February 25, 1921

UNION

Frank Stewart Scott

Unionist

Mr. SCOTT (Resuming) :

Mr. Speaker,

when the House rose at six o'clock I was giving certain reasons why I believed it was inadvisable for the Government to make an appeal to the country during the past year. There is one other point that I might perhaps make in that connection, and I make it more particularly for the benefit of the leader of the Opposition. I wish to tell him that in my own constituency Liberals, men engaged in business, and prominent in their various walks of life, who in days gone by gave their allegiance to the party which he to-day leads, have been the most outspoken in expressing a desire that there should be no appeal to the country at the present time.

I pass on now to deal with the amendment which was introduced by the leader of the Opposition. His amendment is to the effect that the Government does not possess the confidence of the House, or the confidence of the country. With regard to the first point, the question whether the Government possesses the confidence of the House will be finally decided when the vote is taken, in a few days, no doubt. That will provide a proper answer to that question. As to whether the Government enjoys the confidence of the people of this country that, after all, as the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. MacLean) stated this afternoon, is, and can be at best, only a matter of opinion, and in that connection I must say that there is a very great difference of opinion.

If I were looking for an opinion upon a question of that kind it does not seem to me that I would be likely to go to gentlemen situated as are the Opposition. I submit that you could go into any legislature in Canada, and perhaps into any parliament in the world, and not find it a difficult task to persuade those who were sitting in opposition, partisans, that the government to which they were opposed

r.Mr. Scott.]

did not enjoy the confidence of the people of the country. But I do not take a great deal of stock in opinions on that question from such a source. While there may be a difference of opinion as to whether the Government of this country enjoys the confidence of the people, I think there is small room for doubt whether the leader of the Opposition and the party which he leads enjoy the confidence of the people. It seems to me that the most superficial observer of the present political situation must be impressed with the fact that, aside from the province of Quebec, the Opposition are not in very high favour at the present time.

We have heard a very great deal from the leader of the Opposition about the defections that have taken place from the Government side of the House, and in that no doubt he is in a measure correct. But I do not see how it can afford him much consolation, because, if one looks across the floor of the House and among the members who sit under his leadership, one cannot see that he has made any very substantial gains duing the last few years. While there have been defections for certain reasons, the men who have seen fit to cross the floor of the House have been loath, indeed, to place themselves under his leadership.

In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I have been much impressed by his speeches both in this House and outside. One would think to hear his speeches that recruits, not only in this House, but from one end of the country to the other were flocking to his banner. It is difficult to understand how he can think so. His attitude reminds me of the days when as a boy I used to spend my vacations on the farm. One of the most enjoyable things I remember doing in these days was to go out and gather the eggs. Sometimes, when we were looking for eggs, we would come across a clucking hen. We would take hold of her and toss her out into the barnyard. She would ruffle up her feathers, spread her wings, and make a great fuss. It is a most peculiar thing, but do you know, Mr. Speaker, that if there were a thousand small chickens in that yard, she would imagine that she owned every one of them. And so it is with the leader of the Opposition. He looks over this House and over the whole country and seems obsessed with the idea that ail the political chickens that are passing to and fro are ready to join him.

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

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

They are

getting fewer on the other side, at a)1 events.

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

Frank Stewart Scott

Unionist

Mr. SCOTT:

Before six o'clock I gave

a few reasons why I did not believe it was desirable, or in the interests of this country, that there should have been a general election during the past year. So far as I personally am concerned, I think that is a matter which should properly be decided by the Government of this country, and again, so far as I am concerned, if the Government should decide to dissolve Parliament and make an immediate appeal to the country, I shall be perfectly satisfied, but I believe that dissolution should come about in a proper and constitutional way, and should not be dictated by the leader of the Opposition.

I have no doubt that the constitutional course will be followed.

