February 19, 1926

LIB
CON

John Arthur Clark

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARK:

Just one more question. Realizing that in the Ford factory in Detroit twenty-five cars are turned out to every one at the Ford factoiy in Ontario, does the hon. gentleman still persist in thinking that proportionately it would not cost more to manufacture that one car than it does to manufacture one of the twenty-five?

Topic:   AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Permalink
LIB

Francis Nicholson Darke

Liberal

Mr. DARKE:

I will give my hon. friend

the proof of my contention. The Ford Motor Car Company of Ford, Ontario, was incorporated in 1905 with a capital of $125,000. Not a dollar of new capital has been put into the company since. In the meantime the company paid in cash dividends $11,000 on each $100 share, and that stock to-day is worth $25,000 a share. I ask hon. gentlemen: Is

that fair? Those are figures that cannot be disputed.

Topic:   AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Permalink
CON

John Arthur Clark

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARK:

The hon. gentleman has

asked a question. Does he realize that since

1913 the price of those cars has been reduced by nearly 43. per cent, and the price of labour has risen about 200 per cent?

Topic:   AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Permalink
LIB

Francis Nicholson Darke

Liberal

Mr. DARKE:

This statement was published in the Financial Post in the edition of late August, or September. I wore out the clipping in my campaign in Regina and it did very good service. The western men would not object so much to a tariff if the manufacturer would not raise the cost of his protected goods to the level of the tariff. If he would say to the western farmer: "We want a tariff to hold your market but we shall not raise t'he price to the last dollar that the tariff allows," there would not be so very much complaint. But you can rest assured, if the Canadian manufacturer persists in taking advantage of every dollar of that tariff, the western purchaser or any man of common sense will prefer to buy the imported article, knowing that the twenty or thirty-five per cent he has to pay in' duty goes into the Dominion treasury to help pay taxes rather than in the form of excess profits into the pockets of the manufacturer. That is the whole situation.

The western man has no objection to industry; we want industry and we are glad to see it thriving. It does my heart good every time I come east to go through Montreal, Hamilton and Toronto and see those immense buildings being erected there. I know western Canada gives assistance in erecting those buildings and I do not begrudge it, but I say: Play fair with that great producing country to the west, the greatest market the eastern manufacturer has anywhere in the world; a market that is continually developing-because it is only in its infancy. The people of the east do not realize the asset they have in that western country. Last year western Canada produced about 400,000,000 bushels of wheat-one article alone. People talk to us about the home market-a home market for

400.000. 000 bushels of wheat! How many people would you have to have in Canada to consume that quantity of wheat at an average consumption of six bushels for each man, woman and child? You would require about

70.000. 000 people. If we are given a fair chance we can add to the production of western Canada each year more than sufficient to feed the population of Canada. Let me give some figures taken from a very reliable pamphlet issued by the W. Sanford Evans Statistical Service of Winnipeg. Some of the older members will remember Mr. Evans; at any rate hon. members know of him and will regard anything that appears over his signature as thoroughly reliable. I

The Address-Mr. Darke

am sorry I have not his 1925 statement, but I will have it in a few days. Speaking of the increase in production from 1920 to 1923, this pamphlet states:

From 1920 to 1923 there was added to the area under field crops of all kinds in the prairie provinces 7,623,490 acres. . . . The increase over 1920 was 25.2 per cent.

That was at a time when most people in Canada thought we in the west were barely holding our own, a time of very serious depression in the agricultural community. The article continues:

On this added crop area alone, at average yields, the prairie provinces could feed all Canada with wheat, potatoes and all other vegetables, including peas and beans, and grow all the rye, flaxseed and buckwheat Canada now raises; or, in the alternative, it could fill the total consumption demand for wheat of London, New York, Paris and Berlin.

That was only the increase from 1920 to 1923. What is the use of talking to western men about home markets? It is utterly absurd; the thing does not exist.

