influencing that election, but there was at all events, as the Minister of Finance would say, a synchronism. However the moment the Bill was introduced the Minister of Customs declared to the. people of South Renfrew what they would get if they did one thing and what they would not get if they did the other thing. The Government have dropped the great navy question; it is not only buried but it is malodorous and they fear to go near it, but this Roads Bill seems to be the darling of their hearts, and they take it to bed with them and they cuddle it and fondle it. They are making the people believe from Vancouver to Scutari that this money will be applied to roads running along the lines of the different settlements and concessions, and that it is a mortal sin that the Liberal party are standing in the way.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Broadstreet Carvell

Liberal

Mr. CARVELL:

They are only trying to make the people believe that.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE:

Yes, the Government are trying to make the people of Canada believe that these roads will go all over the country. It reminds me of the story of an old farmer who bought a pig in Amherst and was driving him to Truro, and he was met by another farmer who said: You are taking the pig to Truro, but the owner of the pig replied: For goodness' sake don't let the pig hear you, because he thinks he is going back to Amherst, and if he hears he is going to Truro I'll have an awful time with him. And so, as the old farmer was trying to deceive the pig, the Government are trying to deceive the people of Canada by making them believe that this money will be spent on every foot of road in every county in Canada. But that is not the case, as I can prove from statements made by the spokesmen of the Government. That is a bold charge for me to make and I would not make it if I did not have the evidence. This Government is represented in the Senate by a Minister of the Crown, and what the Government leader in the Senate says is equally binding on the Government as if it were said in this House by the Prime Minister himself. If I can prove that the Hon. Mr. Lougheed, the leader of the Conservative party in the Senate, has declared that this money is not to be expended in the general way that road moneys are expended, then I suppose you will believe it. The constitutional argument was made by some gentleman in the Senate that this money, if voted at all, would be voted in contravention of the terms of the British North America Act, and in support of their contention they pointed to subsection 10 of seclion 92 of that Act. That section

enumerates the many things over which the provincial governments and legislatures have exclusive jurisdiction, and, amongst others, it mentions:

Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following class.

One of the gentlemen who took this constitutional objection was contending that this subject being exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures, it could not be dealt with by this Parliament. The Hon. Mr. Lougheed is a lawyer of many years experience and a gentleman of good standing in his profession, so that he was not to be taken by surprise on a question of this kind, and he made the answer of. a constitutional lawyer to the objection which had been taken. He said: You are mistaken entirely; this does not come at all within the class of works you speak of; you say this should not be done because it is ' local works and undertakings in the province '; it is not that at all and your point is not well taken. Now, if these roads are to be built from A to B and from B to C all along the different concessions, as roads are usually built, then nothing could more fully come within that definition of local works appertaining to local matters. But the leader of the Senate got over that, and said that was not the intention at all.

At six o'clock, the House took recess.

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Liberal

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE:

When the House rose at six o'clock, I was endeavouring to show, from the argument of the hon. leader of the Government in the Senate, that the Boads Bill, so-called, was not a matter calculated for' the general improvement of the roads of the different provinces, but was a Bill that was intended for interprovincial roads. I was pointing out, following the argument of the hon. leader of the Government in the Senate, (Hon. Mr. Lougheed), when he was answering the contentions made by Senators made in the same Chamber, that this Bill was a trespass upon provincial rights. The hon. Senator, representing his own views and the views of the Government of the day, was setting forth that this was not in any sense a trespass upon the prerogatives and rights of provincial governments, but was absolutely and fully within the powers of this Parliament. He was arguing that the Bill, wrhieh he was then supporting as a Government Bill in the Senate, came not within' subsection 10 of section 92 of the British North America Act. but within sub-

[Mr. McKenzie. 1

sections 'A,' ' B ' and ' C ' of subsection 10. Subsection 10 itself gives to the provinces, absolutely and exclusively, local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes:

(a) Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyong the limits of the province:

(b) Lines of steamships between the province and any British or foreign country:

(c) Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or 'ore of the provinces.

The hon. Senator was contending that this . Boads Bill came within the scope and purview of subsection 'A,' ' B ' and ' C ' or some one of them, and was within the powers of this Parliament and not subject to the criticisms set forth by the hon. gentlemen who were contending that this was a trespass or an imposition upon the rights and prerogatives of provincial legislatures. In support of his contention the hon. Senator spoke as follows:

If hon. gentlemen will look at the preamble of the Bill they should come to a different conclusion than that which they apparently have arrived at as the object of this Bill. If they will observe the language of the preamble of the Bill they will find that this is not a local undertaking. This has not for its object the improvement of the roads in a particular municipality, or group of municipalities. It is not intended for a moment that this assistance should be given to the ordinary highway in a local sense.

