March 14, 1919

UNION

Newton Wesley Rowell (President of the Privy Council)

Unionist

Mr. ROWELL:

I think I have given

my hon. friend a good deal of information and light so far, but I will tell him this: the Imperial War Cabinet, as was announced by Mr. Lloyd George and Sir Robert Borden, was a creation for the purposes of the war. The question of the permanent constitutional relationship is to be settled at a conference to be called after the war, and all these other questions will come up then when the permanent constitutional relationships are being settled.

May I point out the contrast between 1911 and 1917? In 1911 the statesmen of the overseas Dominions were admitted for the first time and on one occasion to a review of foreign policy-in 1917 and 1918 the statesmen of the overseas Dominions and of India meet around a common council table with the statesmen of the Mother Country, there to consider together these very questions for the benefit of the whole Empire.

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

Edward Walter Nesbitt

Unionist

Mr. NESBITT:

If a representative of

this Dominion did not agree with the other

members of the War Cabinet, would it not be his duty to report back to this Parliament and to get its approval or otherwise of his position?

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

Newton Wesley Rowell (President of the Privy Council)

Unionist

Mr. ROWELL:

Absolutely. Nobody can be bound except by the assent of his own Government, and his own Parliament. That is clearly set forth in the statement of Sir Robert Borden which I read to the House.

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

Samuel Hughes

Unionist

Sir SAM HUGHES:

Am T to understand- Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.

'Sir SAM HUGHES: If you gentlemen

will kindly keep yourselves in place, I shall-

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

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Unionist

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order.

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

Samuel Hughes

Unionist

Sir SAM HUGHES:

Does the minister

mean to say that at that conference in 1911 there was no consultation with or asking of the opinion of ministers and others concerned? Because I can tell him to the contrary that there was.

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

Newton Wesley Rowell (President of the Privy Council)

Unionist

Mr. ROWELL:

I did not say anything

of the kind, Mr. Speaker; I quoted Mr. Asquith and I said that that was the first occasion upon which the statesmen of the Empire had been admitted into the secrets of British foreign policy.

Now, let me come back to the point that I was discussing. Perhaps I could make my statement clearer to the House if my hon. friend (Sir Sam Hughes) would permit me to proceed without interruption. Most of the questions he has in mind may be answered by what I have to say.

While we have been claiming the status of a nation within the Empire since 1897, we did not get the status of a nation until 1917, when the statesmen of Canada and of the other Dominions met with the statesmen of the Mother Country around a common council board to determine questions of common interest relating to the whole Empire. So that during the period of the war there has been a remarkable development in our constitutional position, not by way of a curtailment of our rights or powers, but by way of a great expansion and enlargement of those rights and powers.

Now, my hon. friend from Kamouraska quoted from an address of the Prime Minister in London in June last in reference to the change, in our constitutional position and he suggested that we had departed from the resolution passed at the meeting of the Imperial War Conference on April 16, 1917. Let me read that resolution:

The Imperial War Conference are of opinion that the readjustment of the constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire is too important and intricate a subject to be

dealt with during the war, and that it should form the subject of a special Imperial Conference to be summoned as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities. They deem it their duty, however, to place on record their view that any such readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic affairs, should be based on a full recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial commonwealth and of India as an important portion of the same, should recognize the right of the Dominions and of India to an adequate voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations, should provide effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern, and for such necessary concerted action founded on consultation as the several governments may determine.

There has been no departure from the position defined in that resolution. You ask what of the action which was taken last year, and to which my hon. friend referred? Under our constitution, under the constitution of all the Dominions, the Governor General occupies a dual position, which has grown out of the old colonial status. The Governor General, under our constitution, is the representative of His Majesty in Canada. He acts upon the advice of his constitutional advisers, and in that respect occupies exactly the same position as does His Majesty the King to his constitutional advisers in Great Britain. But the Governor General has another function in Canada; so has the Governor General in each of the Dominions, a function that is a survival of the old colonial days. The Governor General was the representative in Canada of the Colonial Office, the high official in Canada of the Colonial Office to receive communications from the Government of Canada. Therefore, if the Prime Minister of Canada wished to communicate with the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the message went to the Governor General of Canada; he communicated it to the Colonial Office, and the Colonial Office communicated it to the Prime Minister of Great Britain. When the Imperial Conference met this year, it was the view of the statesmen, not only of one Dominion but of all the Dominions and of India as well, that the time for that process of circumlocution had passed. It was a relic of the old colonial days. If the Prime Minister of Canada could discuss matters with the Prime Minister of Great Britain around the Council table face to face, when they separated and the Prime Minister of Canada came back home, why should he not communicate directly with the Prime Minister of Great Britain instead of through the Governor General and the Colonial Office as in the old colonial days.

That was the view at the Imperial Conference, and a resolution was passed that there should be a change in such channels of communication. Let me read to the House the resolution, moved by Mr. Hughes, Prime Minister of Australia, seconded by the Prime Minister of Canada, and unanimously adopted:

1. That this Conference is of the opinion that the development which has taken place in the relations between the United Kingdom and the Dominions necessitates such a change in administrative arrangements and in the channels of communication between their Governments as will bring them more directly in touch with each other.

2. That the Imperial War Cabinet be invited to give immediate consideration to the creation of suitable machinery for this purpose.

This was not the first Imperial Conference at which this question had come up. It had been raised by the Prime Minister of Australia in 1907. 'It had been raised by General Botha, Prime Minister of South Africa, at the Conference of 1911. They suggested at both of those conferences that the communications in reference to Dominion affairs should be direct to the Prime Minister of Great Britain himself. The Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1907 and in 1911 took the ground that the burdens and responsibilities of his office were so great that he could not undertake the additional work involved , in receiving communications from the Dominions. Therefore the change was not made, but a permanent secretarial was established in connection with the Imperial Conference. The resolution I have read of July last was passed on to the Imperial War Cabinet. The Prime Minister of Great Britain at the present time felt very much as the prime ministers did in 1907 and 1911. He did not wish to be burdened with the additional administrative duties that would be involved in his receiving all these communications but he recognized the justice of the contentions of the dominions and this resolution was agreed upon at the Imperial War Cabinet on the 30th of July last:

1. The Prime Ministers of the Dominions, as members of the Imperial War Cabinet, have the right of direct communication with the Prime Minister of Great Britain and vice versa.

That was the establishment of the principle for which the dominions were contending.

2. Such communication should be confined to questions of Cabinet importance. The Prime Ministers themselves are the judges of such questions.

3. Telegraphic communications between the Prime Minister should, as a rule, be conducted through the Colonial Office machinery, but this

*will not exclude the adoption of more direct means of communication in exceptional circumstances.

The principle is now firmly established that in all matters of Imperial Cabinet con-eern the prime ministers of the dominions may communicate direct with 4 p.m. the Prime Minister of Great Britain and vice versa. This new procedure was put into effect when the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) returned. Communications passed directly between Mr. Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Great Britain, and Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister of Canada in reference to the terms of the Armistice and the terms of peace and also in reference to attending the Peace Conference. This is another evidence of the equal status of Canada with the Mother Country and the other nations of the Empire. This further clause was passed and formed part of the resolution:

In order to secure continuity in the work of the Imperial War Cabinet, and a permanent means of consultation during the War on the more important questions of common interest, the Prime Minister of each Dominion has the right to nominate a Cabinet Minister, either as a resident or visitor in London, to represent him at meetings of the Imperial War Cabinet to be held regularly between the plenary sessions.

The Prime Minister of Canada did not avail himself of the power of nominating a cabinet minister, as he returned to England shortly after to attend the Peace Conference. I should think it would be a matter of pride and satisfaction to every Canadian that Canada, not only in theory,- but in fact, has reached the status of a nation, one of the free nations of the British Commonwealth; that on these vital matters affecting foreign policy and peace and war we have a right to be heard, and the means is provided whereby our voice can be heard in determining these questions so vital to our future. This result has been brought about during the war.

Our constitutional position has puzzled some of the statesmen at the Peace Conference. They could not understand an empire made up of autonomous nations, each having a parliament of its own largely determining its own policy. As a matter of fact, in all history there is no political organization like the British Empire. There is no state with which you can compare it. Never before has there been an empire composed of autonomous nations owing allegiance to a common Sovereign, and each exercising control of its own affairs. It is the greatest experiment in free democratic government which this world has ever seen.

i

I venture to think that just as the Anglo-Saxon people have been pioneers in the development of constitutional, democratic government in the world and their example has been followed by other nations-and they have been not only pioneers, but successful pioneers-so in this new and greatest experiment in democratic government, involving more than 400,000,000 human beings, more than one-fourth of the whole human race, living on all the continents and many of the islands of the seas, they will be successful; that this League of Nations which we call the British Commonwealth may prove to be the crowning triumph of the-Anglo-Saxon genius for government.

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

Henry Arthur Mackie

Unionist

Mr. H. A. MACKIE:

In connection with Canada's status as a nation, may I ask whether Sir Robert Borden will be at liberty to affix his signature to any treaty drawn up in Europe at the Conference?

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

Newton Wesley Rowell (President of the Privy Council)

Unionist

Mr. ROWELL:

I have been dealing

with Canada's status as one of the nations within the Empire, and I now come to discuss the question of Canada's status among the nations of the world. My hon. friend's question-

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

Ernest Lapointe

Laurier Liberal

Mr. E. LAPOINTE:

My hon. friend has said that another conference will be called for the purpose of discussing the changes in the constitutional relations of the Empire. Will the Parliament of Canada be consulted as to the stand our delegates should take at that conference?

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

Newton Wesley Rowell (President of the Privy Council)

Unionist

Mr. ROWELL:

While I have no

authority to speak for more than one member of the present Government, I would unhesitatingly say, Yes. That is my own view, because I believe it is a matter of the deepest concern to the whole people of Canada and the Parliament of Canada is entitled to express its views on the matter. Coming now to the question of the Peace Conference my hon. friend referred the other day to the fact that Sir Robert Borden and his colleagues left Canada before the armistice was actually signed, and he offered some criticism, or at all events comment by way of criticism, as I understood him, upon that fact. He thought the Prime Minister and his colleagues had been over there a very long time, probably an unnecessarily long time. Why did Sir Robert Borden leave Canada with his colleagues at the time he did? I will tell my hon. friend. The moment it appeared reasonably clear that a Peace Conference would be held in the not distant future, the Government of Canada through its Prime Minister took the position that in view of the part Canada

had taken in this war, of the service and sacrifice of her troops in the common cause, and in view of the status of Canada as one of the nations of the Empire, she was entitled to be represented at the Peace Conference. One can at once recognize that that involved most serious constitutional questions, for while, within the family of nations that make up the Empire, we had reached that stage where all were prepared to agree that the Empire was a league of nations each of equal status, the other nations of the world had not yet been asked to agree to that position and it was entirely a different question to secure their assent to the new and unique position of the British Empire. When this contention was pressed by Sir Robert Borden upon Mr. Lloyd George it had his hearty sympathy, and-he was of the opinion that if this new position of the British Empire was to be recognized, it was absolutely necessary for Sir Robert Borden, who had been so influential in bringing about this new and changed relation, to go overseas immediately to take up the question of the representation of the Dominions at the Peace Conference. It was because of this request and for this purpose that the Prime Minister left at the early date he did. The Prime Minister of Canada,

I say, took the position that Canada was entitled to be represented at the Conference. The negotiations were protracted. First, the assent of the British Government must be secured. They did assent and the Imperial War Cabinet approved. The matter was then taken up with Allied Governments. I imagine it is quite true that at first the United States offered some objection, because they did not understand or appreciate our changed status, but I am glad to say when they did understand and recognize it they withdrew all objection.

