February 19, 1926

PRO

Donald MacBeth Kennedy

Progressive

Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):

Yes, certainly.

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

John Power Howden

Liberal

Mr. HOWDEN:

Will the hon. gentleman permit me a question? If conditions are so very much better on the farms than in the cities, would it not be a good plan to have a lot of the city people live in the country?

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

Donald MacBeth Kennedy

Progressive

Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):

I may tell my hon. friend that the happiest hours I ever spent in my life were in the country.

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

Donald MacBeth Kennedy

Progressive

Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):

But not all the city people can go to the country. I do not say that in the cities there is no happiness; I do not say that generally speaking there is extreme poverty in the cities; but I do say that there is a large element of our urban people who, if not in absolute poverty, are on the very verge of it.

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

Robert Forke

Progressive

Mr. FORKE:

May I remind the hon. gentleman that some of us who live in the country know something about city life? For three years I was a member of a public welfare commission which inquired very thoroughly into the charitable institutions operating in some of our cities. I may tell him that as a result of that work there is nothing that I do not know about conditions in the city of Winnipeg; in fact, I think I could give my hon. friend some information about his own city.

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

Malcolm McLean

Liberal

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):

Can the hon. member tell us how many of the people who left Canacta went to the other sixty-two countries in the world that raised their tariffs so much in the last few years?

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

Donald MacBeth Kennedy

Progressive

Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):

I cannot tell my hon. friend that and I do not know that it goes' to the root of the argument at all. The main fact is that they left Canada, and when they left and went to the United States which is a high tariff country, they left that much more of a tax burden to be borne by the people of this country. I sa>

that a country which struggles along under a burden of taxation with a population of ten millions will perhaps lightly bear that burden with a population of fifteen millions. What we want in this country is people. We shall not get them by a policy that drives people out, but only by such a policy

1166 COMMONS

_ The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)

as will build up industry in this country, create employment, andi make living conditions attractive to people outside.

Mr. MoMILLAN: Does the hon. member know that United States border immigration agents declare that between 1910 and 1920 over 742,000 Canadians went to the United States, while the official census of 1920 told us that there were 78,000 fewer Canadians in the United States than there were ten years before?

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

Donald MacBeth Kennedy

Progressive

Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):

It may have been that some of the efflux to the United States during those years was because of the conscription law in this country.

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh.

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

Donald MacBeth Kennedy

Progressive

Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):

I am not applying that to any particular part of Canada, but to all parts, for we had many people in this country from all corners of the world who were not particularly interested in our empire quarrels, and they sought the easiest way out, which was across the line.

Now I come to the last question. There are some matters in the Speech from the Throne of which I have approved. It is true that I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to criticize the Speech in some other respects and point out matters in which it is lacking. I am faced, when the time eventually shall come in this House for the vote to be taken on the Address, as all hon. members will be faced, with the question of how I shall vote. Let me say this: A vote

in favour of the Address may not be equivalent to a vote of confidence in the government, yet it clothes with the appearance of authority a government which has neither the confidence of this House nor that of the people of Canada. The Speech from the Throne is not that of a government enjoying that confidence, and without which it has not the right to govern. A vote, I say, in favour of the Address would appear to clothe with authority a government which has the confidence of neither this House nor the country, and I propose to give you1 a few reasons for my view.

My first reason is because of the declarations of the first minister himself, made at Richmond Hill, where he declared:

That brings mo to the situation with which at the moment the government is faced. As a government we can carry on until 1927 if we so desire. As I have already said, I have not the least doubt we shall be able to command such support as we all along have had in the House of Commons at another session; but shall we be able to do more than that? That is the question I have put to everyone of my colleagues in the government and to not a few of the members.

It is a question I now put to you who have honoured

me with your representation in the House of Commons. It is a question I put to the electorate of this country. Is it sufficient that as a government we should continue in office, drawing our indemnities and salaries as members and ministers and enjoying the other fruits of office when great national questions press for solution, with which for want of an adequate majority in parliament we are unable to cope

Now if he was unable to cope with those problems with a majority of one over all in this House, how can he assume to cope with these same national problems now, labouring under a minority of sixteen under the largest group in this House?