The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) came to Regina during the last campaign, and we are always glad to have the right hon. gentleman come west. We rather like him personally although we have not much use for his policy. His coming west is of great assistance to us during election times. I am perfectly safe in saying that his campaign speech in the Stadium in the city of Regina added at least 500 votes to my majority; so that naturally we are very glad to have him come west at

election times. However, he submitted a proposition which the Hon. Charles Dunning called a horse trade; in other words, he said in effect: If you people in the west will agree to a higher tariff on manufactured goods, we shall give you protection on farm products. We looked the animal over and we concluded that he was blind, broken-winded and spavined in both hind legs, so the hon. gentleman took the animal over the Rockies into British Columbia and worked him off on the people of that province. I do not know just what British Columbia will gain by the " critter," I am sure; but I would advise the people of that province not always to take an attitude antagonistic to the prairie provinces. The prairies constitute the best market they have in the world for many of their products, and there is no reason why we should not work together. One of the bright spots during the depression was the fact that we had an all year ocean port at Vancouver for our grain, and this was certainly very reassuring. Regina is about midway between Fort William and the Pacific, and we are prepared and willing to assist British Columbia in getting any equali-14011-76

zation of rates in order that a portion of our grain may reach the markets of the world via a Canadian port. As a grain port Vancouver is of great benefit to us, but it is useless to us for stock shipments as the time consumed in shipping via Vancouver would render it impossible for us to compete in the British market.

I notice that our agricultural friends favouring protection are more candid than many manufacturers. The latter have always attempted to argue that an increase in duty does not increase the cost of goods to the home purchaser, but the dairyman argues in favour of a duty in order that he can charge the purchaser in the home market the extra three or four cents for eveiy pound of butter that is sold in Canada. The hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald)-I am sorry he is not in his seat-let the protectionist cat out of the bag nicely the other night, and it stood revealed in all its cattishness. One of his contentions was that if he had had a duty of ten cents a bushel on potatoes in 1924, he could have charged the western farmers ten cents a bushel more for their seed potatoes when they were already paying 81.50 to S2 a bushel. That was his argument in favour of protection, and that, Mr. Speaker, is the only argument that has been advanced in this House in favour of protection-in order that the home market might be protected. What does that mean? It means that the home market would be protected in order that higher prices might be obtained from the consumer. That is the idea, and that is what we object to, and object to in all sincerity. That policy will never build up a united Canada. That policy has built a wall of separation between western Canada and eastern Canada that is daily mounting. It has got so high now that it takes a man of high vision to see over it. That policy has built a wall between the Maritime provinces and eastern Canada. How much longer can that policy go on if we are to remain a united Canada?

I think the time is coming when we as Canadians will have to sit down together and evolve a policy that will be fair to every part of Canada, fair to the Maritime provinces, fair to the east and the central part of Canada, and fair to the west, and in a spirit of friendship and goodwill we must put a tremendous charge of patriotism under that wall that has been built up and blow the accursed thing out of our national existence. Otherwise, it will shatter confederation into atoms. You cannot go on with a policy of that kind and still have a prosperous and united Canada. You cannot have a united

The Address-Mr. Darke

Canada unless there is fair play all around. The discontent in the Maritime provinces cannot be allowed to continue; the discontent in the west cannot go on. You people in the central provinces have acquired eight-tenths of the liquid wealth of Canada. By the absorption of banks and the centralization of big financial institutions you have now in the large cities of Toronto, Hamilton, and Montreal, eight-tenths of the liquid assets of this Dominion. You control all our principal banks and trust and loan companies. We are not objecting so much to that so long as you realize that you are holding those institutions in trust for the people of Canada. The money is not yours; it belongs to the people of Canada, and is it fair and reasonable when the western farmer or producer wants to borrow a few hundred dollars to finance his crop that he should be charged eight and nine and ten per cent when you have millions to loan for stock speculation in the United States and other foreign countries. You will have to realize that you are holding that money in trust for the rest of Canada, and if you are going to play fair, reasonable consideration will have to be given to the outlying parts of Canada