You ask, what is Canada's status at the Conference? The Conference is composed of the five great powers, and other nations which are called secondary powers. Each of the great powers is entitled to five representatives, and the secondary powers are entitled to three, two, or one, according to their varying positions in the war and other considerations which entered into the determination of representation. What is Canada's representation? First of all, there are five representatives of the British Empire, one of the five great powers. Three or four of those representatives, I believe, are permanent members of the Conference. The other representatives are drawn from a panel which includes the statesmen of the overseas Dominions. At all plenary sessions of

the Conference, therefore, there are a certain number of representatives of Great Britain and one or two representatives drawn from the panel composed of the statesmen of the whole British Empire, representing Great Britain and the Empire at large as one of the great powers. A representative of Canada, therefore, as part of the British Empire delegation, may be present at the plenary sessions of the Conference. In addition, the Overseas Dominions have the status of secondary powers at the conference and Canada is entitled to be represented, as a secondary power, at all plenary sessions and at all meetings where her interests are specially affected, by two representatives. The other dominions, Australia and South Africa, are also entitled to two representatives each, New Zealand to one, and India to two. The result is that at all plenary sessions of the conference there are five delegates representing the British Empire as a whole, one of whom is chosen from the Dominion's delegates, and nine other delegates representing the British Dominions and India, making a possibility of fourteen in all. At the first plenary session of the conference Canada had three representatives, two representing Canada and one serving on the British Empire panel. Canada has also had three representatives at other important sessions of the conference. The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Mackie) has asked whether Canada will sign any peace treaty. The question has not yet come up for consideration, but my own personal opinion is that in view of Canada's status at the conference she undoubtedly would sign. I should think the British Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister would sign on behalf of Great Britain and the Empire at large, and the Prime Minister of Canada would sign as one of the secondary powers.

I come now to the constitution of the League of Nations, which is probably one of the most momentous documents that has ever been penned. It is too early to discuss its terms; they have not yet been discussed at the Peace Conference itself; the committee has simply presented its report. The covenant, however, makes express provision for the representation of the Dominions, and I venture to believe that when this covenant is signed the name of Canada will appear as one of the charter members of the league, as one of the nations of the British Empire. Hon gentlemen will recall that the direction of the affairs of the League of Nations is entrusted to a council of the league composed

of representatives of signatories to the covenant, and Canada as one of the secondary-powers will undoubtedly have representatives on the general council of the league. Each nation may have not more than three representatives but only one vote. The executive of the league is composed of nine members, one representing each of the five great powers, the other four to be chosen by the general council of the league as they may hereafter determine. The management of the affairs of the league is vested in this general council and this executive committee.

I shall not enter upon the discussion of the terms of the covenant of the League of Nations, but in order to emphasize its importance, I would point out one or two of the matters covered by it. Not only is the object of the league to preserve the peace of the world-but to guarantee the territorial integrity of the different nations that are signatories of the covenant as against outside aggression. I will not go into the procedure provided to ensure that territorial integrity, but it means that every nation that signs the covenant of the league pledges itself to maintain the territorial integrity of the others, as against outside aggression. When a league is being formed under which not only our territorial integrity but that of the Empire is guaranteed, a league which will affect our whole future and obligate us to adopt the measures called for by the covenant of the league, then surely we have before us one of the most momentous questions to which the statesmen of this country can devote their attention. In view of the character of this document and of the issues involved at the Peace Conference, I am sure the Parliament and people of Canada will recognize that the place of the Prime Minister at this particular time is overseas looking after this [DOT] country's interest. (My hon. friend will remember that the peace treaty is to be based upon the negotiations that took place prior to the signing of the armistice and which formed part of its terms. These negotiations embodied President Wilson's fourteen points, one of these relates to the economic relations between the nations parties to the league and the enemy nations. Is it conceivable that negotiations should be going on in Paris touching questions of economic policy that will affect Canada as one of the signatories to the league and Canada not be represented or her interests safeguarded?

I venture to say that no hon. member will say that Canada should not be represented.

It is a great honour to Canada that she should be represented at this conference.

It is an immeasurably more important conference than that of 1814,-that was a conference only of the nations of Europe. This is a conference not only of the nations of Europe, but of the nations of Asia, Africa, America, and of the islands of the sea; some thirty distinct nations are there represented. It means the redrawing of the maps of Europe, Asia and Africa, and determining the form of government of many of the islands of the sea. It means arriving at decisions that will affect the whole course of human history in the days that lie before us. No conference could gather whose decisions would have more weight, or in which it is more important that Canada should be represented. Canada should be just as influential in the settling of the terms of peace as she was in bringing the war to a victorious conclusion.

I mentioned a moment ago the situation in Russia. A veil of mystery appears to cover that great country, and no one can predict with certainty what the outcome will be. But there are one or two facts of which we here should not be ignorant. Some discussion has taken place in this House in reference to Bolshevism and what it means. I hold in my hand the fundamental law of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic, and I think the members of the House will be glad to know some of the fundamental laws upon which the Bolshevik government is founded. When the Bolsheviki came into power the Constituent Assembly was about to meet, an assembly that had been elected on a democratic basis representing the whole people of Russia. When the Bolsheviki found that the Assembly would not carry out their views and probably would not maintain them in power, they immediately dissolved the Assembly. Some of its members who were not prepared to consent to the dissolution of the Assembly fled for their lives, and some were killed on the spot. The Bolsheviki followed this up by providing for the disarmament of all people in Russia, other than their own followers, under the most severe penalty. On the other hand they armed their own followers. So the position was that the partisans of the Bolsheviki had arms and the others had not. Now, what is the object of this government? Article 9 provides:

" The principal aim of the Constitution of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic in the. present transitory period is to establish the dictatorship of the city and rural proletariat and of the poorest elements of the peasantry in the form of a powerful All-Russian Soviet government for the purpose of completely suppressing the capitalist class, of abolishing the exploits-

tion of man by man and of establishing Socialism, under which there will be no division of society, into classes, nor any power of state.

This is a frank declaration that their object is to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Under this term they include only those who work with their hands, all other classes are absolutely excluded from participation in the government. The farmer who employs even one man in order to make profit out of his work is looked upon as belonging to the capitalist class and is excluded. It is simply the old autocracy inverted-it was a government by bureaucrats, it is now a government by a different class. It denies the fundamental principle of democracy that every citizen is entitled to a voice in the government of his country. They have confiscated all the land, without compensation, and turned it over to the workingmen and tillers of the soil, each man being limited to the area he could actually work. They confiscated all furniture, agricultural implements and farm stock. They took all factories out of the hands of their owners and turned them over to the workmen and soldiers. They repudiated the national debt, due not only foreign powers but even loans made by their own people. They do not believe in capital, and so do not recognize obligations to any person who has loaned money to their government. If they had a victory loan in Russia even the holders of these bonds would find the debt repudiated.

Mr. Speaker, it will be of interest to the people of Canada to know that one of their first acts was the establishment of compulsory military service throughout the whole of the Russian Empire. They established universal, obligatory, military service and they say that the honourable privilege of defending the revolution is reserved for the toilers while upon the nonworking elements other military duties are imposed. They impose compulsory military service and the only men who 'are permitted to bear arms tire the workers while the others must perform other military service. They also established obligatory labour service. You may say there is something to be said in favour of that. They suppressed, and took over, the whole of the press of the country.

Some hon. MEMBERS Oh, oh.

Mr, ROWELL: My hon. friends seem to be very anxious to get the press. Evidently they have not received as much support from the press as they desire But, Mr. Speaker, it is hardly necessary to go

farther to point out the character of the Government which has been established and the principles upon which it is based. They have abolished all private ownership of property. They have abolished the right of a man to own his own home, the home is the basis upon which our Anglo-Saxon civilization rests. What is much more serious is that they have treated woman as a chattel. They have permitted divorce on any terms; a man can turn away his wife for any reason and for no reason, and power has been officially granted to the local Soviets to deal with the relations of the sexes. In many of the Soviets in Russia and some in Siberia they have nationalized woman and she is the common property of any man, or men who wish to take advantage of this provision of the law. It is this uprooting of civilization, this desecration and defilement of womanhood, this confiscation of property that is developing in Russia to-day.

If the Russian people wish that form of government in preference to the old autocracy and if they confine their operations to the limits of their own territory possibly it would not be open to us to object. But they do not confine their operations to their own country. They boldly proclaim that the faith they are preaching must prevail throughout the world. They are seeking to spread this propaganda among all the nations of the world and they boldly tell us that the time will come when Bolshevism will be universally accepted. That is the gravest menace to the world's peace and ordered civilization that we face today.

Undoubtedly this is one of the reasons why it is most important to expedite the closing of the Peace Conference, in order that there may be an established government in Germany with which to conclude peace and in order that there may be a government in Germany, after peace is concluded, that may combat Bolshevism. If the dykes between Germany and Russia are broken down, if Bolshevism spreads through Germany it may sweep through Europe as the Tartars overran Europe in the Middle Ages. Who knows whether it will stop there or whether it will not cross the Atlantic? That is one of the gravest problems which the Peace Conference must face. It is to be earnestly hoped that some solution will be found at the Peace Conference which will avert this menace to our humanity.

One word more and I shall conclude. It was my privilege last summer to visit

our troops at the front and see something of the courage and the achievements of these brave men. I would not be true to myself this afternoon if I did not as a layman pay my humble tribute to that great Canadian, and gallant soldier, Lieut.-General Sir Arthur Currie, under whose leadership the Canadian corps won such imperishable glory and struck great blows for liberty and peace. I shall not discuss the events of the past summer, but I want to say-and I am sure that my colleagues who were with me will join me in saying it,-that we never met a man who was more deeply concerned about the welfare of his men than was General Sir Arthur Currie. We never met a man who took greater precautions for the protection and safety of his troops. They were always expected to attain the objective that they were asked to attain, but he took all precautions to see that they did it with the least possible loss of life. This can be said for the Canadian corps under General Currie: They took every objective they were asked to take, and they took some of these objectives when others had failed. In August they drove through the German lines in front of Amiens and turned the Germans back toward the Rhine. The German High Command knew that they might be compelled to retire behind the Hindenburg line, hut they were confident that once they were behind this system of defence no Allied force could break through and no Allied foot would stand within those impregnable defences. It was General Currie and his men who pierced the Drocourt-Queant switch of the Hindenburg line, and the Canadian soldiers stood upon the soil which Germany had considered inviolate. The piercing of this line gave to our war-weary humanity the hope that the war might really end this year, and that peace might speedily come to this war-cursed world. They fought their way through to Mons in a succession of victories unsurpassed in the history of the war.

The Canadian people will never he able to repay the lasting debt of gratitude that they owe to that brave Canadian soldier, untrained in the arts of war, who stood side by side with the best generals of Europe against the most powerful military machine that the human mind has conceived, or that the human hand has constructed, and under whose leadership the enemy were always driven back. We pay our tribute of respect to that gallant soldier, and we hope he may speedily finish the work committed to his care and return with his brave troops to Canada. The Canadian people eagerly

await their coming, and we will give them the whole-hearted welcome their courage, their sacrifice and their achievements so richly deserve.

Mr. WILLIAM D. EULER (North Waterloo) : Mr. Speaker, although much has been said, and eloquently said, of the life and achievements of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I desire to pay my modest tribute to the great Canadian. The outstanding feature of his remarkable personality was his ardent desire for national unity and his effort to weld the Canadian people together and to inspire in them a national consciousness that will have no regard for race or creed. Coming as I do from a constituency which is populated very largely by those who, like his own people, are not of the predominating majority in this country, I appreciate with peculiar feeling his broad tolerance and his generous conception of what constitutes Canadianism. That, I think, will be the most enduring monument to the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

I desire to congratulate the hon. gentleman who has been chosen to succeed him. Sir, I think that his Scottish parents must have had some prevision of the honour which was to come to their son when they named him, and I trust that he may prove another Daniel come to judgment.

