January 19, 1926

CON

Robert James Manion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

My hon. friend speaks

of some understanding. I read a front page article in the Toronto Globe which stated that my hon. friend and some other member of his party and the Liberals were going to form a coalition government. Would he favour that?

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

Robert Forke

Progressive

Mr. FORKE:

I would favour any coalition to get us out of the troubles which face us. If my hon. friends to the right are in power and are willing to form a coalition to forward the principles for which I stand, I am quite willing to go with them. I would, however, advise the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) not to believe what he sees in the newspapers, either the Globe or any other paper.

I have a word to say about rural credits. Nothing is more certain than that agriculture cannot continue to function and pay eight per cent for money, which I think is the present rate. No business in Canada can function and pay eight per cent for the money to carry on its affairs, and how can we expect agriculture to do so? I am not an advocate of easy money. I know that money should not be loaned unless there is adequate security, and it is the only way you will ever get low interest, with adequate security. But I leave the banking system out at the present time. I claim there are certain lines of industry which are not taken care of just now by any system of financing we have. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) this afternoota advocated cattle raising, and I have -great hopes for the west since we have been reinforced by the hon. member for Marquette because he understands western problems. I was glad to listen to his speech this afternoon, because there has been great difficulty in finding out who was responsible for removing the embargo on cattle. I always thought it was the member -for Marquette who had been responsible for its removal. For a number of years it has been a question of who killed cock robin, but the hon. member has now settled that question.

The Address-Mr. Flemming

There are certain lines of industry in connection with the raising of live stock which are not taken care of by any system we have at the present time; consequently, I hope to see some system of rural credits introduced that will serve the purpose in regard to that industry.

Another difficulty is that a great many mortgages in the west, and some in the east, are paying from eight to ten per cent. Something must be done in regard to those mortgages. They may be amortized and payments made over a number of years, but ohe interest must come down. I hope the mortgage companies will realize that it is an absolute necessity if they and the people of the west are to be prosperous.

I wish to say a few words in regard to taxation. We hear many complaints to-day about the income tax being higher in Canada than it is in the United States. What are the conditions? I sometimes wonder when I hear our patriotic Canadians comparing our conditions with those of the United States. We want economical government. I doubt whether we can get it. Every government preaches economy, but I question whether we are going to get that economy, but at the same time we must realize the fact that a great deal of our taxation to-day comes from fixed charges, war debts and shortages on the Canadian National railways. Now what has happened to the Dominion of Canada? We went into the war. We know the sacrifices that we made. We spent enormous sums of money. That money has to be paid back some day. The United States went into the war, though at a late stage. They became enormously rich as a result of the war, and why should our patriotic Canadian citizens tremble so much to-day because they have to pay a little higher taxes to meet our liabilities? They say, reduce the income tax. That may be all right, but we have to have money. Where are we going to get it? It has to come out of the great mass of the people if it does not come from the income tax. I do not

know the opinions of the people behind me in this matter because I have not discussed the question with them, but I should be very slow to reduce the income tax.

The hon. member has referred to the position we occupy in this House. We are here to do the best we can for the Dominion of Canada.. There is not one of us who is not thinking seriously of the situation and trying to do what is best, and we are not now asking anything that we would not ask under other circumstances. I want hon. members to understand that. No matter what view may

be taken, I hope that in the time to come no one will be able to point to me and say I did anything that was disreputable or dishonourable in connection with the business of this House.

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

James Kidd Flemming

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. K. FLEMMING (Victoria-Carleton):

My remarks to-night, Mr. Speaker, will be brief. I shall confine myself to the question before the House and shall not discuss any matter in detail, because probably before the end of the session legislation will be introduced) covering the subjects dealt with in the Speech and hon. members of the House will have an opportunity to disicuss them then.

I simply wish to refer to a few paragraphs of the Speech with which His Excellency opened parliament. One paragraph reads:

I congratulate you on the growing prosperity of this favoured land. The products of our agricultural and other basic industries have greatly increased. Our export trade shows remarkable expansion. Our manufacturing and related industries throughout the Dominion have experienced a development not enjoyed in many years. Further evidence of industrial progress is reflected in the greatly improved earnings of the railways.

It is the duty of this House to thank Providence and not the government if there is an improved condition of things, because the improvement that has taken place has been within the last few months. Not until there was an assurance of a bountiful harvest was there any substantial improvement in financial conditions. It surely will be admitted by every hon. member of this House that the abundant harvest with which this country has been blessed, and the world conditions that have brought satisfactory prices for the wheat and other products exported from this country, are alone responsible for the improvement in Canada. As was pointed out by an hon, member, reading from the Montreal Gazette, the early months of the past yeav did not show a substantial or appreciable improvement in conditions, but later on, when a bountiful harvest was assured, the conditions were improved. The statement that manufacturing and related industries and the railways felt the benefit of that improvement is no doubt true. Why did that improvement immediately make itself felt in the operations of the railways? Because a bountiful harvest, means millions of bushels of grain and millions of dollars worth of agricultural products sold at a satisfactory price. It means a tremendous increase in the purchasing power of the people; the industries feel the effect of that increased purchasing power; merchants order goods more freely; increased orders are placed with the wholesale dealers; the wholesale dealers in turn go to the manufacturers

The Address-Mr. Flemming

and -they repeat their orders. Business begins to flourish because the purchasing power of the people is increased, and that increase has been due to the bountiful harvest and the assurance of a satisfactory price for the products of the farm.

The next paragraph reads!:

This increased prosperity and advancement have been aided by the policies of the government.

I dissent from that. I have failed to learn from a single hon. gentleman opposite what policy of the government has increased the prosperity which this country is enjoying today. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lapointe) who leads the House with so much dignity, who spoke with such force and clearness yesterday, and whose smile is so attractive and magnetic on this side of the House, failed utterly to point to a single policy of this government that had in the slightest measure increased or aided the prosperity that has come to the country in the last few months. The reason the hon. gentleman failed to do that is because it is utterly impossible to do it. There are no facts upon which to base such an assumption, and there is no reason why such a statement should be placed in the Speech from the Throne. The paragraph winds up by stating:

In the opinion of my ministers the improved conditions warrant further substantial reductions in taxation.

The next paragraph reads:

Every effort will be made further to reduce expenditures.

And then this paragraph further states:

To aid in the reduction of expenditures in administration certain of the departments of the public service will be consolidated with others and government services more effectively co-ordinated.

This subject of expenditures and taxation is the most important one that we can discuss in this House. That the people of this country would be delighted to have a further reduction in taxation, no one can possibly question, because our taxation is extremely heavy and onerous. That reduction in taxation can be brought about only by a reduction in expenditures. This paragraph states:

Every effort will be made further to reduce expenditures.