I want to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the Hudson Bay railway. That railway has been somewhat of a bone of contention among the people of Canada for a great many years past. The people of western Canada firmly believe that the roadi will provide a profitable outlet for our stock and for a quantity of our wheat. Let me say right here that it is not going to deprive the ports of Vancouver, Halifax or St. John of one bushel1 of grain that can be handled through those ports; there is no question about that. The production of western Canada is going to be so great in the years to come that all! those ports will be choked. Vancouver was practically choked1 this fall with about fifty million bushels; they will have to add to their facilities. Not much more than forty per cent of the wheat that goes east goes through the port of Montreal. We have to have an outlet, and unquestionably nature intended the Hudson Bay to be the outlet for the western plains. If this were a new project, if we were asking the country to spend twenty or twenty-five million dollars on an absolutely new enterprise, there would be some reason for turning us down and saying it would be impossible at this time to consider the matter. But the government of Canada year in and year out have promised to build this road. They have had it investigated. I have in my hand a Teport that was made by a committee of the Senate and presented in this

House in 1923. I also have a few extracts from reliable mein that I wish to quote :

As far back as 1744, Mr. Dobbs, writing on conditions in the bay and straits wrote as follows: "It is probable that during the whole winter from October to March there is no ice in the strait to obstruct passage into or out of the bay, for a ship which chanced to be closed up with ice in an inlet, by the breaking of ice got out and came through the strait at Christmas without finding any ice in the strait to prevent her passage."

Col. H. H. Webb, present mayor of Winnipeg, passed through the strait in February, 1904, and encountered no ice.

Dr. Robert Bell, F.R.S., credited with seventeen years' experience in northern waters says: "It is impossible that there should be at any time in the twelve months difficulty in navigating the straits for

they are upon tide water Why, navigation

through the straits should be particularly easy, because while there may at times be floating ice, there are no rocks and islands upon which to go ashore."

Captain William Hackland, in Hudson's Bay Company service for 39 years: "Straits never freeze; no reason why steamships should not navigate at any time."

Mr. J. W. Tyrol], geologist, who passed through straits several times, writes: "As to icebergs, they are

occasionally met with in Hudson straits being sometimes carried along the north shore by the prevailing current from Davis strait, but they are by no means of frequent occurrence, and not one-tenth as numerous as off the straits of Belle IsJe."

Then follows the opinion, of Captain Bernier, wtho has had nineteen years' experience in northern waters, and on whose opinion I place more reliance than on all the rest put together. He says:

The Hudson bay and strait are open to navigation the year around, but as far as the strait is concerned, icebergs block the way in places according where the current into or out of the bay drives them. With wireless stations established so that ships could be directed in their course, the Hudson bay ports would rank amongst the most important on the continent, owing to the very appreciable difference in distance to Europe compared with that of other ports.

In 1924, on his return from the north, he wrote as follows:

The nightmare and terror of the Hudson bay are about passed, and with aids to navigation, wireless, proper ship3 and proper men, it will be safer than the St. Lawrence, because there are very few shoals and the water is uniform and nearly constant daylight during the summer, which enables a mariner to see around him.

These are not the opinions of some westerner who might be Jed away by undue enthusiasm; they are the opinions of men of experience, practical men. All that the west is asking at the present time is that the remaining one hundred miles or less be laid with steel and brought into the bay, and sufficient facilities provided in ordet to thoroughly test the practicability of this route. I am satisfied that the additional expenditure necessary wonld be well justified, for the country has already put $22,000,000

The Address-Mr. McClenaghan

into this enterprise, and surely for the sake of making that investment of $22,000,000 available for earning purposes, we should not hesitate to spend the extra three or four million dollars that ds required.

There is no doubt that there is immense wealth in that region. Take for instance, the purchase recently of the Flin-Flon mine, not very far distant from this line of railway. It was sold for close to $4,000,000, and the American company that purchased it is prepared to spend another $20,000,000 on development. Unless the Canadian National railway and the government get busy and get that line into Port Nelson, the Canadian Pacific will be into Fort Churchill first, for they are heading that way as fast as they can. Do not make any mistake; the Canadian Pacific Railway Company do not throw away any money on enterprises of that kind unless they can see results.

Mr. MeGIBBQN: Is the hon. member

speaking with the authority of the government when he says they are limited to three or four millions?