I also desire to thank the ex-Minister of Militia for the kind words which he uttered of the German-C'anadian boys who fought in the war. When he said that those lads fought just as courageously as did those of any other racial origin, I knew that what he said was true, but I received his words with a depth of gratitude which he perhaps cannot appreciate, and for this reason: A racial prejudice has been allowed to grow up amongst us in this country, which is not what we were accustomed to, and which is not consistent with the spirit of British fair play which always prevailed heretofore. I would further say with regard to the acts of the ex-Minister of Militia that whereas he has his faults, as we all have, and is perhaps not a diplomat, he did after all, at one time in this country, in the early history of the war provide the driving force which I think no other man could have displayed in the same degree as he did. 1 further say that if he had not been interfered with by the Prime Minister of this country in the matter of recruiting, conscription would never have been thought of.

I listened, Mr. Speaker, with a great deal of interest to the address of the President of the Privy Council. It was a very learned discourse, and parts of it, perhaps, some

of us followed with difficulty, but, judging from the questions which were put to him, I think that possibly there is just a little misgiving on the part of members of the House as to whether Canada will properly retain her autonomy in the scheme which he has outlined. He laid considerable stress on one feature which did not appeal very strongly to me, and that was that it was rather epoch-making to find that the Prime Minister of 'Canada may in future be able to communicate direct with the Prime Minister of England instead of through the Colonial Office. Surely that is is a matter of mere detail. I am reminded of the time when, in my own city of Kitchener, or, as it was at that time, the city of Berlin, we did not have free mail delivery; we had to go to the post office to obtain our mail, which was a roundaboutway of getting it. Now it is carried to our doors. It is just a matter of greater convenience but brings about exactly the same result.

Since the Union Government has come into existence, a good many of us have been curious as to what model they have taken for some of the legislation which they have enacted. Since the President of the Privy Council has read from a booklet, the Constitution of the Bolsheviki, which I understand, is forbidden by Order in Council, our eyes have been opened. First of all he read that the Bolsheviki had compulsory military service just like the Union Government. He went on to say that they had obligatory labour laws, and I wonder whether that is the origin of the Order in Council " Work or fight." The press, he likewise stated, was suppressed, and I could not but feel that we could draw a parallel between some of the enactments of the Bolsheviki and the War-time Elections Act. The President of the Privy Council stated that the Bolsheviki gave guns only to their own people, just as the Union Government, or the Borden Administration gave the ballots to its own supporters through the War-time Elections Act.

I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) who spoke of the light in the window and the latch on the outside of the door. For my part I think I would use that lamp in the window for the proper purpose for which lamps are intended. Personally I would take that lamp out of the window. Those who may have strayed away from the house, T think, know the way back very well, and may be left to find it for themselves at the proper time. But the hon. member for Red DeeT did not like the metaphor of the

lamp and the latch-string. He rather fancied himself as a young lady who was receiving the attentions of two ardent swains. He rather enjoyed the experience, and thought he would wait for some time until he should finally make up his mind. There is an old saying in another language, which I cannot repeat in the vernacular, that under conditions of this kind the young lady may say at the outset, " Which one shall I take?" but overnight the question may revert to, " Which one will take me?" Further, Mr. Speaker, in these practical times, even young ladies have an eye to the main chance, and it may be that sometimes they postpone their decision in order that they may seize the opportunity of taking a peep into Duns or Bradstreets, to find out which of the two suitors can give her the best of the things of this world. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would not for one moment suggest that the hon. member for Red Deer was not entirely sincere when he stated that his reason for remaining on the other side of the House is entirely that of the national interest. I do not say so, and I believe that he was just as sincere when he made the statement in question as when he pronounced that magnificent and eloquent eulogy upon his old friend our late leader, the Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. But if it were otherwise we on this side, would admit at once that we cannot compete with the other side at all. We have very little to give, so that perhaps after all the young lady from Red Deer might as well make her decision at once, place her reluctant hand in that of the hon. gentleman from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), and getting off that picket fence-which must be very uncomfortable and which they are said to be straddling together-might say to him in the words of Ruth:

Whither thou goest I will go, thy people shall be my people, thy God, my God. Where thou diest I will die and there will I be buried.

I heard also the other day the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder). He appeared perfectly sincere in every way, and I for one would say nothing whatever in criticism of a man who feels that his national duty keeps him on the other side of the House. But I would say to him that if he feels, as he apparently does, that he should keep his former Liberal principles in cold storage for another season, that he"be very, very careful that they do not perish in the rarified atmosphere in which they are now living.

The hon. minister invites suggestions,criticism and some indications as to the tem-

per of the people throughout this country. If he is absolutely sincere, and I do not doubt that he is, and if the Government desire to get information as to the temper of the people, of Canada, I have a suggestion to make: There is in this country, a

constituency known as North Ontario. There is another known as Glengarry, there is another known as Assiniboia, and unfortunately another in the city of Quebec. Two of these constituencies have been disfranchised for almost a year. I would suggest to the Government, through you, Mr. Speaker, that they bring on the by-elections in these constituencies, and I think they will get some indication as to what the people think.

Moreover, this House has not met for a period of nine months. That is altogether too long an interval between sessions of Parliament in a country that claims to have democratic institutions. I believe that, especially in war time, the members of this Parliament should be more frequently called together in order that they may give to the members of the Government the benefit of their views and advice. A fabled character of old received renewed strength whenever he touched earth; so might the Government of this country more accurately determine the wishes and the feelings of the people whose servants they are supposed to be by calling together in Parliament the representatives of those people.

I was interested a few evenings ago in reading upon the screen in a theatre in this city these words: "In days long ago, when men wore long hair, narrow trousers and narrower minds, there were placed upon the statute books many laws which have never been repealed." I thought to myself: surely history repeats itself. They must have had a Union Government in those days, because, Sir, we have laws on the statute book, placed there by virtue of Orders in Council, which, at least four months after the termination of the war, ought to be repealed. They are now obsolete; there is no longer any occasion for them. In fact, this Parliament might very well consider the repealing of the law which gave those powers to the Government, the War Measures Act.

What I am now going to speak of has been already dealt with at length, but it is something that should be mentioned again and again, because eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. That is the return of responsible government. We have a shackled press. Even Parliament can be gagged, because there was an Order in Council-I do not know whether or not it

has bene repealed-under which the Speaker of the House might strike out of Hansard anything which he did not desire to have inserted in that publication. I am quite sure that our Speaker would do nothing of that kind, but the power is there, and it should not be there.

An innumerable number of publications, indiscriminately selected, -were banned by Order in Council. I know whereof I speak, because I made inquiries in the matter and some of those of whom I inquired did not even know the nature of the publications which had been placed upon the proscribed list. Men were forbidden to use that strongest weapon which they have for their own protection, the privilege of striking. Free speech was not permitted at public meetings.

Another thing that I would like to mention, which, perhaps, will not meet with the approval of the House, is this: I am not a socialist, but I do not believe that it was either wise or fair to restrict socialist publications and the right of free speech as they were restricted, so long as the members of the organizations in question confined their discussion and propaganda to constitutional means and deprecated the use of violence in bringing about that which they desired to obtain. I do not think that that is wise. You cannot cure a sore merely by covering it; you simply drive the infection farther in, the whole system is poisoned, and the trouble will re-appear in aggravated form later cn. If these men were allowed to meet and conduct their activities in a proper way, surely the Canadian people would see any fallacies if any characterized their views, and the evil would correct itself. If, on the contrary, they are suppressed, the result is what has often happened before; suppression merely aggravates the evil; it does not cure it.

Some of our magistrates-this may not be the direct result of Orders in Council, but I believe it is the direct result of the spirit that has been engendered throughout Canada by the arbitrary action of the Union Government-have convicted innocent men -I have called them "two-by-four magistrates"-absolutely without evidence and without giving them an opportunity of defending themselves or being represented by counsel. May I also express the view-it may not meet with favour on all sides, but I believe it to be the correct one-that there should be no law now, and never should have been, under which the man who obeyed his conscience so far as military service was concerned was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. I do not see

what possible good could come from it. They are not criminals, but by associating them with criminals for a year or two or three years we simply destroy what is good in those men, who, after all, were trying to do their duty as they saw it. Any conscientious objectors who are still confined in prison-I know there are some-should be released at once. I agree with the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) that a much better method of dealing with military defaulters might be found than b* confining them in the jails of this country.

We have to face three particularly great problems, and I shall give them in the reverse order, as I see it, of their difficulty of solution. The first is reconstruction; the second is the enormous debt which we have to carry; the third is the problem of allaying the unrest that prevails throughout Canada. Reconstruction I have placed first; I do not believe that that should be a very difficult matter to deal with. Surely every one will agree that the returned men, the maimed men, should be generously 'provided for. All others who by reason of their being away have lost opportunities, should have that made up to them. I do not think it should be a very difficult matter to provide for the assimilation of the 250,000 or

300.000 men that are to return to this country. In the years gone by, when immigration was at its height, Canada assimilated from

200.000 to 300,000 men who were not conversant with our conditions and who had to be assimilated into something entirely new to them. That is not the case with the returned soldiers.

The Minister of Public Works (Hon. F. B. Carvell) told us the other evening that the debt of Canada is now $2,000,000,000, which represents a financial burden Of something like $250 to be carried by each man, woman and child in the country. We have to deal with that. In passing I would like to draw the attention of the House to what I felt at the time was a tremendous waste not omy of money, Dui or patriotic feeling. The Government expended hundreds of thousands of dollars during the last Victory Loan campaign in newspaper advertising in endeavouring to induce the people to realize that they had a patriotic duty to perform in buying Victory Bonds. When they had accomplished their purpose and the people came with open hands offering of their substance to the country, the Government instead of making use of that opportunity, threw it away and made of it merely a cold financial proposition. They made the bonds tax free. I do not

think that that appealed to one man out of twenty of the ordinary working people of Canada. Indeed, they hardly knew what tax free bonds meant. The exemption from taxation feature did not mean very much to them, anyway,; nor did these * people care particularly.

I think those bonds might have been issued at par at 5 per cent interest. In the fervour of their patriotic feelings, I believe the people would have bought bonds issued at 5 per cent. They were not in a' calculating mood; they were in a patriotic mood, and if those bonds had been placed at 5 per cent, and this one-half per cent had been saved, this country would have saved for a generation or two at least $10,000,000 a year in interest.

There is waste in the public service. I have made some inquiries, and I am told that this Government has followed the Biblical injunction, and has made two civil servants flourish where one grew before. To bear this out, we have had the report in connection with the Printing Bureau. I should like to say that I think the report with regard to the Printing Bureau ought to be a hint to the members of the Government to make a like investigation into all the other departments, and they will probably find something of a similar nature.