Then I direct the attention of hon. gentlemen to the first clause of the Bill in which this is entitled the Canadian Highways Improvement Act. A proper distinction should be drawn between the Bill and the meaning which hon. gentlemen are disposed to attach to it. Hon. gentlemen seem to think that the Government of the day in its generosity has suddenly come to the conclusion that municipalities should be helped and that the provinces should be helped only so far as the development of local highways is concerned. But there is a larger object than that in view. The Government has the object in view set out in the preamble of. the Bill. I maintain that while-highways in their local sense are peculiarly provincial undertakings, that this is more than a provincial undertaking. This is an interprovincial and national undertaking and does not come within that class of cases referred to by my hon. friends, and particularly the hon. gentleman from DeLorimier, who cited to us last night section 92 of the British North America Act, in which he sought to bring this undertaking under subsection 10 of section 92, and within the language ' local works and undertakings.'

That is the clean-cut argument of the hon. the leader of the Government of the Senate.

If we are to understand the English language at all and to understand the application which the hon. gentleman makes of the provisions of subsection 10 of subsection 92 of the British North America Act, he makes it very clear and distinct, and shows it in a manner that cannot be controverted, that he puts himself within subsections ' A,' ' B ' and ' C ' of subsection 10 ' of section 92, which give this House power to deal with interprovincial matters, such as steamship lines, roads between provinces and railways and canals which extend beyond the limits of any one particular province. He says that this Bill has for its purpose a work of that character. I want to point this out to hon. gentlemen in this House, who are arguing that the Government in its generosity came down with a Bill in order to assist the different sections of roads in different counties in the whole Dominion of Canada, and that if any obstacle is thrown in the way of this Bill it is an obstacle thrown in the way of the different roads up and down the different constituencies in the Dominion. If I should on my own authority tell hon. gentlemen supporting the Government, that this was not the purpose of the Bill, they would sneer and laugh at my statement; but I am not obliged to rely upon my own statement. I have here in black and white, and in such a way that they cannot escape from it, the authoritative statement of the Government. That being the case, I submit to the House and to the country that, when any hon. gentleman tries to make out that this is a Bill that enables the Government to borrow money for the purpose of improving the highways generally, the people do not understand it so, and anybody who says that it is, is endeavouring, intentionally or otherwise, to deceive the people, for such is not the purpose and object of the Bill. I venture to think there is not a responsible member of the Government who, in view of the speech of the leader of the Senate, will undertake to say to the contrary. If so, they must revise these statements, revise their policy and acknowledge at once that what the leader of the Government in the Senate says is not to be relied upon as a true indication .of what the real purpose of the Government is. This is another evidence of the fact that the trusts, combines and-millionaires have such a hold upon this Government that they not only provide the ways and means by which they become millionaires, but they must also provide for their junketings, great

white way from the Foothills to Halifax and possibly from Halifax to Sydney. No one road from the Foothills to Halifax could by any possibility be of any great use to "the ordinary farmers along the thousands of miles of it on either side. That is said to be the purpose of this Bill, and, in that case, whether it went through or not it could not be of great importance to the farmers of this country. It is not only fair but it is most eminently desirable that the people of this country should understand what the purpose of this Bill is and should not be deceived by the Government in regard to it.

However, it is far from being the desire of any hon. member on this side of the House to throw obstacles in the way of money being provided in a legitimate and proper manner for the purpose of improving the highways of this country. But I am sure that you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, and so will other hon. gentlemen in this House who properly understand the conditions, that it is better for us to have even bad roads than to have in our country a legislation and a Government that will absolutely disregard the rules of the constitution under which we live. If it is necessary in order to improve the highways of this country, or to give more money to the local governments for any good purpose, I hope there is plenty of scope within the constitution for us to do so. It has been admitted by the Solicitor General that we could not pass this money over to the. provinces without legislation being enacted for that purpose. He admitted that it was in contravention of the constitution to do otherwise-that roads were a subject particularly within the constitutional powers and rights of the provinces, and that we could not pass money over to the provinces without getting an Act of Parliament enabling us to do so. That being the case, I submit it cannot be done at all under the constitution. It means that you are endeavouring to pass a law in this Parliament which this Parliament has no authority to pass. The constitution provides that there are certain laws that can be passed by this Parliament and certain laws that can be passed by the legislatures of the different provinces. If legislation with regard to roads does not come within our constitutional powers whence do we get the powers to pass such a law? And if we are able to pass legislation with respect to roads, this being one of the things under the jurisdiction of the provinces, what subject can be said to be safe within the powers of the

provinces? Is there any subject allocated to the provinces exclusively by section 92 of the British North America Act that can be left undisturbed, if by an Act of this Parliament it can be taken away and all obstacles dealing with it removed? According to Senator Lougheed, the leader of the Government, this does not come within subsection 10, and he admits that if it did we could not deal with it. He says it comes within clauses (a) (b) and (c) of subsection 10 of section 92, and therefore we have power to deal with it. The Solicitor General did not agree that it came under clauses (a) (b) and (c) but says that we remove all doubts by passing this legislation which he thinks should be sanctioned by the Senate. Under section 92 of the British North America Act sixteen or seventeen different subjects, each one of importance to the people who live in the various provinces, come exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces. But the Solicitor General comes to this House with a constitutional heresy and tells us that all that is necessary in order to give us the power exclusively to deal with this subject of roads is to pass legislation in this Parliament. I submit that if that be the case, the British North America Act, so far as it giving protection to any particular province is concerned, is mere waste paper.