I advance another reason! Because the government lacks the power to initiate and carry into effect even such legislation as it believes this country requires. If you want proof of that, all you have to do is to examine the Speech from the Throne and you will find that it forecasts no legislation seeking to solve any of the national problems which the Prime Minister himself said must be solved. It contains only such matters of promised legislation as were necessary for the purpose of securing the support of certain economic groups in this House.

Again, I say, because the government lacks its quota of ministers of the crown, we have the situation in this House of a government which presumes to govern when we have not sitting in this House a Minister of Externa! Affairs, a Minister of Railways, a Minister of Immigration, a Minister of Trade and Commerce, a minister having charge of the Post Office department, a minister administering the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, or a Minister of Labour; and also because the government is without in this House its real directing leader.

Again, because lacking this quota of ministers it really formulates its policies, not through ministers responsible to the crown, but very frequently through those whom it attempted to elect as ministers in the last election but who were rejected at the polls.

I refer to such men as Mr. Massey, Mr. T. C. Norris, Mr. Marler and others.

Again, because it lacks a leader who holds the confidence of the people of Canada. I say to this House, and I say it not in any discourteous way, that the record of the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King in the Dominion of Canada politically is not such as to command the confidence of the people of Canada to-day. For proof of that I point to his record. He entered parliament in 1908 for North Waterloo; in 1911 he was rejected by North Waterloo; in 1917 he was rejected by the constituency of North York; in 1919 he was elected by acclamation in the province of Prince Edward Island in a by-election; in

The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)

1925 he was rejected a second time by the constituency of North York; and now, it is true, he is representative for the constituency of Prince Albert.

Is there any reason for that record of defeats? I suggest that the reason is because the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King as leader of the Liberal party does not possess the confidence of even the Liberals throughout the Dominion of Canada, and that is because on all matters of national concern, when pressed for a solution of these problems he has never attempted directly to deal with them in any courageous way, but rather his manner of dealing with them has always been characterized by vacillation and uncertainty. That is why he has lost the confidence of the people of Canada.

There is another reason to which I wish to refer, and it arose during the last election, and that was the spectacle of the first minister of this country going throughout the constituencies of this country and seeking to offer a political bribe to the electorate by saying to them: If you elect so and so, you

elect a man with a portfolio attached to him. I submit that that was highly improper for a first minister. I submit that once a man is elected, then, if a government sees fit to honour him with a portfolio, it is a matter for him to go back to his constituents and say: "The government desires me to take this portfolio." I say it is an improper thing for a prime minister to declare to a constituency : "If you elect so and so I will make

him a cabinet minister." That argument was used. Where? It was used in an endeavour to elect the Hon. T. C. Norris in the constituency of South Winnipeg. But the electors of South Winnipeg declared that they would rather have the hon. member (Mr. Rogers), who to-day is welcomed back by all sides of this House, than the Hon. T. C. Norris, even with a portfolio attached. What did the Prime Minister say as to a portfolio for Mr. Massey? Speaking at Bowmanville, on October 19, according to a Canadian press report, he said:

"I intend," announced Mr. King, "to give him one of the best portfolios I have."

Well, the people of that constituency decided to elect the hon. member who now represents them here, rather than send to parliament Mr. Massey, even with the best portfolio that the Prime Minister could give him.

Again I say we should not vote confidence in this government. We should not do so because this government deliberately shirked a straight vote of want of confidence on the

motion that was introduced the o.ther night. We should not do so because it exists only by reason of the support of a majority of normally three who have not confidence in it. You can pick those three members wherever you like among the government supporters. If you do so you will frequently find that that majority is represented by three or more men who are not in sympathy with this government on matters of principle, who have declared time and time again during the election campaign that they had no confidence in it. If you wish one example, I will give you that of the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) who is reported as having said, in discussing the matter of a coalition between the Progressives and the Liberals after the election:

There can be no coalition as long as the Liberal party is wallowing in the mire of corruption as it

is.