The other evening the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) made a suggestion with which I could not agree. He stated that in order to make up the deficit of $125,000,000 with which we are faced, the Income Tax should operate on higher levels 7 and also on lower levels. I quite agree with him in his first suggestion, that the Income Tax on the higher incomes must be raised, but when he states that the Income Tax should be applied to incomes of $1,000, and perhaps less, I do not agree with him at all. An income of $1,000 is not equivalent to more than $500 a few years ago. If a working man gets a thousand dollars a year, what surplus has he, if he has five or six growing children to support under the present conditions of the high cost of food, clothing, rent and everything else in proportion? When the minister said that he proposed to tax these people in order that they might feel that they were helping to pay the taxes, I had no sympathy whatever with that. The workingman of this country has a very heavy load to bear now, and he is to-day bearing more than his share of the taxes. Last year this Parliament adopted what I thought was a picayune policy of placing a tax on matches and tobacco and some other commodi-

ties. That tax on matches and tobacco was the essence of inefficiency because for every dollar that was taken from the purchaser, only fifty cents reached the national treasury. A box of matches that cost five cents a package now sells for fifteen cents, and of the increase of ten cents,' the Government obtains only five cents. But that tax is paid largely by the workingman. He is also taxed whenever he patronizes that one little luxury he has, the moving picture theatre. He i3 taxed when he buys medicine in the drug store, and the Government makes the druggist its collector by compelling him to affix a stamp every time a bottle of medicine is sold. What is the reward that is given to him by the Government? The druggist is rewarded by having spotters placed upon his trail, and whenever perhaps an inexperienced clerk fails to put a stamp upon a 5 p.m. bit of camphorated chalk, or something like that, he is haled to the court and fined fifty dollars. If that method of taxation must be continued, I would suggest that the onus be placed upon the manufacturer of affixing the stamp to the article, thus saving a good deal of trouble and inconvenience.

All of us, no matter what walk of life we may be in, have to lick stamps. A stamp has to be affixed to every cheque, note or draft, or any other kind of commercial paper which is used in this country. While I realize that a very large revenue is probably obtained from that source, I believe it is a primitive method of taxation, something like the window tax in the old days. I am sure, if men could express their views, they would much prefer that some other direct form of taxation be adopted that would not vex and worry them at every turn.

The other day the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) made 'a peculiar remark. He stated that a certain titled gentleman from Toronto owns the Union Government. I did not believe that, and as that gentleman has since denied the charge-

,Mr. MdMASTEE: His offspring.

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

William Daum Euler

Laurier Liberal

Mr. EULER:

-'denied his offspring, if you like, and as no denial of the charge has come from the other side of the bargain, perhaps we may assume that the statement is only partially true and that only one-half of the Government are owned by the gentleman from Toronto. If that be true, the suggestion that I am about to make will not meet the approval of the Government. Sir Joseph Flavelle, it was stated, had made $100,000,000 during the war. He

has since denied that. But no man, no matter how able he may be, can earn $100,000,000, or $50,000,000, or $10,000,000, or $1,000,000. If he happens to accumulate that much money, he is simply appropriating the product of the labour of others. The suggestion I was going to make is that the Government might very well consider the imposition of a very heavy succession tax. That is not a new idea, and I know the province of Ontario is imposing a succession tax, although not a heavy one. I submit there would be no injustice under a law whereby the State would take a substantial part of large fortunes upon the death of the owner, leaving a reasonable amount for the surviving members of the family. Thus the people would receive back their own, that which is really the product of their own labour.

Thus when the time comes for this titled gentleman from Toronto to be gathered to his fathers, I believe the people of Canada, from coast to coast would approve if some seventy-five or eighty million dollars were restored to the people who created it in the first instance. That is a practical suggestion for the consideration of the Government.

The other day the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) made a statement with which I entirely agree and in which there is a world of truth. He stated that wars will never cease until the ethical influences operate in the hearts of men of all races. I believe that to be absolutely true. That can be applied also to what is to-day after all the greatest question that we have to settle in Canada or in any other country. I refer to the matter of the existing unrest throughout this country and the rest of the world. When you analyse conditions and the causes of things, you will find that there is one great cause for wars, and for restlessness of all kinds. It is the quality of human selfishness. That is all. That is the quality that permeates all classes and races of men and brings about wars, disagreements and troubles. Under the conditions under which we live, selfishness is the absolutely logical result. Where men do not know what the future will bring forth, whether they will have enough to subsist on in the years to come, there is only one thing for them to do, and that is to grasp as much as each one can, and " The devil take the hindmost." That is the condition in wdiich we live to-day.

That cannot be overcome except by long years of ethical training. In the meantime the Government can certainly do something

to bring about the desired result. One broad principle may be laid down. Labour must receive a greater portion of that which it produces. Consciously or unconsciously, Labour demands, I think, three things: First, personal and individual liberty, and it is going to get that if it has to fight for it. Secondly, a comfortable living, and surely it is entitled to that. Canada is rich enough to keep all in comfort, and 1 think that an eight-hour day is long enough, if the working man uses those eight hours to good advantage. Third, it desires some sort of security for the future. Is it too much to expect the Government to remove from the minds of everybody, and particularly from the minds of the working people, that great haunting fear of the future? I am certain that in the minds of all there is a fear that they may not be able to produce enough to maintain themselves and their dependents in the coming years. If this means the introduction of old age pensions, pensions for unemployment, and pensions for widows and mothers, I for one am ready to support any legislation in that direction. It is necessary also that men should be educated and the right men fitted to the right jobs.

In conclusion, I am going to refer to a matter which has been touched on by some hon. members, notably by those of the city of Toronto. I refer to the alien question. I am sure that even a number of enemy aliens in this country have received less than justice at times. I shall take the liberty of reading a short extract on this question from a Conservative newspaper that supported the Union Government in the last election. It embodies my view:

Summed up, the matter of the alien citizens stands: We induced them to come here and wield our picks and shovels ; we allowed them to live how and where they pleased; we made no attempt to prepare them for the duties and responsibilities of citizenship and since the war, have accentuated rather than relieved the disabilities under which they are labouring.

We in effect say: "You cannot now become a naturalized citizen and where you have been, we suspend your rights, duties and privileges; we pass laws which declare that if you are under 60 years of age you either must work or go to jail; when you are industrious, we regret exempting you from military service and envy the wages you draw. If you show signs of prosperity and live in Toronto you are likely to have your places of business raided and your property destroyed, and take a long chance of being able to collect any damages, because you were born in an alien land.

There is not one alien among a thousand, unless he live in Toronto, who would return of his own accord, to Europe. They came to Canada to work, to make a home and rear a family in a land where liberty, justice and opportunity are said to exist and may be shared in by whomsoever will.

There probably is not one alien in ten thousand, who has livftd here long enough to get a hair cut, and who having come from an enemy country several years before the war, would knowingly do anything to aid or comfort the enemy.

This paper holds the opinion that every alien who ts industrious and law-abiding should be given a square deal and assisted to become a Canadian citizen. The Allies generally have adopted President Wilson's slogan: "Make the world safe for democracy." In its application is it to be confined to Europe or will Canadians take some of their own medicine?

Even the Yanks can set us a good example in the treatment of aliens matter. They are naturalizing them on every hand and opening schools for instruction in English and the inculcation of the principles of American citizenship.

I now pass to another phase of this question. There are men in Canada to-day who are called aliens who, to all intents and purposes, are good citizens, but technically have no country at all. In the county of Waterloo, the northern riding of which I have the honour to represent, and also in Perth, Huron, Renfrew and perhaps elsewhere there are living many people who came from Germany from twenty-five to fifty years ago. Many of them have taken the oath of allegiance and have always regarded themselves as citizens. Unfortunately, however,, many of them have not taken out naturalization papers, which it is necessary for them to do in order to become full-fledged British subjects and Canadian citizens. This difficulty has been aggravated, in our riding at all events, by the fact that in past elections neither of the two political parties has challenged the voter on the score of nationality; there was a sort of compact in regard to that. When the war came these people who had lived in Canada many years and considered themselves British subjects found themselves denied the right of protection which citizenship ought to give. The matter was brought up in the House of Commons in 1917 and Sir Robert Borden recognized the justice of their claim for naturalization. On that occasion he stated in the House that an Order in Council had been passed under which those people could be naturalized during the war under certain conditions. I quote fiom the Order in Council:

The Minister observes further that many persons of alien enemy origin who came to Canada many years ago, during infancy, and have grown up believing themselves to be British subjects, now that questions of nationality are being carefully scrutinized, find it impossible to show that they have become British subjects although they have voted and held municipal positions for many years. Many others believe that they became British subjects through naturalization of their parents, but they are unable to prove it because the records are not available.

The Prime Minister stated that the Order in Council empowered the Secretary of State to issue naturalization certificates to people who complied witlr its terms. The election came immediately afterwards and nothing then was done in this matter. Immediately after the election, early in 1918, some ninety-three residents of the city of Kitchener made application for naturalization under the terms of this Order in Council. They presented their case through the proper channels, and in all cases recommendation was made by the local judge that they were worthy of receiving naturalization, but this 'was refused by th.e Government at Ottawa.

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

Charles Murphy

Laurier Liberal

Mr. MURPHY:

The election was over then.

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

William Daum Euler

Laurier Liberal

Mr. EULER:

Yes, but I should make one exception. Although these people who had been in the country from twenty-five to fifty years and had all voted were denied naturalization, one man received naturalization who was an alien enemy. This man, living in the city of Kitchener, came directly to this country from Germany fifteen years ago, and he applied for, and received naturalization on January 12th of last year although he did not . come under the terms of the Order in Council at all. He knew he was not a Canadian. There was no possibility of a misconception in his case.

He had not lived here very long. He had had opportunities to become naturalized, but had not taken advantage of them. That man who had been here fifteen years and did not come under the terms of the Order in Council was given naturalization by the Union Government, and all the others, many of whom had lived in Canada 50 years, did not receive it.

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

An hon. MEMBER:

Why?

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

William Daum Euler

Laurier Liberal

Mr. EULER:

I was just going to mention that. The reason was-that the recommendation made by the one who was responsible stated that he was a good supporter of the Union Government. While this discrimination has been practised against the people of Kitchener, I find in the annual report of the Secretary of State a list of all who were naturalized during the year 1917, and among them there were 471 Austrians, 4.3 Germans, and 2 Turks. Nobody from the riding I have the honour to represent is included, unless he stated that he had supported the Union Government. Surely these men ought to be given naturalization.

I had not intended to make any personal reference, but a remark made by the hon.

member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) must be my excuse for the statement I am about to make. In giving the names of members of this House who had sons at the front, he gave my own, and in his remarks he said that he did not know whether Mr. Euler had German blood in his veins or not. Mr. Speaker, I have only contempt for the men who will deny his father, or his racial origin. I want to say that the. blood that flows in my veins is exactly the same kind of blood that courses in the veins of every other hon. member in this House. It is not English, it is not French, it is not German; it is Canadian. Now, I want to speak so plainly that there can be no misapprehension. The man who is my father came from Germany at the age of two and a half years, long before Confederation, and has lived in this country for nearly seventy-five years, and, what is much more important, he is to-day just as good a Canadian as is his grandson, who is still carrying arms overseas.

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

An hon. MEMBER:

A volunteer.

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

William Daum Euler

Laurier Liberal

Mr. EULER :

Yes, he was not conscripted. I make this personal reference only for one reason-to give force to my plea for men, who, I think, have not been given justice such as we are accustomed to. We have here people without a country, and in order to express what I mean with regard to them I will read what I wrote to the Secretary of State in connection with this matter, which never received any consideration at the hands of the Union Government:-

I would like to ask on behalf of these men careful re-consideration. They are in a most unfortunate position through no fault of their own. To-day with the loyal desire to be technically as well as morally, citizens of Canada they have no country and no legal claim to the protection which citizenship ought to provide. Let the Government make all diligent investigation, before granting naturalization, and they will find that the large majority of these men are thoroughly worthy. Recognition of that fact will make for harmony and for the loyalty and true national feeling which a government should make easy rather than difficult.