. And I submit to those who think that under section 93 of the British North America Act they have some protection in respect of questions of education in this country, who think that th'e provinces have exclusive rights to deal with education, that in order to keep these rights secure they will have to do away with the constitutional learning of the Solicitor General, for he says that in order to get over that difficulty all we have to do is to pass some legislation and then deal with any of these subjects just as we think proper. Without labouring with that point further, I submit that when the Government of the day comes down with a policy stating in a proper way that at the time of Confederation sufficient moneys were not allowed the provinces for the different public works, one of them being the roads and bridges of the provinces, and when they ask us on this side to vote moneys for the subjects which come exclusively within the powers of the province, we certainly will gladly give our /assistance for that purpose and will vote the moneys to be properly allocated in that regard. The

proper machinery provided by the constitution of this country will deal with these moneys, and there will be no trouble about it. This is nothing more or less than an increase of public moneys to be given to the provinces for this particular purpose. At different times and on several occasions large amounts of money additional to the amounts first provided have been granted to the provinces, and there has been no string attached to them, as the Government of the day wants to do in the case of this money; but each one of the provinces dealt with that money with its own machinery and in its own way. If it is necessary that more money should be given to improve the roads, and if we have the money to give, there is no reason why a properly thought-out plan should not be carried into effect. This is the money of the people. Do not let any one think for a moment that it is like the manna in the wilderness. This money is not provided by the Government exclusively. The people themselves provide it-there is no other source from which it can come.

If it is to be sent back to the people of the provinces, let it be sent to the proper authorities and handled through the proper channels. If this is done-and I have no doubt that some day it will be done-then there will be no opposition from this side of the House, because the people who spend the money will be answerable to the provinces, and the letter of the constitution will be properly adhered to. The action taken by the Government in the South Renfrew election is the chief objection we have to the appropriation of this money in the way proposed by the Government, and this objection we shall continue to have; we do not want to see the money of the people-the money of the people, I say, not of the Government-taken and used by the Government for purposes of political advantage. I am sure that the people of Canada are not so lacking of a sense of propriety or so devoid of a realization of what is meant by constitutional government as to condemn the Opposition for contending that this improvement to roads, if improvement it is to be, shall be carried out in a proper and constitutional way.

It was argued by the Solicitor General that we were stultifying ourselves in voting for the Agricultural Bill and refusing to vote for the ' Improvement to Highways Bill,' and that we were flying in the face of any constitutional argument we might make against voting for the latter. I sub-

mifc that the two measures are absolutely separate and distinct, and that there is a great difference between voting for a measure for agricultural purposes and voting for a bill which provides for the improvement of roads. Section 95 of the British North America Act reads:

In each province the legislature may make laws in relation to agriculture in the province and to immigration into the province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to agriculture in all or any of the provinces, and to immigration into all or any of the provinces; and any law of the legislature ' of a province, relative to agriculture or to immigration, shall have effect in and for the province, as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada.

There is a clear-cut authority, full and ample, giving this House the constitutional right to pass laws in reference to agriculture, and the voting for the Agricultural Bill does not in the slightest degree interfere with our opposition to unconstitutional legislation. The use of such an argument is vain, and scarcely worthy of the acute mind and careful reasoning of the Solicitor General.

One great point which is urged against us is that we are depriving the farmers of the country of the benefit of expenditure for the purpose of improving their roads, and that the roads used by the farmers who travel from their homes to adjacent towns or elsewhere were to be improved by the appropriation of this money. I think I have proved clearly and satisfactorily out of the mouth of the Government that such was not the intention of the Bill, and if the money were voted a thousand times, not one dollar of it would be expended in that way. That is the point I particularly wish to make; I desire to show the people of the country that they are being fooled or deceived by the Government and its supporters when such arguments are made.