If there is a substantial reduction in expenditures, a reduction in taxation might possibly be made, but the little bit of saving that would be made by the amalgamation and co-ordination of a department or two would be so infinitesimal as not to be worth mentioning. If we are to have any real

reduction in taxation there must be a pruning down of the expenditures of the country until the process will hurt. Then and only then shall we get a sufficient reduction in expenditure to permit of any substantial reduction of taxation. But this government claim that they have reduced taxation. If my impression and my memory serve me aright, the sales tax, which is the one tax paid by rich and poor alike in this country whenever they buy a dollar's worth of goods, was increased by the present government from three to six per cent. They then reduced it to five per cent and they said: We are lessening

the taxation on the people. If the government will honestly set about making every effort-to use the words in the Speech from the Throne-to reduce expenditures, they will receive my cordial and hearty support. The burden of taxation at present borne by the people ought to be lightened, and the only possible way to do that is to trim expenditures.

Let me pass from that to the most extraordinary paragraph in the Speech, the one which refers to the customs tariff. This paragraph reads:

My ministers are of the opinion that a general increase in the customs tariff would prove detrimental to the country's continued prosperity and prejudicial to national unity.

That seems to be a sufficiently general expression of opinion as not to hurt anybody's feelings. You might revise the tariff by increasing the duties on 75 per cent of your schedule, and yet you would come within' the wording of that paragraph. You might have a revision in which there might be a stem reduction downward, and it would meet the wording of that paragraph. That paragraph is broad enough, wishy-washy enough, to hold a free trader from Saskatchewan and a modem protectionist from Quebec equally consistently within its terms.

Further on the paragraph states:

Every effort should be made to eliminate the element of uncertainty.

This country has suffered from that element of uncertainty since 1921 and it is suffering from it to-day. If ever there was penned a paragraph in which uncertainty was set upon the throne, it is that paragraph of the Speech of His Excellency. In' every single word it may mean higher tariff or lower tariff. It may mean anything. I want to say to hon. gentlemen opposite that members on this side of the House are indeed anxious to eliminate every element of uncertainty. About a quarter to one o'clock on Friday morning we came within three votes of eliminating that

The Address-Mr. Flemming

element of uncertainty, and the fight will continue without abatement until it is eliminated. We shall then have an administration with a clear-cut, well-defined policy, an administration that will honestly and faithfully carry out that policy.

Let me comment briefly on the next paragraph which refers to the British West Indian treaty. Until that treaty comes down and we know its provisions it would not be wise to make any extended remarks in regard to it. But when the government of Canada is undertaking to make a trade treaty with the British West Indies, it is operating in the right direction. We are undertaking to make a trade arrangement with a people who are producing and' have to sell what we wish to purchase, and we in turn are producing and have to sell what they require to buy. Trade would be mutual between two countries so situated. All I have to say therefore is that if the arrangement in its terms and conditions is right then it ought to be favourably commented upon.

The next paragraph reads:

In pursuance of the fixed policy of the government to encourage the movement of grain and other Canadian products through Canadian ports, the Board of Railway Commissioners has been instructed to include in the general rate investigation now in progress, a special inquiry into the causes of diversion of Canadian grain and other products through other than Canadian ports, and to take such action under the Railway Act as it may deem efficient to ensure as far as possible the utilization of Canadian ports for Canadian traffic.

I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite what they mean by the word "fixed". They say it is a fixed policy of the government. Are we to understand from this that it has been the policy of the government from 1921 up to the present, or are we to understand that this particular paragraph is simply nailed down in the minds of members of the government more solidly than is the other paragraph? I cannot understand just what they mean. It seems to me however that this is a paragraph that comes very directly home to the representatives in this House of the Maritime provinces, and I shall therefore have something to say at greater length on the significance of this particular passage than on the other paragraphs of the Speech. If it has been the fixed policy of the government since 1921 to encourage the movement of grain and other Canadian products through Canadian ports, then I would tpoint out in the most conclusive manner that their fixed policy has been an absolute failure, that it has been indeed something stationary, something that has never moved, a policy that has never functioned and never brought any satisfaction

to the people. May I suggest too that the word "diversion" is inappropriate in this particular paragraph. You can divert traffic only after it has been started in a certain direction. When we ship, say, a carload of lumber and it turns out when that freight is in transit that we should have sent it to some other destination, we apply to the railway to divert that car. It has been already committed to the railway for transportation to a certain point and after it has been started towards its destination we can divert it to some other point. But the difficulty in this case is that there is no diversion inasmuch as the traffic has never been started towards Canadian .ports at all; it has never been diverted from Canadian poi'ts for it has never started thither.

I have here the figures showing the amount of grain shipped through Canadian ports and through American ports respectively during the last five years and I would point out that during the greater part of that five year period this fixed policy of the government was in full force and effect, this policy that was to take Canadian products through Canadian ports. And what do we find? The following are the figures:

Shipped through Shipped through Canadian ports American ports bushels bushels

1919- 20

48 345,771 13,023,2811920- 21

32,194,478 54,193,0101921- 22

34,728,284 100,009,4661922- 23

69.044,984 129,871,0951923- 24

72,980,977 141,079,337

In 1921-22 and in the succeeding years it will be noted that the fixed policy was in force. In other words, in that five year period the shipment of Canadian grain through Canadian ports increased fifty per cent while the shipment of Canadian grain through American ports increased tenfold. That is not a condition that should be accepted as satisfactory to this House; it is not a condition that should satisfy the people of the country; and standing here in my place I want to say emphatically that it is not a condition that is at all satisfactory to the Maritime provinces And of the millions of bushels of grain shipped through Canadian ports only a small portion, a comparatively small fraction, found its way through the winter ports of Canada. Why is this? Surely that fixed policy of the government, to encourage the movement of grain through Canadian ports, proved highly unsuccessful when there was an increase in five years of only fifty per cent in the traffic through Canadian ports as compared with a tenfold increase through American ports. This

The Address-Mr. Flemming

condition, Mr. Speaker, is one that should engage the most earnest and thoughtful attention of the whole House. The very principle of confederation requires this; the way we have travelled during the last fifty years demands that there be a change in this state of affairs, otherwise we shall be forced to admit that we have been travelling entirely in the wrong direction.