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

Robert Lorne Richardson

Unionist

Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON (Springfield):

Mr. Speaker, when I decided to intervene in this discussion it was at a very much earlier stage of the debate, and there were many things I had in mind to refer to which have since been dealt with by other speakers. There still remain, however, a few things which I would like to deal with briefly. I was struck with the chorus of approval which met the words of the mover and the seconder of the Address, and it occurred to me when I listened to the high tone of their speeches that the people of

[DOT]377

Canada are much more to be congratulated than are these young men themselves. As one who has observed the trend of parliamentary life for the last thirty years or more, formerly in the Press gallery, I recall the nature of the speeches usually delivered by movers and seconders of the Address in the old days. I am obliged to confess that they were characterized by an obsequiousness and laudation of the Government that was almost nauseating. Now, as a result of the abolition in this country of party politics and the bitter partisanship which means division among the people, we hear a chorus of applause when young men like the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Redman) and the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) speak of service to their country and indulge in sentiments honourable alike to themselves, to this House, and to Canada. I repeat, it is a matter for congratulation to the country that we have come to a time when utterances of such character are recognized and applauded as they deserve to be.

I think it is only fair to say that the new sentiment that has arisen in Canada is due to the fact that we have abolished the old partisan lines which divided this country for forty or fifty years. While this change was brought about primarily by the war, it has been made more complete by the coalition of leaders on both sides, representatives of the old Liberal and Conservative parties joining together to accomplish a great object for the country's good. This cannot fail to have an important effect upon the people, and indeed that effect is already apparent. While much criticism has been indulged in at the expense of this Government as to the results of food control and matters of that kind which are not really fundamental, it is my deliberate conviction that the great body of the people have become possessed of the idea that they will have nothing to do with the old partisan ideals, and shibboleths which have been such a curse to the country in the past, I participated in a function in Winnipeg quite recently which was attended by prominent representatives of. the old political parties. As I listened to the Tuppers, the Ashdownes, the Isaac Campbells, the Macdonalds, the Bullmans, and the Fowlers, one after the other, expressing great regret for what had occurred in the past and expatiating upon the evils which had come to this country by virtue of the old partisanship, I was obliged to raise my eyes like the patriarch of old and say: " Lord, now lettest thou Thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation."

That is the spirit of the Canadian people at the present time. Although Union Government cannot go on forever, like Tennyson's brook, one must believe that it is a Government which will live. In my judgment, it will live. I believe that a strong party will be evolved from it which will continue to influence the destinies of the country. The death knell of partisanship as practised by the old parties has been sounded. Partisanship, in my judgment, is as dead as Julius Caesar. We can raise our eyes to heaven and thank God for that.

I have been a student of politics in Canada for the last thirty or forty years, and I have endeavoured to study the two parties. I co-operated with the Liberal party in the old days. I learned my Liberalism at the feet of George Brown,. Alexander Mackenzie, Mowat, Blake, and other great Liberal leaders. I also was much impressed by the career of Sir John Thompson, who, although he was not a Liberal, was a great man. As I say, I cooperated with the Liberal party. As the publisher of a newspaper it kept me busy keeping out of the clutches of the law denouncing the old Tory crown and their iniquities in the old days. I was perfectly sincere about it.

I would like to pay tribute to the work of the old Liberals, Baldwin, Lafontaine,. Papineau and William Lyon Mackenzie, whose name I always take upon my lips with reverence. We know the fight these men had for responsible government, for the abolition of the clergy reserves, for representation by population, and we know that Lyon Mackenzie was exiled from his country for years and that he spent many weeks with scarcely a bite to eat because he suffered for his principles. We know that when amnesty was proclaimed he crept back to his country a broken old man and was allowed to die in obscurity. When we i'jtudy the history of our public men and of our politics we must remember the name of William Lyon Mackenzie with reverence. We must understand that we owe a great debt of gratitude to him. The Liberals of the olden days had in their ranks some great men whose patriotism is to be admired.

I had the impression that when theii successors in the Liberal party of Canada came into office in 1896 that the ills under which the country was suffering would be cured and that the millennium would be ushered in. I felt that Canada's face would be turned towards paradise and that the long

promised reign of righteousness would be brought into existence. I had learned at the feet of those Liberal statesmen to believe that the tariff was bleeding the people until they were white. Indeed, I had listened to the declarations of all the Liberal leaders on this question in the old days. I had seen the blue blood course through the bald head of Sir Richard Cartwright as I was sitting in the Press gallery listening to his denunciation of a total annual expenditure by the Dominion of $37,000,000 as a shame and a disgrace. He said it meant the ruin of the people. The first year of the so called Liberal Administration the expenditure for civil government was increased to the enormous sum of eighty millions. I had heard the appointment of members of Parliament to office denounced as an outrage. I had heard the Senate cursed from Dan to Beersheba, and we were told that if we put the Liberals in office all these things woidd be corrected. But they were not. I remember going to one of the leaders of the party who had taught me the principles of Liberalism, and I remember protesting to him with great earnestness as a young man that the policy and platform of the Liberal party should be adhered to. I remember saying to him in my childish way-because I was quite young then-that Providence had raised him up to be a great leader in the Liberal party so that he might have' it in his power to do a good turn to the people of Canada and set a new ideal before them. I said to him: I have a desire to assist you in

carrying out your programme and doing some good to the people of Canada; if you will do this, you will have my devoted assistance, not only in everything that my paper can do in helping you along the line of lifting the people out of the slough of political despond in which they have been wallowing for all these years, but my personal help also. What do you suppose was the answer to me, and I have often wondered if the same answer had been given to my young friends from Calgary and Fort William, what they would have thought. This leader of the Liberal party looked at me and said: " Bob, you are too good for this world." I never had any idea that I had a passport for Paradise or that I had all the virtues that- would put me there by Limited Express but I had the old-fashioned notion that a platform that was made to get in on should be a platfrom that was made to stand on.

Let us just look for a moment at what the promise was in regard to the tariff. My respected friend from Red Deer (Mr. [Mr. Richardson.1

Clark) quoted it the other night. I shall take the opportunity of repeating it:

I submit to you that the ideal fiscal system is the British system of free trade.

Bet it be well understood that from this moment we have a distinct issue with the party in power. Their ideal is -protection; our ideal is free trade.

Under the administration of the Conservative party that sponsored the National Policy, the average tariff was about 35 per cent. Sir Clifford -Sifton and other leaders had gone into the West for years and declared to the farmers that if they understood the iniquity of this thing they never would stand it for a moment. They said: Let us have some other policy. Well, Sir, the tariff was revised in 1897 and what do you suppose, Mr. Speaker, was the reduction? I just put it to you. You are a successful and a wise man and I would like to get an expression of opinion from you privately as to what you really thought of it. I am pleased to see the prophet from Brome (Mr. McMaster) in his place and listening to what I am saying. The old Tory tariff was 35 per cent on the average and the total reduction made by the Liberal Government, according to the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) who was the financial critic for the Conservatives at that time, and whose statement I have never heard challenged, was seventy-one one-hundred-ths of one per cent.

Now it is true-my hon. friend opposite would interrupt me but I will anticipate him-we had also the British preference.

I will give the Liberal government all credit for everything they did; we had the British preference, but 71/100 of one per cent was the reduction in the tariff.

I think I could have stood it, I think, perhaps, I could have borne with Christian fortitude the situation, only my friends the Liberals expected me to be pleased about it, to giggle, as it were, over the fact that their pledges had been redeemed. I was perfectly willing to bear with equanimity the situation, but I will be hanged if I was able to laugh over it. I did considerable squirming, and when the Opposition introduced their catch-votes, to catch some of us new members, I naturally, was terrifically uneasy, and I was shooting around trying to get my bearings, but old Doctor Landerkin, a fine old chap, would say: "Oh, stand by your party, R. L. stand by your party; this is the usual thing, just vote it down, and never mind what anybody says." But an agricultural implement resolution was brought up, and inasmuch as I had stumped Lisgar on free implements and the

coal oil issue, promising free coal oil, and inasmuch as 1 had pledged myself to the hilt that if my leader did not cut out every whit of protection from the tariff I would resign, I voted for one of these catch resolutions, and I found myself in a very awkward position. I was practically tabooed. The Whips, Sir, went about and asked my friends-you know I am a sort of companionable fellow and love friends and fellowship-they asked my friends not to be seen talking to me. They said: "We will have to teach this kind of man a lesson." I went to Sir Richard Cartwright, and he said: "Never mind, my boy, you just go ahead; there will be no reading you out of the Liberal party, you can read us all out of the Liberal party if you choose." I mention this for the benefit of my friend the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder), with whom I expect to deal later on when I get time. Sir Richard said to me: "There will be no reading you out of the Liberal party." Well, I was not read out of the Liberal party, but I was dynamited out of the party. That is about what happened to me. Talk about a separated brother. There is a church expression about withdrawing communion from a brother, that is if you stray, some of the churches will withdraw communion from you. Well, Sir, they certainly withdrew communion from me. My friends were -warned not to be seen with me at all, and I found myself in an exceedingly uncomfortable position. The hon. member for Prince (Mr. Read) referred to an un-named man who had been such an evil influence in this country. I would not like to be the man that was referred to in this way, but this is the man who sent his emissary to me to warn me that if I didn't follow the party I could expect no quarter-neither nomination, nor patronage. Thank God, I had the independence to tell him to go to a much warmer place than I would like to mention this afternoon. I did not ask for their patronage, and I did not ask for the nomination. However, I got a nomination which carried me into Parliament the next time. I dislike to refer to these matters, and I shall only do so very briefly. Although I was elected by a large majority in old constituency, and although I took the Old Bible in my hand and swore that my entire expenses in that riding-and it was about a hundred and fifty miles long by fifty or sixty wide-were within $500, I was the only man elected in the Dominion of Canada that was unseated for bribery and corruption. Men who co-operated with me were given jobs, and hired to give testimony

that teams had been hired in my election. Of course, it was a bit of a conspiracy to drive out of public life a man who had dared to call a spade, a spade. I go over these particulars because I want to draw a parallel between the old days, when I am told that even caucus was a mutual admiration society. When the ministers came into caucus, I am told, they were applauded, applauded, and applauded, and that caucus largely consisted in applause by obsequious members of the ministers of the Crown.

The scene has changed, the young men who rose to move and second this Address, and gave expression to the highest ideals, are the young men who to-day are applauded in this House, and who \yill be loudly applauded in the country. I only refer to my own experience to illustrate the change that has taken place. You ste you could not grow public men in thi3 country under such a system. Blake, Mackenzie, and Mowat, they were only oc-casionals, they were not the regular annual product at all. The political soil in Canada made it impossible to grow statesmen here. After the lesson that had been taught R. L. Richardson no one, for a long time, undertook to exhibit much independence in this House. I was the awful example. I would like to add, that while the judges were considering the verdict on the election petition against me, the organ of the man to whom the member for Prince (Mr. Read) referred the other night, announced that one was to be transferred to the Supreme Court in Ottawa, and the other to be made the Chief Justice in Manitoba. The verdict was given against me, Mr. Speaker, and one man was transferred to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the other received the Chief Justiceship of Manitoba. I hope that in the sphere in which they find themselves at this present hour, they will enjoy the reward of their infamy. For it was infamy to drive out of public life a man who desired to do his duty by the people.

I never could conceive, it passes my comprehension, that public men would enter public life for the purpose of making money and graft out of office. Surely the highest recognition that any man can receive, is the reward of a good conscience in having rendered decent and faithful service to his country. I offer no apology for that declaration. It is the only conclusion that any man who has considered the philosophy of life and who has thought over the goal to which we are all hastening, can come to.