Following the speech of my hon. friend the Solicitor General a little further, I wish to deal with that part of it in which he touched upon the tariff. Evidently the tariff is a subject which is not receiving harmonious treatment at the hands of the Government. I am quite aware that the Solicitor General has not the rank of a Cabinet Minister, but at the same time, if I have been capable of observing what has been going on during the last two years, he is in close touch with the present Administration, and knows well what is going on in the inner circles of Government. In his speech he gave us to 15

understand that tariff revision is in prospect. For my part, I do not know whether or not there is any tariff revision in prospect. The present Government came into power under particular and peculiar circumstances. They came into power by preaching the doctrine, so far as the trade of this country was concerned, of ' leave well enough alone; do not touch the trade conditions of the country, for they could not be better.' But we never heard that the leader of the Government ever went back upon his old theory of adequate protection. Dear only knows what' adequate protection' means. I understand that there is a new dictionary in process of compilation which will contain something like 450,000 words, and possibly in that new dictionary we may get a definition of 'adequate protection.' However, the Prime Minister promised the trusts and combines and mergers that if he and his party got into power, this policy of adequate protection would be carried out, and their interest protected. It is said, and I believe on very good authority, that the present Minister of Finance was admitted into the Cabinet because he was in a position to act as the trustee, representative, apostle and disciple of that doctrine as far as the trusts, mergers and combines were concerned. There is no other good reason why the capable Minister of Finance of former years should have been passed over and the position given to a gentleman who had not even won his spurs, and who knew nothing about politics. There must have been some underlying scheme by which he was to represent those who put up big money in order to bring the party back into power. Certainly I do not wish it to be hinted that I have had a desire to make any personal remarks about the Minister of Finance, but in carrying out this contract oi putting up the tariff sky-high, and .continuing the policy of ample or adequate protection, he has, to use a vulgar expression, taken cold feet. He is afraid to do it, and it is likely he will not do it-* I am afraid he will fall down on the job. But he is holding on to the only cry that is left to him of leaving well enough alone. Nobody knows whether the Government will touch the tariff or not. Hon. gentlemen opposite used to complain that the Fielding tariff was not satisfactory. It was satisfactory to us, it has brought prosperity to the country from end to end, and for the present we have no evidence why it should be interfered with. It wquld seem to me that it will remain as it is until the affairs of the country are once more given into the

master hand of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who will make any changes that will be needed in it. . I am sure that as things are going to-day there is no evidence that anything will be done by the present Administration. They are afraid to touch the tariff, they do not seem to understand it and therefore they will let it remain as it is. I must say, speaking for myself and the part of the country from which I come, that the Fielding tariff, the Fielding Administration has brought magnificent results in our part of the country. Magnificent steel, iron and coal industries grew up and were fostered under the administration of my right hon. friend and I would be loath indeed to tamper in any way with the trade policy in any way that would directly or indirectly interfere with these magnificent industries that have grown up and prospered under the administration of my right hon. friend. I am sure that such a departure would be far from any idea that he has of administration to-day, that he would do nothing that in any way would hamper or retard the advancement of these great industries.

I wish to call to the attention of the House the Mosaic vision of the Solicitor General in his speech the other night when he was dealing with the tariff. I do not know whether he understands this, but I believe he did. He said:

When it is made

That is, the change in the tariff.

-I, as associated with the Government, will do one of two things-I will accept full responsibility for the tariff as promulgated in that revision, or if I cannot do so I will sever my present association with the Government. When the tariff is revised, free wheat, agricultural implements and all other such matters will be fit and proper subjects for discussion. And I will be right in at the death; the hon. gentlemen's curiosity shall be satisfied to the limit

I submit to you that if the people of this country are watching for light upon the probable or prospective course of the Government from this declaration of the Solicitor General they will find it rather vague. The coal interests, the steel interests, the wheat interests, the lumber interests, the fishermen and the farmers of this country are watching the trade policy of this Government. There is one consolation, that whenever the day comes that this present Government will deal with the question, when the clammy sweat of death has come over the question, when i't is making its last kick, the Solicitor General will be

there, he will be there at the death. I want the great interests of this country to try and figure out for themselves what consolation they can gather from this.

When the tariff is revised free wheat, agricultural implements and all other such matters will be fit and proper subjects for discussion and I will be right there at the death.

I have heard a great many proclamations, I have watched politicians for the last thirty years and I never in my life saw any proposition so vague, so indefinite as this. The Solicitor General evidently knew what the attitude the Postmaster General was because the Postmaster General says that the tariff is a sacred temple, that it is a holy of holies into which even he could not enter at all and he takes care to say nothing about it except that it is a holy thing, that is all he will tell us about it, it is a sacred thing. His profession and calling and training does not enable him to go near it. He has heard of a certain mount in olden days which if a man put his hand to it fire issued forth and he was destroyed; he has heard of a certain ark which if a man touched he fell dead; and he regards sacred things as matters which he had better keep clear of. He tells us that the Solicitor General himself understood it in that way because if he touched it he would only be there at the death. So this idea seems to run through them all that it is a question of death the moment they touch this tariff. So, therefore, the people of this country may die without food, die without whatever is necessary for them, but this Cabinet, this Solicitor General at all events and the Postmaster General, have understood that this is a sacred structure, a sacred thing, and life is dear to them and they will not put unholy hands upon it. I suppose it would be dangerous for me to think of putting any interpretation on the speech of the Solicitor General because I have rather the reputation of being a Bible student and I find in the Bible that cursed is he that addeth to it or taketh from it. I will not add to it or take from it, but I will endeavour to make it clear to the people that there is going to be a sacrifice, blood is going to be shed and at that death the Solicitor General will be there and the Postmaster General will be looking on, at a safe distance.

