June 13, 1922

LIB

Charles Marcil

Liberal

Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaven-ture):

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention at this late hour to inflict a speech upon the House. During the twenty-two years that I have had the honour, owing to the confidence placed in me by my constituents, of sitting in this House, I have listened to too many speeches to inflict a lengthy speech upon others; for I know how I have felt myself under similar circumstances. In those twenty-two years more than two hundred members have left this House and I am practically addressing a new House. When I first came to the House I seconded the motion made by the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) for an address in reply to the speech from the Throne. I have had the good fortune of listening to thirteeen out of the sixteen budget speeches delivered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). I am glad to say that I supported them all, and I intend to support the present budget with the same fervour with which I supported those in the past. In those twenty-two years it has been my good fortune to do many things for the West, in my humble way. In the name of my constituency down on the Atlantic coast I have voted many charters for the construction of railways in the West; I have put through money votes by the millions. As deputy speaker of the House it was my good fortune to place my name on the two bills which raised Alberta and Saskatchewan to the rank of provinces. What I have done for the western country is what all the old inhabitants of Quebec, the maritime

The Budget-Mr. C. Marcil

provinces and Ontario have done. We have heard to-night an eloquent, conscientious speech from a new Canadian. The hon. member for Battleford (Mr. Mc-Conica) delivered a speech to-night which should give us food for thought. He represents, as I believe, the feeling of the West at the present moment. That party at the present time practically represents western Canada, and the Liberal party represents more particularly eastern Canada. East of the Ottawa river, with the exception of half a dozen constituencies, perhaps less, all representatives of eastern Canada sit on this side of the House. We are met here on the borders of the Ottawa river, which is the dividing line between the East and the West. I have sat here a long time, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to remain as long as Providence will allow me, but I do not want to leave this House before being able to say that I have been as sincerely devoted to the interests of the West as I am to the interests of the East. We do not know each other, unfortunately. I have never been west of Winnipeg, and many members from the West have never visited the part of the country I represent, though it is older than Quebec itself, because Jacques Cartier landed here before he went up the St. Lawrence. There was a time in 1867 when one of the lieutenant governors of the province of Quebec, who was then representative of my constituency, won the gold medal at the Paris exhibition for the best wheat grown in Canada at that time. It was grown at New Carlisle, in the county of Bonaventure. The West at that time was a howling wilderness.

The Liberal party has done what it could to build up the West since 1896, and it has done so with signal success. From 1896 to 1911 the West went forward by leaps and bounds which attracted the attention of the world. In those days immigrants came into the West by a thousand a day. They came there from all climes, carried' by the steamers sailing towards Canada, the promised land. The vigorous immigration policy inaugurated at that time by a western man, an ideal western representative, was heartily supported by the representatives of the province of Quebec and by the representatives of the maritime provinces. We intended in those days to build up a united Canada and I am glad to hear to-night from the West through the hon. member for Battleford, for whom I have the greatest respect, that that feeling exists in the West

to-day. Canada must be united and must be one. Otherwise, Canada will fail in its mission. We have been providentially situated as to our geographical position. We occupy practically the centre of the British Empire. As Quebec is the keystone of Confederation, so Canada is the keystone of the British Empire. As we extend our hand of good-fellowship towards the Mother Country, we extend our hand of progress towards the West, because progress is intended westward, and the great problems to-day are to be found in the western country for us, and beyond the Pacific ocean for the world at large. It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to go into these details to-night, but I should like the hon. member for Battleford, before he casts his vote, to feel that the Liberal party is striving at the present moment, under its young and gifted leader, to take up the work which the great statesman who fell prematurely in 1919 had so deeply at heart. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had called upon us repeatedly to do for the West what he wanted himself to do. In his early career he had declared that the citizens of Quebec should not confine their fatherland to the borders of the St. Lawrence, but that the fatherland of the Canadian extended to the shores of the Pacific ocean, and with Sir George Etienne Cartier, who had been instrumental in establishing the province of Manitoba, he was instrumental in giving the West a great rush forward, just as Cartier had done some thirty years before.