I feel, however, that before we have an appeal to the country there are a few things which should receive attention, and I should like to point out in that connection that there are certain things which should receive the attention of the leader of the Opposition before the electors are called upon to make a decision between the two political parties. One of the points I have in mind is this : I would like to ask the leader of the Opposition if he has entered into any alliance or understanding with the Agrarian party. I would like to go a little further and ask him this question: If not, does he propose to do so either before or after the election? I ask that because I believe it is going to have a most important bearing upon the result of this election, and it is only fair that the people of the country should understand perfectly not only where the Government stands but just where the Opposition is at this time.

The leader of the Opposition has said that the policy of the Agrarian party and that of his own party are practically identical. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if the two parties opposite stand for the same principles there is no necessity for their separate and individual existence. If their principles are identical, why should we not have one Opposition party and let the people of Canada make their decision between that party and the party represented on this side? The answer which the leader of the Opposition will give to the questions I have submitted would, I claim, make a vast difference in the situation in the province of Quebec. I listened with a great deal of interest the other day to the speech delivered to the hon. member for St. Hya-cinthe (Mr. Gauthier) because, while I confess that I do not have very much opportunity of coming in contact with the public men in the neighbouring province of

Quebec, I have during the last two years been brought very closely into touch with a large number of business men in that province; and I want to say that in my conversations with those men from time to time I have found that they give candid expression to practically the same sentiments as those uttered the other day by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe.

Now, the hon. gentleman in his speech covered a great deal of ground, and if I were asked to summarize that speech in a few words I would say that the message he brought to this House was that he was not prepared, in the name of Liberalism, to be led into an alliance with the Agrarian party for the reason that he did not believe in their policy and in their principles. I want to emphasize once again that the sentiments that have been expressed to me on very many occasions, not by men who had any political purpose to serve but by unbiased men of prominence and weight in the province of Quebec, who were only interested in the welfare of this country, are in keeping with the whole trend of the speech delivered by my hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe.

Gentlemen on the other side of the House following that hon. member endeavoured to reply to him, but I submit that while there have been interchanges of personalities there has been no serious attempt on the part of hon. members opposite to review the statements made by the member for St. Hyacinthe. I venture to say that, if an issue of that kind were faced fairly and squarely before the people and were decided on its merits, the leader of the Opposition would find after the next general election that he would not have the bulwark of which he boasts at the present time-a solid province of Quebec. I confess that I have my doubts at this time as to whether that issue is going to be fairly and squarely placed before, and decided upon its merits by, the people of the province of Quebec. We have only to listen to the speeches that are delivered by hon. gentlemen opposite to discover the effort that is being made and the well defined plan that is being followed in order to becloud the issue.

What is the situation? One gentleman after another has risen in his place and has represented to the people of his constituency-for their speeches are intended for distribution there, and it is there that they will have their effect-that the Prime Minister of this country (Hon. Mr. Meighen) is a man who is an enemy to the province of Quebec and has missed no op-

portunity of casting scorn and discredit upon them; and hon. members opposite try in that way to becloud the issue and cover up the true issue which should be placed before the people of Quebec in the next election.

Now, one of the things which I have learned since becoming a member of this House is that a public man must needs be very careful in any statements that he makes. There are acute minds on both sides of the House, and I have found that very often a word or a sentence uttered in some long-forgotten debate is at the appropriate time recalled by men of retentative memory in order to destroy an argument or confuse political opponents. The right hon. gentleman who to-day fills the position of Prime Minister of this country has been for a number of years in public life, and from the time he entered the House of Commons, I think in the year 1908, he has been a marked man. Political friends and political foes alike said, from the day he first entered Parliament, that he would travel far; and they have not proven false prophets, because the hon. gentleman to-day occupies the highest and most distinguished position in the gift of the Canadian people. Mr. Speaker, the point in that connection which I want to make is that when hon. gentlemen opposite make insinuations and try to represent the Prime Minister of this country as one who has slandered the French race and the province of Quebec, it is no wonder that we, his friends, challenge them to produce the evidence. Is there any hon. gentlemen who, if he believed that one single sentence could be found that would bear out this contention, would not produce it and quote it on the floor of the House? Now, Sir, that method of warfare, I am sorry to say, is not confined within the precincts of this House, nor is it confined to the province of Quebec. A great national newspaper in Ontario, the Toronto "Globe," made a similar reference to the Prime Minister some months ago. That newspaper was invited to produce the proof to substantiate its statements at that time, but up to the present it has failed to do so. 1