Passing from that question 1 come to the passage that I read from the Address of His Royal Highness:

It gives me great pleasure to be able to congratulate you upon the remarkable expansion of Canada's trade with other countries in the past fiscal year, during which our total trade far exceeded that of any preceding year.

No doubt that is the contribution of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) to the Speech from the Throne. He has no doubt done much to extend the trade of this country. The local Tory press in the part of the country I come from told us about the wonderful travelling of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. They told us that he travelled thirty-five thousand miles. That may be quite true, but I am sorry to relate that we have been given no result whatever from the travelling of these thirty-five thousand miles. If the hon. gentleman was only paid the ordinary constable fees of ten cents a mile it would cost this country considerable to meet his expenses. But, I am sorry to say that if we only paid him constable's fees there is no return whatever that would justify the venture of having sent him on those trips. It seems to me extraordinary that an old and trained veteran like the Minister of Trade and Commerce should go up and down this land, as he did in 1911, telling the people to have no truck or trade with the people across the line, that it was going to upset everything that was established in this country if any article whatever should pass over the border. Over the border, within sight of some of our towns and villages, is a population approaching closely to 100,000,000 people, a people of our own race, largely speaking our own tongue, observing our habits and customs, living much like ourselves and having that which could be traded satisfactorily and profitably with us. We are told that we should not have any trade with them, but the Minister of Trade and Commerce is sent by the present aggregation, which calls itself the Government of this country, on a fool's errand, 35,000 miles away to find trade. We have heard of men being sent upon a fool's errand. I will not say that the hon. gentleman would be on a fool's errand, but it is as much like it as one herring is like to another.

The hon. gentleman himself used to tell us in the discussion on reciprocity that the Hon. Mr. Fielding could never forget his barrel of fish and his coal hod. We have fish in abundance in the beautiful province of Nova Scotia, we have unlimited supplies of good coal, and if Mr. Fielding was always watchful as to the interests of the fishermen and watchful of the coal interests of the province of Nova Scotia, I am sure that no fault could be found with him. We have in the whole Dominion, exports in abundance of coal, fish, lumber, wheat and manufactured products. Let me ask 15J

the Minister of Trade and Commerce: Did you find any place where you could sell coal at the end of anywhere along the 35,000 miles ? The answer must be no. Did you sell any lumber ? No, not a foot. Did you sell any fish ? No, they do not take fish at all; the Chinamen do not eat fish-cats, dogs, rats, and that sort of thing, and there would not be any great demand that I could promise to supply. Did you sell lumber ? No. Potatoes ? No. Any manufactured articles ? No, because they do not wear any manufactured goods out there. That is the report that must be brought back to us here.

I shall wind up my reference to the condition of the hon. gentleman's report on his trade mission by the story of a coloured man who was a boss at a certain steel works. He had three furnaces to look after; he had furnace No. 1, furnace No. 2, and a locomotive to take care of. Each morning he had to report to his boss what had gone on during the night. One morning he came back and reported that furnace No. 2 was making white iron, which is worse than doing nothing. He said: We burned the bars out of No. 1 at four o'clock this morning, and at twelve o'clock at night we put the locomotive off the track; everything else is all right. That is the situation. This poor coloured gentleman had only three things to look after. In one furnace they burned the bars out, the other was making white iron, and the locomotive went off the track, but everything else, he said, was all right.

We have a certain number of things to export from this country-coal, lumber, fish, manufactured articles and wheat. We ask the hon. gentleman: Did you find any trade or any place where we can sell these things ? The hon. gentleman must say: No, but everything else is all right. That, Sir, is the condition of trade in so far as its expansion has been brought about by any effort of this Government.

Now I come to another point. There is a paragraph in the Address which reads as follows:

In connection with the highly important subject of transportation of our products, the provision of adequate terminal facilities at our great national ports has received and is receiving the attention of my advisers.

This is the question that comes close to home, and I want to touch briefly upon the situation in my own province and county in so far as the policy of the last Administration is concerned as compared with the policy of the present Administration. We are told that much is being