There is one of the majority of three. But the hon. member for Rosetown seems to have changed his opinions on his way down here from his constituency. I cannot suggest what induced him to adopt the course he has followed, but it reminds me of the story of Mary Malone. She decided to leave her native parish in Ireland and seek work in England. So she waited on the parish priest, told him her plans, and asked him for a reference. He gave her a certificate of character, but during the course of a severe storm on the passage over to England she lost her certificate. She went to the captain of the ship and told him her trouble. "Oh", he said, "I will fix that all right," so he wrote out a certificate that "Mary Malone left the city of Dublin with a good character, but she lost it on the way over."

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

John Evans

Progressive

Mr. EVANS:

I should like to inform my hon. friend that it is not a matter of changing my mind; it is a case of choosing between two evils. In such a case as that what are you to do?

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

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

The hon. member would not like to change from bad to worse.

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

Donald MacBeth Kennedy

Progressive

Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):

All I can say is that so far as the hon. member for Rosetown is concerned the government can count on his support under all circumstances, and under -all conditions, no matter how corrupt it may be.

Again I say the government does not enjoy the confidence of the country. I might refer to another of the majority of three, and I do not do so in any Slighting way. I mean the hon. member for Southeast Gray (Miss Macphail) who in this House, I think, de-

1168 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)

dared as plainly as words can declare that she had no confidence in this government. I do not think that the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), who sits opposite, expressed1 any great admiration for the government of the day, either during his campaign or since he has come into the House. As a matter of fact if we take the reason given by the hon. member for Rosetown for his action what does it amount to? That he is only supporting this government' as the lesser of two evils. Then I ask, is that such a measure of support as a responsible government should depend upon? I say that a government which depends upon the support of members, which expects them to vote for it, because it is the lesser of two evils is not fit to remain longer in office.

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

John Evans

Progressive

Mr. EVANS:

Will the hon. member permit me another question? Even supposing what he says were true, would the Conservative party be in a better position, seeing that they were also in a minority?

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

Donald MacBeth Kennedy

Progressive

Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):

I think the hon. member will have to wait and see. He will at least admit this: That when the

present leader of the Conservative party makes a promise to the Canadian public he will carry it out, and from all corners of this House I have been pleased to hear expressions to that effect. The right hon. leader of the Conservative party entered parliament in 1908. From that time to this the hour hand of time has made many revolutions, but to this moment the hour has not yet struck when a promise of the right hon. leader of this party given publicly has passed at a discount from its face value.

I say this government does not possess the confidence of this House or of the Canadian people, because it wants to adjourn. When it wants to adjourn, instead of going on with the public business, it offers no other substantial reason than that it is tired and wants to go home. This government, unable to legislate, is unable to meet its obligations. When a man in private business cannot meet his obligations there is only one thing left for him to do. The same thing applies to a government. A government which can no longer meet its obligations ought in common decency to meet its creditors.

The government has ceased to guide the ship of state in this country. That ship is not guided by a man at the helm; it has lost its rudder; it is drifting helplessly without a pilot. Faintly pefhaps to the ears of Mr. King but plainly to the ears of the people of Canada came the sound of breakers ahead. On October 29th last this government was

tried by the people of Canada; the judgment rendered was that they had no confidence in the administration and that it should be evicted. The days of grace within which the government should have vacated the treasury benches have expired, and at this hour the sheriff of public opinion, armed with a warrant of eviction, stands knocking at the door.

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

Leon Johnson Ladner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Air. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members present will join with me in felicitating the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy) upon his maiden effort. To have spoken at such length, to have furnished the House with such a comprehensive review of the political situation in Canada, and to have made such an arraignment of the government and such an exposition of its demerits is an accomplishment which deserves, I think, the commendation of hon. members generally. We of the Conservative party who have been longer in parliament are pleased to find on our side in this House a number of new arrivals of such capacity, energy and ability, as will in the future ensure the vigour and the permanence of that party in this country.

I desire, Mr. Speaker, to offer a word of appreciation of yourself, and I wish particularly to congratulate the House on having in the Speaker's chair a gentleman of such superior cultural attainments, of such complete mastery of the English and French languages, of such wide experience in parliament, of such grace, dignity and knowledge of men's attributes-attainments which qualify Your Honour exceptionally well for the high position which you occupy. Having been in parliament for four years I know that on many occasions the position of Speaker has been a difficult one, calling not only for the exercise of sound judgment but for a great measure of patience and an attitude of courtesy and conciliation. These qualities, Sir, you possess in ample degree.