It is said that this grain finds its way to American ports because of our geographical situation, and we are told sometimes that our fight is one against geography. I admit that to some extent it is a fight against geography. But what have we been doing ever since the day of confederation? Have we not been struggling against the difficulties of geography? When New Brunswick and Nova Scotia came into the union those provinces made certain sacrifices, and I would remind hon. gentlemen that confederation would not have been possible had Nova Scotia and New Brunswick stood aside. When the Charlottetown conference was in session deliberating the question of Maritime union a delegation caime down from Upper and Lower Canada, now Ontario and Quebec, and invited the conference to disband and meet with them in Quebec to consider the greater scheme for the union of all British North America. The conference decided to disband and its members came up to Quebec and went into the consideration of the broader scheme of a federation of British North America. Now the men who sat around that table in the city of Quebec had a vision of a great united country, a great nation on this northern half of the continent of America, where British institutions would prevail and over which the British flag would fly. They therefore sank their little local differences, setting aside the momentary advantage they would derive from the pursuit of a different course, and decided to enter into the union. And they did this because they had caught that vision of a federation of all British America. Ever since that time we have been struggling with geography. The first fight we had with geographical conditions was engaged in during the construction of the Intercolonial railway to Connect the Maritime provinces with the great central portion of Canada. Then a few years later there was undertaken the construction of a thousand miles of railway in what was then an almost unpeopled country where railway construction was extremely difficult, the country from central Ontario to Manitoba. That was a struggle with geography. There was another and more stupendous struggle with geography when the

people of this country undertook to build a railway across the Rocky mountains and connect up the province of British Columbia with the rest of the Dominion, and so keep faith with that province on the conditions under which it entered confederation.

But, Mr. Speaker, later we had another tremendous struggle with geography when, about twenty yearn ago, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the leader of -the government of that day, proposed the construction of a railway from Winnipeg to -the Atlantic seaboard by the most direct route. This railway was to make possible the transportation of the products of the west, not to American Atlantic ports, Sir, but to Canadian Atlantic ports. Great man that he was, he looked down -the vista of the years and he saw the additional millions and millions of bushels of grain that would be produced on the virgin prairies, and he realized that there was necessity for another outlet- as he said at the ti-me, direct outlet-for the shortest possible -route to get to tidewater on the Atlantic. That was the object. I could take Hansafid of that day and read paragraph after paragraph repeating tha-t declaration not only by the leader of the Liberal party of that day but by his followers as well.

We spent $165,000,000 in building -that railway, a railway that was designed and constructed with the -m'ain purpose-with the single purpose I was going to say-of being the direct outlet from the prairies of -the millions and millions of bushels of grain that would be produced there. Up to the present time that railway has wholly failed to carry out the purpose for which -it was constructed. And worse -than that, the Canadian National Railway organization at the present -time have, metaphorically, -built a Stone -wall square across that railway by charging a prohibitive freight rate to prevent grain being hauled from Winnipeg or Fort William or Armstrong to Quebec or the Atlantic ports.

Now, I want to refer to a speech made in the city of Halifax on October 7, 1904, by the Hon. Mr. Fielding. He made a great speech on that occasion, a speech entirely in defence of the -construction of the Transcontinental railway. This is what he said:

A good friend speaking to me to-day said; Mr. Fielding, can you guarantee that the grain traffic of the west will be brought to Halifax by this transcontinental railway? I replied: No one can guarantee anything of the kind. All that can be done in any such case is to provide the best possible facilities and then look for the trade. This, however, I can safely say, that if the traffic of the west cannot be brought to Halifax by this route for shipment, then it cannot be brought by any other line that can be devised. We shall have a short line and a good line with all reasonable guarantee for the protection of the Maritime provinces ports.

The Address-Mr. Flemming

He said further:

We want an all-British line, an all-Canadian line, from ocean to ocean. That appeals to the imagination of every loyal British subject. We want it for commercial reasons.

Yet to-day that .railway is not carrying out the purpose for which it was created, it is not being used as a commercial project, it is not carrying grain from the prairies either to Montreal or Quebec, or to St. John or Halifax, Mr. Fielding declared:

That the government of the day intended to build the Transcontinental railway so that the products of western Canada would without fail flow uninterruptedly over an "all Canadian line" to the ports of Halifax and St. John.

Again, he said:

I am surprised to find the cry that under the contract-

That is, the contract that was being made with the Transcontinental! railway.

-entered into by the government, Portland will get the traffic of this road. There never was a contract more carefully guarded than this is.

And yet to-day the elevators at Portland are filled with Canadian grain that is being shipped over Canadian railways to Portland; only a little is going by St. John, and absolutely none is going by Halifax. When the matter was up in the House of Commons the late George W. Fowler, who represented ICing's, N.B., at the time, moved an amendment in this form:

All freight originating in Canada, and received along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, intended for export across the Atlantic, shall be shipped through Canadian ports when the route is not otherwise spec:ally indicated by the shipper, and that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway shall carry all such freight to the eastern Canadian seaboards as cheaply as any American port on the Atlantic.

There is the crux of the whole thing, that they will carry freight as cheaply to Canadian ports on the Atlantic as to any other Atlantic ports. What did Mr. Fielding say in defence of the government for refusing Mr. Fowler's amendment? Here are his words:

The government said that they would put in words that would serve the purpose better, and that they would put them, not in the charter, but in the contract, and that they would bind the company to these terms; so we put in the contract the section which has been printed in the press, declaring in explicit terms that the company accepts the aid given them by the government on the condition that it is the object and purpose to promote trade through Canadian channels and through Canadian ports.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that contract with the company never became effective, and the road was never taken over by the company. Today it is being operated as a part of the Canadian National Railway system, which means that it is being operated by the people

of this country-by the government. Then surely any condition that was made to bind the company ought to be equally as binding upon the government itself, or the Canadian National Railways, when they are operating the railway instead of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, as was intended at that time.

But, Mr. Speaker, instead of serving the distinct purpose for which that railway was built it is to-day carrying no grain to Canadian Atlantic ports. The railway is open, the interest on that $165,000,000 of cost is being paid, and must be paid. Much of the overhead expense is being incurred, and yet the road is only operated to a very limited extent. Now I ask this House, has the time not come when the government of this country, on behalf of parliament, shall ask the Canadian National executive to carry out the object that parliament had in view when this railway was promoted and when the people's money was put into it?

It may be said that it is not a business proposition to carry this wheat to Atlantic ports in the winter, or to Montreal or Quebec in the summer season, over the Transcontinental. I think I have very good evidence to show that it may be, and likely is, a reasonably safe proposition. I have here figures taken from the report as to the grain trade of Canada for 1924. The rate I am going to give is the rate per bushel, not per hundred pounds, and the figures are as follows: to Montreal by water direct, 8.99; Montreal, all water, transfer at Port Colborne, 10.54; Montreal, lake and rail, 13.72; Montreal, all rail, 20.7. That last rate is prohibitive; nothing ever goes to Montreal by rail at that rate. The figure to New York, lake and rail, is 13.48, and to Philadelphia, Baltimore and Norfolk, 13.18. Now, Mr. Speaker, grain is being carried under statutory enactment from the point of production on the prairies to Fort William at a certain given rate, and I submit that that rate must be one not unprofitable to the railway companies conveying the traffic. My reason for saying that is that w-hen the traffic becomes very heavy, when the grain trains are running frequently and thousands of cars of grain are being delivered at Fort AVilliam, instead of losing money because of the increased traffic thenweekly net earnings go up tremendously and they are in a much better position than they previously w-ere. The gross earnings might go up while a loss -is sustained, but the net earnings could not go up without a corresponding gain being produced. Therefore I say it is reasonable to suppose that the

The Address-Mr. Flemming

statutory rate in effect from the point of production to Fort William is a rate which admits of a reasonable profit being made by the railways. The adoption of that rate from Fort William to Quebec would mean a rate of about 11 cents. That is, traffic would go to Quebec for about 2i cents less than it goes to the port of New York; to Maritime province ports the rate would be a little higher on account of the longer distance.