We find ourselves to-day in office through the will, largely, of the people in eastern Canada. The Government of the day has but commenced its work. A great deal lies before it. It is blamed on one side for not going far enough, and blamed on the other side for going too far. The men of the West are reasonable men. The case they have submitted to the hearing of this House is a reasonable one. They want a living, and they deserve to earn a living, and to be rewarded for their labour. They have to contend with many difficulties which are unknown to us in eastern Canada, but which were not unknown to those who came before us, because the. pioneers of eastern Canada went through hardships that those in the West may never know. Those who settled the province of Quebec in the early days and the province of Ontario, and those who are to-day invading the northern lands of Ontario and Quebec, have gone through hardships which will he unknown

The Budget-Mr. C. Marcil

to the West. The West has conditions and advantages that eastern Canada never had. We have given the West railways by the thousands of miles. I heard when I was in that chair, Mr. Speaker, the cry of every member, for the West asking for the Hudson Bay railway. I have heard every member from western Canada for the last twenty years ask for the Grand Trunk Pacific, ask for subsidies for the Canadian Northern, ask for branch lines for the Canadian Pacific railway. We could not build railways fast enough for them. We needed then, according to the people of the West, three, four or five transcontinental railways. Eastern Canada responded to the appeal without grudging the expense. We bore the brunt of the load and burden of the debt of Canada by our population, and we are bearing it still to-day, but we felt that if Canada was to fulfil its mission, if Canada was to become a great country, the West must be developed, so we gave to the West and we put it on the high road to prosperity.

We are accused to-day because we have not done all that is required for the West. There are two things Canada needs at the present time. The western farmer needs a market, and the working man in the city need's employment. Find a market for the farmer, a market for the producer, and find employment for the working man who earns his living in a factory, and your difficulties will be solved.

When I was elected in 1911 to this House, I was elected to support reciprocity. I see by the figures given of the general election of 1911 that those sentiments were also shared by the people of the West. We were united for reciprocity in Quebec, because Quebec voted for reciprocity in 1911. Western memberswhoarenotasfamiliarwith the conditions of 1911 as they are with conditions to-day will do well to remember that the twenty-seven members who were elected in the province of Quebec in 1911 and who brought about the downfall of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, were not elected in opposition to reciprocity, because reciprocity was no issue in the province of Quebec in 1911. The fight in Quebec in 1911 was on the navy, and on that alone, and those twenty-seven members from the province of Quebec secured their election by co-operation between the Nationalist element and the Conservative party. The maritime provinces divided on the question of reciprocity, the West voted for it, and Ontario went dead against it, but there were other issues at that time

raised in Ontario against Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his government, and I think many constituencies in Ontario were not wholly carried away against reciprocity. I remember well the day I occupied your Chair, Mr. Speaker, when the distinguished Minister of Finance of that day and his late distinguished colleague, the Hon. William Paterson, then representative of Brant, came into this House and the Minister of Finance rose to make the announcement of the success of the negotiations at Washington. The applause was general throughout the House, even from the front benches of the Opposition, and many of the old veteran Conservative members of Ontario, walking past the Chair would remark, en passant, what a fortunate man he was to have been able to achieve success because Sir Charles Tupper, Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir George Etienne Cartier, Sir Leonard Tilley and all the other statemen had failed. They regarded reciprocity as a Godsend to Canada. We had been wishing for it for years, and it was delayed. But, reciprocity being delayed, enabled Canada to fall back upon its own resources, and to start building the Canadian Pacific and developing its resources in an effort to try and eke out its own existence. But when reciprocity came, it came through the instrumentality of the Liberal party, in the fullness of time, and through the instrumentality of the Finance Minister, who has lived long enough to be able to know that, although he was accused at that time of having made a mistake, it was not a mistake, and that Canada is still longing for reciprocity. The reciprocity agreement, when laid before this House, did not receive fair treatment. I remember, from day to day, for weeks and months, I rose from the place where you, Mr. Speaker, stand to-day to put the question to the House, but obstruction of the most determined character was raised, and the vote could not be secured in this House on the question of reciprocity. Objections of all kinds were raised. Then the coronation of the late sovereign of Great Britain was to take place shortly, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier was urged to go to England to attend the event, as representing the premier dominion of the Empire. He went, and during his absence, a campaign was organized against reciprocity, and we know the result. Those who organized that campaign realized that if reciprocity in natural products with the United States were permitted to go into effect, it would be so

The Budget-Mr. C. Marcil

popular, and would have such an effect on the public mind that, within a very short time, the people of Canada would ask for reciprocity in manufactured articles. It was in Montreal, and also in Toronto, where there were many manufacturers, that the money was raised to fight reciprocity, because the manufacturers realized that reciprocity in natural products was the first step towards reciprocity in manufactured articles.