The Speech from the Throne brings to my attention the regrettable fact that the time will soon arrive for the relinquishment by Their Excellencies of the high positions which they hold in this country. As a great soldier Lord Byng did wonderful work in defence of the empire and of our own nation. As a statesman, as a governor general and as a man, I think I am safe in submitting to the House that Lord Byng has no peer in the annals of Canadian history. My hope is that the government and parliament as a whole may be able to prevail upon the government of Great Britain to extend their time in the high office their Excellencies now occupy

The Address-Mr. Ladner

when their period of service is concluded. We are all fully aware that their Excellencies Lord and Lady Byng of Vimy will receive from the people of Canada the hand of gratitude and friendship. I am sure they will from the people of British Columbia; we would welcome them to the citizenship of that fair province. _

The country to-day is faced with a number of grave and very serious problems. Those hon. members who have studied our history prior to 1867, when confederation was brought about, will agree that the union of Canada at that time was largely a political union of scattered states with diversified economic interests. In Canada to-day we have arrived at a time when we need new makers of confederation-not a political but an economic confederation. Throughout the lengthy and breadth of Canada we hear of growing bitterness; we hear expressions of sectional feeling and the voicing of ideas which indicate intensive thought along economic lines. In one portion of the country they would have no tariff, in another portion a very high tariff, in another a medium tariff. In one section they would oppose the export of natural resources; in another they would encourage it. So that the problems of Canada have largely assumed an economic aspect, and their solution requires the skill, the judgment and the ability of men of business, of men of affairs, if general advantage to the country is to result. In facing that situation the government necessarily plays a 5 p.m. most important part; but instead of having a government of action, of vigour, of aggressiveness and of capacity, we have a government of weakness, of inaction and of incapacity-and, I may say, without being offensive, of political expediency. It is to that phase of the situation that I desire to address some of my remarks this afternoon, in order to bring to the attention of hon. members, and ask them to give some study to, one important question which affects western Canada. I refer to the question of the natural resources and the question of western development.

Before, however, dealing with those particular matters in detail, I should like to remind the government that in the Speech from the Throne we see no reference whatever to a possible solution or proposal for solution of problems affecting our ex-soldiers. These are many and difficult. Experience in the administration of existing laws has demonstrated the necessity of changes, some of them of vital importance. Throughout the country soldiers' organizations are complaining of lack of attention to these matters. The Speech from the

Throne does contain reference to old age pensions. And it is interesting to observe that when this matter of old age pensions- for which I have always stood; I believe them to be in the interest of the country, and that the country can well afford to provide for them-came up last year, the government passed the matter to a committee of the House. When the report of the committee came in, no action was taken by the government, because the report recommended that there should be a conference of premiers to consider not only the matter of old age pensions, in which the provinces have or should have an important interest under our constitution, but also a number of other questions of importance to the provinces and to the federal government. In that connection the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) speaking on February 18, 1925, made this statement:

If I remember well the language of the Speech from the Throne, it is that a conference shall be called together for the purpose of considering amendments to the British North America Aot with respect to the constitution of the Senate and other matters. Surely this-

Referring to the resolution of the member for South York (Mr. Maclean) respecting a suggested amendment of the British North America Act to enable Canada to amend her constitution.

Surety (this would be one of the matters which the government would submit to such a conference.

And amongst other matters was that of old age pensions. The whole tenor of the debate, the attitude of the government and the promise of the ministers, was that they would call a conference to consider these questions in which the provinces had a vital interest and had to be consulted. But what has happened? Not a single thing has been done towards calling that conference. But all of a sudden the government announces in the Speech from the Throne that they have evolved a scheme for old age pensions, the value of which will only be known when the legislation is brought down. There we have another indication of political expediency. One time it is an excuse for taking one course; another time there is excuse for taking a different course.