Now Mr. Speaker I pass from that subject. There is one other matter to which I would like to refer at this time. I would like to direct one more question at my good friend the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). I have always held that hon. gentleman, and I assure him I do so still, in the very highest esteem. I always listen with a great deal

of interest to his speeches, and never miss an opportunity of hearing him, because he is such a master of parliamentary eloquence. I remember well the speech which he delivered in the Budget debate of 1918, which speech suggests the question that I would now like in all kindness to put to him. The question is this: I would like to know how the member for Red Deer views the prospect-perhaps at the present time more than a prospect-of an alliance with the party led by the leader of the Opposition. I ask this because of statements made by the hon. member in the speech in question. I re-read the speech the other day and I will just quote a few sentences from it. I think that all the members of the House might well read that speech with interest, but at present I wish only to quote a few sentences for their consideration. At that time the hon. gentleman was speaking as a supporter of this Government and from this side of the House. Addressing himself to hon. gentlemen opposite he said:

I conducted a missionary enterprise of persistency and consistency for years in the ranks of gentlemen opposite. When they were in power I sat in the colony and made attempts at their education,-the moment I mentioned the rights of the farmers or anything relating to low tariff I want it recorded as my distinct impression that I saw nothing but frowns upon their faces. And the reason was this-they came into power practically a professing free-trade party. They certainly did take the duty off cream separators. I worked that free cream separator on 'Western platforms until my arm was actually aching. They took the duty off binder twine. 'Sir, I threaded binder twine until there was not a fibre between my fingers. They introduced the British preference, and as long as I could I kept trying to defend my own constituency for sitting in such a Liberal party by praising the British preference, turning the free trade cream separator and fraying binder twine. That having been done, what is their subsequent record? After early attempts at tariff reduction, hon. gentlemen sat back, enjoying luxurious office, drawing their salaries with promptitude and basking in the smiles of those gentlemen whom I would never describe as bucaneers, basking in the smiles of these bucaneers and companies that my hon. friend (Mr. .Lemieux) denounced this afternoon in a voice which reared itself to the sky.

A little further on, Mr. Speaker, I find this sentence in the same speech:

I do not think I need to say any more to explain to my hon. friends where they are so far as Western Canada is concerned. Western Canada did not quite believe in their sincerity because Western Canada knew their record.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to say. I believed, and I still believe, in the consistency, the earnestness, and the

sincerity ol! my good friend the member for Red Deer. I cannot think that he is altogether satisfied with the way things are drifting in public life in this country, and while I am prepared to believe that the hon. gentleman has played an important part in bringing the Agrarian party into the position which it occupies to-day, I do not think that his counsels are given very serious consideration by the men who are directing the destinies of that party.

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

John Flaws Reid

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. J. F. REID (Mackenzie) :

Mr. Speaker, in rising at this late period of the debate it will be very hard indeed for me to avoid making reference to subjects which have already been dealt with. I shall not attempt to present any more bouquets to the mover and seconder of the Address but will simply say that I agree with all the good things that have been uttered with respect to them. I extend, however, my hearty congratulations to the Prime Minister, for more reasons than one, on the very rapid rise which he has made in the public life of Canada. The right hon. gentleman told me himself, not so very long ago, that he was born on a small farm in the province of Ontario.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
UNION
UNI L

John Flaws Reid

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. REID:

True, that is the place

where the boys that climb the ladder of fame are born. The right hon. gentleman said of this little farm where he was bom, that the trees were so thick between the house and the concession road in the days of his youth that he could not see the teams as they passed up and down. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that on that farm the right hon. gentleman who to-day leads the Government learned the lessons of stick-to-itiveness that have helped him to climb to his present high position.

