Mr. W. G. RAYMOND (Brantford) (resuming) :
When the House rose last night I was endeavouring to make clear my position and that of the Liberal manufacturers with regard to the tariff. I tried to prove that the tariff, being really a tax, should be administered with equal justice to all and with special privileges to none. I also pointed out that while it is justly claimed that the basic industries of Canada are agriculture, fishing, lumbering and mining, nevertheless they are dependent for their very existence and operation upon certain other industries that provide the tools and implements that enable them to carry on business, and that we must in consequence regard the industries producing these tools and implements as key industries. Now, the importance of key industries to a country was manifested during the late war in the case of Great Britain. It was found, as I said last night, that their system was defective in some respects, in regard to articles that were absolutely necessary to the independent carrying on of the business of the country and the prosecution of the war, such as dyestuffs, chemicals, steel, etc. While we all hope that it is an eventuality that we shall never witness, yet it is within the bounds of possibility, that this country might some day be at war, and, unthinkable though it seems, at war even with our neighbours to the south of us. I trust with all my heart that this will never be the case, but, as I say, it is possible. And in that event, it seems to me, it would be right for those who believe in the development of a Canadian nationality to see to it that it shall be a nationality absolutely self-contained and independent. To the argument that agriculture, fishing, lumbering and mining are basic industries, it is a natural corollary that those who provide the tools and machinery to carry on these businesses are engaged in key industries, and these key industries, in the general interests of the country, should be maintained, not slaughtered. I think that that is the attitude of the Liberal manufacturers, at all events, in this country. They only ask for a fair field and no favour. If we are to have all tariff restrictions
stripped away they will have to stand upon the same basis as any one else; but, Sir, it seems a reasonable contention that until the day comes when this can justly be done, these industries should not be deprived of the benefits of tariff protection while other industries enjoy those benefits. We have been told that such a system is indefensible and could not continue; we have that statement from the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), and it is one in which I concur. Now, the trade question has been discussed for so many years that I do not intend to deal with it at any length to-day. Briefly stated, however, we have two extremely opposite policies before us. One is the policy of high protection, which is not the policy of the Liberal party, who believe in the middle course of a revenue tariff. The other is a policy-only, I believe, a theoretical policy- of free trade. I do not think that free trade is in the field of practical politics. So far as theory goes, it may be absolutely demonstrable, and I would not be prepared to enter into any argument as to whether entire free trade would or would not be better for Canada. I do contend, though, that if we are to have free trade it should be absolutely general and universal. But, as I say, I think it is rather a theory and is not within the realm of practical politics. It is not well, in theories, to get too far from earth; we have to come down to the fact that a great revenue has to be raised at the present time, and we must realize that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is faced with the greatest task that any Minister of Finance of Canada, in the whole history pf the country, has ever had to cope with. He will have to use every avenue of taxation, and I take it for granted that the tariff will be one upon which he will place some dependence. Free trade, therefore, is not in my opinion a practicable policy. There is an old story which is perhaps rather stale, but even so I may be pardoned for repeating it, because it is apropos. Hon. members may remember that Senator Everett asked the question of President Wilson: "How long, Mr. President, do you think a man's legs ought to be?" "Well," replied Mr. Wilson, "Really that is a question, Mr. Senator, to which I have never given much attention; but I presume that they ought to be long enough to reach the ground." I would commend the wisdom of that story to those who argue theoretically upon free trade. We have to come down to the ground; we must face the question of raising the revenues of the
country, and that is not possible to-day by means of free trade, whatever may be done in the future. Another opportunity will come, I take it, for further discussion upon this subject, if such discussion be necessary, and I shall be able to state the views of my constituents. Representing', as I do, a manufacturing city, I placed before the people my policy with regard to the tariff, and I am proud to say that not only by the manufacturers, but by the rural population of the constituency as well, it was received with approval. That policy, briefly, was this: That to build up this country
what we want is a tariff policy that will protect raw material and foster production; that when labour is applied to that raw material, through each process, a certain amount of protection should be guaranteed that labour; and so on until we have the finished article, with a reasonable amount of protection incidentally afforded, thus giving at the same time a slight protection to the manufacturer and an assured revenue to the country.