The measure was rejected, and then we went on without it. But our trade with the United States continued. Notwithstanding our fiscal policy our relations with the United States continued. The natural tendency is to trade with the United States, because they are our nearest neighbours, and they furnish the greatest market that we have. It is the policy of this Government to bring about a better understanding with the United States and to bring about a reciprocity agreement as soon as possible, and, I think, that the hon. members from the West would be well advised if, on the main motion, which will be submitted to them in a few moments, they give the Government, at least, a fair opportunity to give effect to what every Liberal in this country desires, namely, fuller, broader and more complete relations with the United States. In my own constituency we have been a unit in favour of dealing with the United States, because it is our natural market for lumber, fish, agricultural products and other things, and the United States will be the market for many districts throughout the whole of Canada. I hope, therefore, that when the vote is taken, the hon. member who has delivered such an eloquent oration to-night will give the Liberal party another opportunity of implementing what we know to be their policy.

In the meantime, we know the tariff has been reduced substantially on many articles, and the Minister of Finance has taken another step forward with the preference which he granted to Great Britain before the reciprocity agreement was made.

I remember well when that matter was introduced in this House, and I remember all the objections that were raised to it. The Opposition contested it and spoke against it, but never dared to challenge it on the floor of the House, and nobody sought to bring about a change in the British preference. It increased our trade with Great Britain, and the St. Lawrence became the natural highway for the commerce of the Mother Country to Canada.

That route was transformed into a national highway. In the old days, when the Liberal administration came into office, the St. Lawrence was an ordinary waterway, the steamers having to drop anchor at sundown in the lower regions of the St. Lawrence. In the course of a few years, we found the St. Lawrence transformed into a river with a channel 30 feet deep, and well lighted, so that the steamers were able to reach Montreal as easily at midnight as in the noonday sun. Montreal has become one of the leading ports in North America, the leading port in Canada, surely, and in the course of time, in the development of Canada, with the increase in our population and the development in our facilities of al kinds, Montreal will become the centre of this country, because it occupies a geographical position.

Montreal has progressed, and eastern Canada will progress, in time, as the West progresses, but the western and eastern people must get together and come to an understanding. No question of a paltry few dollars on the tariff, or a few paltry changes here and there, should keep Canadians apart, and I hope, before this session is finally closed, a better understanding will be brought about. When this session was called on the 8th of March there were a hundred new members in the House. We have hardly had time to become acquainted with their names, much less with their views. I have learned more in the present session about conditions in western Canada than I ever learned in the past. New ideas have sprung up, new conditions have developed, and a new state cf things has arisen. The statesmen of Canada must deal with these issues, because in their solution lies the safety of this country.

I will vote against the amendment, because I feel that I will be carrying out my mandate, and I will vote for the budget, because I think it is the best that could be presented. The Minister of Finance has been placed in the most difficult position in which any statesman could be placed, because he has to find revenue to meet our war indebtedness, which is eight times larger than the public debt of Canada was a few years ago. But Canada is now on the map of the world. Canada is in the council of nations, and has plenipotentiaries, and representatives in Europe. Canada is a nation, Canada that has been the home land for those who came from all countries, regardless of their creed

The Budget-Mr. Cannon

origin or nationality, only asking them one thing,

loyalty to the flag. There is among the citizens enough patriotism, enough enlightenment to solve the puny difficulties which now present themselves in matters of dollars and cents, to avoid a greater difficulty, which later on, may break Canada asunder, but which, I hope, will never occur, because to-day with our means of communications, with our newspapers, with our facilities, we ought to be able to get together and stand on common ground. I claim enough intelligence in the Canadian people to know that the moment we would get together, those difficulties would be solved.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Cannon