But there is another factor in that connection. The grades on the transcontinental are so much better than those on the other railways that a locomotive will carry a tonnage about 20 per cent greater than on the other roads. That means that if the statutoiy rate would land the grain at Quebec from Fort William for 11 cents, carrying 20 per cent more would decrease that cost to the railways very materially. You can see at once what it means: that the port of Quebec ought to have millions and millions of bushels of grain in the season when that port is open -and it is open later than the other ports in Canada, the port of Montreal, for example -and the traffic ought to be continued during the months when the port of Quebec is closed and the Maritime ports of St. John and Halifax are open and inviting it. It is not impossible; it could be worked out. In my judgment it is possible for the railways to carry out such a programme with reasonable gain. But I go a step further than that. If necessary, grain should be Carried at some loss to the country. As a matter of national policy we cannot afford to have the products of this country and a traffic which belongs to our railways and our ports diverted to a foreign country, even though the alternative 'would mean some loss. It is worth while that we should have a real all-Canadian policy that will take Canadian traffic through Canadian ports. If there was a little loss-I do not admit there should be-think of the gain that would adcrue. It would mean thousands more men employed by the railways; it would mean that those men would have employment all along the lines of our railways from east to west. Employment always means, in a sense, good times. It would mean that we would see hundreds and hundreds more locomotives than we see at the present time. That would mean more orders for the Kingston locomotive works; instead of running five months a year they would run twelve months and there would be no short time and no laying off of men. It would mean that thousands and thousands of cars would be used and these, Mr.' Speaker, would be built by Canadian car works, which would

mean prosperity in another industry. So the thing would go on. A little current from here and a little from there; a little this way and a little that way, and the whole stream of commerce would be tremendously increased for the great good and benefit of the country.

There is a subject very closely associated with this, Mr. Speaker,, in connection with our transportation, and that is the subject of our coal policy. I do not think anyone will question the fact or deny the statement that in the central part of Canada there is a market for about $100,000,000 worth of coal per year. We have the coal in great abundance in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in the east, and they have it in equal abundance in Alberta in the west. Yet parliament has never grappled with the task of meeting that condition and trying to solve that .problem. Instead, we have drawn that tremendous supply of coal from a foreign country; we have taken $100,000,000 of good Canadian money and sent it beyond our borders, never to come back. It seems to me that as business men in a business place we ought to sit down and say: What can be done to remedy the situation? A few years ago I was ill, and for several months I was at the sanatorium at Clifton Springs in New York state. Looking out of the window every day 1 could see trainload after trainload of nothing but coal, thirty or forty cars to the train, all going in the same direction, north. At night I could hear the trains going by every hour; I did not sleep well for a long time. I made inquiry and found that this coal was all going up to lake Ontario. And what was going to happen to it then? It was to be loaded on barges and .sent up and down the St. Lawrence river and around the lakes, supplying the Canadian market with coal. I thought that was a strange thing; that surely that condition ought to be remedied. We have coal in the east and coal in the west, and I believe we should set our faces strongly and determinedly to bring about a condition that will admit of our Canadian market in the central provinces being supplied from the east and from the west. I am not at this moment prepared to admit that with improved grades and locomotives of the greatest capacity, and hauled in the cheapest manner possible, the coal in the east and the coal in the west could not be placed in the central provinces in competition with the coal that is coming in here at the present time; but if that is the case, I lay down this proposition, that as a national undertaking we ought to convey the coal from Alberta and from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to the central markets in Ontario and Quebec, and keep

The Address-Mr. Heaps

that $100,000,000 at home. What would that policy mean, Mr. Speaker? It is only a few days ago that I read in the paper of some mines in Cape Breton running only two days a week, and others being entirely closed down. If we were supplying this $100,000,000 market of ours with our own coal-and it is our own market, it belongs to us-the mines in Cape Breton would not be running only two days a week or shutting down entirely; there would be a market for all the coal produced in Cape Breton and in the Maritime provinces and in the province of Alberta, and additional mines would be opened. Business, to use the term of the street, would be humming in this country,, because we had had wisdom enough to stop buying from abroad and start to develop our own resources and our own wealth.

I thought this afternoon when I was listening to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) making that dignified and statesmanlike utterance of his, that I would take a few notes, but I find I have absolutely nothing to reply to. The greatest desire of the hon. gentleman seemed to be to pick a fight with members on this side of the House.

Before I resume my seat I want to make a reference to the speech made by the mover of the Address (Mr. Elliott), delivered in such a fine and temperate manner. Speaking of surpluses that had been reported by the various Finance ministers in Canada since confederation, he said that altogether they had reported $80,000,000 of surpluses, and that of that $80,000,000, $37,000,000 had been reported by the present government. I think of the occasions upon which this government did have a surplus, and the government had two-fifths. He also said, and this he pointed out with great satisfaction and pride, that the Canadian National railways had a surplus this year of $30,000,000. Being a new member I did not wish to interrupt him to ask a question, but I wondered if he had read the report of Mr. Bell, the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, made public just a short time ago, in which he points out that in the last five years the Canadian National railways was to the bad $572,825,435. Take away from that the $30,000,000 surplus of this year, which is a surplus on operating account, and the other surpluses 10 p.m. they have had in two other years.

amounting in all to about $40,000,000, and you find that in the last five years, there has been added to the debt of the Canadian National railway, $530,000,000, or more than $100,000,000 a year. But there is a wonderful system of bookkeeping 14011-18

whereby this is all charged to the Canadian National railway; but what in the world is the Canadian National railway? If there has been added this amount to the debt of the Canadian National railway, to use the words of the chairman's report, it has been added to the debt of the people of Canada, because Canada owns the railway. If there is a surplus on the railway, the surplus is ours; if there is a deficit, the deficit is ours, and if the road borrows millions and tens of millions, as they have been doing, and charge it up to the Canadian National railway, that is just as much a part of our obligation and debt as if it was in the regular debt statement. Nobody in the world can deny that. Now that is a most astonishing condition, it is, indeed, a. most alarming condition when in five years the Canadian National railway has added to its debt pretty nearly $600,000,000, or within $100,000,000 of the whole capitalization of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, operating 20,000 miles of railway, and with a net revenue in the last few years of about $37,000,000 a year. Yet this organization of ours has put this country to the bad to the extent of $572,000,000 in five years. That, I say, is a condition of affairs that calls for the most earnest and careful consideration by this parliament, in order that some remedy may be applied.