The old province of Ontario has good reason, Mr. Speaker, to be proud to-day not only because our worthy Prime Minister was born within its precincts, not only because of the great success that he has achieved in public life and the character which he has maintained, which has been referred to by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, but it also has reason to be proud of the fact that another Prime Minister was born on one of its farms. I refer to the hon. Mr. Drury, the Premier of the province. Mr. Speaker, there is yet another farmer's boy. I refer to the hon. T. A. Crerar, leader of our party, who was bom on a farm in the province of Ontario, and who can tell but that in a very near future he may be the leader of this House. The present Prime

Minister has climed to his high position in a little less, I understand, than thirteen years. Someone found him in a little town in the province of Manitoba, because then Portage la Prairie was not a very large community. At that time the right hon. gentleman was a budding young lawyer in Western Canada; and I want to say to young members of the House that he has set the pace; he has set an example, for young men throughout the Dominion, and what he has done they also may do. But Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that if they would follow in his footsteps and climb the ladder of fame as speedily as he has done they will not sleep on a bed of roses, neither will they spend much time in slumber, but rather they will have to burn the midnight oil. I wish him long life, happiness and prosperity. But, Sir, I hope that he will forsake the big interests and come back to the common, plain people whence he sprung and apply the same energies which he now brings to bear in discharging the duties of his high office.

I notice that when the right hon. the Prime Minister was choosing a new name for his old party he took the word "National" from the platform of the National Progressive party, and I have often wondered why he did not also include the word "Progressive." Then he would have the National Progressives, the Liberals and the Tories all in one fold. How nice that would be! But on second thoughts-which are very often the best- I believe my worthy friend decided to say to his nearest followers: "No, gentlemen, it will not do; water and oil will not mix; leave them out."

I am going to endeavour to show to the House that this Government is allied with the big interests, because the first act of the right hon. the Prime Minister was to nail his protectionist flag to the masthead of his party ship, and that, to my mind, was a friendly signal to the big interests. His banner of protection is also their banner, and he says to them in effect: "Come with us. This is the ship of protection that will protect you and your industries. Come with us. We need you, and you need us. We need your millions of money for our campaign fund to fight the Liberals and the Progressives." And he also says to Labour: "Come with us in this ship. It is big enough for us all, and we will take you in and protect you." But he forgets to tell labour when he is flirting with them that for the protection which he offers he

will exact an equivalent by making them pay more for their boots and shoes and for their clothing, and for all the comforts of life which they now enjoy. I do not know -he may get the labour vote, but I hope not. I hope that labour will keep their eyes open and see the folly of going in my good friend's protectionist ship.

I am going to continue along that line of thought, Mr. Speaker, and tr/ to show to this House that the big interests are behind this Government and allied with it. I shall endeavour to demonstrate that the intermediary of the big interests, Mr. Murray, of the city of Toronto, is conducting a well-organized boycott in an attempt to muzzle the press of this country, and so keep from the people all the facts both pro and con which should be honestly presented to them that they may give an intelligent vote on the public questions of the day. But will the people be able to pass an intelligent verdict if the press is to be dictated to by Mr. Murray? I think not. This attempt by Mr. Murray to control our press is being made on behalf of the manufacturers, who, as I have said before, are allied with this Government; but the attempt, in my opinion, will prove a boomerang to those who are conducting and supporting it.

The people of Canada will not stand for such dictation. They know that this boycott which Mr. Murray is carrying on with a well-organized and expensive staff, is simply along these lines; in effect, he says to the manufacturers by circular letters: "Send in to me your estimates of what you are going to spend for advertising, and I will name the newspapers which shall get your advertising." Then he says to the press: "Unless you will submit to me the control of your editorial pages, you cannot have any of these advertisements." That, in substance, is the system employed, and I defy contradiction of my statement.

I will pass over the subject of protection mentioned in the speech from the Throne and deal with vital matters-matters in my opinion equally as important as protection-which are not mentioned therein. We have had before us for a number of years a project especially dear to Western Canada-the Hudson's Bay railway.