Now, let me return to the Liberal platform. I remember, in addition to the tariff how the appointment of members of Parliament to office was denounced. It was one of the iniquities of the old Tory party, and I thought- when the Liberals got into office, "Now everything is pure, everything is correct." Would you believe it, Mr. Speaker,-and I am going to ask you to tell me your opinion privately, because I have a high estimate of your character-would you believe it that in eight years-I have the figures here but I will speak subject to correction-the so-called Liberal Government appointed more members of Parliament to office than their predecessors, whom they so roundly denounced, appointed during their entire administration.

Now, I have referred to the public expenditure, and I have referred to the appointment of members of Parliament to office, and I now come to the Senate. The Senate had been cursed by the Liberals in opposition as a body of old 'women, as a graveyard, as a political excrescence on the body politic, until there seemed to be nothing left to be said against them. Indeed, on the hustings Liberal speakers exhausted themselves in denouncing the Senate. They would have a girl or a woman at the meeting with an accordion and when the speaker came to speak of the Senate she would sing " They are going down the valley." Of course, they were going down the valley; the Senate was to be either abolished or reformed. But the Senate was continued identically along the same lines by the Liberal Government. When our old friend Bob Watson, of ancient memory, used to stalk about the constituencies in the West and tell the people what the Government had done after the Liberals came into office, somebody would put the question to him: " Say, Bob, tell us about the Senate; what did you do with that?" " Oh," says Bob, with his thumbs under his suspenders, " we have reformed the Senate all right; I am in it "-and that was regarded as the reformation of the Senate.

I could go on indefinitely in this vein, but I am sure that I have gone sufficiently far to convince this House and the country that there is a great deal of difference between a party in opposition and a party in power.

Lest my friends on the other side, and particularly the prophet from Brome (Mr. McMaster) might think I am unduly hard and critical and unfair to the Liberals, let me say this: I have come to the deliberate conviction, after thirty-five years' study,

*

that the difference between the two political parties which held sway in this country is the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee. There never was any difference between them, and that is why I want to quarrel publicly with my friend the Minister of Immigration and Cblonization (Hon. J. A. Calder), who talked about being read out of the Liberal party. My dear sir, there is not any Liberal party. Yes, there is " the " Liberal party, but there is not " a " Liberal party. Mark the distinction. They have the trademark all- right, but I have demonstrated to this House what the practices of that party have been. I think that the member for Brome is perfectly sincere -a great many of them are-and honestly thinks that if his party got into office they would reform the tariff; that they would wipe out every vestige of protection. Not so, my good friend. You have associated with you the Clifford Siftons, the L. M. Joneses and the Billy Patersons and a lot of the people who live, move and have their being in protection-and you just try it some day. When I came down here to Parliament after one election, having stumped the country on a coal oil can, I thought that we would get free coal oil. I used to tell the farmers that the ties of bondage were gone, that they would get their agricultural implements free of duty. And do you know what I found? I found that the question was not whether the duty should be wiped off agricultural implements, but how much it should be increased. L. M. Jones-" old slippery L. M." we used to call him out in Manitoba-was the head of the combine in Canada, and he spent almost an entire Sabbath with me pleading with me to agree to have the duty increased. Now, L. M. is gone; he is not here to offer any defence, and I shall not repeat the conversation; I shall let it go with that statement. Well, I forget what was really done with the duty, but it was left practically as it was, and L. M. Jones was singled out for distinction by the Liberal party; he was made a knight, forsooth, a Knight Commander of the Bath, and died as such.

This is a kind of experience meeting Mr. Speaker and I am putting the cards on the table. II do not want any Liberal to be fooled as I was. I want to be the beacon light-not the one that the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) referred to- to warn any simpletons who may think that they can get all they want in reference to the tariff from the Liberal party; and that is why I am taking the position that I do this afternoon.

[DOT]331

After the failure to revise the tariff in 1896 save to the extent of seventy-one-one hundredths of one per cent, one would have thought that there would have been an outcry from the Atlantic to the Pacific over the apostacy of the Liberal party -it was not, "a" Liberal party; it was the Liberal party. Let me

tell you, Sir, that only a handful from one end of this country to the other offered any protest. In fact, they continued to worship Baal, the same God that my friend the prophet from Brome referred to the other evening. I am going to take my friend up to Mount Carmel to-night, if he will come with me, and we shall have a good time offering burnt sacrifices there. Well, had there been any repudiation of the course followed at that time there might have been some hope for the Liberal party. Repudiation-after the tariff had been revised? What do you suppose our friend the master of the Administration, Clifford Sifton, did? He went up to my old town of Perth, a place near which I was born more years ago than I care to confess, and he made a speech in the course of which he said;

The tariff issue has been solved by the Liberal Government.. It has been taken out of the list of issues as between the parties, because . the present tariff Is one which our opponents would not change much if they were in a position to do so.

Seventy-one-one hundredths of one per cent-and the tariff issue had been solved, taken out of the list of issues; no further quarrelling as between the parties on the ^ tariff issue! As I say, one would have expected an outcry from the Atlantic to the Pacific. But I do not recall that my friend the prophet from Brome took the platform and denounced it. I do not recall that any of my friends who sat on the other side offered one word of protest. The idea, ISir, was to " stand pat," if you will allow me to use the language of the street, and to carry out the apostacy; to destroy or bludgeon any one whose voice was raised against it in this country. It is a reflection upon the people of Canada that that policy was largely carried out.

The Liberal party-I speak of what is left of it, because really the Liberal party is over here. How proud I was, as an old Liberal, to listen to the magnificent speech of the President of the Privy Council (Hon. N. W. Rowell) this afternnon. How pleased we all were to listen to the able deliverance of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Hon. J. A. iCalder) a few evenings ago. Those of us who came over here for a principle, to which I hope to

allude later, feel that we, in duty to ourselves and to our country, must stand for that principle until it is finally carried out. We are all proud to know that men of the type that I have just mentioned, old Liberals, are happy in this camp-not because it is a Tory cginp, because it is not a Tory camp. There is really no essential difference fundamentally between men.

I have co-operated with members on both sides of the House, and I find the same kindness, the same generosity, the same views pretty generally when you get close to men, whether on one side or on the other. Therefore the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) may set his mind at rest, because he will never be read out of a Liberal party. The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) spoke of keeping his Liberal principles in cold storage.

I could not understand what he meant, and I will warrant you, Sir, that if he was put to it he could no more tell what Liberal principles are than he could fly to the moon. The trouble is that, so far as I can see, very few have ever stopped to analyse what Liberalism and Liberal principles are. They talk glibly about them, but they never stop to think. If I were asked what Liberalism meant, I would say that it meant freedom in trade, liberty in religion, and equality in civil rights. We all profess that, and inasmuch as the party on the other side, even led by the prophet from Brome (Mr. McMaster) will not be able to carry out the ideas that he has, he may just as well possess his soul in patience, and he will find it far better quietly and conscientiously to support the good things that the party on this side of the House are giving them because if the men on this side are not able, with the combination that I have dsecribed, to manage the affairs of the country at this critical time-and it is a mighty critical time-no other combination in Canada will be able to do so. There is no doubt about that. My hon. friends opposite would not take office if they could get it. They have nobody to go in with them. The light is in the window on this side, and my hon. friends opposite may all have to flock to it after a little.

The war is over. May we hope that for Heaven's sake the racial and religious cry will be dropped for good! I look fondly for the time when the province of Quebec will be represented as it should be in the Government of this country, and we shall not gain anything by calling each other names. Let us, however, be perfectly candid with each other; state the facts exactly as they are, and when we find a eombina-

tion of men willing to do their best to administer the affairs of this country at the critical stage that we are now at, let us give them every assistance we can. I have passed the stage when I regard all or most men with suspicion. It is only the odd man who is to be suspected. Most men are, in my judgment, endeavouring to do the best they can under Heaven, and the Lord knows it is a man's job being a minister of the Crown. He can hardly call his soul his own, let alone his time. The marvel is that men choose such slavery, but they seem to do it. The responsibility is on the country to give the men who are willing to serve the country a fair chance. Let us not treat them with suspicion. Let us not misinterpret their motives and suspect unjustly that their motives are corrupt and not decent. It is that sort of thing that keeps good men out of public life. Self-respecting men will not pay the price of the sacrifice of their self-respect in order to enter the public life of this country, and I do not blame them.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess.

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

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

Robert Lorne Richardson

Unionist

Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON (Springfield) (resuming):

Mr. Speaker, the adjournment at six o'clock gave me an opportunity of glancing over some notes I had made. It is usually my practice to make elaborate notes and then condense them on an envelope, and then forget all about them until I have finished speaking, and I see that I omitted one or two points this afternoon. I have spoken about the partisan soil of Canada being unable to produce statesmen. I dwelt at considerable length on that very important fact, and I want to emphasize it once more. It is my deliberate conviction, born of close observation, that owing to the partisan feeling, the absolutely silly partisan feeling that passes all understanding which has prevailed in this country for the last thirty or forty years, it has been almost impossible to raise a statesman in this country. If one "happened" it was merely the result of fortuitous circumstance, and if such a one attempted to preach the gospel of service to his country and to take high ground generally, he was usually regarded as a crank and a dangerous man, and promptly relegated to oblivion. Take the case of the Hon. Edward Blake who, in my judgment, is the greatest son Canada ever had. He knocked at the door of his country offering his splendid

services for a quarter of a century, and yet, notwithstanding his magnificent ability, notwithstanding his Liberalism and desire for service, the deliberate verdict of this country time after time was "Give us rather Barrabas," and this country has had to some extent a Barrabas after Barrabas, figuratively speaking. Consider for a moment the colossal mistakes that have been made in this country-the hundreds of millions, for instance, that have been poured into the lap of railway exploiters, until to-day we have on our hands an appalling mess which, unless we sail very carefully, may drag the country down. I shall not take the time to-night to recount the tremendous mistakes that have been made. One unfortunate thing is that the moment a man gets a position in this country, whether he be a great man or not, the people of this country place a halo about his head and our newspapers break into fulsome adulation. And yet, men are very much alike. With the exception of yourself, Sir, and a few others that I might name, there are really no great men in Canada to-day. Men are just mediocre, and fulsome adulation simply destroys them. It simply raises opposition against them, and encourages those disposed to criticise to criticise too harshly.

Now that I am on my feet I should like to say a word or two to the Canadian people. I should like them to get rid of the idea that two or three or a dozen men embody all the wisdom of the country. Why, in my judgment, the very best irien of the country are excluded from office. They would not pay the price, would not consent to the sacrifice of self-respect, in order to attain a position in public life. You, Sir, I suppose, have been a candidate in many elections, and must have some idea of the methods that have been employed in the past. If you have not, I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite have. Who could get an Edward Blake to run around shaking hands with his constituents and singing such songs as "For you I am praying," accompanying himself on the melodeon as certain hon. gentlemen have done who have gained seats in this House in past years. The methods that have hud to be employed, and which I assume are employed to some extent to-day, to get a seat in this House are such as would entirely turn the stomach of the average man, and that is why good men have been excluded from the service of their country. Mackenzie, for instance. How sweet the name Mackenzie sounds in every

Liberal's ear! I do not refer to my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. His name may sound very sweet in the ears of the average Liberal, but if he ever gets over to this side of ithe House-which Heaven forfend>-he will probably discover that his name does not sound so sweet to the average Liberal, and particularly so if he shows any tendency to emulate the example of his noble predecessor, the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, and carries his principles into operation. When I came to this Parliament, an unsophisticated young Liberal, brought up at the feet of Hon. George Brown and Alexander Mackenzie, about twenty-two or twenty-three years ago, I held Alexander Mackenzie in the utmost reverence, and yet I learned that Alexander Mackenzie was really side-tracked by the Liberals. The name Mackenzie did not sound so sweet in the ears of Liberals of those days. The slogan among the Liberals when the Government was organized in 1896 and when we met here was, " For Heaven's sake let us not make the mistakes that Mackenzie made." I am not making a political speech, but just giving historical facts. I am spilling the beans right on the table beside the Mace so that all within hearing may understand the facts. The " mistakes " that Mackenzie made-I will put quotation marks on the word mistakes- were that he stood strictly to his principles. Mackenzie believed as my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) believes, and as I believe, that a party which goes to the country on a platform is in duty bound morally bound, bound in every honourable way-to stand by that platform. Mackenzie believed in low tariff, and staked his political existence on low tariff. He was willing to go down to defeat on low tariff. Like that candidate for the Presidency of the United States, he would sooner be right than be Prime Minister. And let me tell my separated brethren on the other side of the House that the chief heritage which the Liberal party-not " a " Liberal party, but " the " Liberal party-enjoys to-day is that which was bequeathed to them by the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, who stood to his principles. That is their noblest heritage.