We have heard considerable discussion in the House about the election last fall, and I shall not weary the House with details. But there are some things which I wish to bring before hon. members, because the promises of the leaders of public thought, especially the leaders of the parties, play an important part in the crystallization of public opinion, and in enabling the public to understand the attitude of the parties on the great

The Address-Mr. Ladner

issues of the day. In the election of 1925 we saw repeated many of the practices which were common in 1921. Local issues became the dominating subjects of contest in the various districts. In 1925 in British Columbia, and particularly in greater Vancouver where there were four candidates, the question raised by the Liberal candidates was that of freight rates. There the Liberals claimed the championship of lower freight rates, and the tariff was not an issue. They were all agreed that we ought to have a protective tariff. The propaganda engaged in by the Liberal press and candidates, as well as by advertising, was to the effect that the Liberal party was the champion of lower freight rates and that the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King had given an assurance that there would be a still further reduction. It was stated also quite incorrectly and unfairly that the Conservative party stood in the way of that reduction. I have before me a number of election advertisements as well as some of the speeches delivered by the candidates and reported verbatim, and one of the most interesting of those speeches is that of Mr. G. G. McGeer who ran against my distinguished colleague the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). When Mr. McGeer made his speech we had a stenographer report it and a copy of that report I have here. I desire to read for the benefit of the House an extract from Mr. McGeer's speech so that hon. members may appreciate the nature of the campaign in Vancouver and the difficulty of the public in grasping the real issues in that contest. Speaking at the Libera! convention on September 22, 1925, Mr. McGeer said:

I believe we have accomplished a great deal. We have secured freight rate reductions that have shown to the people of western Canada the value of freight reductions, and the difficulties under which we have laboured in the past. We have done this: we have roused in western Canada a sense of public resentment and we have made equalization of freight rates the foremost national subject in the Dominion of Canada to-day. But more than that, we have received from the Prime Minister of this Dominion a declaration that he will give to western Canada equality of treatment and see that they get impartial justice and fair play. This is the first time this has been accomplished in this Dominion.

We now have the opportunity as electors to accept the Prime Minister's word or we can repudiate his promise, and that is going to be the issue in this coming election. There are wrongs to be adjusted; there are rights to be declared, and we can go on if we will appealing to the Board of Railway Commissioners and the other courts of this Dominion, but I say to you, there is one court in which this issue can be finally settled; there is one place where the people of Canada can get lasting and final justice, *nd that is in the court of public opinion, and, when that is done, it will be written in the lists of the parliament of the Dominion. As your counsel-

Mr. McGeer happened to be counsel for British Columbia in connection with freight rates.

-to-day I advise you to take the Prime Minister at his word, accept his declaration and his new national policy, and send a representative to parliament that wili see that that is written in the statutes of the Dominion.

Hon. members who have studied the question know perfectly well that it was not the intention of the Liberal party nor of the government to write in the statutes of the Dominion anything further with respect to lower freight rates. They should have brought this about in June last; they started to make a reduction which would be of equal advantage to the Pacific' coast and to the people on the route going from the prairies eastward. But they failed to give justice to British Columbia. In the election practically every candidate and every speaker in the district focused his attention and his discussions upon the question of 'freight rates, distorting the position of the Conservative leader and of the Conservative party, and putting into the mouth of our leader phrases and opinions which he never uttered. Consequently they perverted the facts so that the electorate hardly knew what those facts really were.

_ I mention these things because they are so significant of the campaign generally throughout the country, serving at the same time, as they do, to recall to us something of what occurred in 1921. In my judgment the government in this contest, through their candidates and their speakers, should have discussed their record of the past four years, but they said not a word in that respect either in defence or in approval. In 1921 the declaration of policy was that there would be severe economy in public expenditures. Of that, in the election of 1925, we heard not a word. In 1921 they promised to bring into effect the League of Nations principles in regard to labour, as set out in their platform; but so soon as parliament assembled and the business of the House got under way they forgot all about their promises. In 1925 they had no statement to offer on this subject. In 1921 they promised an adequate system of unemployment insurance together with old age pensions, widows' pensions, and even maternity benefits. They were going to take care of everybody. But hon. gentlemen who were here during the past four years know perfectly well that, apart from old age pensions, no serious discussion took place on any of these questions; not a single proposal was submitted by the government to parliament. Of all the promises made in 1921, and which