done for the development of terminal facilities at ocean ports. We have on the Atlantic coast in Canada some very excellent ports. We have the port of St. John, the port of Halifax, and the port of Sydney and North Sydney. We have three good harbours particularly. We have many others. I am not a Halifax man, and therefore I think that I can say that they have a good port at St. John, although perhaps a Halifax man might say differently. The port of St. John is good enough, at all events, for our good friends, Mackenzie and Mann, to take their steamers away from Halifax and send them to St. John, not because the port is better but because of a political end to be served. In the port of Halifax large expenditures of money are being made. We do not begrudge them at all. At the port of Sydney, at North Sydney, and the great port of the steel works, on the other side of the water, not a dollar has been expended. We had a promise from the outgoing Administration to build a magnificent terminus at North Sydney. We had the Intercolonial railway changed from its old route and brought around to the port of North Sydney for the purpose of making it a magnificent terminus for the Intercolonial, as we thought. But what do I find? I am sorry that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) is not in his seat. We find that, although I myself and others had been able to induce the preceding Government to make this change and to bring this road from the wrong place to the right place in order to get the harbour at the proper angle and at the proper depth of water, the present Minister of Railways and Canals has ignored our protest, and that, after all the expenditure we have gone to to change this road, he is advising doing the trade of this port without touching this magnificent harbour at all except by means of the old, inadequate terminus constructed a number of years ago, and which is quite unequal to the present necessities. If the statement is true that the Government is making a large expenditure at the terminal port, why is it that the expenditure of a few hundred dollars is going to stand in the way of making one of the big outstanding ports on the whole Atlantic coast of Canada a fit and proper place for the handling of the business of this great country? I protest against it, I will protest against it always, and I say to this House and. the Government that as I have

fought the change before, when the day comes I will fight it again, and will never give this question a rest until the right thing is done. I will stand by the principle that nothing is settled until it is settled right, and the terminals of North Sydney will never be settled right until they are put into the proper place, and that magnificent port comes to its own in so far as Government improvement is concerned. Under the administration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, we were given not only the promise but the actuality of a railway in the county of Victoria, extending to the capital of that county and through the heart of the county down to the placid waters of the harbour. When the Liberal Government went out of power we had the money voted for that project and we had the contract let. But then, this chilling blight came on; the Conservative Government came into power; the contract was cancelled, and, so long as this Government remains in power farewell and forever to any improvements in that county. The Laurier Government were to build railways through the counties of Halifax, Guysborough, Pictou, and Victoria, but with the exception of that part of the railway which traversed the county of Halifax, the Conservative Government discontinued the scheme and left us helpless. I submit that was not a fair deal; it was not what you would expect of a man of the proportions and ability of the Prime Minister in dealing with a big question of this kind; it was not fair for him to build the railway through his own constituency and leave the other constituencies, equally important, without railway communication. I appeal to the Government now, and it is not yet too late, to place in the proper location the railway they are now building. This is not a local question; it is a national question. It is not contended that the public works undertaken at Halifax are of local importance, nor should works undertaken in the great port of Sydney and North Sydney be considered as anything but national works. The trade with Newfoundland, which is all landed at Sydney, is one of the largest assets of the Intercolonial railway, and why should not the Government of Canada provide proper facilities for handling that trade? I venture the prediction that whoever is living twenty-five or 9 p.m. thirty years hence, if that toad is left where they propose to leave it to-day, will regard it as an act of madness that it was not continued to the

great port of Sydney. These questions are not receiving the attention they deserve from this Government. I trust the day is not far distant when the men now in office will be hurled from power, and when we shall again see an intelligent Government with a policy which will develop the counties of eastern Nova Scotia and every other section of Canada which is not receiving fair treatment to-day, and which will -take measures to bring in touch with the pulsation of the commercial centres of the Dominion and the outside world, the fertile and productive regions in my province now neglected and held back. I fail to see any of the great things which gentlemen opposite tell us this Government is doing. If the-people of this -country had servants who were stupid they might put up with them, but when incapacity is added to stupidity I do not think the people will long stand for it. We have evidence of the incapacity, the stupid blundering, in many cases the insincerity and possibly dishonesty of this Government, whether that be known to the heads of the departments or not. I have no doubt the day is not far distant when the -Government, Solicitor General and Postmaster General, and everybody else who has anything to do with it, will, to use a poetic but pe-rhaps not elegant expression: turn their toes up to the roots of the daisies; and then, the people of Canada will have done with them. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity of presenting my views on these -questions to the House and to the country.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
CON

William Humphrey Bennett

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. H. BENNETT (Simcoe East):

I can congratulate the hon. gentleman from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), in this, that he has dispelled some of the gloom caused amongst his friends when they read the Montreal Daily Mail this morning. His merry quips and his ancient stories have been somewhat refreshing, and even the fine old crust on them does not much detract from their interest and their amusement. If the hon. gentleman had delivered his somewhat lengthy speech in his own riding, I have no doubt little importance would be attached to it, because of the fact that there is to-day in that part of the country as elsewhere, a certain amount of depression which all of us would like to see disappear. I am not going to say that Canada is as prosperous to-day as it has been for the past two or three years, for no man can expect enormous expansion to continue, year in and year out, without a check. In recent years railway building in Canada has proceeded with unexampled rapidity, and an enormous number of men have been employed in construction work on the Canadian Northern railway, the Canadian Pacific railway, and the Transcontinental railway. Many of these enormous undertakings of the railway companies have now been brought to a conclusion, and hence it is that a number of workingmen have been thrown out of employment, with the result that every industry in the country has been more or less affected. An hon. gentleman opposite the other day, speaking of the high cost of living, said that canned goods were higher in price than ever before, but if that hon. gentleman had only known what the real facts are, he would have had to admit that canned goods are cheaper to-day in Canada than they have been at any period during the last five years. That fact cannot be gainsaid, because there are hon gentlemen on this side of the House who are engaged in that industry and can vouch for it. Follow the line of construction of any railway in this country, and you will find the route marked with empty tin cans, which contained the food supplied to the men in the construction camps, and due to the completion of these railways, the men are out of employment and there is not the demand