Liberal

Mr. LUCIEN CANNON (Dorchester):

Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 1921, the then Prime Minister of Canada, (Mr. Meighen) announced that a public meeting was to be held in the province of Ontario, and that he would take occasion at that meeting to make a pronouncement of great moment and interest to the people of Canada. The then Prime Minister, who had been leading the destinies of this country for quite a long while, had disappointed the people of Canada in many ways; but that evening when he spoke at that great meeting, after having announced that the government of Canada would go to the people, a unanimous feeling of rejoicing went through all our country from the Pacific to the Atlantic, because the people of Canada thought the Prime Minister had at last realized his responsibility and a ray of hope could be seen in our darkened political sky. The government went to the people of Canada; the administration which had led Canadian aifairs from 1911 to 1921 went before their judges, and we see the result of the trial which lasted for several months. We have in this House before our eyes, in the decreased number of representatives of the Tory party, the real feeling, the real meaning of the elections held in December, 1921.

If on the one hand the people of Canada are happy to-day to be rid of the administration of 1921, on the other hand, the rulers of Canada are to-day facing a situation which is so serious, they have to solve problems which are so momentous that the time has come for every public-spirited citizen in Canada to lay aside party spirit and partisan division in order to endeavour to find national remedies for the grave and weighty problems that we have before us. One result of the election which ought

to open the eyes of every patriotic citizen of Canada, is the peculiar, the new situation created in this House. Formerly, in the House of Commons two great parties with old traditions used to fight over the affairs of Canada and used to devise the best means to administer the government. To-day, instead of these two old parties, we have three parties, the third, a younger party called the Progressive party. But there is something that adds to the seriousness of the situation, and it is this: Not only have we three parties in this House; but one of these parties, the Progressive party, the third party, is recruited almost exclusively in one section of our country. If we wish to have national unity, to have real harmony in this country, to have a government that will meet the needs of every section of Canada, we must have a government that will bring forth a policy that will not only obtain the support of the eastern section of our country, but receive the support and approval of the western section of Canada.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PRO

Henry Elvins Spencer

Progressive

Mr. SPENCER:

We have continually

heard of the western viewpoint and what the West wants. I should like to ask the hon. member if he realizes that one-third of the Progressives on this side are from eastern Canada?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Cannon

Liberal

Mr. CANNON:

That one-third of the Progressives are from eastern Canada, I do not deny. I realize fully that some of the members of the Progressive party come from Ontario; but I repeat that most of the Progressive party comes from the western provinces, and that the peculiar feature in this House is that three of the western provinces sent practically exclusively Progressive members to this House.

When the hon. gentleman asked me a question, I was saying that, after the election, the Liberal party was called upon to form an administration. What were the causes of the Liberal victory at the polls in December last? The causes were two-fold: First, the people of Canada had confidence in the leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Mackenzie King) and, second, the people of Canada approved the Liberal programme. It does not belong to me to pay a eulogy to the leader of my party. Our leader, in the last election, held meetings in practically every constituency in Canada. His eloquence :'s well known; his sincerity is admitted everywhere, and in every home in Canada hopes, and high hopes, are formed that the leader of the Liberal party, on account

The Budget-Mr. Cannon

of his youth, his training, his political experience, will give to Canada one of the most brilliant administrations that Canada has ever had. It is true that the role of our leader is a hard one to fill. His predecessor, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was one of the brightest men who ever lived in Canada, and probably he has left the finest record of any man in the history of Canada. Sir Wilfrid Laurier stood for great principles; he fought in Canadian politics the greatest battles for principle that were ever fought by any statesman, and I may say to the right hon. leader of this House: If you wish to give to Canada a great administration, if you wish to give to this country satisfaction and prosperity, follow the footsteps of the former leader of the party, and I may be sure, and you may be sure that that Canada will continue, under the regime under which Canada is now, the great strides which Canada took under the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Not only had the personality of our leader great importance at the last election, but so had the political programme of the Liberal party. In 1919, a Liberal convention was held in the city of Ottawa. Liberals from all parts of the country were convened in order to adopt a programme and in order to elect a leader. The leader was chosen. I have spoken of him, and I may here but repeat that I have full and complete confidence in him. As to the programme of 1919, that programme stands as being the charter of the Liberal party. We adopted that programme in convention, and so far as I am concerned I may say that I fought for that programme at the convention and have fought for it before my people; and by that programme I will stand.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