Topic:   AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Permalink
LIB

Francis Nicholson Darke

Liberal

Mr. DARKE:

No, I am speaking just as an ordinary business man. I am not in the secrets of the government and do not pretend to know what the government intend to spend; I am only suggesting that amount as being, I think, a reasonable estimate of the amount needed to complete the line to the bay, furnish adequate terminals, and thor-ourgly test out the road. Already $6,000,000 has been spent on terminals.

Topic:   AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Permalink
CON
LIB

Francis Nicholson Darke

Liberal

Mr. DARKE:

Oh no, not a bit of it. The work is in perfectly good condition; just as good as the day it was built. A large delegation comprising representatives from Regina and Winnipeg inspected the work last year, and found it in splendid condition. All that is required is to reballast a part of the track, replace the ties, and lay the rails on the remainder of the line to the bay.

I have taken up much more time than I had intended, but I wish to make these few further observations: After thirty-three

years' residence in the west I have absolute faith in the future of western Canada. I only wish that more of the people of eastern Canada would come west and see what conditions are there. As a director of the Regina agricultural exhibition I invite hon. gentlemen to come west next year and visit our exhibition. Bring a trainload of your manufactured goods along with you, and meet the farmers of the west. You will find them friend-14011- 76J

ly and open to conviction if you can show that you can produce goods of as excellent a quality as are manufactured elsewhere. Drop off at Brandon, the home of the good Progressive leader, and also at Saskatoon, Calgary and Edmonton. Show the people of the west that you have some interest in them. The west is the finest market that exists in the world, and what we want to do is to try to build up that market in the true spirit of Canadian friendship and patriotism.

Topic:   AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Permalink
CON

Stewart McClenaghan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEWART McCLENAGHAN (Ottawa) :

Mr. Speaker, as a representative of Ottawa I wish, on behalf of my fellow citizens, to extend to hon. members of this House a very hearty welcome to this the capital city of Canada. Coming as you do from all parts of the Dominion we would like you to feel not as strangers within our gates but as citizens of Ottawa, because this, after all, is your capital city as well as ours, and we believe that you share our interest in its welfare, our pride in its beauty, and our desire to make it worthy of this great Dominion. We ask you to convey to your constituents this message, that Ottawa's interests are the interests of the Canadian people, and that anything that tends to improve the architectural and natural beauties of the seat of government is a matter not merely of local but of national concern. We have in Ottawa a city that we are very proud of, and we ask you when you return to your homes to tell your constituents about the beautiful capital that is theirs. We also want you to extol the fine climate we enjoy. We are not ashamed of our winter climate in Ottawa; on the contrary we boast of it. We wish the people of Canada to discontinue the habit many of them have of going south for the winter; we would like them to accompany their representatives to the capital and enjoy the really wonderful winter climate with which we are blessed.

The mayor and the city council have requested me to state that in August next we shall celebrate the hundredth anniversary of the founding of the capital. A great celebration, which is to occupy two weeks, is planned, and we invite every member of parliament when he goes home to talk to his constituents, to tell them about this magnificent city, and try to induce them to come to Ottawa and make our acquaintance. One of the strange things that has impressed me since I entered the House is the fact that every province in the Dominion seems to have a grievance, with the exception of the two old provinces of Quebec and Ontario. They are the only ones who appear to be perfectly happy. I

The Address-Mr. McClenaghan

have not heard any representatives from these provinces make any complaint about grievances. On the other hand we have heard all about the woes of the wheat miners of the west, and we have heard all about the troubles, trials and tribulations of Nova Scotia.

Topic:   AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Not yet, only some of them.

Topic:   AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Permalink
CON

Stewart McClenaghan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. McCLENAGHAN:

Yes, we have heard some of them, and I can testify that they were very ably explained. But the point I want' to get to the people of Canada is this: I attended a banquet in this city a year ago last spring in celebration of the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of the Hon. Thomas d'Arcy McGee, one of the Fathers of Confederation. Now, I happened to take part in the arranging of that banquet, with the result that I read a lot about confederation. As a result of my reading the history of confederation, and after hearing hon. members from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick tell their story, I came to the conclusion, that those provinces had a grievance, a real grievance; and as a representative of the central part of Canada I am going to do all in my power to help them.