Not one word is in the Address about this project-a project on which we have spent about $20,000,000. There all this material lies to-day, going to waste, and the Government, heedless of the pleadings of the people from the West, do not say one

word in regard to what is to be done with the Hudson Bay railway. I shall not tarry on this question; the people of the West will speak for themselves in regard to it when they get the opportunity.

Another matter of very great importance, Mr. Speaker, is our Canadian National Railway system. In this case also not one word appears in the Address as to what is to be done in the direction of an attempt to reduce our railway deficit or even to see that it does not climb higher year after year. And while our railway deficit is piling up, it is a well known fact that, in Western Canada at any rate, the traffic which rightly belongs to the Canadian National Railway system is being hauled away from that railway and being handed over to the Canadian Pacific Railway. Why? Well, I will try to explain as briefly as possible.

Last fall in Western Canada we had only about a thirty per cent crop, but in spite of that, our threshing machines, especially in the northern districts of the three Prairie Provinces, had not been in operation more than two weeks until every country elevator was full of grain-and not a box-car in sight to haul the grain out. Now, this is what happened-and what I say here is simply the sentiment of the people in my constituency and in the other three Prairie Provinces, the northern part of which is served by the Canadian National system. The reason was simply the lack of sufficient box-cars to carry the grain out to the market.

Last fall the grain market was dropping very rapidly and the farmers were naturally anxious to get their grain out to market. But they could not get the cars and, therefore, could not sell their product at that time, so that they could not pay their indebtedness and, consequently, the business man could not pay his. When the farmers did get the box-cars to take the grain out, the price had dropped to such an extent that it was impossible for them to pay their debts and come through, and on that account the farmers in Western Canada to-day are in a state of semi-bankruptcy. How long, Mr. Speaker, is this state of things to continue?

I asked the Minister of Railways last year and the previous year about box-cars, and he said that he had ordered two thousand of them. I thought that was a fairly good order, but when I began to think it over quietly I realized that these two thousand box-cars would have to be strung out over 22,000 miles of railway-

a pretty thin sprinkling. I called at the office of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in Winnipeg and had a chat with one of the Canadian Pacific officials. I said to him: "Will you tell me how many box-cars you have ordered for the Canadian Pacific Railway in the last two years?" To my astonishment he told me they had ordered six thousand new boxcars-xiot replacements-to be used on

14,000 miles of railway; and my good friend the Minister of Railways orders two thousand box-cars to be spread out over 22,000 miles of railway.

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

John Flaws Reid

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. J. D. REID:

As a member of this House my hon. friend should know, from the explanations I have given each year, that the Government ordered 18,000 boxcars during the last three or four years, while the Canadian Pacific has not ordered any more than my hon. friend has mentioned.

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

John Flaws Reid

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :

I am very much pleased to hear that. But where, oh where, Sir, are the 18,000 box-cars? They are not in the West.

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

John Flaws Reid

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. J. D. REID:

Well, they are on the road. '

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

John Flaws Reid

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. J. F. REID:

Evidently the road is a very long one; they are taking a long time to get there. But if my hon. friend says that that many have been ordered, I take his word for it, and I hope he will speed them up and get them out there. I am told by railway experts that it is the freight train that pays, not the passenger train, so that if we are to reduce our deficit we must increase our freight traffic. That is the opinion of a prominent railway official; it is not merely my own personal view.

The grain blockade of which I speak has had a very serious effect upon the country. It affects not only the farmers, but also the business men, the wholesale men, the retail men, the banks, and the manufacturers. The manufacturer cannot sell his psoducts unless the wholesale man can pay his debts; the wholesale man must go to the retail man, and the retail man to the consumer-who out West is very largely the farmer. If, then, the 'farmer cannot get his products to the market, he cannot pay his debts; the wheels of business are simply at a standstill; all business is stagnant. I am glad to be informed by the Minister of Railways that he has ordered 18,000 box-cars. I shall be pleased if he will inform me just how soon they are going to reach the West.