William Duff

Liberal

Mr. DUFF:

That is the way to talk.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Cannon

Liberal

Mr. CANNON:

The great reproach

which we adressed to the then government while we were on the opposite side was that constitutional liberty and freedom was not properly safeguarded by them. During the election, pledges were given and promises were made that should a Liberal administration preside over our national affairs constitutional liberty would be restored and Parliament would again enjoy all its privileges. I have full confidence in the Government to restore that liberty in Canada, and in the course of this session the administration has given many evidences of its willingness to give to the House of Commons all the privileges to which it is entitled. But I take the liberty of calling

the attention of the Government to certain facts of great importance, and I say that the Government will have to bring down some legislation that will show to the people of Canada that when the Liberal party gives pledges or makes promises, those pledges are redeemed and those promises are respected. In Canada our forefathers fought on many battlefields to obtain the liberties of which we are so proud to-day, and we, their children, have one solemn duty to perform. That duty is to safeguard those liberties to the very utmost of our ability. The basis of constitutional and responsible government is that every minister in the government shall be answerable to the representatives of the people for acts done by the government in the administration of public affairs. If we wish to have constitutional liberty in its completeness, if we wish to have governmental responsibility in its integrity, we must have every department of public affairs responsible to the House of Commons.

I call the attention of the members of the Government to one fact. To-day, as a representative of the people I am responsible to my constituents for the conduct of public officials in my constituency. If the administration of public affairs in that constituency is not what it should be, the responsibility rests upon my shoulders, and on no other man's. But although I am charged with the responsibility for the administration of public affairs in my constituency, I have no control over the appointment of those officials. Now, Mr. Speaker, I say, not in the hope of being in a position to distribute favours, not in the desire to take revenge-no, sir, my object is very much higher than that-I say, to the Government that if we wish to have responsible government in this country civil servants must 'be responsible to Parliament. We should have responsible government in Canada and have it in its entirety. But can we have that government, as it is understood in England, as it has always been understood in Canada, and as it should be understood everywhere where British institutions exist, if, for instance, we have the immense system of railways, owned by the people in this country, controlled by a commission altogether independent of Parliament, and when the Minister of Railways has absolutely nothing to do with their management? We should have in connection with our railways a policy that would put that immense

The Budget-Mr. Cannon

system beyond the range of patronage. But, on the other hand, no minister should be able to get up in this House and say that he is not responsible for that policy. Mr. Hanna, the President of the Canadian National Railways, is not elected of the people. He has never been elected by any constituency; he has never even been chosen by this Government. Why then, should he be a czar, in absolute control of this immense system, in such a way that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) should have nothing to do with them? If we want to have responsible government in the real sense, if we want to have that constitutional liberty which is so lauded, and rightly, by the leader of thi3 Government, (Mr. Mackenzie King) let us have a responsible system in connection with the civil service and with the Government Railways. Before I leave the subject of the Canadian National Railways I wish to express one hope, and that is that the Government will very soon appoint another board. We cannot have at the head of the Canadian National board a man who said that the Prime Minister of Canada did not tell the truth to the people of this country. We cannot have at the head of the Grand Trunk board a man whose scandalous profits during the war brought upon his shoulders the opprobium of the whole population of Canada. If these boards are to be maintained, let the personnel be changed; and the sooner it is changed the better.

Before resuming my seat I want to say a few words to my Western friends. I come from the province of Quebec. That province, in 1921, when the call came to choose representatives, sent to this House 65 Liberals out of 65 constituencies. Why? The province of Quebec elected those 65 members because it wanted to send to Parliament liberal, broad-minded men who desired to work in harmony with every other section of the country for the common good of the Dominion at large. Unfortunately, in this House, the representatives of one section do not know the representatives of another section as well as they should. Another great evil is that public men in Canada are prone to forget past history and look only to recent events for their guidance. I wish to tell our western friends that we members of the Liberal party in Quebec have fought since 1896 the fights of western Canada before our electorate.