Now, the tariff question is indissolubly connected with another question which is agitating the public mind from one end of Canada to the other, and that is the question of transportation. In my opinion the two are closely linked together. If we wish to find the right solution of the question of transportation and of lowered freight rates and the general success of our railway system, we must not lose sight of the tariff in connection therewith. Transportation has had a great deal to do with the success of every country, and as we look back we find that those countries that neglected transportation have made no progress, while those that gave attention to this important problem have made a name in history and have tended to a great state of development.
From the earliest days as soon as the land was settled on the far eastern border the first anxiety of the settlers was for transportation. They spent immense sums of money and a vast amount of labour on road building, afterwards on railway building-the story is known to us all. They even laid railroads with wooden rails of pine faced with hardwood that they might last longer. And so in spite of great hardships and in spite of the necessity-which was a hard one in those days *-of making a living, they devoted a great deal of time, energy and money to the construction, first of roads, then of railroads, and finally of canals. It was not until 1837 that we had the first locomotive in this country. Time does not permit me
to trace the history of our transportation from that day to this, because it is patent to the minds of us all what took place,- how Canadian energy, ingenuity and perseverance was devoted to the building of railroads and canals. As a result we produced the greatest civil engineers in the world, and accomplished some of the greatest engineering feats that have ever been carried through successfully. I need only quote one that in its early days was considered one of the wonders of the world, though we think nothing of it to-day- the old Welland canal that locked ships up some three hundred and twenty feet. Then came the railroad era and the building of the great Canadian Pacific railway and other roads. I will not take the time of the House in recounting that phase of construction in detail, but we know the undertakings were tremendous, and that it was only by having men of great courage and skill that they were carried through to success. We have those railway systems in the hands of the Government to-day, with the exception of the Canadian Pacific railway. Some ask: Shall we carry these national railways on, or shall we drop them? It seems to me that there can be but one thought upon that question. The hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. . Pritchard) uttered my sentiments when he said that he thought the Canadian people had courage, energy and intelligence enough to undertake the enterprise of running their own railroads. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that they should do so.
We are met with the problem of the proper management of this national railway system, of, if you like, its consolidation or co-ordination, to make it pay and be a practical asset to the country. We have got the roads, we have got the rolling stock. Are we deficient in business management? Is it not possible in this great country to find men who can manage these roads, and manage them successfully? I think if we look back over the accomplishments of Canadians you will agree with me that it is a task that at all events we ought not to flinch from handling until, in the words of the Prime Minister, we have given public ownership a fair trial. A man has been appointed as administrator of our railroads, a man who has the confidence of the country and is known for his shrewd business ability, his firmness, and his personal rectitude, and we have every confidence that he and the other members of the Government will
tackle this problem in such a way that they will ultimately make our national railway system the success that we all hope it will be. If we look at what has been accomplished by our banking and financial institutions we can have nothing but a feeling of pride in the ability of our countrymen, and if that same ability be applied to the running of our national railroads, I do not see why they should not be made equally successful. That is my feeling now, that we should not flinch from the undertaking of trying to manage these railroads to the best advantage of the country
In their management the old question comes up that has been referred to in this debate-whether our traffic should run east and west, or north and south. The late Professor Goldwin Smith was quoted as having said that he thought it should run north and south. Now, if he were quoted upon a question of history, of Greek philosophy, or any other scholastic subject, I would listen with the greatest respect to his opinion. But this is a matter of practical politics. I do not know of anything in Professor Goldwin Smith's life that should make us pay regard to his opinion on the subject of transportation. When we remember that the first settlement commenced on the banks of the St. Lawrence and flowed east and west, and that afterwards when the railroads were built they were built along the same lines, until to-day we have them running from the Atlantic to the Pacific, there is not much use in talking of our railroad traffic running north and south.