I wish now to make a few corrections of statements made last night by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. G. B. Nicholson). The hon. gentleman made a rather bitter and unwarranted attack upon the United Grain Growers, Limited. He was very much mixed up. Some one had informed him that a certain gentleman by the name of Mr. Wood was the vice-president of the company. I do not need to dwell on that; the hon. member from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) put him right in that regard. But this is what the hon. gentleman says:

Mr. Speaker, I am ready to admit, that it would be exceedingly difficult for any man to say just who is associated with the United Grain Growers' Company and who is not.

Well, it will not be difficult at all if the hon. gentleman will seek the information in the proper place. I would invite him to go west with me to the headquarters of the company in Winnipeg. I believe, Sir, I can show the hon. gentleman the name of every shareholder of the company, as well as a statement of the moneys which they have put into it. I want to tell my hon. friend that there is not one dollar of watered stock credited to our shareholders -and perhaps from that my hon. friend might learn a lesson. He will, however, have to be very patient, because we have over 36,000 shareholders, and if he also wishes to know the names of the customers who deal with the company, it will take him a very long time to look over all the records of the company. But we have nothing to hide, and my invitation to my hon. friend to accompany me to the West stands good.

The hon. gentleman spoke about the different names which this Progressive party is called; in fact, he tried to make out that we call ourselves the Agrarian party and the Progressive party; we do not; we call ourselves the National Progressive party, and I think that name is very applicable. My hon. friend goes on to say:

I said a moment ago that you could not suggest a more violent misuse of terms than those titles. What has been their attitude towards the farmers of this country?

I should like to inquire just what the hon. gentleman means by this strong language. As I said before, we do not apply those titles to ourselves, and if hon. members or any other persons apply those terms to us, we cannot help that; we prosper under it; it is cheap advertising to us, and our people rally all the more to the cause.

My hon. friend was entirely misinformed as to the class of goods which the company handles. These are the words he uses in connection with that:

Feed, clothing, machinery, fuel, and everything else.

That is a very wide order, is it not? We handle many commodities, but we do not handle such a wide range as the hon. member for Algoma East would have people believe. He says:

The United Grain Growers' Limited-.

And he is getting nearer the name all the time. That is the proper name.

carry on a sort of letter order business.

I will take it for granted that by "letter order business" he means, perhaps, a mail order business. Then he says:

They write a letter to some milling company and ask them to forward a car of flour to some farmer or group of farmers with draft attached to bill of lading. In this way they handled, without the cost to them of a single cent, something over a million dollars' worth of flour, and they collected from the farmer between eighty cents and one dollar a barrel as their rake-off for doing it.

I ask hon. members who are business men, who know something about business: Is it possible to have an office with a staff of clerks and stenographers to receive orders from 36,000 shareholders, with a very large number of patrons who are not shareholders, to collect those orders, to attend to the mails, to send the orders on to a large milling company-we deal with more than one milling company-and to conduct all this business without one cent of cost to the company? I am surprised that my hon. friend should make such a statement as that. The other year I had the pleasure of working on a committee of this House with him, and I had a very high estimation of my hon. friend, but, I am afraid I must revise that estimate.

As regards the commission charged on the flour, out West we do not handle flour by the barrel, nor do we speak of it by the barrel. It is handled in bags of 9 p.m. 100 pounds and we speak of it as such. My hon. friend, before making this attack, would have been well advised, knowing me so well, to have come to myself, and I could have supplied him with this information. I have in my room upstairs several annual reports of the company, showing everything in detail, and my hon. friend is welcome to have those reports at any time. I should like him to be properly informed.

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

Charles Arthur Gauvreau

Laurier Liberal

Mr. GAUVREAU:

He does not want to know.

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

John Flaws Reid

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. J. F. REID:

It would seem to me

that he is imbued with the faculty of believing without a reason and the faculty of hating without a cause. If he would divest himself of all those passions which cloud his intellect and warp his understanding, he would see things from a higher plane; his perspective would be clearer, and his troubled soul would rest and live in peace.

My hon. friend goes on to befriend Mr. Murray who is conducting this boycott of the press. Again I must say I am sorry my good friend will even for one moment try to defend such an action as the muzzling of the press, which is the medium through which the people in the distant parts of Canada must be informed as to what is being carried on here. That my good friend will support such an action, I am astonished.