for canned goods there once was.

But these hon. gentlemen, instead of coming to Parliament as representatives of the people and endeavouring to ameliorate conditions, are doing what? Endeavouring to black-eye Canada in every part of the world, and the greatest sinner of them all is the right hon. the leader of the Opposition. That right hon. gentleman should have made sure of his facts before he started out to black-eye Canada, as he did the other night. He wishes to have it heralded from one end of Europe to the other that poverty and destitution are stalking throughout Canada, and never has the right hon. gentleman turned over on his tongue a more delicious morsel than when he said the other night: 'Well, hard times are here.' The right hon. gentleman has been in power in this country, and at that time what had his policy to do with the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway between the city of Toronto and Ottawa, or the Canadian Northern railway except in this, that his Government with the most lavish hand was handing out bonuses at all times and at all seasons? Yet these gentlemen are complaining to-day when this Government is doing what any government should do in a time of stress.

when it can well afford to discount the future and endeavour to meet the requirements of the people by placing before them for construction public works that are absolutely necessary with the future prospects of the country.

My hon. friend who has just resumed his seat, in a very small portion of his speech, appealed to the Government not to interfere with the duty on iron. There is no portion of the hon. gentleman's speech which will be appreciated where he lives more than the small reference which he made to the duty on iron in this country. I regret that the hon. gentleman did not devote all his time to discussing the iron question in Canada to-day, one of the greatest questions before the people of Canada, not only for the present but for the future. Theother day Senator Colonel Mason moved the adoption of the Address. Colonel Mason is a well known

figure in the commercial life of Canada. He is president of one of the leading banks, and it was a worthy comment made by him that despite the fact that our imports are about $700,000,000, nearly one-fifth of all our imports are made up of iron and iron products. What has this country been doing for the last ten years? Endeavouring to develop the iron industry. Go in what direction you will and you will find that attempts have been made in towns, in cities, to build up what should be the greatest industry in any country, the iron industry, because it enters into so many manufactured goods.

What has Germany done in that respect? I read in a handbook to-day that whereas in 1888 only 2,750,000 tons of pig-iron were produced in Germany, by a beneficent, by a proper and by a wholesome policy of protection, in 1912 the production had increased to the enormous extent of 17,852,000 tons. Where is Canada to-day? What has she been doing on this iron question? When our friends were in power, they assured the town of Port Arthur that they would be in a position to develop the iron industry in this country. They paid out of the public coffers of Canada a bonus to the extent of ?200,000 for a railway to lead up to the iron mines. $2,000,000 was then invested in an iron plant. The city of Port Arthur, depending on their assurance that a fair protection would be accorded to the iron industry, bonused the concern to the extent of $200,000. The town of Midland a few years ago gave a bonus of $50,000 to an industry in that town. Why? Because they

believed that the policy of the country would be one of protection to the iron industry. The same thing has gone on in other parts of Canada as well as in Ontario. I go down to Gloucester, N.B., The Government bonused in that county to the extent of $200,000, a railway to lead up to what is probably one of the richest iron mines in the Dominion of Canada. Surely when they have invested their money in a mine, when they built their railway, and when the Government granted the bonus that was granted, they expected that in due time there would be such a policy of protection to the iron industry that not only would the mine be developed, but that a large industry would be placed there for the production of pig iron. What has happened? There is this mine in New Brunswick with its enormous wealth of pig iron lying idle, and five or six hundred men who would be engaged in mining it are out of employment and no smelters have been built.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
CON

William John Macdonald

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MACDONALD:

Is that the Canadian Iron Company's property?

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
CON

William Humphrey Bennett

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. H. BENNETT:

That is one of theirs. I can go into the province of Nova Scotia, rich in ore and coal. How is the iron industry in that country to-day? I read the following in The Weekly Sun:

In Nova Scotia too, blast furnaces are likely to close down for some weeks and collieries in that province will almost certainly follow suit. The United States iron trade is suffering as well. Across the line it is reported that a million iron workers are idle.

What is the result of the stagnation of the iron trade in the United States? The result is that the American people engaged in this line of industry are to-day dumping into Canada what available pig iron they may have, trying to find a market for it here, because they have heard that most of our local smelters are shut down.