There are many other matters to which I should like to make reference, Mr. Speaker, but my strength will not permit. I am very grateful to the House for the kindness they have shown me in listening with the attention they have.

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

Abraham Albert Heaps

Labour

Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):

I

am very sorry indeed that the previous speaker (Mr. Flemming) did not have the strength to continue. I hope that after he has been in the House a little longer his strength will be fully restored, and that he will be able to continue his speeches to the end.

It has become customary, Mr. Speaker, for the various speakers in this debate to congratulate you upon your re-election to office. With other hon. members, I also, on behalf of the group I represent, wish to extend my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, and I do it not only on account of the qualities which you possess but also on account of the fact that in your re-election a precedent has been broken. During the past week or so we seem to have done nothing else but be asked by the various speakers on different sides of the House to follow precedents. I am noit such a great lover of precedent myself; what I like to do is to congratulate a person wlho

The Address-Mr. Heaps

has been responsible for breaking a precedent. At the same time, while I congratulate tlhe Speaker of the House, I have to extend to him a little sympathy, because, after all, any hon. gentleman who occupies the position of Speaker and has to sit in the chair all afternoon and evening, listening to what one (hon. member after another has to say, is certainly deserving of a little sympathy as well as congratulation. I thought we had had enough lasit week in regard to precedents and that nothing further would be said by members of this House regarding them. But the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), not being satisfied after some of the members had gone back to the time of Cromwell and King John, actually went back to the time of Moses to find a precedent. I have no desire to igo back any further than that. Indeed I have no desire to discuss precedents in this House, but those which have been spoken of are such as might be well worth following in some respects. We little realize that when a precedent is made another has been broken. No precedent is made without another being broken. When it is stated in this House that King John was compelled to sign Magna Charta, there was then no precedent for a king being compelled to sign such a document. When Oliver Cromwell took certain actions, there was no precedent for the things he did, and when we speak of the mother of parliaments, those members who have been over there will have noticed that in one of the main halls of the mother of parliaments there is a little brass tablet on the floor which denotes the p'ace where Charles I was tried. In the yard of the mother of parliaments there is a bronze monument erected to Oliver Cromwell, and why was it erected? Because he was one who followed the customs and precedents? No, it was erected in his memory because he broke nearly every precedent he could think of.

We are now considering the Speech from the Throne, and from a purely Labour viewpoint there is nothing in it to be enthusiastic about. There is reference in that Speech to the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.

I am not enthusiastic about the completion of that particular railway. There is reference in the Speech to the return of the natural resources to the province of Alberta. I think the natural resources should be returned to all the provinces, but from a purely Labour viewpoint it is not of much importance or significance. There is also reference to one or two other matters, particularly rural credits, which I am quite prepared to support, but even that does not touch the industrial ques-

tion with which I am so closely associated and which I am anxious to see this parliament deal with. From the Labour viewpoint the Speech from the Throne is notable for the omissions, (there is no reference in it to some of the pressing problems which concern Labour. Yet when I look away from the Speech from the Throne, which I suppose is the settled policy of the government, and look over to the opposition and I analyse and scrutinize closely what the hon. leader of 4he opposition (Mr. Meighen) has to say in reference to matters pertaining to Labour, I find that the right hon. member's speech contains just as little with reference to Labour as does the Speech from the Throne. The only references made in that Speech and in the amendment have to do with enlarging the volume of employment in Canada-a very nice and catchy phrase, but what does it mean? I presume what the hon. leader of the opposition means by broadening the volume of employment in Canada is the imposing of a higher tariff so that more men may be employed' in Canada. I do not believe in the idea that an increased tariff necessarily means more employment. If I thought for a moment that an increase in the tariff would have the effect of making the conditions of the worker in this country better and of bringing about more prosperous conditions in Canada, I would be the first to vote for a higher tariff. But I am convinced1 that such is not the case; I cannot bring myself to believe that a higher tariff would bring about that condition.

Then the question arises, what are we to choose? What have those who are here ostensibly to further the interests of the worker to choose from so far as the Liberal party and the Conservative party are concerned? I have been in this House now for eight days. I confess that I have learned a great deal and have received a splendid .education-or reeducation-in history and constitutional practice. I have listened to the members on the Conservative side condemning the Liberal government for all they are worth, and with a good deal of what they said I am in hearty agreement. I have listened to hon. members on the Liberal side condemning the Conservative party, and with a good deal of what they said I am in hearty agreement. The fact that I am here, and that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) is here, and the fact that we have a fairly large Progressive group in this House, indicates that there is a very large section in the Dominion of Canada which has faith in neither one party nor the other.

The Address-Mr. Heaps

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

An hon. MEMBER:

What about yourself?

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

Abraham Albert Heaps

Labour

Mr. HEAPS:

If the hon. member wishes

to ask anything, I am quite willing that he should do so in the proper form. He says, what about myself? I am quite prepared to say something about myself if he wishes me to do so. In the last election I ran in North Winnipeg, and in North Winnipeg they created a new precedent. They sent me down to Ottawa in place of a Conservative or a Liberal. Both parties had candidates in the election. We were in rather a unique position in North Winnipeg. When the election was over I met my esteemed Conservative opponent in the constituency, and one of the first things he said to me was: "I am

glad of the result of the election, because you beat the Liberal." The following day I happened to meet the Liberal candidate, and he said: "I am glad you were elected because you beat the Conservative." Furthermore, the members of the party which I represent were also satisfied. So that we happen to be in the unique position in my constituency that we were all satisfied.

I have not been very particularly impressed with the figures which were quoted yesterday, either from the Liberal side or the Conservative side. I tried to make something out of the figures submitted by the right hon. leader of the opposition and the acting leader of this House (Mr. Lapointe) but I found some difficulty in understanding what they were tiying to arrive at. We were told there was a decrease of employment in one month last year compared with the same month in the year 1924. That may be perfectly true, but a mere bald statement of that character does not prove anything. This evening I intend to present figures which I have tried to work out myself on the question of unemployment in Canada, and I have tried to work them out on a slightly different basis from anything I have heard in this House during the time I have been here. We were given figures yesterday in connection with employment in the United States. I have not thought it well to go south of the line in order to find figures to make comparisons with conditions in Canada. I do not think it is always fair to compare conditions in the Dominion of Canada with those in the country to the south of the line. The people of the United States as a result of the war became enormously rich, but the same cannot be said of Canada and most of the allied countries. But when my hon. friend speaks of a greater volume of employment in the United States, I happen to have under my hand some figures in connection with the railroads of the United States 14011-18J

-and what applies to United States railroads,

I might say, applies equally to railroads, as well as to manufacturing industries, in this Dominion. What do I find in this article, which is taken from the official records of the United States Interstate Commerce Commission? It states:

There were 5,578 fewer workers on railroad pay rolls in October 1925 than in October 1924, although traffic was larger in October 1925 by nearly 1,000,000,000 net ton miles and by over 13,000,000 passenger car miles.