Towards the last, my hon. friend changes his mind, and I am very glad for that. He says:

I said in this House last year, and I repeat to-night, that no honest man has any right in the world to criticize in the least degree the business that the Western Grain Growers are doing. So far as I am able to discern, they are carrying on an honest business; they are the largest commercial organization that ever came into existence in this country; but when they are doing that, what right have they to come down into eastern Canada or to go any other place in their efforts to set class against class in this country or to tell me that I am not carrying on an honest business; that I am extracting undue profits from the people ; that I am oppressing the workingman; that the farmers are not getting their rights? I say that the whole thing is a campaign of blatant hypocrisy.

That is very strong language. My hon. friend is very parochial; he thinks the people of Canada must remain within; and not travel beyond the bounds of their respective provinces. Out West we are not as narrow-minded as that; we welcome our friends from theh eastern provinces to come West and hold meetings and talk with us in order to explain to us their point of view on the public questions of today. Surely my hon. friend would not deny us a similar privilege to come dowp East. I do not think he would insist in his objection. I trust therefore, he will not forget my invitation.

I have rather an unpleasant duty to perform. The hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie) appeared before an audience in the city of Toronto. I have here a clipping from the Manitoba Free Press. It is headed:

Says Farmer Party menace to Canada. Guthrie charges it was started in the West by American settlers. Only party the Federal Government need fear, he declares.

The clipping, which is dated Toronto, February 6, reads:

Declaring that free trade would ruin Canada, and intimating that it was not the Liberal party the Federal Government need fear at the next Dominion election, but the Farmer party, Hon. Hugh Guthrie, Minister of Militia and Defence, in the Meighen Government at Ottawa, addressed the South York Conservatives at their annual meeting here Saturday.

On the tariff question Mr. Guthrie said that under no circumstances could Canada afford to have free trade with the TJ. S. Canada as a nation, and Canadians as a people, would become bankrupt under free trade, he declared, and the next general election would be fought out on the question of protective tariff.

Menace to Canada is Charge.

Mr. Guthrie asserted that the farmer party in the west was started by American settlers, and the organizers of the western farmers were American sympathizers. He produced a catalogue published by the Western Grain Growers to substantiate this charge. In this catalogue, he said, were numerous lines of farm implements listed as "U. G. G. (United Grain Growers) goods" but which were really American-made.

The ploughs listed in the catalogue, Mr. Guthrie said, were made in Wisconsin; harrows, cultivators, mowers, etc., in Illinois; portable engines and washing machines in Pontiac, Ills.; cream separators in Buffalo, N.Y.; and wagons in Iowa. "In the lines of goods which I have mentioned, which are called "U. G. G. goods," Mr. Guthrie said, "there is not a Canadian ar-tide catalogued."

Mr. Guthrie declared that the farmer party in western Canada was not only a menace to the present Government at Ottawa, but also to the future of Canada.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to read an interview given by Mr. Rice-Jones, General Manager of the United Grain Growers, to the Winnipeg Tribune of February 7th, 1921:

The Hon. Hugh Guthrie's statement as reported in a dispatch is incorrect. He states there is not a Canadian article in the machinery litsed In our catalogue as United Grain Growers. Even the list of machinery which he specifically mentions as being manufactured in the United States is incorrect. Mowers and rakes and wagons, for instance, are all purchased in Canada. In fact, we have not purchased a wagon in the United States for three years.

We were forced to buy in the United States in the first place because Canadian manufacturers refused to sell us, and there are still some Canadian manufacturers who absolutely refuse to deal with us.

Of 101 pages in our catalogue only slightly over one-third cover American-made goods. We have always aimed to purchase everything we could purchase in Canada, taking into consideration price and quality. The unfortunate feature from a Canadian standpoint is that even after adding the tariff, some of the American goods we purchase are cheaper than the Canadian and more serviceable.