Now, a word on the necessity of cultivating the soil that produces statesmen, who are truly servants of the people. For, after all, there is something worth while in being a public man and serving the State. But, if men who attempt to serve the State are

ridiculed out of existence, if communion is withdrawn from them, if they are treated as, in the humble instance of myself I described this afternoon, then you will not raise that type of men in the country. Men will not serve the people if they know that they will be politically destroyed for so doing. I remember in my early days reading an essay by a great historian and philosopher. He was describing a hero, a man who had rendered great service to his country, both in the field of war and in the field of politics, for a period of thirty or forty years, and was recognized and acclaimed for what he had accomplished for the country. And the historian, in summing up his life, said: the great achievement-now,

mark the words, for this is worth while- the great achievement of that country was to have produced such a hero, and woe to that country that fails to recognize its heroes, for after a time no hero will appear, nay, no hero will even be born. This, in my judgment, indicates the reason why Canada has not produced the type of men it should have produced for the public life of the country. Frequently I have listened to deliverances by able men who have declared that what Canada needs is a leader, a Joshua, fl am looking at my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie), though I have not him in mind.] What Canada needs, they tell us, is a Joshua who will take us out of the wilderness and into the promised land. Now, if the philosophers, or so-called philosophers, had stopped to think for a moment they would have known that it is impossible, and has been for thirty years, for Canada to produce a leader, a Joshua. Your public men are no better, and of necessity cannot be better, than the people. That is why it is so desirable to cultivate ideals, and to cultivate especially the ideal of service. That is why I have been glad to say an encouraging word to the two young men, one of whom moved and the other seconded the Address. I said this afternoon, and I repeat, it is a good sign to see member after member on both sides of the House congratulate these young men upon the noble, patriotic sentiments expressed in their speeches. This laudation of ideals augurs well for the future of the country.

In speaking this afternoon, and making a personal reference to the difficulties I encountered as a Liberal who made an attempt, however feeble, to stand by his ideals, I neglected to say what I never had opportunity to say before, but which I am glad to say now. I take advantage of this

opportunity to bear testimony to the kindness that was shown to me by the late Dalton McCarthy, and the late Hon. N. Clarke Wallace, who wrote an open letter on my behalf to the people of Canada. I wanted to pay that tribute, and I think it only right that I should do so.

Let me offer a word of advice to my friends of the so-called Liberal party on the other side. If they seriously think of obtaining office, if they have any serious notion that the people of Canada will be willing to place the administration of public affairs in their hands, I would suggest that they join heartily in assisting the powers that be to carry out all measures that make for the good of the country. The responsibility of citizenship is something, I think, the people of Canada are apt to lose sight of. It is all very well to say that we have a Government, that the Government has the responsibility and must do the work and supply the ideas. As I pointed out before, no government embraces all the wisdom, or even a great portion of the wisdom of the people. The members of the Government do what they can, but think of the collossal tasks that lie before the Administration, think of the dreadful responsibilities that rest, not on the Government but on the people. For, after all, the people must bear the responsibility. There is no use in expecting the Government to do all. Take the Minister of Public \\ orks (Mr. Carvell) for instance.

I suppose no man in Canada is besieged as he has been and is at this time-all clamouring for the expenditure of money in their several localities. The idea must be. given to the people of Canada that they have the responsibility on their shoulders. It is useless to blame the Government if everything is not right; let the people get right themselves, and that will help to make the Government right. With the enormous problems of the returned soldiers and reconstruction to be dealt with, the Government will be absolutely powerless unless it has the sympathy and support of the people in so far as it is doing right. And, of course, it is quite absurd to suppose that the average Government does not want to do right. It may not be composed of the wisest or the greatest men, but these men according to their lights are usually trying to do the best they can, and in that they are entitled to the support and sympathy of the people. Carrying out the simile of the wilderness and the promised land, I would say to hon. gentlemen opposite that if they want to inspire the confidence of the country, they must get in line and assist in the measure's TMr. Richardson.J

that make for the country's good, or if they do not, the fate that overtook the children of Israel will overtake them-yes, and even worse, for not even a Joshua or a Caleb among them will enter the promised land. They will remain in the wilderness until they all die out, and only their successors who learn the lesson of service will be able to enter the promised land and partake of the milk and honey.

This afternoon I discussed to some extent the subject of party. I did not go as fully into the idea as I had intended to and I think it is particularly important in this country, and especially at this juncture, that there shall be a very clear conception on the part of the hon. members of this House and on the part of the people at large in regard to "party." I read an address made by an hon. member of this House recently at a function in Toronto, in reference to party. He evidently had it in his mind that Union Government was not a party and he appealed to history to show that they wrere sure to degenerate into a faction. My hon. friend entirely misreads history in regard to that. Party came into existence in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Before that, in the Roman Empire, they had a sort of municipal government, but, inasmuch as it was impossible to take a vote for the entire Roman Empire, and a vote could only be taken in Rome or at some other place, the system fell by the wayside and degenerated into a military dictatorship led by Caesar. That is why Caesar was assassinated. Perhaps some of my good friends do not know that but it was because Caesar lent himself to the idea of a military despotism that he lost his life. Henceforth Csesarism prevailed and the world lay prostrate at the feet of a military despot. I rather think that Caesar deserved to lose his life under these circumstances, but I am not going to go over the history of the world from the time of the dissolution of the Roman Empire down to the organization of the British nation.

Party, as I say, came into existence in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. It was the strong, independent spirit of Puritanism standing out in protest against the exercise of the Royal prerogative in matters of Church and State that produced the first party. The development of party government is a very interesting study. Parties were organized for the purpose of accomplishing a reform. The Puritans organized, increased their strength and finally were able to challenge the prerogative of the King. In order to lay my founda-

tion properly I might be permitted to read a sentence or two from Sir Erskine May's Constitutional History of England. Sir Erskine May says:

Party has guided and controlled and often dominated over the ostensible authorities of the State: It has supported the Crown and aristocracy against the people; it has trampled upon public liberty; it has dethroned and coerced kings, overthrown their ministers in parliament, humbled the nobles, and established popular rights. But it has protected the fabric of the Government from shocks which threatened its very foundations. The annals of party embrace a large portion of the History of England. The parties in which the British people have associated at different times and under various names have represented cardinal principles of Government authority on one side, and popular rights and privileges on the other.

The former principle pressed to extremes would tend to absolutism, the latter to a republic, but controlled within proper limits they are both necessary for the safe working of a balanced constitution.

When parties have lost sight of these principles in pursuit of objects less worthy, they have degenerated into faction.

That is what my hon. friend to whom I referred had in his mind but he lost sight of principles. That applies to the old Liberal party. I think I demonstrated this afternoon to the satisfaction of every person within hearing of my voice that that party was organized upon certain principles, that it adopted a certain platform and that it failed to carry out that platform. If the administration of the Government of the country becomes a case of the "ins" and the "outs," if that is the only issue as between parties then party degenerates, as Sir Erskine May says, into faction. That is not the case with Union Government, founded as this Government has been on a great principle, for the purpose of carrying out a great object, one of the greatest that human history has ever recorded. This is not a faction; it is a party organized for a great purpose. It is not going too far to say that this party which was organized for a purpose has stood loyally by that purpose. It was surely worth while bringing into existence for that purpose.

But something almost as good has been accomplished. Men, hundreds of them, from the different sides of politics, have mingled for the first time with their fellow Canadians on this side of the House and they have learned that after all there are very trifling differences between them. They have learned that there is not as much dividing them as they thought. Let me give an illustration as to parties. What makes a man a Presbyterian? Is it not

belief in and practice of the doctrines of

the Westminster Confession? What makes a man an Anglican? Is it not belief in and practice of the doctrines of the Thirty Nine Articles? What makes a man a Roman Catholic? Is it not belief in and practice of the doctrines and tenets of the Roman Catholic church? If a man calls himself a Roman Catholic and yet believes in the Thirty Nine Articles, or the doctrine of the Presbyterian church, is he a Roman Catholic? Certainly not. Therefore I contend that when a man calls himself a Liberal, and if the platform of Liberalism is free trade and if that man practises protection to the hilt, appoints Bob Watson to the (Senate, and appoints more members of Parliament to office than his predecessors ever thought of doing, he is not a Liberal at all. He may think he is but thinking that he is does not alter the case. He is what he does and what he practises. Is the point clear, Mr. Speaker? If it is not I have abundance of other evidence.

I have always contended that one of the very worst features in our system of Government is that the followers of the Government are bound by some act of the Government. (For instance, the Government introduce say, a Daylight Saving Bill. I hope to the Lord they will not introduce it again this year because we members representing rural constituencies feel that our political lives are at stake if we support daylight saving. And yet, unless we vote for the Government, the Government fails.

Now that is one of the most vicious features of our party Government. I like very much better the French system, and I am going to appeal to the Acting Prime Minister, and to his colleagues, to see if it would not be possible to introduce the French system into this House. As I understand it, all measures Introduced into the French Chambre des Communes are thrown open for action on the part of the members regardless of party. How absurd has been the spectacle in Canada for the last forty or fifty years-ever since I can remember, ever since Confederation-of a Parliament of about three hundred supposedly sensible men sitting some to the right and some to the left of the Speaker, and yet in the case of every measure that has been introduced in this House, with rare exceptions, for forty or fifty years, if it was introduced by the Government, the men to the right of the Speaker have voted yea, and the men to the left of the Speaker have voted nay, utterly regardless of the merits of the Bill, and utterly regardless

of the effects of the Bill upon their constituencies. It passes comprehension that such a system should be continued. It may be said that we follow precedent, but what do we need to care about precedents In God's name, let us get on with the business of the country, and do that business as it should be done, regardless of party. Under the French system, when a Bill is introduced the members vote for it according to their best judgment. It may be introduced by the Government, it might be introduced by any particular member, or any particular party in. the Chambre des Communes The measure is discussed on its merits, and even if introduced by the Government, if the majority of the Chamber think it should not become law, the majority vote against it and it falls. The existence of the Government is hinged upon a vote of confidence, or a vote of want of confidence. The Government might introduce what they thought an important measure, and be defeated root and branch, the members exercising their God-given intelligence. Why, if the majority of that House think that that Government, generally speaking, is the best Government for France, somebody submits a vote of confidence in it, and if the motion carries the Government remains in office. There, it is on the Government's general policy, and on the Government's service for the State, that its existence hinges. In our country it is entirely different. Surely, we could break away from precedent and adopt the French system, which I feel sure would be a good thing for the Dominion of Canada.