But I take it, in this connection-and this is where I think the tariff and the railroad question interlock and should be considered together-that there are many cases where with a reasonable tariff imposed upon certain goods that would otherwise be imported from the United States, the carriage of those goods would bring traffic to our railroads, and the tariff in that sense would help our national railroads, and of course the more freight traffic they carry the cheaper the basis upon which they will be able to make their rates. We all know that if it were possible to-day to reduce freight rates to a minimum, many of the difficulties of the farmers in the West would be entirely removed. I for one have confidence that the Government will undertake the solution of our railway problem with that good old-fashioned courage for which Canadians are noted. I do not think we have a government of flinchers; I think
they are going to undertake this problem in such a way as we have seen Canadians undertake other problems. Surely, we will never forget some of the difficulties that our soldiers overcame. When they had to take a position that was considered impregnable, that was manned by a foe who was considered, and had counted himself, invincible, and when the capture of that position had been once attempted and the attempt had failed, and the task was finally given to our soldiers, they made no rash rush to capture their objective within the first few days, but for weeks and months they studied the situation and planned and perfected every detail of the attack, rehearsed every operation behind the lines, and when the time came-I think it was the 9th of April -they advanced and took that Vimy Ridge whose name is now emblazoned upon the escutcheon of our country. We want the same kind of co-ordination of effort that achieved that success, and I believe we shall get it from the Government. We have not had any intimation of what they are going to do, and that is all the better. There was no intimation of what General Byng was going to do, but when the attack came it was absolutely successful. I look forward in the confident hope that when the Government lays its railroad policy before the country it will sweep forward to success with the certainty with which our gallant boys swept forward when they took Vimy Ridge.
I listened with delight and attention to the very eloquent address delivered by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens). It was refreshing and interesting, and with many of the points that he made I felt that I could agree. I did not like, however, his' reference to the hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin). He said that that gentleman was a director of the Bank of Montreal and of the Royal Trust Company, and had been a director of the Cockshutt Plough Company and others too numerous to mention. Now, if that had been stated in the obituary of a prominent Canadian it would have been counted to his credit and looked upon as indicating that he had the confidence of his fellow citizens to that degree. Why, then, should it be to a man's discredit that these things should be mentioned while he is still alive? The reference to this party as the party of the big interests is, as I endeavoured to show last evening, a mistaken one. But it would equally be a mistake to assume that there is no room
within the Liberal party for all the interests of Canada-the banking interests, the manufacturing interests, the farming interests, the labour interests. What the Liberals object to is the use by the government of powers granted to them by the people in such a way as to confer unfair privilege or bring unfair profit to any interest, big or little. When that happens, then we feel that both the government and the interest concerned are at fault. But I say there is nothing in the principles of the Liberal party to prevent its having the allegiance of any part of the people of Canada. Let me make my position clear in this respect: I am now referring to
occasions where the government uses its power to favour certain interests. For instance, it may occur if a government issues hundreds of millions of Victory Bonds exempt from taxation for the benefit of plutocrats, or if the government accept from certain wealthy companies promissory notes for taxes-these are matters which could be explained in detail by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). Clearly, such acts would be bending to the great interests. But any man who occupies a high and responsible commercial position can see that the true interest of his business is with the Liberal party, because that party has not picked out men because of their race or because of their creed. It makes no difference what town or city or province a man comes from. If he is a true Canadian; if he loves his country and has its interests at heart; if he endorses the principle so well laid down by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and ably seconded by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar)
equal justice to all and unfair privileges to none-I say that man can be a Liberal.* But in the end, Mr. Speaker, the basis upon which any of us will be judged will not be race or blood or creed; it will be the principles that we hold in our hearts and which make up our personality, the personality of our political party and of the country of which we are citizens.
Subtopic: ADDRESS IN REPDY