Mr. Guthrie's statement that the western farmer organizations are controlled by Americans and imbued with American sympathies and ideals is hardly worth referring to, but I may

say that of the twelve directors of the United Grain Growers, Ltd., whose purchases of machinery Mr. Guthrie refers to, ten are British or Canadian born, and two American.

I had hoped that the day of the cheap appeal to racial prejudice by party politicians of the old type was past, but apparently it is not; so I might add that we have here in the West some American born citizens, than whom we have no better Canadians in Canada to-day.

To make the matter clearer still, I will now give the names and the places of birth of the twelve directors who guide the affairs of the United Grain Growers' Limited: Hon. T. A. Crerar, President, born in the Province of Ontario; Cecil Rice-Jones, born in England (Wales); John Kennedy, known to many men in Ontario, and born in that province; Roderick McKenzie, born in the province of Ontario; F. Collyer, born in England; John Morrison, born in Ontario; R. A. Parker, born in Winnipeg, Manitoba; J. J. McLellan born in Nova Scotia; Mr. Wingate, born in the United States; Mr. Austin, born in the United States; and myself, born in the Orkney Islands, Scotland.

Now if the Minister of Militia, who wears the gold lace and the ribbon and the sparkling sword, thinks for one minute that these two Yankees, and I say that with all respect can twist the other ten men around their fingers he has another guess coming.

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

Michael Clark

Progressive

Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:

Especially the Scotchman.

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

John Flaws Reid

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. J. F. REID:

My good friend the Minister of Militia makes three distinct charges: first, that the Farmers' party in the West was started by American settlers, and that the organizers of the western Farmers are American sympathizers; second, that all the goods branded "U.G.G." in the catalogue are made in the United States and that not a Canadian-made article is catalogued. That is absolutely incorrect. Thirdly, he charges that the Farmers' party in Western Canada is a menance to the present Government.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PRO
UNI L

John Flaws Reid

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. J. F. REID:

Yes, I have not much to say against that, because my hon. friend the Minister of the Militia says that we are the party which the Government must fear. We will let that charge pass, but he goes on to say that the Farmers party in Wectern Canada is a menace to the future of Canada, and that all this is brought about by American settlers who are American sympathizers. If that is the case, it is time for us to stop encouraging immigration from the

United States, and we should bring home our immigration officers over there. You cannot ride both horses. They are either good or bad, and I want to tell this House, as Mr. Rice-Jones said in his interview in the press, that we have American settlers in Western Canada who are just as good citizens as myself or the Minister of Militia. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, it is time that this cheap talk was stopped.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PRO
UNI L

John Flaws Reid

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. J. F. REID:

And cheap clap-trap

at that. What is behind it all? It is an endeavour to drive a wedge of distrust between the East and the West. The aim is to set the East and the West against each other and, if possible, to breed suspicion in the minds of our eastern people against the western Progressives. I want to tell the House that this Progressive movement is not confined to Western Canada; it is spreading all over the Dominion, and neither the Minister of Militia nor this Government, nor all this House, can stop that movement. It is a popular movement. It is the movement of the great common peo'ple, and it is going to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I deplore that a Minister of the Crown, one of Canada's foremost statesmen, an adviser to the King's representative in Canada, the Governor General, and therefore an adviser to His Majesty King George, should stoop to such low political tactics for the purpose of causing distrust between the East and the West. It is beneath the dignity of the hon. gentleman's position. It is beneath the dignity of any member of this House.

Mr. HOWARD H. HALLADAY (Bow River) : I want to add my congratulations to what has been said regarding the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), and the mover and seconder of the Address. We have before us an amendment which will in a short time precipitate a division in the House. At that time every hon. member who votes on the amendment must have some good and sufficient reason for the way in which he votes. I propose to vote against that amendment, and my first reason is that I have no confidence in the party from which it emanates.

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

Charles Arthur Gauvreau

Laurier Liberal

Mr. GAUVREAU:

That will not worry us much.

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

Howard Hadden Halladay

Unionist

Mr. HALLADAY:

Two reasons have been given why we should support the amendment; one is that the Government has no mandate, and the other, that there is a demand in this country for an election.

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

February 25, 1921