Now the British system of party government-and it is a fine tribute to the old British race-developed over a thousand years, evolved out of great hardship, great worries and great troubles, but the party system has been deliberately adopted by all free peoples over the earth. So much for the British system. If we follow the British ideals and use parties for the purpose of accomplishing. great reforms, then we are following along the right line. Let us glance at the agitation for the abolition of the Com laws fifty or sixty years ago. John Bright, Richard Cobden, and other able men, whose hearts beat in unison and sympathy^ for the people, realized that protection was an evil in the land. Hundreds, and thousands, nay, tens of thousands, were almost starving for the want of something to eat, and these great men-men whose hearts beat for the people-saw that in order to work a reform, it was desirable, nay necessary, to get rid of protection. They began their agitation in the House. They secured re-tMr. Richardson.]

cruits in the House and out of it, and they worked along for years propagating their theories and pointing out to the people of Great Britain a remedy for the evils that existed, until finally they succeeded in persuading the people and organizing a party in the House of Commons that resulted in the abolition of the Corn laws. That was a great triumph, a great achievement for party! That is what party should be used for, and that should be its only purpose. To merely call ourselves parties, and divide into two factions will never help the country, and, as I pointed out several times, it has resulted in almost destroying our public life. We want to get away from factions, we want to form an idea of what the country's interests are, we want to devote ourselves to the service of the country and carry out what the country needs. In a word, let us serve the country and not serve party.

I want to refer briefly to the speech of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell). I have already alluded to the task which he has in hand at the present time. He has spoken with great frankness, and there has been very little criticism of his statements. Occasionally you hear the speech referred to as a pessimistic statement, but I say all honour to the responsible minister of the Crown who tells Parliament, and through Parliament the people of the country, exactly what the position of affairs is. He tells us that we will probably be faced with a deficit-after providing for pensions, for the carrying on of the affairs of the country, and paying the interest on the war debt

of one hundred millions dollars, -and yet the clamour for public works, and the clamour for expenditures goes on apace. Members of this House, and the people of this country, are faced with a serious situation. It is not fair, Sir, to badger our ministers for lavish expenditures, perhaps unreasonable expenditures, without considering from what source the money is to come. The Dominion has great natural resources, but the prospect of realizing on them is rather limited as we see them at present. Will the Dominion be able to meet that vast expenditure? There is no use blaming the Government. The Government did not bring on the war, and only incidentally incurred the necessary expenditure. The country clamoured for the sending of our soldiers to the front; we all held up our hands for it, and are grateful for the deeds of heroism that our soldiers have achieved and for the glory they have reflected on this Dominion. But the Government are not specially re-

sponsible; they are charged with the function of trying to provide the necessary means to provide the necessary money. But this Parliament and the people of this country have the responsibility. The words of the Minister of Public Works should sink deep into the hearts of the Canadiar people, and they should not divesit themselves, as indeed they cannot divest themselves-of responsibility in connection with the management of our public affairs. I was struck very recently with an expression used by an ex-minister of the Crown. In talking with me he said that thrift has apparently become a vice or a crime in the country. The people seem to have the idea that the golden stream should pour not only from the spigot, but from the bung-hole as well. Is thrift a crime?

Let us look at the developments in connection with the Printing Bureau. As chairman of the Debates Committee it has been my duty to visit the Printing Bureau on different occasions, and I came to the conviction that of all the patronage cesspools out of Hades, the Printing Bureau was the worst. It so sickened me that I thought; how can Canada ever succeed if that sort of thing goes on? Perhaps I will be pardoned for saying that last session I went to the Prime Minister and told him about the state of affairs at the Bureau. He was pretty busy at the time, but he gave me a moment or two, and I said to him; "If you, Sir Robert, will place me in charge of the Printing Bureau for one year and give me a free hand, I will promise to cut the expenditure in two and I shall not charge the country one farthing for my services." Sir Robert did not give me a direct answer; he asked me to confer with another member of the Cabinet. Of course, I did not do so, but I thought it was a rare opportunity for a reformer-I call myself a reformer-just to give one object lesson as to what could be done at the Printing Bureau. The mess has been exposed, and a sickening mess it is. I do not blame the present Government, although they have been in office over a year and might have taken some radical action to cure the evil. But it has been the result of the political partisan system practised by both parties for the last twenty-five or thirty years, and both are responsible.

Now, what has happened in the Printing Bureau has, in my judgment, happened before and is happening, though perhaps not to the same disgusting extent, all over the Civil Service of the country. I have not time to tell all the things that have 25J

come under my observation; I should not like to tire the House by relating all these particular cases. But it is my deliberate judgment that from the Atlantic to the Pacific things exist in the public service of Canada, and have existed under all Governments for thirty, forty, or fifty years that are a disgrace to the country and that, if not corrected, will sap the life-blood of the country. You cannot allow a cancer or sore like that to exist on the body politic for an indefinite time and expect that body politic to he healthy or to survive. Unless it is cured, it will eat the vitals of the country ultimately, as the cancer will eat the body of the man who contracts it. Would to Heaven that this Government would let me name one commission. I am not very favourable to commissions. We have had a great many of them, but I should like to be able to name one commission that would go from the Atlantic to the Pacific and carve this cancer out. Let us get rid of the barnacles, the thousands who have fastened themselves on the body politic and are eating its vitals out. We had better put our cards on the table in reference to this Civil Service. The Printing Bureau is not the only place; let us clean the whole thing out from stem to gudgeon. It is a big task, a tremendous task; it will require men of firmness, men of courage, men careful of the public interest. Such men are to be found in this country, and if they were given a fair opportunity I believe that this Civil Service could be cleaned up. And the time to do that is when the Union Government is in office; when the Liberals of this country have united with the Conservatives for the purpose of grappling with the vast problems that confront Canada at the present time. That is the only time in which this work can be properly and effectively done, and in God's name, let it be done, Mr. Speaker.

Let me give you a little instance of what I found when I was a member of the Debates Committee twenty odd years ago. We discovered that a number of the translators were drawing large pay and were farming the jobs out to girls at one-fourth or one-fifth the amount they were receiving from the country. I had a notion, in my own foolish little way, that when a thing like that was discovered it could be corrected, and I moved that these men be dismissed. Remember, I was a supporter-at least I thought I was-of the Liberal Government.

I moved that these men be dismissed. What do you suppose happened? The Chairman, who came from the province of Quebec-I shall not mention his name-refused to put

ment that I received from high quarters to the effect that France, even heroic France, was ready to quit. It looked at one time as if the channel ports and Paris were gone. The statesmen of Great Britain were considering very seriously what to do. I am not saying that they thought of striking their colours or proposing peace, but the situation was undoubtedly grave and the public men of Great Britain were in a very serious mood. I have this to say: In my judgment no man from the Overseas Dominions exercised such a powerful influence as did the Prime Minister of this country in bucking up, to use a street term, the British Government. I heard Sir Robert Borden speak at the great Mansion House dinner and he was the leading figure there, and there were many great figures present. Sir Robert Borden, in season and out of season, exercised a very important influence in the counsels of the British nation in regard to the war. I hold no brief for him, but I think it is only just that I should pay him this tribute.

I am sure the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) made it abundantly clear in his speech this afternoon that it was the duty of Sir Robert Borden to be present at the Peace Conference. If he were not there we should certainly hear the cry from the other side of the House: Why is the Prime Minister not in France looking after our interests? Sometimes this criticism reminds me of the old couplet:-

You shall and you shan't, you will and you won't,

You will be damned if you do, and be damned if you don't.

So, no matter what position Sir Robert Borden took, there would sure to be criticism. After all, the creation of the Imperial Cabinet is simply carrying out the same idea as the League of Nations, to which we look for the solution of so many problems.

And now I am going to invite my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) to come up to Mount Carmel with me. I rather like the hon. member. He has a frank, open face and a generous way with him. He speaks his mind loudly and bluntly. I have had the pleasure of his acquaintance for many years, and I certainly should not like to say anything to offend him, and I am sure I shall not. Some day he may be Finance Minister in some government or other, but it must be a long way off, for I cannot see it yet with a telescope. But when that day comes I shall be delighted to extend congratulations to him. In his speech the other evening he said:

I say to my separated brethren: Go to the Acting-Prime Minister, who is also the Finance Minister, place the Hansard containing my few humble remarks. before him and say to him [DOT] Now, Sir, are you willing to go as far as the Grits will go? Then govern yourselves accordingly.

You would think from that statement that the hon. member could do exactly what he liked with the party over there. Perhaps he thinks he could. Perhaps he thinks his party sound on the tariff question. But just let him try the experiment as I did twenty years ago, and he will find how mistaken he is. The " L. M. Jones's," the " Billy Pattersons" and all the manufacturers from Dan to Beersheba who have been identified with their party will have something to say when he starts anything of that kind. If the hon. member was able to organize an . efficient government based upon the ideal of free trade which would wipe out the element of protection from the tariff and include in its platform all the reforms which the Liberal party advocated twenty years ago-if he could organize such a government as that I would follow him and be delighted to do so, but I know positively that he cannot make good in any such attempt, because there are just as many, or almost as many, protectionists in the rank and file of the Liberal party as in the rank and file of the other party. I am not even sure that his leader would follow him on a free trade platform; I do not know just what his position is with regard to the tariff, and I am just drawing a bow at a venture. Is the hon. member for Brome satisfied that the great majority of his friends on the other side of the House would follow him on such a platform? If he is not, he must agree to the inutility of a*ny members on this side identifying themselves with him or accepting his challenge. If you review the fiscal history of this country-(I reiterate the statement of my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark)-the impartial historian will find, and will say, that in actual reductions in the tariff-apart from preference and reciprocity which, no doubt my hon. friend will shoot at me in a minute if I do not anticipate him-the reductions made under Conservative rule have been greater than those made by the other side. They brought down the duty on agricultural implements from 35 per cent to, I think, I7J per cent, and made other reductions as well. It would not be wise, in my judgment, for us to follow the lure of the light in the shack window on the other side, and leave the friends here, because we believe, most of us, that we can so appeal to this Union Government that we shall get, perhaps, a

larger measure of fiscal justice-I speak as one from the West-than we could hope for if the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) were installed as Prime Minister of this country. My hon. friend went on:

Do you remember that old story in ancient writ of how the prophets of Baal and Elijah worked together on Mount Carmel? You .remember how Elijah said, " If Baal be the Lord, serve him, and if Jehovah be the Lord, serve him." If your principles are for liberty and low tariff you know on which side of the House you should' sit. If protection and high tariff be your god, then stay where you are.

This is throwing down a challenge with a vengeance. The hon. gentleman quotes that beautiful story that is told in the first book of Kings, of Elijah the Tishbite. Now, Elijah was a hairy man, and if my hon. friend from Brome wishes to imitate him, when he marches to Mount Carmel with me, he had better let his whiskers grow, and also the hair on his head, and he had better gird up his loins. Elijah asked the momentous question which the prophet of Brome asks, " How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God follow Him; hut if Baal, then follow him." On Mount Carmel if the hon. gentleman would imitate Elijah he must build an altar. Elijah built his altar of twelve stones, representing the twelve tribes of Israel. I would suggest that my hon. friend take twelve representatives from the old Liberal party-twelve disciples as it were-and of these build his altar. I would suggest these names: George P. Graham, Israel Tarte, Clifford Sifton, Billy Patterson, Billy Gibson, Bob Watson, Jim Sutherland, Senator Edwards, Dr. Lan-derkin, Jim MkMullen, Jim Somerville, and-yes, I think Aleck Smith might be thrown in there.

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

March 14, 1919