When in 1896 the great question came before the Canadian people as to whether provincial autonomy was to be maintained, or if the small, weak province of Manitoba was to be crushed, the man who got up before the people of Canada and asked that liberty be given to Manitoba and used the slogan "Hands off Manitoba!" was a man from Quebec who wanted political and religious liberty to prevail. In 1896 we in the province of Quebec battled for the rights of western Canada. Did western Canada forget, or was she grateful? In 1904 we fought again for western Canada when we wanted the great transcontinental railway to be constructed through the West. Again in 1911 Laurier fought for the western farmers of Canada. There was no Progressive party at that time, and those who fought for western ideals were again the Liberals of the East, the Liberals of Quebec. And a fact not to be forgotten by our friends on the other side is that while Laurier was battling for his life, while he was putting up probably the greatest battle of all his career, part of the West went back on him. The Liberal party in the East never went back on the principles underlying the development of western Canada and western trade. Those principles were always carried by us in the East; but unfortunately when we were fighting the battles of the west, the West was not united with us.

Those are the battles of the past. We have now to face the future. The eloquent member for Battleford (Mr. McConica) said, "We want our condition improved, we want remedies applied to our hurts." I ask my Progressive friends, is there one among them who, putting his hand on his heart, will say that he can hope to obtain any remedy or any improvement of condition from the Tory party? Is there one member of the Progressive party, be he from Ontario, from the prairies, or from British Columbia, who will say that the Tory party, whose basis is selfishness, ever thinks of the ills of others? The hope of the West, the hope of Canada as a whole, is founded in the Liberal ideas of her citizens. If we want to reconstruct Canada, if we want to pay our immense debt, if we want to continue the era of prosperity begun under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but interrupted by the Tory party in 1911, the time has come for every man, be he Liberal or be he Progressive, if he is sincere in his desire to put into practice the principles for which he fought, to take the common road

The Budget-Division

that lies ahead of us-the road of Liberalism and Progressive ideas.

Nothing would please our Tory friends better than to see the Progressive forces of Canada divide. Why should they divide? The amendment brought by the right hon. leader of the Opposition will certainly not be supported by this House. There remains the budget. The Tory party tell the Minister of Finance, "We cannot support your budget because you go too far in the way of reductions." If the Tories cannot support our budget, the Progressives ought to sustain it.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

William Duff

Liberal

Mr. DUFF:

Nothing else will do.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Cannon

Liberal

Mr. CANNON:

I said, Mr. Speaker, that we eastern members of the Liberal party have fought the battles of the western farmers for twenty years, and in doing so we have simply continued the traditions of those French pioneers who opened up the West. We are not strangers in the West. The first white men who travelled up those great western rivers were men in whose veins flowed French blood. The West has been peopled by French pioneers, and the descendants of our people from Quebec are still living out there. The interests of the West and the interests of the East could very easily be united; and let us hope, Sir, that all our forces, Liberal and Progressive, uniting, we will be able m a certain measure to repair the blunders and incompetency of the past administration.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LAB

James Shaver Woodsworth

Labour

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I vote in favour of the amendment.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PRO

Robert Gardiner

Progressive

Mr. GARDINER:

I vote for the amendment.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PRO

Edward Joseph Garland

Progressive

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River) :

I also

vote for the amendment.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PRO

Agnes Campbell Macphail

Progressive

Miss MACPHAIL:

Mr. Speaker, I vote

for the amendment.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Before you make any pronouncement on the vote, Mr. Speaker, I call attention to the fact that several hon. members whose names do not appear on the records of the Whips as being paired have not, in this division, voted. This, as Your Honour knows, is contrary to the rules of the House. I could not state with any finality all the hon. members, but I call your attention to the hon. members for for East Calgary, West Calgary, Centre Winnipeg, Macleod and some others.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Southeast Grey.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Am I to understand that hon. members who are in their seats have not voted?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

The hon. members I refer to, and others, are in their seats and have not voted?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

And are not paired?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

And are not on the records of the Whips as paired.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

The rule of the House and the custom in Parliament is that members who are in their seats and are not paired are obliged to vote.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

James Murdock (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. MURDOCK:

No loafing on the job.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE OP THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

June 13, 1922