The Address-Mr. Ladner

no effort was made during the course of the last parliament to implement), the Liberal party, in promising cash grants or bonuses to soldiers' dependents, in addition to the gratuities already granted, assumed probably the greatest and most responsible obligation -an obligation to a class of people who had given their service to the country and who waited in anxiety and with some confidence in our public men who had made these promises to have them fulfilled. To the disgrace of the Liberal party and of its leaders,

I say that during the whole of the four years they were in power in the last parliament they never uttered a single word in recognition of this particular promise, never gave any explanation of their delinquency in the matter, and never brought down a single line of legislation. When the election of 1925 came and we charged the government with default in this and all the other respects in which they had failed to live up to their promises, they had nothing to say. Of course they could say nothing, for they had done nothing. As a matter of fact, during the four years that parliament sat under the direction and control of the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King and his government not a single pledge of the 1919 platform, nor a single assurance given in the 1921 campaign, was actually honoured; not a single one. I leave it to the fair judgment of any hon. member who has studied these questions to determine whether or not my assertion in this respect is justified.

Perhaps the real spirit of the policy of the Liberal party in 1919 and in 1921, a policy of political expediency, can best be understood in the light of that classic dialogue of questions and answers which took place at Saskatoon at a meeting addressed by the Prime Minister, when somebody in the audience interjected in the course of the right hon. gentleman's speech a number of ques-. tions, the answers to which revealed his attitude when faced with the actualities of statecraft and the problems before the electorate. I am not going to cite many of these things, but I do desire if possible to impress upon hon. members the necessity for the leaders of our parties to carry lOtut their pledges in a statesmanlike manner instead of bending to the whims of sectional influences and of sectional inducements. That meeting took place at Saskatoon. I am reading from a report of the Canadian Press, dated Saskatoon, October 7, and published in the Montreal Gazette:

"I want to make my position perfectly clear." exclaimed the premier. "The government wants to have that road completed, and to have it completed immediately."

Referring to the Hudson Bay railway.

"That vis our desire. But how far can we go in the carrying out of our desire must depend upon the complexion of parliament." "How many miles per member will you complete?" queried a voice. The question caused a laugh. Mr. King: "I am afraid that if I say that I will go the limit if you will go the limit, Mr. Meighen would say that I am trying to bribe this constituency on the prairie."

Well, the rules of the House would prevent my right hon. leader saying what such a promise really amounted to, but a great many people outside parliament would certainly so express themselves.

* Another voice broke in; "How long are you going to wait for the prosperity which is ait the other end of the 92 miles of railway?" "That depends, "returned Mr. King, "on how strongly we are supported in western Canada, but if I find that the Liberal party has no representatives from Saskatchewan, do you think I can get the people from the other provinces to support an appropriation for the Hudson Bay railway?"

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and, through you, hon. members, if that is a commendable example of statesmanship from the leader of a great party?

Again there was an interruption that the Progressives had kept the government in power. "No, Sir, and they never did," Mr. King shouted back.

I wonder what he will say when he returns to the House.

"The Liberal party does not want to build the Hudson Bay railway," interrupted the heckler. "That is untrue," the premier warmly returned, "the Liberal party wants to build iit, but we cannot build it unless we have sufficient Liberal support from the prairie provinces to work with the men of other provinces, because you cannot get the House of Commons to vote the money unless you have unity of action.

Unity of action! The "unity of action" we find to-day is the arrangement between the government and our friends of the Progressive party. There it is at its maturity. Let me give another extract from this interesting and instructive report:

"You forget that Canada is growing," Mr. King returned.

This reply was in answer to an inquiry relative to a vote of 85,000,000 for the Quebec harbour.

Another questioner wanted to know why the vote had gone to the Quebec harbour. "We get a certain amount of support from Quebec," said Mr. King. He added that the argument that the government should do nothing for the people who supported it and give everything where it got no support-well, human nature would not stand for that sort of thing.

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

February 19, 1926