Since coming to this House and hearing all these matters it has occurred to me that we shall have to start a second confederation; we shall have to delegate a competent body of men to go through Canada preaching a new confederation spirit. It seems to me that we are not going to get anywhere if there is continual bickering and fighting between the west and the east. The hon. gentleman who preceded me said in one portion of his address that while he was a free trader, yet when it came down to business free trade was a theory, the inference being that from a commonsense view anything else than a policy of protection was scarcely possible in this country. I believe the same idea prevails in the minds of most of the hon. members of this House, but they do not seem to get together. I imagine, however, that if twenty members from the west, including the Progressives, and twenty members from Quebec and Ontario, were to get together some morning and talk these things over, we might arrive at a solution of many of these questions. In this connection let me say that the first speech I ever heard on the subject of protection was delivered by the late Sir John A. Macdonald in the old opera house in this city, and there were a few words in that speech that impressed me most forcibly. The old chieftain during his

speech walked up and down the stage, and said: "To get the right idea about the

National Policy the people must bear each other's burdens." There is the great underlying idea in a nutshell. Sir John went on to explain what he meant by that. He said. "You people in Ontario may have to pay a little more for your coal, but when you do that you will be helping your brothers, the miners in Nova Scotia. The people of Nova Scotia may have to pay a little more for their flour, but in doing so they will be helping the farmers and millers of Ontario." I wonder if the great men of that time, the Fathers of Confederation, had a broader grasp of this question than we have.

I want you to compare the idea of protection as illustrated by Sir John A. Macdonald with the position taken by the Right Hon. Mackenzie King when he returned to Ontario after his western tour. If my memory serves me rightly, at the first meeting he addressed in Ontario after coming from the west he spoke somewhat after this fashion: "You will have to watch this man Meighen. He has told the people in the west that he is prepared to do everything in his power to help by means of an adjustment of freight rates to bring coal down to Ontario; therefore you people of Ontario want to watch and see that your coal prices do not go up." Compare that attempt to arouse a spirit of antagonism in the minds of the people of Ontario with the breadth of view displayed by Sir John A. Macdonald when he said that we would have to bear each others burdens.

I believe it is necessary that we should all get more closely together on questions of this kind. Those of us in the east are strongly convinced that protection is the policy for this country; there is no question about it. During the election in the city of Ottawa we told the people there were just two planks in our platform. The first plank we put before them was a protective policy for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the working1 man and the working woman in this country, as well as the interests of the producer, and for the purpose of preserving the forests, the mines and the fisheries. It was a policy of safeguarding. The other plank was given to us by the people of Ottawa, and I think it was the plank on which we won the election, namely, an absolute want of confidence in the King government. I want hon. members from the west to realize that at the Auditorium here in his own home town the Right Hon. Mackenzie King had one of the largest meetings held in his interest in the Dominion. He did not have as

The Address-Mr. McClenaghan

large a meeting as the right hon. leader of the opposition, by five thousand, but it was large enough. At that meeting he said: "I want to get into this next parliament with a clear majority over all. I desire to have a majority of Liberals so that I shall not have to depend on the Progressives." Introducing the English candidate he said, "Here is my friend Mr. Wilson, who entered the Dominion parliament at the same time that I did. We were deskmates together, and got our first inspiration of Liberalism behind the grand old chieftain, Sir Wilfrid Laurier." The next gentleman he introduced was Mr. Chevrier, the then sitting member, whom he referred to as one of the very finest men, a gentleman who had given him great assistance in Ottawa. We Conservatives agreed that the two candidates put up by the Liberals in the city of Ottawa were gentlemen above reproach. WTe admitted that the Liberals had two strong candidates. Mr. Mackenzie King had lived in the city of Ottawa since 1900; he was known by the people of this city better than by those of any other part of the Dominion. Some of the members of his cabinet have been living here ten and fifteen years. Hon. gentlemen must bear in mind that Ottawa is bilingual and we have a dual seat. The English and French candidates are elected on the same ticket; the elector votes for two candidates. Notwithstanding the fact that this was the Right Hon. Mackenzie King's own home town and that he had two splendid candidates, what was the result? Our whole campaign was conducted purely on policy. We had no personalities. We did not talk about the war in Turkey, about conscription or anything of that kind, because the majority of the votes in this particular riding were English, consequently that kind of talk would not go down. We had to talk straight business, and it was a business election. What was the result, then, in Mr. King's home town, where he and every one of his cabinet ministers were known? We knew them; we saw them driving past in their $8,000 automobiles, and if we did not get out of the way we would be splashed with the mud. The people of Ottawa, knowing Mackenzie King and the members of his cabinet as they did, voted want of confidence in them and turned a majority of 6,000 for the Liberals in 1921 into a majority of about 2,300 in 1925 for the Conservatives. That is something you westerners ought to consider and take notice of.