Thus we find that although there is more traffic, more passengers and more tonnage hauled on United States railroads, less men are employed to-day than were employed in the previous year, and a similar condition applies to the Dominion of Canada. Therefore, it is not always fair to give bald figures without at least trying to understand the meaning and significance of them.

I want to deal for a moment or two more with some figures regarding industry in Canada, because so much has been said during the past few days about bad and good trade. I have endeavoured to secure some kind of figures which would give me and, perhaps, other hon. members, a better understanding of this particular question, I find that the total value of manufactured products-and this might be a fair criterion in any case of the total wealth produced by manufacturing industries in this country-amounted in 1917 to $2,805,800,366. These are only manufactured products; they do not include agricultural products. In 1923 the amount was slightly less, namely, $2,781,165,514. I do not intend to weary hon. members with all the figures in the intervening years, but with the permission of the House I will place the statement on Hansard. The statement is as follows:

Value of products manufactured

1917 $2,805,800,366

1918 3,174,264,687

1919 3,170,842,586

1920 3,667,180,375

1921 2,516,977,811

1922 2,439,843,766

1923 2,781,165,514

It would hardly be fair for me to give these bald figures to the House without at least referring to the true significance of them. If I say that in 1917 the volume of production was so large,. I also ought to state what the purchasing power of the dollar was in that particular year. What do I find in that regard? If I take the index number of 1913 as 100, the index number in 1917 would stand at 200.1 and in 1923 at 168.9. In other words, there was a decrease of about 31 points in the index number. This

The Address-Mr. Heaps

taken on the basis of 168.9, would meanan increased purchasing power of 18.4 per cent. So if you are to get the actualvalue of the production in the year 1923 you will have to add to the figure I gave, 18.4 per cent, and this would mean that in 1923 the actual production in Canada was the greatest in our history. I am not trying to make party or political capitalfor either the Liberal or the Conservative

party. I am trying to arrive at a true basis of the facts so that we shall have a better understanding of the situation.

Let me go a little further with this brief analysis of the situation. The following is a statement showing the actual amount produced by every man employed in industry, that is, every man who works for wages:

wn $5,279

1918 6,131

1919 6,347

1920 7,296

1921 6,864

1922 6,293

1923 6,222

On the other hand we have again to follow the same form of arithmetic in arriving at a conclusion, because we find that in 1923 the value of the dollar was lower than in 1917, and in 1920 the index value of prices was 293.6, the highest in the history of the Dominion. Consequently if we are to arrive at a proper conclusion, we find that the actual amount produced in 1920 was relatively small. When we come to the year 1923, we find that on a basis of 1917 prices the actual amount produced by a person working for wages was $7,372. In other words, since the year 1917 there has been an increase in the individual output of the worker by approximately 40 per cent. That is a point I wish hon. members to notice when we are dealing with the question of employment and unemployment. The following is a statement of the number of men and' women engaged in manufacturing industries in this country:

1917 531,466

1918 517.704

1919 499,557

1920 502,627

1921 366,694

1922 387,689

1923 416,994

1921 was a- low year, but in 1922 the number had slightly increased, and in 1923 the number of those employed increased to 446,994. We find, as between the years 1917 and 1923, a large number of men who were not employed. Although the total production in Canada had increased by a very large ratio, the number of men employed in industry was becoming less and less. Another question

arises. If fewer men are being employed in industry .to-day and! production is higher, what is to be the remedy? Is it possible for the tariff to deal with a situation of that character? Personally, I do not think so. The question lies far deeper than the tariff. One question is: what does labour get out of that which it produces? I have in my hand a statement showing the amount of wages received by labour for various years, as follows:

Year

1917.

1918.

1919.

1920.

1921.

1922.

192a.

Average yearly earnings .. $ 748

.. 862

.. 924

.. 1,098

.. 996

.. 937

.. 959

Although production by the individual had increased by approximately 40 per cent, the real wages, that is wages based' upon the purchasing power of the dollar, had increased by only about 11 per cent.

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

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Independent

Mr. BOURASSA:

What classes of labour are included in those figures?

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

Abraham Albert Heaps

Labour

Mr. HEAPS:

This is labour employed in manufacturing, all classes.

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

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Independent

Mr. BOURASSA:

All salaries?

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

Abraham Albert Heaps

Labour

Mr. HEAPS:

All salaries in this particular classification.

I listened yesterday to considerable arraignment of the government from the lips of the leader of the opposition and I gathered that one of the principal reasons for his condemnation of the Liberal party was the fact that in past years they had appointed so many royal commissions which had never accomplished anything useful. I quite agree with that statement, but it seems to me that before any member of the opposition presumes to criticize any other party on the score of appointing royal commissions that prove futile it might be just as well for him to consider what was done by the royal commission appointed by the Conservative party in 1919 for the purpose of investigating industrial relations in Canada. Such an inquiry would prove, I think, rather illuminating. In the year 1919 a commission was appointed to investigate industrial conditions in Canada and it submitted its report in due course. I have in my hand a copy of that report from which I learn that the commission consisted of the following members:

The Honourable Chief Justice Mathers, of Manitoba, chairman;

The Honourable Smeaton White, a member of the Senate, and managing director, Montreal Gazette Publishing Company, Montreal;

The Address-Mr. Heaps

Charles Harrison, M.P., railroad conductor, North Bay, Ont. As representatives of the public.

Mr. Carl Riordon, president, Riordon Pulp and Paper Company, Montreal, P.Q.;

Mr. F. Pauze, lumberman, *Montreal, P.Q. As representatives of the employers.

Mr. T. Moore, Ottawa, president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada;

Mr. J. W. Bruce of Toronto, member of the Labour Appeal Board. As representatives of the employees.

This commission went at great length into the study of industrial conditions in this country and I cannot conceive what the object in appointing it could have been if its report was not intended to form a basis of action by this House. If commissions are appointed merely as a means of shelving difficult problems then of course they are absolutely useless, iand it has occurred to me that one of the reasons for appointing these commissions is precisely this. Any problem that is rather awkward is referred to a royal commission. And what did this particular commission report? After studying the problem from one end of Canada to the other it made the following statement in section 21:

The chief causes of unrest may be enumerated as follows:

1. Unemployment and the fear of unemployment.

2. High cost of living in relation to wages, and the desire of the worker for a larger share of the product of his labour.

o. Desire for shorter hours of labour.