What is the condition of the iron industry in Canada? Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House the other day made it plain that this Government should, before there was any change or any abatement in the trade of the country, take time by the forelock and make provision for it. If that is a charge at the door of this Government, how -much more so was it a charge at the door of the late Government, because under their policy there was a scheme or plan by which the bounties to iron were given, on a sliding scale it is true; but it is well known that under legislative enactment the time would come when they would be ended

and that measure of protection or bounty would be taken off iron, and it was the duty of the Government to increase their tariff duty on iron so as to protect it for the the future.

The duty on iron is $2.50 per ton, that is under the general tariff. Under the British preferential tariff it is $1.50 per ton. Last year we imported from the United States $3,000,000 worth of pig iron at the uniform price of only $13 per ton. Let me call the attention of the House to this fact, that the lower the price in the States of pig iron imported into this country, the higher the duty. For instance, suppose the price were $20 per ton. The duty being $2.50 per ton would be nearly 125 per cent; by reason of the fact that the price ruled so low, namely, $13 per ton, the duty would be nearly 19 per cent. I am free to admit that here in Canada we have conditions which make it more difficult for us to cope with the people of the United States in the production of iron. In the first place, the climate is against us. The rigours of our winters are against the employer who hopes to get out of his employees as much as they could give under different conditions. Ore cannot he handled, coke cannot be handled, nor can any of the articles that go into the composition of iron, with the inclement weather we have in this country as compared with the United States. In the next place, we have not the field of labour to draw upon that they have. With the huge coloured population the United States have, how cheap labour is in that country. And, worse than that, so far as Ontario is concerned, every pound of coke that we use, we must draw from the United States, thereby incurring a large cost for railway carriage. For these reasons, and with the knowledge of these facts, it is easy to understand the odds we must face. And neither this Government nor the last Government can deny that these facts have been from time to time brought to their attention and they have been urged to take action before the crisis was reached that has been reached in our iron industry.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
CON

William John Macdonald

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MACDONALD:

Will the hon. gentleman tell us why this Government has done nothing for this industry for the last two sessions ?

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
CON

William Humphrey Bennett

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

The question is a fair one. All I can say to the hon. gentleman is that I believe that had there been unanimity in this House and no effort to make

political capital out of the question, something might have been done for the iron industry, to the benefit of Canada as a whole.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Walter Nesbitt

Liberal

Mr. NESBITT:

The hon. gentleman

speaks of it as being one of our disadvantages in iron manufacture that we have not the coloured labour. Would he say where the United States Steel Corporation, the Pittsburgh people, use coloured labour?

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
CON

William Humphrey Bennett

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

I suppose the hon. gentleman does not imagine that the Pittsburgh labour is coloured labour. But I did think that he knew that in Birmingham, Alabama, and other points hundreds of thousands of tons of pig iron are made by coloured labour and that iron comes into competition with the Pittsburgh iron.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Walter Nesbitt

Liberal

Mr. NESBITT:

I would like to tell the

hon gentleman that the United States Steel Corporation are the largest makers of pig-iron in the United States, and they do not use coloured labour.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
CON

William Humphrey Bennett

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

They are not the only

manufacturers of iron.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Walter Nesbitt

Liberal

Mr. NESBITT:

No, hut they are the

largest.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
CON

William Humphrey Bennett

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

I do not contradict that. But the Pittsburg people have the advantage of having coal close at hand, and that, no doubt, to some extent, offsets the advantage of the coloured labour in the South. Now, the pig-iron output of this country in 1912 was 917,925 tons, of a value of $12,307,000. At that time we had employed in the blast furnaces 1,778 men. I do not know how many there are to-day. But L must say I think these figures that I have taken are in error, because if I am correctly informed, the blast furnaces at Sydney employ probably 3,000 men, and even more. I am not here to complain only of what the prior Government did, I am here to complain of what the present Government is doing and what hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House are doing, or rather not doing, when they fail to come to the rescue of this, the biggest industry in Canada, an industry which might be made greater than it has ever been simply by correcting the mistakes made by the past Government, which mistakes are being continued by the Government of to-day. On this subject I speak feelingly, on this subject I speak in earnestness. For I know what the iron industry means to a town. I live in the town of Midland. I saw it first a struggling lumber village. I saw two iron furnaces come to

that place and employ from 400 to 600 men. I saw splendid streets opened and houses filled with the families of men who drew their $2 and $3 and $4 a day. And at one fell swoop I saw these industries closed and the men scattered to the four winds of heaven. And I come here to find a Parliament that occupies its time with resurrecting bygone issues that have been controversial for twenty years instead of coming to the rescue of one of the greatest industries of the country, when that rescue could be effected by the two parties being united in the work.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
CON

William John Macdonald

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MACDONALD:

Why has not the Government moved in the matter? They have the responsibility.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink

January 27, 1914