I have heard some hon. members on the other side refer to William Lyon Mackenzie King, and it sounded something like a high

churchman chanting the litany. But we know them all and it does not have any effect upon us. Mr. King is a nice gentleman; we all like him personally, but do not like his policy. The citizens of Ottawa and the citizens of Canada at large claim that the policy inaugurated during the last four years-or the lack of policy-has had a deterrent effect upon business, and that is the reason the people voted against his candidates. They have nothing against the candidates personally. It was a straight want of confidence vote in the King government.

I sat in the galleries when Sir John A. Macdonald was here, and I have heard all the great men in the public life of the country. I am one of the few in this House who had occasion when a boy to talk to the late Alexander Mackenzie, consequently I have seen all kinds of parliaments. I always sat in the men's gallery. I have been watching proceedings in the House for years. The people of Ottawa sit in the galleries, watch the proceedings and listen to the debates, and they generally form their opinion from the knowledge they acquire in that way. The rumour always is -that as Ottawa goes, so the Dominion goes. Ottawa went Conservative, and I claim the Dominion went Conservative. There is no question in my mind that the consensus of opinion is absolutely behind our right hon. leader, and what makes me feel so sure of that is the fact that the right hon. leader of our party in the last parliament had a following of a little over 50, but now comes back with 116. The right hon. leader of the government, when the House dissolved, had a following of 117; he now comes back with 101. The Progressives went out with something like 65, and they now return with 24. What would any ordinary man think about that? Would he not tell us that the consensus of opinion of the people of Canada was in favour of the Conservative party and their policy? There is no question about it that the people o-f Canada are anxious that we should assume the responsibilities of government at the present time.

The Right Hon. Mackenzie King, speaking at the Auditorium last October, made the statement that he wanted to get in absolutely independent of the Progressives. I happened to pick up a clipping from a paper, and it is strange that it comes from Vancouver, dated October 4. It contains the report of a meeting in that city. There were a lot of hecklers present and one of them was heckling Mackenzie King. Mackenzie King stated that the government could have stayed in office-and then a heckler broke in and

Transportation of Coal

said, "As long as old Forke helped you," and'.. Mackenzie King replied:

"Old Forke" has given us a lot of help, but he also has given us a lot of trouble. We are asking for a majority large enough to enable us to govern without fear or favour from any party or individual.

How can Mr. Mackenzie King expect to conduct affairs without fear or favour when he has sixteen less followers than he had lasit session? He is absolutely in the hands and under the will of his master. His master's voice is that of the hon. member for Brandon. That is where the leader of the government sits. You cannot figure it out in any other way. I cannot understand why that hon. member sits on this side instead of going across the floor with hon. members opposite. He should go over there where he rightly belongs, as the actual leader of the government. I hope before the recess is over, Mr. Speaker, you will be good enough to see that the hon. member is given a seat on that side so that we will be able to face him and not have to talk behind his back, as we are doing at the present time. I know there are independent men in the Progressive party and I respect them, but in my opinion there are more independent men in the Conservative party than in all the other parties put together; because when people are good Conservatives they are always independent.

Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.

Monday, February 22, 1926

Topic:   AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Permalink

February 19, 1926