4. Denial of the right to organize and refusal to recognize Unions..

5. Denial of collective bargaining.

6. Lack of confidence in constituted government.

7. Insufficient and poor housing.

8. Restrictions upon the freedom of speech and press.

9. Ostentatious display of wealth.

10. Lack of equal educational opportunities.

The report goes on to give a list of what the commission regards as desirable measures to be undertaken by parliament or other authorities to cope with the situation. It recommends, for example, the fixing of a minimum wage especially for women and girls and for unskilled labour, a maximum working day of eight hours, and a weekly rest of not less than twenty-four hours. It also makes a recommendation in regard to special insurance against unemployment, sickness, invalidism and old age. For many years we have been promised action along this line, and turning to the platform of the Liberal party of the year 1919 I find resolutions in this connection embodied therein as passed at the convention held in Ottawa at that time. I note also that the question of old age pension has been before the House on more than one occasion. If I mistake not, a committee was appointed last year to look into the question and it recommended favourably upon some form of old age pensions to be instituted as a

Dominion measure in co-operation with the provincial authorities. I hope therefore that in this House during the present session something will be done to put this recommendation into practice. I have had a little experience in looking after the needy in the city of Winnipeg and I am fully aware of the difficulties of the problem; I know what it means to an elderly person to have no means of making provision against the future. When we read what wages the average worker in Canada receives at the present time, I do not think that there is a member of this House who would suggest that those wages are adequate to meet any contingency either in connection with old age or on account of sickness or anything else.

Let me deal very briefly with the question of unemployment. In this regard I must give this much credit to the Conservative party, that when they were in office they did give some degree of relief to men and women who found themselves out of work by contributing one-third of the funds which the municipalities provided for the relief of unemployment. I regret to say however that when the Liberals came into power one of the first things they did was to cut off that relief to the unemployed. Now there is no use in this parliament trying to ignore the fact that there is in Canada to-day a serious unemployment problem, and the sooner that fact is faced squarely the better it will be for this Dominion. And in regard to old age pensions, the provinces are demanding some form of assistance for the aged throughout the country. This is becoming a pressing problem in the city of Winnipeg and it is highly important that something should be done to meet the situation. As regards unemployment, I have been receiving telegrams daily from the civic officials of Winnipeg demanding that the government take action in this direction; and in addition to these I have been getting telegrams with reference to the disabled returned men. The action of the government in cutting off those men who have less than a 20 per cent disability has imposed an added burden upon the various municipalities- The government so far have given no definite assurance that they will look after these particular cases. We dlo not know whether they will do anything to assist the aged and the needy in Canada. These are problems which I hope to see taken in hand at this Session of parliament. So far as the Speech from the Throne is concerned, I must say that it conveys very little that is promising to myself; I see in it very little hope or encouragement from the standpoint of labour itself.

278 COMMONS

The Address

Mr. Sutherland (N. Oxford)

As the hour is late, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the House further. This is my first effort to address the members of parliament and I want to express my appreciation of the courtesy which they have shown me not only on this occasion but ever since I have come to the House. No doubt in the near future I shall have a further opportunity of discussing on this floor -the questions that are near and dear to us of the Labour group.

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

Donald Matheson Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. D. M. SUTHERLAND (North Oxford) :

As one of the representatives of western Ontario I desire to express our appreciation of the fact that one of the members from that part of the country was chosen to move the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Let me congratulate the hon. member (Mr. Elliott) and tell him that western Ontario will be pleased with his effort.

I think that the members, now that they have had an opportunity of hearing the hon. gentleman, will be relieved to know that there was nothing in the rumour that he was going to retire in order to allow the gentleman who * has just gone to Saskatchewan to seek election as a representative of western Ontario. The constituency which I have the honour to represent defeated Sir Francis Hincks in 1844. Since that time they consider there has been nothing worthy of censure in the Liberal party, and they have consistently returned to parliament, both before and since confederation, Liberal supporters. As an example of party loyalty I do not think that can be equalled in our parliamentary history. That I am here at all is solely dlue to -the fact that at last they came to the conclusion that there was something seriously wrong with the Liberal party, and the reasons which apply in my case apply with equal force in a good many other constituencies in western Ontario.

In the Speech from the Throne there occurs this passage: .

That changes in the tariff should be made only after the fullest examination of their bearing upon both primary and manufacturing industries.

There is no doubt in my mind that that is entirely a new idea on the part of the government, for otherwise the Australian treaty would never have been introduced in the dying days of the last session. Now, the provisions of that treaty did mpre to defeat the candidates of the government in rural western Ontario than any other issue in the election there. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) this afternoon said that the Australian treaty was on trial. Well, I dlaim that the effect of the provisions of that treaty upon our agricultural interests

should have been considered and that those interests should have had an opportunity to make representations to the government before the treaty was'consummated. That the Minister of Agriculture was aware of the possible consequences is apparent from what he said in 1922, for in Hansard of that year at page 808 I find the following remarks by him:

New Zealand, on the other hand, has also a favoured climate, and a comparatively short stabling season. It puts its butter right off the grass in British Columbia in competition with our winter-made butter, and we have a hard struggle to compete with it.

At page 812, referring to the same matter, he said:

Consequently anything that deprives the dairyman of his home market is detrimental to the industry.

We in western Ontario who are interested in the dairy industry maintain that the Australian treaty for which he and his party were responsible deliberately sacrificed the dairy industry, and realizing that naturally the people there showed their resentment by their votes.

In the past there is no doubt that for the most part rural Ontario has been strongly Liberal in its views, and in the 1921 election the -people there voted for the Liberal platform of 1919, pledging the party to a -low tariff policy. They fully expected that that policy would be put into effect, particularly as the -government was associated with the Progressive party, which was pledged to support even more drastic tariff reductions. But the people were disillusioned. They did not see any such general reductions in the tariff put into effect, but they did see their own industry, the dairy industry, sacrificed for the advantage of certain manufacturers, and of course they resented the action of the government. As a result of the Progressive and Liberal parties not -living up to their -preelection- pledges they fared badly at the polls in the rbcent election.

During the campaign we often heard that both old parties were equally bad, and since I have been in this House I have heard remarks from hon. gentlemen to my left which lead me to suspect that that idea is still entertained by them. But the truth of the matter is that both the old parties are in favour of a certain amount of protection. Rural western Ontario has realized that, and has -come to the conclusion that if all the other industries will benefit by protection then the farming industry may as well have some of it too. If there was one thing more than another that influenced the voters in favour of the Conservative party it was our leader's

The Address-Mr. Sutherland (N. Oxford)

statement that if he secured the reins of power the first upward revision of the tariff would be the schedule relating to agriculture.

During the last election a great many people voted against the government principally because they doubted its sincerity. The insincerity of the government has been demonstrated in several ways, particularly with reference to the resolution which was introduced last session by one of the western members urging that a reduction should be made in the duty on automobiles. That seemed a reasonable resolution and likely to be passed by the government, supported as it was by the Progressive party, but in spite of their large combined majority in the House that resolution was defeated, proving conclusively that the government was absolutely insincere in its profession of the principles which it placed before the country in 1921. With that concrete example before them the people voted against the government.

Another example of the insincerity of the administration is its stand in relation to the tariff generally. Speaking this afternoon, the Minister of Agriculture stated deliberately that the policy of the Liberal party on tariff matters was a tariff for revenue. As a minister of the crown he stated that explicitly. Well, I am going to prove to the House that during the recent election in western Ontario the candidates of this government were appealing to the people on a policy of moderate protection. During the campaign my opponent and the opponent of my colleague the member for South Oxford (Mr. Donald Sutherland) had a large page advertisement in the Woodstock Sentinel-Review explaining their views, and after I had asked my opponent publicly to give his opinion on the tariff the following announcement appeared in that paper:

There can be no shadow of a doubt as to where Dr. Sinclair stands on the tariff question. The Liberal candidate stands fairly and squarely on the platform of the Liberal party. That platform has been placed fairly and squarely before the Canadian people in the two words-"moderate protection."

That explains why such an overwhelming vote was given against the candidates of this government in the last election; it was simply on account of their absolute insincerity in relation to tariff matters.

Now, we on this side of the House have been deeply touched by the sympathy extended to our leader because of the references to him that appeared in certain papers in Montreal during the election campaign. We reciprocate that feeling because when the Toronto Globe expressed its opinion of Mr. Mackenzie King practically every Tory in

Ontario shuddered. I want to read a couple of extracts from the Toronto Globe with reference to that gentleman. The first one refers to a speech made by him in Edmonton, relating to Senate reform, in which he said that the Senate would be reformed as one old Tory after another was taken away to heaven. . This is what the Globe says in reference to that speech:

It is the way also of evasion and escape from bounden duty. What a feather duster for a premier to wave! What trifling with a public issue. What a frivolous, meaningless sequel to the seemingly brave words at Richmond Hill a few weeks back. What a namby-pamby, nursemaid's way of expressing displeasure at persistent wrongdoing.

That comes from the Toronto Globe, a paper with probably more influence in Ontario than any other, a paper with a strong reform history. It was founded by a former Liberal leader and for many years was his personal organ. It is taken in a great many homes as the last word in Liberal political faith. That is the way it referred to the Prime Minister and can you wonder that the general mass of the Liberal electors throughout the province hesitated a little as to whether they would be doing right in casting their vote for him? Later in the election, just three days before polling took place, after sizing up the campaign that he had been conducting throughout Canada, the Globe expressed itself again in this way:

It is a matter of real regret to this paper that it finds itself at the close-as at the beginning-of this campaign unable conscientiously to recommend on many counts the position of those who for the time being direct the destinies of the Liberal party.

It goes on to say that his administration had been clean and free from the charge of corruption. Then it says:

It has failed to justify its claims to represent the principles of Liberalism not because of what it has done, but because of what it has left undone, or half done-and fails to give indication of doing. It cannot expect support of a policy of political drifting which involves the evasion of issues that should be faced courageously. The Globe has waited day by day during the progress of the campaign with the hope that in at least some v,. *he issues to which it directed attention at the outset-issues that are undeniably in the public interest and for the welfare of the people as a whole-there would be forthcoming a ringing word of assurance, of leadership, of action. Repeatedly it has invited such a pronouncement. But still-three days from polling-there is silence.

There is given the explanation of the lack of votes secured by the Liberal party in this province, and when the Globe, the leading organ, goes out of its way in the heat of an election campaign to question the sincerity of the leader of its own party, can you wonder that the people at large throughout the province doubted his sincerity and that of his party?

280 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Sutherland (N. Oxford)

I agree with the member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) when he says that for a country to be prosperous the farmers must be prosperous. He quoted the prices of binders, thereby following the example of many Liberal speakers throughout western Ontario for many years, both on the platform and in canvassing along the side roads and concessions. They say: If you vote for a Tory, up goes the price of your binder-as if the whole heart and sou! of a farmer is bound up in the price of a binder. Whatever may have been the case in the old days, that certainly does not apply now. The farmers are taking a general interest in the policies of the day and they are not thinking only of the price of a binder. They realize very clearly that it is more important to them to get a reasonable and1 fair price for the things they have to sell-their milk, for instance, something that they are selling every day in the year

than to worry about a binder which they get only once every ten or eleven yeans. Any decrease in the price of butter or cheese makes a very serious difference to his income. My hon. leader mentioned a case in point yesterday, when he spoke of the New Zealand butter which came into Vancouver and immediately lowered the price some two or three cents. That will happen more and more, and for every pound of New Zealand butter consumed there will be cut off a pound which could be made from milk produced in this part of the country or somewhere else in Canada.

Let me refer briefly to another point dealt with in the Speech from the Throne. It says:

Measures will be taken to further the retention on the land of our existing agricultural population and to encourage the return to rural parts of urban dwellers possessed of agricultural experience.

By legislation of that kind they cannot be prevailed upon to stay on the farms or to go back after leaving them. They are sensible people, and the only way to persuade them to stay on the farms, or to return to them, is to make it possible for them to earn a good living, a better living than they can make anywhere else. The only way to do that is to raise the prices they receive for their products, by building up a larger population in the cities and towns. That will give them their home market right at the door and as the towns and cities get more prosperous it will react right away on the prosperity of the neighbouring country people. When such a condition of affairs is brought about, the people on the farms will not want to leave, and if they have left they will come back.

It is a great education, as some speakers have said-and a young member notices it particularly-to be here in the House and to hear the expressions of opinion of men from different parts of the country bearing upon their various problems. I have been greatly impressed by the problems of the Maritimes as presented by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) who spoke to-night. These are problems with which we in Ontario are not well acquainted, and evidently they are problems which need quick solution. I think I am safe in assuring the representatives of the Maritime provinces that Ontario will not be backward in supporting their demands for a just solution of their difficulties.

I was also much interested in the addresses by the western members, both those delivered last week in connection with the other debate, and the address of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) to-day. Of course our problems in Ontario centre largely on the tariff. We need and must have a reasonably protective tariff. We realize however that if we are to get what we absolutely need we must help those in the outlying parts of the Dominion. As one speaker said-I think it was the leader of the House-all government must be by compromise. There is a great deal of truth in that. The people of Ontario must expect to have to make certain concessions which will cost something but which will be for the benefit of both east and west; and it is only proper they should.

On motion of Mr. Howden the debate was adjourned.

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

ADJOURNMENT-WEDNESDAY SITTING


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House): I move that the House do now adjourn, and that when it adjourns it shall stand adjourned until to-morrow at three o'clock in the afternoon. Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m. , Wednesday, January 20, 1926


January 19, 1926